Skip navigation

'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Friday, September 26th, 2014

Read the transcript to the Friday show

Date: September 26, 2014

Guest: Celinda Lake

RACHEL MADDOW, RACHEL MADDOW SHOW HOST: I was all set to hear what the
good news is. Oh, oh, that`s my cue. Thank, Ari, have a great weekend then.

And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.

An experienced journalist named Corey Hutchins has just published a scoop
at about Congress and the military. And something that is not
supposed to happen between Congress and the military. The member of
Congress at the center of this scoop is Doug Lamborn, he is a conservative
Republican congressman from a conservative Republican district in Colorado.
And on Tuesday this week, he was speaking at a campaign forum. Apparently
it was held in the basement of a bar in Colorado Springs, Colorado. And
we`ve got tape of this. I should tell you we`ve got multiple sources for
the tape on this. Because we wanted to make sure it really happened. We
did get a video - which appears to be from a campaign tracker, but we
didn`t just want to go with that one source. We also then got audio tape
of the same event from a different source. And it turns out the two tapes,
as best as we can tell, they match exactly. So, with those two sources, we
think this really did happen as it appears to have happened.

It`s in response to a question about the military. And whether Doug
Lamborn as a member of Congress supports the military adequately. And in
response to that question, as you hear on the tape, the Congressman
explains that he and others, he sort of implied that it was him and other
members of Congress. He said he and others were actively working right now
behind the scenes to try to get multiple generals from the U.S. military to
resign from the military. Doug Lamborn is a member of the House Armed
Services Committee, he`s on the subcommittee on readiness, which is all
about U.S. military training and being prepared for war. He`s on that
subcommittee on strategic forces and that congressman says that he is right
now actively working to try to get U.S. generals to quit the military in
what he calls a "blaze of glory"

So, watch this: this starts with a question from the audience. A question
- I should tell you it was very hostile to President Obama, but then
Congressman Lamborn gives his answer. Watch.


AUDIENCE MEMBER: Please, work with your their congressmen on both sides of
the aisle, and support the generals and troops in this country despite the
fact that there`s no leadership from the Muslim Brotherhood in the White




this, a lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes saying hey,
if you disagree with the policy that the White House is giving you, let`s
have a resignation. You know, let`s have conflict resignations and see you
prove test and go out in the (INAUDIBLE). And I haven`t seen that very
much. I haven`t seen that at all for years.


MADDOW: Again, this is a serving member of Congress, Republican
congressman, he`s a member of the Armed Services Committee in the House, he
made those remarks this week. The tape emerged today. He says that he and
others are working behind the scenes talking to generals trying to persuade
them to quit the military.

Not incidentally, he`s saying he`s doing that while we are at war in three
countries. There are about 29,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan right
now, there are more than 1500 Americans serving in Iraq, where American
pilots in military aircraft have flown more than 200 airstrikes in Iraq in
recent weeks. Now, dozens of airstrikes as well in Syria, and a new air
war that spans both those countries alongside the existing ground war still
being fought in Afghanistan. And in the middle of all of that, serving
members of U.S. Congress on the Armed Services Committee are trying to get
U.S. generals to quit. Because that would be a blaze of glory. We
contacted Congressman Lamborn`s office today for comment or an explanation.
I mean what he said leaves some outstanding questions. Congressman
Lamborn, if you would ever like to talk directly to me about this, I would
really welcome the opportunity. The questions I still have include, which
generals has Congressman Lamborn been trying to persuade to quit the
military? Are any of those generals actively involved right now in
planning for or training for or actively fighting in the war we are in
Afghanistan right now. Or the war we are in Iraq or the war we are in
Syria? And Congressman Lamborn says "a lot of us are talking to generals
about quitting behind the scenes, telling them to resign." Who do you mean
by "a lot of us"? Are there other members of Congress who are working on
this plan? Is that other members of the Armed Services Committee? Is it
Republicans and Democrats? Is it just Republicans? As a member of
Congress, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, as somebody from a
military-happy district in Colorado, Congressman Lamborn, do you believe it
would be good for the military? And in the best interests of the United
States? Especially in wartime? For lots of generals to start quitting
right now, for, apparently, political reasons.

We were not able to reach Congressman Lamborn himself today. But we did
speak to his office. And what the Congressman`s communication director
told us today was this. The congressman`s communication director told us,
quote, "What the congressman was saying there, he was not referring to any
current actions." He told us that when Congressman Lamborn said he`s
contacting U.S. generals to try to get them to quit, he was not describing
"any kind of active or habitual or organized endeavor." When we asked
specifically if Congressman Lamborn had encouraged generals to resign and
when he did that. The spokesman said, "I can`t speak to that." But the
quotation making the rounds is referring to things in the past." To be
clear, again, the Congressman said this on Tuesday.


LAMBORN: A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes saying
hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House is giving you,
let`s have a resignation."


MADDOW: Now, because the god of politics is also the god of irony, it
should be noted that also Dough Lamborn is in a fairly conservative
Republican-leaning district in Colorado, he does have a strong opponent
this November, as he campaigns on basically trying to incite mutiny among
America`s generals during war time. And it turns out his opponent is a
retired Air Force major general who spent 32 years in the service. He`s a
conservative Democrat with the memorable name of Irv Halter. General
Halter has already put out a response to Congressman Lamborn on this issue.
He told "The Colorado Independent," "It is inappropriate for Congressman
Lamborn to politicize our military for his own game. Our elected officials
should not be encouraging military leaders to resign. Congressman
Lamborn`s statement shows his immaturity and lack of understanding of the
American Armed Forces. Someone who serves on the House Armed Services
Committee should know better."

Now, at one level, maybe this is just a misstatement. Maybe this is just a
gaffe. I do not know Congressman Doug Lamborn`s track record in politics
well enough, to know if he`s the kind of guy who should be expected to just
accidentally say something that`s totally nuclear, but he doesn`t really
believe it and he didn`t really mean to say it.

We don`t know that much about him on the national stage, the only way he`s
ever really been nationally noticed before in his eight years in Congress
was when he tried to get Congress to defund NPR.

So, who knows, maybe Congressman Lamborn did mean it or maybe Republicans
in the House Armed Services Committee are on mass trying to incite mutiny
in the military. Because that`s the prospect he raised, this deserves a
little elaboration. A lot of people may have some follow up questions on
these matters. So that`s the death of the republic news from this side of
the water. Our great allies, the Brits, actually recalled their parliament
out of recess today in order for them to have a full-fledged proper debate
and a binding vote about whether the British military would start
participating in this military campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
British planes have thus far been flying surveillance routes over Iraq to
help with the supposedly humanitarian part of the mission against ISIS, but
they haven`t been participating in any hostilities against ISIS targets
thus far, because their version of Congress, their parliament had not
authorized them to do that. Well, today, after a very, very good and
entertaining debate, the parliament voted by a large margin that they would
give that military authorization.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How long will this war last and when will mission creek

DAVID CAMERON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: But let me put on to that very
directly. This is going to be a mission that will take not just months,
but years.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Killing extremists doesn`t kill their ideas, so the
country cannot feed their ideas.

CAMERON: And we`ve also got to think of the consequences of inaction. How
much stronger will they be before we decide we need to take action as well?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at what the House of Commons agreed to? Iraq,
Afghanistan, and this government Libya - none are success stories.

CAMERON: We do have to realize that whether we like it or not, they have
already declared war on us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is it right to carry out such actions against ISIS
in Iraq, but not in Syria? The government has welcomed the action corridor
by the United States and other Arab countries and Syria in recent days. If
it is to be welcomed and right by others, why is it not welcome and right
for us?

about bombing Iraq. There`s a consensus in here that we`re going to soon
be bombing Syria. The words don`t mention boots on the ground. But
there`s a consensus here that there will be boots on the ground, the only
question, the only question being, whose boots are they?


MADDOW: After that full-blown robust formal debate today in the British
parliament, they took a vote and the parliament voted overwhelmingly that
Britain should join the military campaign against ISIS, the vote was 524-
43. It`s an overwhelming vote. But the motion they voted on was really
specific. It`s air war only. No ground troops. And it is Iraq only, and
not Syria. And you heard that they were debating that point quite
intensely. But that line was drawn essentially as a legal matter rather
than a matter of strategy. The British Labor Party in particular argued
that an air war in Iraq would be legal because it was at the request of the
Iraqi government. But because the Syrian government doesn`t want other
countries launching airstrikes on their territory, they have not invited
it. The opposition in Britain argued that no war in Syria would be legal
without authorization from the United Nations, which, of course, does not

Well, the United Nations exists, the permission from the United Nations
does not. It`s an interesting question not just for Britain, but for us as
well, right? The question of the legality of either or both of these wars.
That said, our Congress is not debating whether or not to authorize these
wars. We`re just doing these wars without any pesky politics getting in
the way. Except apparently, in Colorado where at least on Republican
member of the Armed Services Committee is trying to get the generals to

In Oklahoma, yesterday, there was an instant of workplace violence. That
wiled very, very tragic. It never would have become a national story,
hadn`t it been for the tactic chosen by the disgruntled employee who
decided to kill one of his fellow co-workers and then tried to kill
another. 30-year old Alton Nolen was released from prison last year in
Oklahoma. He had a long, criminal history. He was employed at Vaughn
Foods in Moore, Oklahoma, and if that town name is familiar it`s because
yes, that is the same town that was devastated by a huge tornado in May of
last year. It was previously hit by another devastating tornado in May of
1999. And now, Moore Oklahoma is the site of this workplace killing that
has resonated across the country in the way most incidents of workplace
violence do not. Because the way that Alton Nolen killed one of his
coworkers and apparently tried to kill the second, was with the knife, and
in the fatal attack, he cut off his victim`s head. Moore, Oklahoma police
called then the FBI for assistance in dealing with this case. The alleged
perpetrator is in custody. He was shot by an Oklahoma County reserve
deputy, who happened to work at the plant where the attack took place, but
he survived.

The local police say they brought in the FBI on this case, essentially
because of motive and tactics. Because the alleged perpetrator was a
Muslim who was said by coworkers to be trying to convert people in the
workplace to Islam and because further, this attack follows the recent very
highly publicized beheadings of hostages by the terrorist group ISIS in
Syria. This week by a group that pledges allegiance to ISIS in Algeria as
well. The man who is killed by the group in Algeria was a 55-year-old
French tourist. Before he was killed, France, as a nation, was already on
board with the U.S. military campaign against ISIS in Iraq, but not in
Syria. In the wake of the beheadings of their own citizen in Algeria,
France is now reportedly considering expanding its national authorization
for its military to also include strikes in Syria and not just in Iraq.

Though there`s no indication from any local authorities in Oklahoma or from
any national security sources at all, that the fired employee who allegedly
went on this brutal rampage today in Moore, Oklahoma, who killed one of his
coworkers by beheading her and tried to kill somebody else. There`s no
indication that he has any avert links to any terrorists groups, or that he
was thought to be carrying out instructions from anyone else. But
beheading is a tactic that screams not murder, but terrorism. No matter
where it is done or for whatever insane or mundane reason. And in that
mix, right, the worry now is what happens to a national debate that so far,
has been either inane or non-existent. Or in the case of Congressman Doug
Lamborn, basically unbelievable.

Does the continuing influence of terror, just the feeling of being scared,
does that threaten to make our decisions and our debates about these issues
worse and worse and worse before they ever have a chance of getting better?

Joining us now is NBC News foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin. Ayman,
thank you for being here. It`s nice to see you.

AYMAN MOHYELDIN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It`s always a pleasure. Thanks,

MADDOW: I`m not going to ask you to talk about Congressman Doug Lamborn.
We have to hear from him.


MADDOW: Don`t worry. But I do ask you about Iraq and Syria. The British
parliament voted today to join the airstrikes inside Iraq, but not Syria.
France is already in Iraq, they are willing to go - they may be willing to
go to Syria now, too. The Belgium`s - and the Dutch, others are joining
in. As these - European countries either join the coalition or decide to
get further into their involvement. Is that going to make a material
difference in terms of what can be done against ISIS?

MOHYELDIN: Well, from a military perspective, the short answer is the U.S.
could have gone this alone. They have the military capability to sustain
this operation. Quite frankly, the presence of those European allies is
important symbolically and is going to alleviate some pressure on the U.S.
They`re not going to make the difference in the fight. But it`s a
coalition. It shows an international willingness. There`s a diplomatic
support, effort behind it. And I think that`s the more important part
that`s going to be - what is brought to the table by their presence.

MADDOW: And the more potent diplomatic and political presence is not the
European allies, but the Arab countries, obviously, that are participating.
What kind of risks are those countries running domestically by agreeing to
participate in these U.S. strikes?

MOHYELDIN: They`re going to make themselves targets to sympathizers of
ISIS. What we saw in Algeria is a group that beheaded a French hostage,
not because they have any kind of operational link to ISIS, but because
they`re sympathizers. And sympathetic to what ISIS has done. And that
could wreak havoc inside these countries. Now, many of these countries
have robust domestic intelligence services. But they also have a pretty
bad track record on human rights. That concern is, that now they are going
to say, OK, well, we are participating in this coalition, that`s going to
draw the anger of a lot of their domestic constituents and that means that
these governments can then, in turn, crack down even further and really
demonstrate of more abusive human rights .

MADDOW: So, as the U.S. says, we`re looking at a years` long effort.
Which is astonishing giving that our Congress isn`t weighing in on it at
all. It`s my personal bugaboo about this, but if it is going to be a
year`s long effort, a year`s long military effort, what should we watch for
with countries like Saudi Arabian and emirates and Jordan and these other
countries? What should we watch for in terms of trying to figure out if
they are also going to be there for the long haul, or if they essentially
put an initial stamp on it, for the initial diplomatic push, but they won`t
be able to sustain it?

MOHYELDIN: Listen, as a U.S. citizen, what I want to see is are these
countries doing something beyond the military cooperation? They are
military cooperation is, as I said, symbolic. Really, it`s not - it`s not
going to make or break the fight. Where this important - are these
countries doing something to reform their own societies, to show ISIS that
you know what, we are going to drain this ideology. We reject this
ideology. Countries like Saudi Arabia that have an important religious
role in the Muslim world, what are they doing publicly to condemn it? I`m
not talking about a press release or a statement, what are they doing to
reform their education system? What are they doing to reform a lot of their
programming that goes on the air? That is spread across the Muslim world?
These are the things that I would look for. Now, Americans aren`t going to
see that stuff. This is behind-the-scenes stuff. But this is the kind of
stuff that we need to monitor and see these country do in a systematic way
that`s going to over a generation. Not a year. I mean the operation may
be a year, but ISIS is a generational problem. You look at where we were
in 2001 when we went to war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan? We look at
where we are today in 2014. Al-Qaeda has spread to al Qaeda in - in North
Africa, in Yemen and now we have this crisis in Syria and Iraq. It doesn`t
look good when you stand up at like 10,000 feet and look down at how this
is spreading.

MADDOW: I mean even more directly to the point in eastern and south-
eastern Afghanistan, today reports of ISIS or ISIS-type militants embedding
with the Taliban from multiple beheadings attack in an area, targeting the
family members of police. You know, the American ground warrior in
Afghanistan goes on. We think of this as a separate war, but it may be
turning into one. NBC News Foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin. Ayman,
it`s great to see you.

MOHYELDIN: Always a pleasure. Thanks very much. Thank you.

MADDOW: All right. We`ve got lots more ahead, including me stepping off
the podium and letting somebody else do it better for a moment. Plus the
best new thing tonight. Stay with us.


MADDOW: It`s Friday, happy Friday. There`s a lot of show still to come
tonight, there`s no cocktail moment tonight, I`m not in the mood for a
drink. But we do have a best new thing in the world which is really
delightfully good news to set you up for the weekend. We`ve also got a
story ahead about an oil company that nobody else is reporting in TV news
at least. But it will curl your fricken hair. It`s amazing. Some really
good investigative reporting went into this one. We`ve also got some news
on politics and elections coming up. There`s a lot going on, there`s a lot
ahead. But it is Friday.

And I`m going to take a point of personal privilege here. Because over the
course of this week, there was one story that was really, really, really
widely covered in the news. And it`s a story that we did not touch here.
And the reason we didn`t touch it here, even though it was all about -
anyone was talking about in the beltway. For not one, not too, but three
news cycles this week. The reason we did not do this story that everybody
else did, is that it is a really stupid story. And you know the story I`m
talking about. It is exactly the thing that our media is wired to chew on
like cud so it can make its daily patties for the pasture. But it is an
absolute nonsense story. And so, we hear at this show, made an overt
decision to ignore it. But it turns out there really is another
responsible way to deal with a fake story like that. You can ignore it,
like we did, which I`m happy we did. Or it turns out the other option, is
you can destroy it. Which is what Jon Stewart did on "The Daily Show."
The Daily Show" is always great, so what they did with this story was
something on another level. That from one thing in "The Daily Show"
episode that had a lot of jokes and a lot of laugh out loud laugh lines in
it. For this part of it, Jon Stewart let go a little bit in trying to be
hilarious with every line. And instead, he just wrongly emoted about it.
And that`s the thing that can be really risky. Right? It can be
alienating for somebody that just let rip on this topic or on any other
topic. It can turn people away for you to just emote. But when you do it
right, it can achieve Casardic (ph) perfection.

Which is what they did here and I know this is a little weird, but it`s
Friday, and you deserve this. Just watch this. All hail.


JON STEWART, "THE DAILY SHOW": Now, to be fair, lattegate wasn`t all the
news talked about yesterday, but where I might have given the president
salutes with coffee cup story an espresso size of attention, the news
channels went for the full double venti coverage with one network going
especially deep.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Learn the proper respect of the salute.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s insensitive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s the meaning of it? That`s it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looks terrible.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s outlandish. And it`s disappointing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put your coffee in the other hand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our commander in chief displayed his complete
disrespect for the men and women in uniform.

STEWART: Shut up.



STEWART: We don`t really care. We don`t really care about this. You have
no principle about this. You`re just trying to score points in a game that
no one else is playing.

Here`s how we know.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s an arrogance that you portrayed these people - put
their lives on the line for us.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Show the respect, salute these guys.


STEWART: So the principle here is show respect for the people who are
putting their lives on the line for this fight. Here`s Eric Bolling on
that very same episode.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The first female pilot piloting for the UAE dropped
the bombs on ISIS on Monday night.

BOLLING: Would that be considered boobs on the ground or no?



STEWART: First of all, forget the rampant sexism in that statement.
Second of all, she`s a pilot. So, whatever gender-specific equipment she
might be carrying, it doesn`t (EXPLETIVE DELETED) matter. And thirdly,
what was the quote that someone said earlier in your program, these people
are putting their lives on the line for us, show respect. So, (EXPLETIVE
DELETED) you and all your false patriotism. When Bush took us to war .


STEWART: But shouted down as treason. When Bush turned to war, any
prisoner - shouted down is treason, with this president you don`t like, has
the country poised on the same precipice, no transgression about how
immaterial and ridiculous this - of evidence that this president isn`t as
American as you are. You want a hot cup of cognitive dissonance, watch


SEAH HANNITY: Would President Bush ever do that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, are we surprised? I mean, after all, we`ve
got a chai - golf playing, basketball trash-talking, leading from behind,
I`ve got no strategy Osama bin Laden is dead, GM is alive community
organizer and commander in chief. How disrespectful was that?


STEWART: Yeah, yeah- Palin in a bald cap was feeding us a steaming bowl of
liberal appetite.


STEWART: He drinks chai. So that means when he`s (EXPLETIVE DELETED) in
the back of a Volvo, it has that cardamom zing.


STEWART: But in their haste, this is about to answer the questions, would
President Bush ever salute the troops with the cup of coffee in his hand?
And the answer is no. Because his hands were too filled with dog, a
Scottie out of respect.


STEWART: So here we`ve got two presidents. Both sending the United States
to war citing the same legal authorities, both without any seeming exit
strategy. And both holding EXPLETIVE DELETED in their hands while saluting
our troops.


STEWART: But in their diseased minds, only one did that because he loved
America, the other did it because he hated it.

We`ll be right back.


MADDOW: We`ll be right back, too. But with great humility and thanks for
the "Daily Show" and Jon Stuart giving the stupidest beltway nonsense story
of the week the ending it properly deserved. All hail. Well done. Enough
said, at last.


MADDOW: And now, here`s the thing.


SARAH PALIN: Those truly prejudice folks, just remember this. They scream
racism are just to end debate. Well, don`t retreat. You reload with
truth, which I know is an endangered species at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue,
anyway. Truth.


PALIN: Don`t retreat. You reload with truth, which I know is an
endangered species at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue, anyway. Truth.


MADDOW: That is a thing that happened today.


MADDOW: We`ll be right back with the left of the segment.


MADDOW: When the liberal lion Ted Kennedy passed away and Martha Coakley
ran as the Democratic nominee, which she lost - which she lost - excuse me,
that U.S. Senate seat to Republican Scott Brown, a big part of the reason
is that she didn`t clubber Scott Brown in the women`s vote. Martha Coakley
did win the vote among Massachusetts women, but she only won it by three
points and that was not enough to conquer the giant man slide of men voting
for the men in the manly truck. Well, now this year, Martha Coakley is
back on the ballot. She`s the Democratic nominee for governor this year.
And the Republican guy who was running against her, is named Charlie Baker.
And Charlie Baker has been trying to rekindle that all manly Scott Brown
electoral magic. He`s trying to compete with women voters, to at least
suppress the margin for women, for the Democrat running against him. Don`t
let Martha Coakley appeal to too many women. Stay competitive with the
Ladies, Charlie Baker. Or don`t, don`t do that at all.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Even though polls show the race in the dead heat,
they also show with women, Baker is trailing Coakley by double digits. His
commercials featuring his daughter and his wife target women. Monday,
Baker did shake up his campaign by changing out the firm that runs his
media strategy. He says it was just over a disagreement. When I tried
asking one last question, about how Democrats believe it could mean the
start of negative ads, here`s what Baker said to me.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Democrats are saying they just put out a couple of

CHARLIE BAKER: OK, it`s going to be the last one, sweetheart.


MADDOW: She`s asking him about his bad image with women voters. And he
pats her and says this is going to be the last one, sweetheart. But then
watch how she responds.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Democrats are saying, they - they just put it out an
e-mail a couple of minutes ago.

BAKER: Ok, it`s going to be the last one sweetheart.



BAKER: I`m kidding.


MADDOW: I`m kidding. Charlie Baker, he kids. He also loses very badly
among women voters. And if old Scott Brown used to have the magic
something with women voters that Charlie Baker was trying to learn from,
I`ve got to tell you, Charlie Brown -- excuse me, Charlie Baker. Scott
Brown also now appears to be losing his touch with the ladies. After
losing his Massachusetts Senate seat to Elizabeth Warren, Scott Brown
decided to move to New Hampshire and try to win a Senate seat there
instead. In New Hampshire, Scott Brown now trails incumbent Democratic
senator Jeanne Shaheen, but he is really trailing her when it comes to
women. In polls right now women voters are picking Jeanne Shaheen over
Scott Brown by a 12 point margin. To try to cut down that margin, Scott
Brown has been trying to pump up his pro-choice credentials, but that means
he has to pretend to not remember anti-abortion legislation that he
sponsored back in his old home state when he lived in Massachusetts. Now,
when Scott Brown gets asked about that stuff, that legislation that he
sponsored he`s resorting to the all-time great response.

Sorry .

MADDOW: I wanted to ask you about your co-sponsorship a couple of years
back of a bill called "The Woman`s Right to Know" act, Senator Brown. It
would require woman to wait 24 hours before getting an abortion, review
pictures and information about her fetus. Why did you think that this was
a good approach?

BROWN: I`m not familiar with the specific bill, and you are referring to .

MADDOW: OK. I`m so sorry. I feel like I have wrong information then.

BROWN: I`m not sure what`s wrong .


BROWN: I`ve just voted on probably 8,000 bills that I`ve taken in my


MADDOW: Yeah. So many bills I couldn`t possibly remember. It`s not great
argumentative ground for Scott Brown, particularly in the week that the
magazine, which once bestowed upon Scott Brown the title "America`s Sexiest
Man", that magazine this week unendorsed him and said they want him to lose
to Jeanne Shaheen. Cosmo writing, "His policy positions just aren`t as
solid as his abs were in the 1980s."

So, all right, Charlie Baker one, Scott Brown, two. But the two of them
have done it with compared with Colorado Congressman Cory Gardner. He`s
the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in the state of Colorado against
Democratic Senator Mark Udall. Here`s how "The Denver Post" this week
nodded up Cory Gardner`s troubles in just one line. "If Colorado`s U.S.
Senate race were a movie, the set would be a gynecologist office complete
with an exam table and a set of stirrups" Congressman Cory Gardner has been
a longtime proponent of what`s called "personhood legislation at both the
state and federal level. It`s fairly radical anti-abortion legislation,
which Colorado voters have rejected by large margins multiple times. And
they`ve rejected it in part because in addition to banning all abortion in
all circumstance the proponents of personhood also concede that it would
likely ban the most common forms of birth control in the country. Cory
Gardner supported that for years in Colorado. Even as Colorado voters kept
turning it down, he was collecting ballot signatures for it and championing
it across the state. He even signed on to sponsor personhood as federal
legislation for the whole country. But now that he`s running for Senate,
Cory Gardner has changed his mind. Oh, I`m sorry, I was wrong about that
thing for years now.

Here`s the problem that Cory Gardner has, though. Even though he says he
has had a change of heart about this personhood stuff, Congressman Gardner
still is a co-sponsor of the Life at Conception Act in Congress, which is
the federal personhood thing.

Now, among the many consequences of Congress leaving early this month and
not planning to come back until after the election next month, among the
many tiny granular, but consequential consequences of that is the fact that
Cory Gardener literally now cannot take his name off that federal
personhood legislation. Even though he says he no longer supports it. In
order to unsponsor something in Congress, you have to make a speech on the
floor of the House when the House is in session. That`s how you take your
name off the bill that you sponsored. Cory Gardner forgot to do that
before Congress left. And now Congress will not be back until after the
election, whereupon presumably, it will be too late for him.

Republicans hate what Democrats call their war on women. They hate it.
But in the case of the Charlie Baker gubernatorial run and the Scott Brown
Senate run, and the Cory Gardner Senate run, this is what it looks like.

Joining us now Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners, the
Democratic polling and strategy group. Celinda, it`s great to see you.
Thanks for being here.


MADDOW: So, is it - is it clear to you as a pollster, is there clear data
about how much more motivating issue things are like abortion rights and
birth control and personhood legislation for women voters in the midterm

LAKE: Yes, it`s very clear. And it`s a two four, because it influences
the opinions of late deciding independent women, because they don`t want
the government and politicians making these personal decisions for them,
and it also motivates women to turn out to vote. And there are tens of
millions of women voters who voted in 2012, who are not planning to show up
in 2014. This could them out.

MADDOW: Well, where is it most resonant? I mean we are seeing a play out
in the press and the polls, in those three states that I just described, in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Colorado. Obviously, there are policy
differences like those I just described in some of the races, but can you
tell where in the country the resonance is strongest on these issues for
voters? And might have the biggest effect?

LAKE: Well, I think, first of all, I can say that women and the gender gap
are going to determine the control of the Senate. And you said it very
well, Rachel, when you said that the key here is for Democrats to win women
by more than we lose men by. So, that`s the battle right now. Republicans
aren`t trying to win women, they`re just trying to keep the gap down. We
are trying to win women by more than we are losing men.

MADDOW: In terms of the - sorry, go ahead.

LAKE: Oh, I`m just going to say, places that there are winning candidates,
you see this accentuated, it`s not accidental, that the Baker and the Brown
races are against women candidates. The other one I would add to you is
the Gillespie Warner race in Virginia where, of course, Terry McAuliffe was
elected because of women voters, and Gillespie has announced a thousand
women for him and he said that he doesn`t want government intrusion in
women`s lives. And he knows women doesn`t - don`t want that either. But
I`m sorry, a lot of women would be glad to have government on their side,
to ensure that they are paid the same, to ensure that their insurance
company doesn`t gouge them. To ensure that the food they serve their
family at dinner at night is safe. So, this is not a winning team, but
they`re trying to turn this whole government intrusion theme against the
Democrats - women don`t really want government intrusion.

MADDOW: It has been fascinating, I`ve got to say. And that Ed Gillespie
race - that`s Ed Gillespie, the Republican sort of chieftain against Mark
Warner, the incumbent Democrat there and Ed Gillespie has been such a
maestro when it comes to orchestrating other like - Republican campaigns,
the Republican efforts around the country, and behind of the scenes way,
but as a candidate, he`s - I mean not only is he getting clobbered by Mark
Warner, but it`s been amazing sort of how - how purely he is showing as a
candidate. Just what a bad job - standing for himself.

It`s been hard to see.

Linda Lake, Democratic pollster, the president of Lake Research Partners,
thanks very much for being with us.

LAKE: Thank you for having me.

MADDOW: Nice to see you.

All right. Lots to come. Including a best new thing in the world and the
richest industry in the world reduced to some unseemly begging. Please
stay with us.


MADDOW: I do not know if it`s possible for an inanimate object to be
cursed. But if it is possible for a thing to be cursed, than this thing
right here might be slightly cursed. This is a ship, specifically it`s a
drilling ship called the Noble Discoverer, its job is basically to sail out
to the middle of the ocean somewhere and drill for oil. A few years ago,
the giant oil company, Shell, sent this ship up to Alaska, up to the
Arctic. Shell was given the OK by the federal government to start drilling
the Arctic. Shell said it was going to be a piece of cake. They said they
were the best in the world. They were really excited to do it, they sent
the Noble Discoverer up there and the Noble Discover promptly melted down.
Here you see the Noble Discoverer after it ran aground in the Aleutian
Islands. The ship`s anchor didn`t take hold. It just started drifting and
drifting out of control towards shore and then it crashed. Four months
after that incident, the Noble Discoverer "briefly caught fire" while in
port in Alaska. That apparently had been some kind of explosion onboard
the ship. The next stop for the Discoverer was the port city of Seward,
Alaska, when the Nobel Discoverer got there, members the U.S. Coast Guard
boarded the ship to check it out. They found more than a dozen violations
involving the rig`s safety and pollution equipment. The Coast Guard
discovered, for example, that the ship`s main engine piston cooling water
was contaminated with sludge and oil. The way the crew was dealing with
that, is that they were skimming the oil off with a ladle and a bucket.
The Coast Guard detained the ship in port and then they asked the U.S.
Justice Department to please look into it as a potentially criminal matter.
Shell just had a disastrous run in the Arctic when they were allowed in and
that ship, the Nobel Discoverer, was part of the reason why Shell had to
pull out of the Arctic entirely without drilling a drop. But now they want
back in. Shell has submitted a formal request to start drilling up to six
different wells up in the Arctic and one of the ships that they want to use
to do that drilling is -- oh, yeah. The Noble Discoverer. Why not? What
could possibly go wrong? It`s been there before.

Shell is apparently not at all embarrassed about this. Not only are they
trying to get that specific nightmare rig back up to the pristine Arctic,
they are also actively lobbying the Obama administration to weaken the
rules about what they have to do once they get there.

Just-released documents, these are incredible, show that Shell has been
pleading with the Obama administration in private meetings to try to ensure
that new rules governing drilling in the Arctic do not force them to stash
emergency equipment nearby. Shell says having all that stuff around - that
would just be too expense. The world`s giant oil companies, for decades
now, have been trying and mostly failing to uncork that part of the world`s
fossil fuels. But the Obama administration decides whether to allow more
of that drilling to go forward despite the track record, they`re also
making the case to the world about the necessity of weaning off fossil
fuels. And as the White House is making most pleas, not only publicly in
this country, but to the world, now we know that there`s the richest
industry on earth begging this administration behind closed doors to please
not only let them try again to drill the Arctic. But let them do it even
less safely this time.


MADDOW: Happy Friday. Best new thing in the world today. Relax into
this. It`s so good. On September 5, 1977, this titan centaur rocket went
up into the sky from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Its payload was
a probe called Voyager One. The first mission of Voyager One was that it
was going to explore Jupiter and Saturn. Which Voyager One accomplished
within a few years. But after that, Voyager One kept going and going and
going and going as designed. And now Voyager 1 has traveled farther away
from Earth than any other object ever made by humans. Last year, NASA
announced that Voyager 1 is finally in interstellar space. Which means
that for all intense and purposes, it has left our solar system. That`s
our star, right? Our Sun can no longer count Voyager 1 as part of its
collection of satellites. Voyager 1 is out there now. And that`s kind of
mind blowing, right? I mean even if you`re not kind of a space person. If
you sit and think about it, your mind is suddenly trying to wrap itself
around such vast distractions of space, and then beyond that, to the galaxy
and to the universe. It`s amazing, right? It can also be a little

And for a very smart five-year-old boy in Canada those thoughts about a
spacecraft traveling on and on and on and on and on and never coming back
home, he has found those thoughts to be upsetting. And here is what his
mom wrote in a letter to a Canadian radio show. "For the past year and a
half, my five-year-old son goes to bed worried, sometimes in tears. He`s
worried about the Voyager 1 interstellar spacecraft. The fact that it`s
out there all by itself. He wants it to come home and to be safe. What do
we tell him?"

OK, first of all, aww. Second of all, when you need to hear something -
when your kid needs to hear something reassuring about space, apparently,
what you do is you call in this guy, Commander Chris Hadfield. He`s the
awesome Canadian astronaut who on his last trip in space had the most fun
of anyone on or off planet. You may remember his series of YouTube videos
showing us earth links how astronauts wash their hands in microgravity, or
what happens when you squeeze a wash cloth on the international space
station. It`s so cool. And, of course, there was his music video where he
performed David Bowie song "Space Oddity." So Chris Hadfield is this kind
of the unofficial ambassador from space to the earthbound right now. And
he called the scared Canadian kid. He called Timor to see if he as an
astronaut could answer some of these questions that Timor had about
voyager. These questions that were making him so anxious. And that
conversation between the two of them really is the best new thing in the
world today. Let this wash over you.


TIMOR: What if something goes wrong and there`s nothing to fix it out
there? What happens if it runs into a planet, and what if it gets lost?
What happens if it`s broken and like outside of our solar system and
there`s nothing to fix it?

CHRIS HADFIELD: Well, Timor, I think the real question is, is Voyager
happy or not? Is Voyager a happy machine or a sad machine? Machines
really like to do something. They like to do what they`re built for. A
tractor is happy when it`s pulling a plow and working a field. And to me,
Voyager is so happy because it`s the bravest satellite of all. It has gone
the furthest, and it`s not lonely because it`s talking to us. It phones
home and it tells us all about the wonderful things that it`s seeing. I
think it`s as happy as it can possibly be. Timor, I hear you whispering
with your mom. Did you guys have another question?

TIMOR`S MOM: Well, he was worried that there are no people around it. Who
would fix it if it gets broken down?

HADFIELD: Well, Timor, it`s been going for a long, long time. Almost my
whole life. It`s a very tough little spaceship and it knows what it`s
doing. And it`s not worried about breaking down and having somebody fixing
it. It`s worried about exploring. The purpose of exploring is not to
worry about being maybe breaking down and being fixed. The purpose of
exploring is finding new things. And discovering and then telling people
what you saw. And that`s what Voyager is doing. It`s loving life. It
might have been safer for it to just stay home and stay inside a building,
but then it would have been sad forever. Because it never would have done
its purpose. It never would have discovered things. It`s all a wonderful
story of great discovery and success. And it couldn`t have happened if
Voyager hadn`t been brave. Tim, did you understand what I said?


HADFIELD: And does it make you happier?

TIMOR: Not really.


HADFIELD: Yeah, well, it`s just sort of part of life, Timor.


MADDOW: Does it make you happier? Not really. Commander Hadfield did the
best job anybody could do to make this vast, scary idea comprehensible to a
smart kindergartener, right? But you know what, that`s not the best new
thing in the world. The best thing in the world is Timor`s answer, right?
Honest, brave adventurous and perfectly five years old. Does it make you
happier? Not really.


Best new thing in the world today.

That does it for us tonight, we will see you again on Monday. Now you have
to go to prison.


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


Rachel Maddow Show Section Front
Add Rachel Maddow Show headlines to your news reader:

Sponsored links

Resource guide