IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Guests: Sen. Barbara Boxer, Tim Kaine, Anita Fream, Kent Jones


RACHEL MADDOW, HOST:  I wonder how often he‘s gotten that in his life. 

That‘s one thing to ask him.

OLBERMANN:  Like 1,000 today, it‘s been my guess.

MADDOW:  Well—thank you very much, Keith.  I appreciate it.

OLBERMANN:  You know what that was too, by the way.  Good night.

MADDOW:  That‘s good night.

Thank you for staying with us for the next hour.

We have a big show coming up.

It turns out some people are willing to stay up all night if they need

to at work, and some people just aren‘t.



MADDOW (voice-over):  Republicans are playing hardball on financial

reform.  They‘re standing together.  They‘re standing on principle. 

They‘ll never give in.  Unless they‘re threatened with a long, televised

workday in which they‘ll have to vote against Wall Street reform over and

over and over again.


SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER:  They keep stalling and they

keep stalling.  And it appears that they‘re more concerned about taking

care of the fat cats on Wall Street than they are the people who weren‘t so



MADDOW:  Senator Barbara Boxer on California on how the threat of a

Capitol Hill slumber party just made it slightly more likely that the rules

on Wall Street get reformed.

Lots and lots of people think Arizona‘s new “papers please” law is a

seriously bad idea.  But not everyone thinks so.  The policy of racial

profiling finally catches up to conservatives pro-racial profiling


And when some people do it, it‘s called minority outreach.  But when

other people do it, it‘s dealing the race card.  Double standards and

fueling racial resentment for political gain.

“The Interview” tonight is DNC Chairman Tim Kaine of Virginia on the

Democratic game plan for November‘s election.

The great state of Oklahoma has decided it wants to compete with

Virginia and Arizona for putting the biggest exclamation point on the

rollback of its citizens‘ rights.  And the “legalize it” crowd falls victim

to Republican voter registration fraud in California.  Dude!  They still

try to find a way to blame this one on ACORN, too?

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW—now with 100 percent snack craving and

uncontrollable giggling—starts right now.



MADDOW:  I have a Snuggie.  What about it?  Don‘t be a hater.  I also

have a Hot Pocket.  Good to go for my late night snack.  Hang on a second.

So, the United States Senate was supposed to have this all night vote

tonight.  All day today, Senate Democrats are threatening to hold votes

around the clock all through the night to get Wall Street reform moving

forward.  For three days in a row now, Republicans have been filibustering

Wall Street reform.  And it was all going to come to ahead tonight—all

night votes, a slumber party in the Senate.  Woohoo!

A senior Democratic leadership aide told the “Huffington Post” today,

quote, “We‘re rolling out the cots.”

Oh, that‘s going to be delicious.  Hold on.  I‘ll get to you later. 

Got to go get the cots.  Hold on.

We‘re rolling out the cots.  There we are.

We, too, decided to roll out the cots—although, frankly, if I had a

choice, I would roll out the air mattresses.  Come on.  It‘s the 2000s.

But that‘s not what they say.  They always say we‘re going to roll out

the cots.  So, we were all prepared.  We even advance-ordered our middle of

the night pizza.  It‘s going to go all night.  It‘s finally going to


What Democrats were promising was all night votes on Wall Street

reform, forcing Republicans to stay up through the night, forcing them to

sleep in the Senate in their Snuggies if they wanted to keep that

filibuster going.  They could eat Hot Pockets.  They could wear whatever

they wanted, whatever looked good over their suits, but they had to stay at

work all night.

This, it turns out, this—the cot thing—this is the one sure-fire

way to get stuff done in Washington.  Threaten to roll out the cots.

Democrats have threatened to roll out the cots a lot lately.  Back in

March, when Jim Bunning was filibustering unemployment benefits, it was

roll out the cots.  We‘re going to stay all night.  Jim Bunning said he

would keep filibustering and nothing could stop him unless three amendments

he wanted would get votes.

But after Democrats threatened to roll out the cots, Senator Bunning

caved.  He only got one amendment voted on, it failed.  And then everybody

went home.

So, it was mission accomplished, cot.  Now, we put the cots away.

Thank you very much, Kent.  Appreciate it.

A few weeks later, Republicans were filibustering health reform.  They

were threatening to offer amendment after amendment on things like

preventing sex offenders from getting Viagra.  Do you remember that one? 

The voterama?

Democrats decided to call Republicans‘ bluff during the amendments

fight on health reform by saying they‘d pull an all-nighter in the Senate. 

So, that was the threat.  Roll out the cots.  We‘re going to stay all

night.  Roll them out.

And votes did start happening late into the night.  Republicans tried

to go all night with that one, but they did not have the stamina.  They

ended up throwing in the towel around 3:00 a.m.  They gave up.

So again, mission accomplished, magical cot.  Now, put the cots away.

Then earlier this month, Harry Reid threatened more all-nighters in

the Senate, this time over Republicans filibustering President Obama‘s

judicial nominees.  He‘s threatening it again.  Roll out the cots.  We‘re

going to stay all night.

Harry Reid demands that 22 of President Obama‘s nominees are going to

get up-or-down votes or else we‘ll be in session around the clock.  Now,

this time with the cots looming, it was a mutual cave.  Democrats did get

Republicans to agree to let up on some of the nominees, but not all 22 like

they wanted.

So, in that case, mission was partially accomplished.  Cot—magical

cot, but now we can put the cots away.

Then today it happened again.  Democrats threatened to hold all-night

votes on Wall Street reform.  We had some initial indications of this

strategy last night when we spoke to Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of

Ohio, and then Senator Claire McCaskill confirmed it today here on MSNBC

with Andrea Mitchell.


SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO:  We‘re probably tomorrow night going to

stay all night and just continue to do this until we break some of them


SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI:  I think we‘re going to go all

night.  I think we‘ve made the decision that this is important enough that

we‘re going to stay up through the night and ask continually the

Republicans to allow us to debate this bill.


MADDOW:  And that‘s exactly what happened.  After a third straight

attempt to start debate on Wall Street reform was killed by a Republican

filibuster this afternoon, Democrats threatened the cot.


SEN. BEN CARDIN (D), MARYLAND:  Why aren‘t we here doing our work? 

Well, we‘re going to stay here and do this work.  Wall Street reform is

that important.  So, we‘re going to stay here.  And if the Republicans are

going to filibuster it, the American people are going to see that they‘re

filibustering this issue.


MADDOW:  All night votes.  You know what that means—roll in the

cots, we‘re going to stay all night.

And then sure enough, just like clock work, just like magic, the cot

threat worked again.  Just by threatening to roll out the cots, Republicans

caved.  They lifted their filibuster on Wall Street reform—this time

without even a vote.  After filibustering for three straight days,

Republicans tonight allowed Wall Street reform to go forward.

Mission accomplished, yet again.  So bye-bye, cot.  I‘m sure we‘ll be

welcoming you back soon.

Sorry.  This has been exhausting for you, Kent.

Here‘s the thing about the roll out the cots threat, the roll out the

cots tactic.  It‘s magic.  It always works apparently.  It did make

Republicans cave this time, like they have every time, anybody has

threatened the terrible cot.

But what happened today does not mean that Wall Street reform has

passed.  What this means is that debate on Wall Street reform can go

forward.  But, eventually, there‘s going to have to be an end of that

debate, and there‘s going to have to be a proceeding to a final vote on the


Dollars to doughnuts, Republicans are still going to filibuster, too. 

If doughnuts win and, miraculously, Republicans do drop that filibuster,

here‘s how you‘ll know.  It will only take 51 votes to pass Wall Street

reform, not 60.

If it‘s taking 60 votes, then Republicans are still filibustering. 

And in that event—Democrats may have to keep using the only weapon this

Washington we know works.  Because you know we‘ve got cots, we‘ve got

Snuggies, we‘ve got Hot Pockets, and pizza never tastes better than it does

at 3:00 in the morning.

Joining us now is Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

Senator Boxer, thank you for your time on what has been a very busy

night.  You are always here when we do the dumbest stunts on the show, for

which I apologize.


SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA:  That was quite entertaining.  And

it was sort of this is your life Barbara Boxer.

I guess we have a lot on our arsenal, I would like to think the most

important thing is that we have good ideas and good legislation.  But if we

need some good cots thrown in and it works, I‘m with the program.

MADDOW:  You were on the floor just a few hours ago showing all sorts

of headlines from what—back when the economic crash happened,

essentially reminding people of the gravity of the situation that Wall

Street reform is trying to remedy.

In your view, is this legislation, as written, strong enough to

prevent another crash from happening?

BOXER:  This legislation is very, very good.  I think we can

strengthen it and that‘s why I was so excited to learn that colleagues were

stepping back from the precipice and they were going to let us go.  But I

will be offering amendments.

The first amendment I‘m going to offer which I know Senator Dodd says

yes to, which is—which is very good news, is that in plain, simple

language, it‘s going to say, “Taxpayers, you‘re off the hook.  Never again

are we going to see this kind of bailout.”  And, you know, the only time

we‘ll get involved is to wind a firm down, and those costs will have to be

paid by Wall Street themselves.  So that‘s good.

I‘m going to look at these rating agencies, and you know a little bit

about that.  They—Standard & Poor‘s, Moody‘s—they rated these junk

securities, these instruments that were toxic at, you know, very high

levels when they weren‘t.  There‘s got to be some kind of responsibility

there.  So, I‘m looking at an amendment there.

But Bernie Sanders is going to have an amendment to audit the Fed. 

I‘m going to support that one.  The Volcker Rule, which is very important

to President Obama—and Jeff Merkley is offering that.  I‘ll be

supporting it.

So, the answer is: it is a very strong bill.  We can make it even


MADDOW:  The Republicans have suggested that—have been trying to

block debate from going forward on the Senate floor, essentially saying

they want negotiations to continue somewhere other than the Senate floor. 

But what you‘ve just described there in terms of all those amendments that

you‘re not only going to be offering but supporting, implies that the

process really isn‘t over, that the bill will continue to be tweaked and

amended on the Senate floor.

Why, then, was there so much resistance to Republicans allowing the

debate to even start?

BOXER:  Obviously, you‘d have to ask the Republicans that question. 

But for the life of me, I could not understand their reasoning, because

they said the bill wasn‘t strong enough, and we‘re saying, OK, let‘s get

busy and make it stronger.  And now, I‘m looking forward to their

amendments.  But they chose not to amend it in committee for some reason.

So, they didn‘t amend—they didn‘t amend it in the full light of the

committee process.  They didn‘t want to get started.  They wanted to kind

of have some backroom discussions.

I think they were right to finally back down because people get this. 

This isn‘t some very complicated matter.  Maybe it is true that the

financial system is complicated, but the basic notion of making sure that

consumers are protected, taxpayers are protected, that, you know, these

days of this crazy speculation and dark markets where no one understands,

you know, what a derivative is doing, or a credit default swap—those are

going to be fully transparent.

So, they did the right thing.  I mean, I don‘t know if it was the cots

if it was the cots, then, hooray.  But, you know, hopefully, it was the

fact that they really decided that this stall wasn‘t really working.  The

American people want us to do this.  It‘s—whether they‘re Democrats,

Republicans or independents, we‘ve got to stop this crisis.


And the reason I brought those old headlines was kind of to look at

where we were, with stock market crashing, and people‘s net worth going

down 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent, losing 700,000 jobs a month, the

housing market in a crisis.  All of this happened because of this massive

speculation—and no consumer watchdog agency, which is a big part of the

Dodd bill.

MADDOW:  Senator Barbara Boxer of California, thank you for your time

tonight.  I‘m glad you don‘t have to stay up all night.

BOXER:  Oh, you‘re not the only one.


MADDOW:  Thank you, ma‘am.  I really appreciate it.


MADDOW:  OK.  So, who‘s the one person who can cut through all the

rhetoric about Arizona new “papers please” immigration law?  Who is that

one person?

Sarah Palin says there‘s no ability or opportunity in the “papers

please” law for racial profiling.  No ability or opportunity.  I wonder if

she had her proof of citizenship on her when she said that.

Racial politics back on the front-burner and no one know that‘s better

than Democratic National Committee chairman, Tim Kaine, who Republicans

have freshly accused of race-baiting today.  Chairman Kaine joins us in

just a moment for “The Interview.”

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Anybody order a pizza?

MADDOW:  Oh, God, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you still want this?

MADDOW:  Yes, actually.


MADDOW:  It‘s great.  Awesome.  Thank you.


MADDOW:  Is it OK that we‘re not staying up all night?  Can we still

eat it?



MADDOW:  Last week, we did our best to explain payday lenders, who

they are and who they are.  Who they—what they do and who they are. 

Excuse me.

Payday lenders are basically loan sharks with nice store fronts.  They

specialize in turning what look like short term loans into ongoing

obligations that roll over every two weeks, piling up fees until their

ultimately collecting 400 percent annual interest.

Payday lending king, Allan Jones, has argued that his business is

poor.  That payday lenders make so little money they couldn‘t bear any

restrictions on their loansharking that might come from being regulated

under the new Wall Street Reform Act.

Lest you think it is critically awkward for someone like Allan Jones

to plead poverty while he also brags about owning a full-size football

stadium on his estate where he hosts private college football games for his

own amusement, consider Allan Jones and payday lenders have apparently

convinced Republicans with their argument.

The proposed financial reform bill from the Democrats includes a

consumer financial protection agency that would enforce regulations on

payday lenders.  A new proposed Republican alternative to the Democrats‘

bill would leave payday lenders, on the other hand, the way they are now—

totally unregulated by the federal government.  Free to roll people into

400 percent interest loans.

Right there on page eight of the summary of the Republican bill,

Republicans describe their consul for consumer financial protection which

leaves payday lenders like Allan Jones exactly as unregulated as they are

right now.  It‘s spelled U-S-U-R-Y, usury.  It is in the dictionary.  Also,

actually, in the Bible.


MADDOW:  A newly-minted law in Arizona presumes everyone to be illegal

unless you can prove otherwise.  The law compels law enforcement officers

to stop anyone whom they reasonably suspect might be an illegal immigrant

to demand to see papers proving that that person is, in fact, in this

country legally.  We‘ve been calling it the “papers please” law.

It‘s sparked demonstrations and threats of boycotts.  We‘ll have more

on those coming up on the show.  It‘s also caused coast to coast


So, it is not surprising that former vice presidential candidate and

half-term Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, has been asked to weigh in on this

matter.  Governor Palin says requiring police officers to stop people for

the crime of looking like an illegal immigrant will not beget racial



SARAH PALIN ®, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR:  There is no ability or

opportunity in there for the racial profiling.  And shame on the lame-

stream media again for turning this into something that it is not.  I think

it‘s shameful too that the Obama administration has allowed this to become

more of a racial issue by perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a

part of this law.


MADDOW:  This myth that racial profiling is parts of this law.

OK, let‘s debunk the racial profiling myth with the help of Arizona

Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the “papers please” bill into law on

Friday.  It‘s not through racial profiling—if not through racial

profiling, how should a police officer determine whether someone looks like

an illegal immigrant?  How should police work up a reasonable suspicion

that a person is an illegal immigrant?  What should police be watching for?

This is what happened on Friday when Governor Brewer was faced with

that question—and the opportunity to bust the racial profiling myth.


REPORTER:  What does an illegal immigrant look like?  Does it look

like me?

GOV. JAN BREWER ®, ARIZONA:  I do not know.  I do not know what an

illegal immigrant looks like.  I can tell you that I think that there are

people in Arizona that assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks



MADDOW:  This is the fundamental problem with the Arizona law.  Its

proponents insist that race will not be the reason people are stopped and

forced to show their papers.  They insist it won‘t be racial profiling,

that race won‘t be the grounds on which people are stopped by police.  But

they can‘t say what will be the grounds on which people are stopped by


Also complicating the insistence that Arizona won‘t be racial

profiling is the fact that many of the people doing that insisting

themselves are in favor of profiling.  And they admit it—out loud.


PALIN:  And I think it was quite unfortunate that, to me, it was a

fear of being politically incorrect to not—I‘m going to use the word—

profile this guy.  Profiling in the sense of finding out what his radical

beliefs were; but I say profiling in the context of doing whatever we can

to save innocent American lives, I‘m all for it, then.


MADDOW:  Sarah Palin speaking in the context of the Fort Hood shooting

last year.

So, when Governor Palin insists that Arizona won‘t be profiling now,

keep in mind she says she‘s all for profiling.  And it‘s not just Sarah

Palin.  There is and has been lots and lots and lots and lots of support on

the right for profiling—both racial profiling and religious profiling.


BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS:  Ninety percent of these terrorists are men,

Islamic men between 20 and 30.  Why are we pretending that all of us should

get equal training?  Shouldn‘t we just tell—if you‘re a 20 to 30-year-

old Islamic male, even if you have no evil intentions, expect to be

delayed.  We have to—we have to profile.

RUDY GIULIANI ®, FORMER NYC MAYOR:  You better be careful.  You‘ll

be accused of profiling.  The whole sense of don‘t profile, don‘t pick on

people, that‘s been going on for quite some time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  And the fact is, while the overwhelming majority

of Muslims are outstanding people, on the other hand, 100 percent of the

Islamic terrorists are Muslims, and that is our main enemy today.  So, why

we should not be profiling people because of their religion?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  There should be a separate line to scrutinize

anybody with the name of Abdul or Ahmed or Muhammad.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  We should take anyone who‘s a known Muslim and put

them in a separate line. Call it the VIP line!

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS:  It is a massive inconvenience and maybe even a

deterrent to the economy to have this going on in the way that it does,

with elderly women and little kids being searched and frisked as thoroughly

as anybody else, when nobody imagines that such people are going to be the

ones setting off a bomb on an airplane, and nobody really imagines that a

lot of blond, blue-eyed people from Sweden sneaking across the border. 

It‘s just—isn‘t the way it happens.

So, this is—if it‘s an effective law enforcement technique, done in

good faith, people may have to endure some inconvenience.  What we‘re

saying here is that some people are going to have to endure inconvenience

as opposed to everybody having to endure it.


MADDOW:  Some people.

Racial profiling is pretty popular on the right.  Check out this one

other argument in favor of racial profiling.  This is important actually.

This is from former Congressman Scott McInnis who is speaking on the

floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in November of 2001.  Watch this

and I‘ll tell you afterwards why this is so important.


REP. SCOTT MCINNIS ®, COLORADO:  I have seen and I‘ve been very

disappointed and discouraged recently about some people playing, as I would

call, the race card against profiling.  Oh, how do you build a profile? 

What kind of profile am I talking about?  Where I think, for example,

ethnic background is a legitimate comb opponent of it?

It is a huge mistake—a huge mistake for us to allow political

pressure by a very selected number of people to give any kind of commitment

that we will not allow ethnic background to be considered.  Once you begin

to use ethnic profiling as a component, one of several components, to build

a profile, I think it is very legitimate.  I think it‘s smart.


MADDOW:  That guy, who accused people of playing the race card against

profiling, who thinks using ethnic profiling is, in his words, smart, he

might just be the next governor of Colorado.  As friend of this show, David

Sirota, pointed out today in Colorado, that yea for racial profiling former

congressman, Scott McInnis, has gotten rid of the mustache and is

considered the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for governor in


Today, Scott McInnis said, if he is elected governor, he‘s eager to

follow Arizona‘s lead.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Jan brewer in Arizona.  Does the—


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I‘m going to wave the magic wand, you‘re governor.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  What would you do?

MCINNIS:  I‘d do something similar.  I‘ll tell you the situation.  The

federal government has refused to act, and finally, some governor stood up

and said, we‘re stopping the retreat.  No more retreat.


MADDOW:  Scott McInnis, well-respected top tier mainstream candidate

who by all accounts stands a perfectly reasonable chance of becoming the

next governor of Colorado, now promising a sequel to Arizona‘s “papers

please” law after a track record of enthusiasm for stopping you, subjecting

you to law enforcement scrutiny based on what your race is.

It would be easier to believe all the people saying that Arizona‘s new

law doesn‘t target people based on race if the same people giving us those

assurances were not so enthusiastic about law enforcement targeting people

based on race.



MADDOW:  Yes.  We‘re just six months away from the midterm elections,

but the way election seasons are defined now, you‘d think that that would

mean we‘d be well into campaign season.  You‘d think that‘s all we‘d be

talking about by now. 

But so far, not so much.  There‘s been a low hum of discussion

about the midterms, but no real roar as of yet.  That is something the

Democratic Party looks to be hoping to change, rolling out a $15 million

campaign to kick off the 2010 season this week, beginning with a personal

message to Democratic Party supporters from the president on Monday. 


BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT:  It will be up to each of you

to make sure that the young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women

who powered our victory in 2008, stand together once again. 


MADDOW:  If that sounds to you like fairly anodyne, typical voter

outreach talk, that‘s because you have dared step outside the conservative

echo, echo, echo chamber.  “The Washington Examiner” front page screamed

after this, “Obama disses white guys.” 

The RNC declared, quote, “Our post-racial president made an

appeal based on class warfare and race.”  And the conservative pundit-o-

cracy just let loose.



its racist best.  What‘s the regime doing?  Asking blacks and Latinos to

join him in a fight. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  What‘s with the racially-charged rallying cry? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  What he‘s doing is saying, “You have reason to

fear on racial grounds, therefore, vote for me.”  I think he is using

racial anxiety for political gain. 


MADDOW:  In conserve-o-world, appealing to minority voters to come out

to vote is racist.  If logic is logic and logic knows no political

affiliation, then that racism allegation would appear to present a problem

for, say, RNC chairman Michael Steele who said last week in a speech that

Republicans, quote, “Have lost sight of the historic integral link between

the party and African-Americans.” 

I guess also Sen. John Ensign was racist when he said, quote, “We

have to reach out to Hispanics.”  I also guess Republican presidential

candidate John McCain was racist when he opined, “Everything about our

Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message.” 

I guess also presumably Ronald Reagan was racist when he reached

out to Hispanics declaring, quote, “Latinos are Republican.  They just

don‘t know it yet.” 

It‘s a funny thing about boomerangs, you know.  They‘re very hard

to catch and they hurt when they come back. 

Joining us now for the interview is the chairman of the

Democratic National Committee, former governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine. 

Gov. Kaine, it‘s nice to have you back on the show.  Thanks for being here. 


Thanks, Rachel.  You bet.  Great to be with you. 

MADDOW:  What‘s your response to accusations that it is racist for

Democrats to encourage minority voter turnout in the next election? 

KAINE:  That the accusations are ridiculous and that the Republicans

are trying to change the subject.  We rolled out a midterm plan that

basically lays out a pretty clear message, Rachel, of the two parties. 

The Democrats are the results party.  We‘re doing the heavy

lifting to do economic recovery, health reform, and Wall Street reform. 

And the Republicans are the obstruction party, standing in the way, trying

to block progress. 

Pretty simple message, but what the Republicans want to do is

throw around claims of race-baiting, et cetera, because they don‘t want to

talk about the issue of, are you for results or are you trying to do the

heavy lifting to help Americans?  Or are you trying to throw up a

smokescreen?  They‘re good at the smokescreens. 

MADDOW:  Well, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the

RNC both went after you specifically today when “The Wall Street Journal”

printed this as advanced text of a speech of yours today. 

They said, quote - they ascribe to you this quote, “We know the

Republican Party still seeks to suppress the vote and initiate arbitrary

challenges, particularly challenging minority and low-income voters.” 

They went after you as dealing the race card by doing that.  Was

that part of your speech?  What did you mean?  What do you make of that


KAINE:  That was in the prepared remarks that we distributed to a

number of reporters.  You know, a lot of folks who watch the show, Rachel,

may not be aware the RNC is under a federal court consent decree currently

because of activities in the past that have been misleading or efforts to

challenge minority and low-income voters. 

They‘ve made an effort recently to get out from under that

consent decree and that effort has been unsuccessful because courts have

concluded that there‘s still significant enough concern that we need to be

very vigilant against these practices. 

This is the same RNC, as you pointed out just two nights ago,

that is sending out misleading and I believe illegal mailings to voters

that misrepresent the mailings as official census documents, when in fact

they‘re not the case. 

And so we‘re not going to wait for an election day and then find

out that misleading information has been given to our voters.  Instead,

we‘re going to vigorously protect people‘s rights to participate.  We

should all want more people to participate, not fewer, and that

participation is a real hallmark of what we try to do in elections. 

MADDOW:  As the nation continues to debate this Arizona immigration

law, as the president has condemned it, as chatter has risen in Washington

that we might actually get a move toward comprehensive immigration

legislation in Washington this year, how do you foresee race and that issue

intersecting and intertwining, getting into November? 

Obviously, we see the Republicans and conservatives very eager to

engage on the issue of race looking to do it, even in places where you

wouldn‘t expect them to bring it up. 

KAINE:  Right.  Well, you know, they may make that effort, but let‘s,

you know, be candid.  This immigration issue is a very, very tough one. 

It‘s a huge problem that has needed fixing for a long period of time. 

If just a fraction of Republican senators who were supporting

immigration reform just three years ago would join with Democratic

senators, we could get an immigration reform bill through the Senate and to

the House. 

There is at least one Senate Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who

is still making some effort in that regard, and that‘s to be applauded. 

But all we need is a few Republican senators willing to tackle this issue

and we could make progress. 

So the question is out - will they do it or will they just be the

obstructionist party that they seem to really relish becoming here over the

last year and a half. 

MADDOW:  That said, Sen. Graham, after having written an op-ed with

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer just last month, having long championed

the idea of immigration reform, having put forward a bipartisan plan of his

own, now saying that he does not want that to be worked on any time soon. 

He wants that to be put off until 2012. 

I wonder if you see a strategic issue here on legislation that

really dovetails with politics.  Are Democrats going to be trying to get as

much done as possible before November in order to campaign on that fact

while Republicans try to slow everything down? 

KAINE:  Well, Rachel, I think the answer to that is yes.  We‘re going

to be trying to get as much done because, you know, I think people wanted

us to be the governing party to break through a Washington log jam where

special interests kept things from getting done. 

As I travel around the country, I think the main critique of

Washington has been that you can‘t get meaningful action because the

special interests have basically locked the place down. 

So what we have attempted to do with this president and with this

Congress is take big steps forward on economic recovery, on reforming

student loans, on reforming the health care system.  And now, we‘re on the

verge of, I think, a very big win in terms of Wall Street reform. 

We‘re going to get things done.  You know, I hope it‘s good

politics but we‘re mostly going to get things done because that‘s what the

American people want you to do when you‘re in office.  They want you to

take your oath of office seriously and come here to work, not just to play

political games and try to block everything that you can. 

MADDOW:  Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Gov. Tim

Kaine, thanks very much for joining us tonight, sir.  I appreciate it. 

KAINE:  Absolutely, Rachel.  Good to be with you. 

MADDOW:  If it‘s Virginia in the east and Arizona now in the west,

then it is now officially in the middle, Oklahoma.  Oklahoma owns the

middle in terms of rolling back its citizens‘ legal rights.  That‘s coming


And voter registration fraud working for Republicans in

California.  They picked the wrong crowd to scam, however.  Now, there‘s a

bit of an uproar.  Just because you‘re in favor of legalizing pot does not

mean you‘re not going to notice when a mystery “I‘m a Republican” bumper

sticker shows up in your mail.  Please stay tuned.


MADDOW:  Last week‘s underwater well explosion at an offshore drilling

rig operated by British Petroleum has created a serious environmental

disaster that is growing more serious by the day. 

Efforts to stem the flow of oil that‘s pouring into the Gulf of

Mexico at a rate of 42,000 gallons a day have thus far failed.  So, too,

have efforts to contain the ever expanding oil slick that had spread out

across the water. 

The slick is now 100 miles by 45 miles making it roughly the size

of Ohio.  Beyond the damage it‘s already done, the fear now is that the

slick hit shore where it then coats wildlife and the coastline. 

So far the closest the oil has gotten to shore is about 20 miles. 

If the oil were to hit land which it‘s expected to be able to do in two or

three days, that would be very bad. 

Remember the Exxon-Valdez oil spill disaster?  Thousands of

Alaskans volunteering, scrubbing birds and sea otters and seals?  Yes.  So

in an effort to not be Exxon-Valdez, officials have devised what sounds

like a scorched-earth policy here or maybe a scorched-water policy. 

They‘re lighting parts of the oil spill on fire.  If you can‘t

clean it, the thinking goes, burn it.  The clean-up contractors are using

500-foot fire resistant containment booms that extend above and below the

water to cordon off a small patch of the oil. 

The oil has to be gathered up to make the slick thick enough to

be successfully set ablaze.  If the slick is too thin, the fire will go

out.  Of course there are health concerns about big oil fires but the

official line is that the plumes of smoke won‘t reach land. 

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Mississippi

Department of Environmental Quality are monitoring the air quality around

the burn.  Those very warranted health concerns aside, there‘s also no

guarantee that the burn will even work. 

Some people estimating that as little as 50 percent of it will

burn.  And what‘s left over after the burning is even worse than the

original oil slick because it will be thicker and more difficult to clean


But don‘t worry.  Not all the news about this is bad.  Oil prices

are on the rise, which means that the oil company profits are doing great. 

Plus, this Democratic president, not backing off on that decision

to end the decades-old moratorium on offshore drilling because of concerns

of, you know, something like this happening. 

Meet Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona.  Sheriff

Dupnik says Arizona may have passed this new law telling police officers to

stop people for just looking like illegal immigrants.  They may have passed

that law, but he says it‘s not enforceable. 

He says it‘s also wrong.  He explained to Keith Olbermann tonight

on “COUNTDOWN” this evening why he will not enforce it. 



years.  I‘m not sure what reasonable suspicion means and I suspect that‘s

going to be constitutionally vague. 

I think it was enacted in Arizona to make the legislature feel

good, possibly to deflect some of the attention they get on the poor

management, especially of financial issues, in this state.  They‘ve done a

horrible job, and second of all, I think it‘s just racist. 


MADDOW:  Sheriff Dupnik says he cannot and will not enforce the new

law which, of course, legally requires you to carry on your person at all

times proof of your right to be in this country.  You can arrested and put

in jail for not being able to prove you are not an illegal immigrant.  Pima

County, just so you know, includes Tucson, which is Arizona‘s second-

largest city. 

And finally, in protest of Arizona‘s terrifyingly regressive

anti-immigrant law, people, cities and organizations are calling for

boycotts against the state, including a boycott against Arizona Iced Tea. 

It‘s got Arizona right there in the title.  Easy target, right? 

Alas, as pointed out in the “New York Daily News” today, Arizona

Iced Tea, despite its name, is a New York company.  So in order to prevent

any additional accidental targets, we have made a list of things you can

patronize without violating the terms any boycott should you choose to

protest in such a manner.

You may, for example, still watch the movie, “Raising Arizona.” 

The residuals go to the people who made the movie, not to the state.  You

may still get regrettable tattoos of phoenixes. 

And if you‘re boycotting because of the new law, you probably

can‘t support the Suns basketball team.  The actual sun, the sun itself -

still totally fair game.  Also there‘s a very nice cocktail known as the

diamondback.  Feel free there, too.  We‘re here to help. 


MADDOW:  Folks who say you want the government out of your life - meet

Oklahoma, where the government not only wants into your life, it wants

inside your physical body against your will, state-mandated invasive

medical procedures to which you do not have a right to say no. 

Vetoed by the Democratic governor, that veto overridden by

Republicans in the state legislature all in the name of conservatism. 

Former definition of conservatism - small government and individual

freedom.  I don‘t know how they define it now.  That‘s next.  


MADDOW:  As of 10:42 a.m. Central Time yesterday, any woman seeking an

abortion in the great state of Oklahoma must now undergo an invasive

medical procedure at least an hour before the abortion or preparation for

the abortion. 

The State of Oklahoma now mandates regardless of medical need,

every woman seeking to have that legal medical procedure must also be

forced to have an ultrasound and her doctor is ordered by the state to

insert the ultrasound transducer vaginally if that would provide the

clearest image of the fetus.

It‘s not the doctor‘s choice.  The state mandates this.  The

woman seeking an abortion cannot say no, nor can the doctor.  The

ultrasound images will now have to be displayed where the woman can watch

while she undergoes the procedure. 

Oklahoma‘s lawmakers will allow the woman to avert her eyes from

the image if she wants.  That is Oklahoma‘s definition of choice.  Now, if

you can‘t win the constitutional arguments and you do have to allow some

women to get abortions some of the times because of that darn Constitution,

you can at least make it as vile, physically invasive and emotionally

traumatic as possible, right? 

Joining us now is Anita Fream, the head of the Central Oklahoma

Chapter of Planned Parenthood.  Ms. Fream, thank you very much for being

here tonight.  I appreciate your time. 


you so much for having me. 

MADDOW:  The Oklahoma legislature easily overrode Gov. Henry‘s veto of

this measure.  Is there any political strength in Oklahoma behind stopping

this?  Is the governor pretty much on his own? 

FREAM:  There are folks who have been working with the governor, been

trying to support these efforts.  I have to say, though, it does seem that

we are in the minority. 

MADDOW:  There are still two other bills under consideration in

Oklahoma, one, I know, would force women to fill out a very detailed

questionnaire about why they are seeking an abortion. 

FREAM:  Right. 

MADDOW:  It would post some of that information online.  Another would

restrict insurance coverage for abortions.  What do you think the prospects

are for those bills? 

FREAM:  I don‘t see a whole lot of hope for stopping them.  I think

the prospects are probably good.  I spoke earlier this evening with the

Center for Reproductive Rights about the possibility of additional


And that is always still a possibility.  We just don‘t know yet

at this point.  They did say that there are many Constitutional issues with

the reporting requirements law. 

MADDOW:  The same organization suing against the measure that was just

passed by the legislature over the governor‘s veto, of course.  Let‘s say

the insurance can‘t cover abortions bill passes.  What do you think the

impact would be ultimately on women in Oklahoma? 

FREAM:  Well, I think it will have the same impact.  That is the goal

behind a lot of these laws, which is just to make it increasingly difficult

to have access to what is supposed to be a fundamental right. 

Make it harder and harder to get abortions.  Put more stumbling

blocks in the way.  Make it more expensive.  Make doctors more reluctant to

do the procedure. 

MADDOW:  Is it your feeling as CEO of Planned Parenthood in central

Oklahoma - is it your feeling that the effect of these laws is essentially

to make abortion so difficult obtain that it is functionally illegal in

Oklahoma even if the Constitution still nominally protects it? 

FREAM:  I do think that is the effect and it is very clear that is the

ultimate goal.  That is not a secret.  That is a strategy that‘s talked

about fairly openly. 

MADDOW:  How many abortion providers are still operating in Oklahoma? 

And I guess, what is the morale of those health care providers right now

given this environment? 

FREAM:  I think there are about three.  I may be missing one in there. 

Morale varies.  We have good relationships with our local provider who is a

wonderful person. 

But, you know, it‘s tough.  Every time one of these new laws goes

into place, it makes it harder to provide the procedure and makes their

legal risk greater and restricts what kinds of medical decisions they can

make, which is something I assume no doctor wants to have to deal with. 

MADDOW:  In terms of Oklahoma in the broader context of what is

happening with abortion rights in this country, a lot of people who are

pro-choice are looking at what‘s happening in Oklahoma, in Nebraska and

some other states that have considered very restrictive measures recently. 

There seems to be a flurry of them recently.  They‘re wondering

if national assistance, national health speaking out about these matters

helps or hurts, whether or not people addressing these issues nationally

seems like carpetbaggers to those of you, for example, in Oklahoma or

whether or not, at this point, people who are pro-choice in Oklahoma want

national help. 

FREAM:   The need for national help is definitely here.  We need

everyone speaking out no matter where they are from.  I know what you mean

about the carpetbagger issue.  And I suppose that probably is an issue at

times.  But we need the voices worse.  We need people to speak out. 

MADDOW:  Anita Fream, CEO of Planned Parenthood in Central Oklahoma. 

Thank you very much for your time tonight.  I really appreciate your


FREAM:  Thank you. 

MADDOW:  Coming up on “COUNTDOWN” tonight, Keith‘s special guest is

the Arizona sheriff who is refusing to implement the new immigration law in

that state. 

But first, on this show, the Republican voter registration ploy

targeting people who want to legalize pot.  They messed with the wrong

slackers.  That‘s next.


MADDOW:  We turn now to our dubious documentation correspondent, Mr.

Kent Jones.  Hi, Kent. 

KENT JONES, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT:  Hi, Rachel.  You remember the

Republican fundraising letter that was designed to look like the 2010

census form? 

MADDOW:  Oh, yes.  Yes.

JONES:  Right?  Well, there is a new piece of Republican document

trickery going on.  Check it out. 


JONES:   In Orange County, California, people were reportedly

approached by petitioners to ask them to sign their names for, among other

causes, legalizing marijuana.  Some thought, “Legalize pot? sure, dude. 

Where do I sign?” 

Put the pen down.  Step away from the clipboard.  What their

signatures actually meant was that those pot-supporting Californians had

just registered for the Republican Party. 

In one stroke, people went from easing pot laws to joining forces

with John Boehner.  Whiplash.  According to the “Orange County Register,”

since March, 99 written complaints were filed by voters who said they were

registered as Republicans without their consent. 

“The Register” reports that signature gatherers lied,

misrepresented themselves and some even pretended they were students

collecting signatures for a class project. 

What class is that?  Introduction to voter fraud?  The California

Republican Party created a problem by offering an $8 bounty for each new

registration.  Voila.  Beer money. 

Consider this a warning - the next time someone asks you to sign

here to save the adorable kittens or nominate summer as America‘s official

feel good season or something like that, read every word and then ask

yourself, “Am I helping John Boehner?”


MADDOW:  Also blame ACORN somehow. 

JONES:  Yes.  Yes. 

MADDOW:  Thank you, Kent.  Appreciate it.  That does it for us

tonight.  “COUNTDOWN” with Keith Olbermann starts right now.  Good night.




Copy:     Content and programming copyright 2010 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

                Copyright 2010 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 Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,

                copyright or other notice from copies of the content.