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

'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Guests: David Plouffe, Paul Rieckhoff, Rocky Anderson

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Good evening, Ed. Thank you.

And thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour.

Just a moment ago, just seconds ago, they officially lit the
Rockefeller Center Christmas tree in midtown Manhattan right outside. Do
you want to see it though?

Ready? OK. Here we go, ready, and here it goes. Bink. Yay! And
the newsroom erupted in cheers.

And with that, we now begin the arduous process of making end of the
year lists, right? It`s now officially, now that the tree is lit, it is
now officially end of the year list making time in America.

For everybody who`s making their list about the worst, the best, the
most ridiculous, the most amusing moments in American politics this year, I
have a pitch I would like to make. I do not want Senator Jon Kyl to be
left out. I`m worried he`s going to be forgotten.

It was April of this year when the Republicans were threatening to
shut down the federal government if they didn`t get their way on defunding
Planned Parenthood. That`s what it came down to in the end, remember?
Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona got up on the Senate floor and he
told a lie.


SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: If you want an abortion, you go to Planned
Parenthood and that`s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.


MADDOW: Not true. Very, very not true. Of all the things Planned
Parenthood does, abortion is more like 3 percent of what they do. And 3
percent, I`ve checked, is not over 90 percent like he said.

Asked to correct the very, very, very bad math that he expounded on
the Senate floor, Senator Kyl`s office responded with something I think
should be on or at the top of or at least near the top of every year-end
list about notable moments in politics this year. I`m just saying.


T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: You know what? I just want to give it to
you verbatim. It says, "His remark was not intended to be a factual


MADDOW: Ta-da!

Even if that were all that happened in that episode, not intended to
be a factual statement was already I think in Hall of Fame territory for
political moments of this year.

But then Stephen Colbert started the "not intended to be a factual
statement" hashtag on Twitter. For example, for the past 10 years, Jon Kyl
has been two children in a very convincing Jon Kyl suit. Not intended to
be a factual statement.

Also, once a year, Jon Kyl retreats to the Arizona desert and deposits
2 million egg sacks under the sand. Not intended to be a factual

Or Jon Kyl is an accomplished nude hula dancer. He`s not welcomed in
Hawaii. Not intended, right?

Or this might be my favorite one -- Jon Kyl once ate a badger he hit
with his car. Don`t worry, Wisconsin, it`s not intended to be a factual

The only off-note in the brilliant humor of the whole not intended to
be a factual statement fiasco is that Senator Jon Kyl, himself, never
really seemed to get it, which makes it less fun. I mean, he never seemed
to understand what everybody was laughing about. He never poked fun at
himself about it. He never seemed to realize he had made himself into a
bit of a joke.

And so, now, seven months later, as the number two Republican in the
United States Senate, Jon Kyl, I think in part because he didn`t get it the
first time around, is getting himself into the same kind of trouble he was
in with the Planned Parenthood thing. He`s walking into essentially the
same trap.

And you can tell he`s got no self-awareness about it at all, which is
kind of a pity. Here`s how he got himself all bollixed up now. In July
last year when Republicans wanted to add $700 billion to the deficit by
extending the Bush tax cuts, including for the wealthiest Americans, Jon
Kyl was the guy they put out to convince the country that doing that would
actually be totally free of cost.


CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: How are you going to pay the $678 billion
just on the tax cuts for people over -- making more than $200,000 a year?

KYL: You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. You do need
to offset the cost of increased spending and that`s what Republicans object
to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision
to reduce tax rates on Americans.

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: This is Kyl`s statement to reporters in the
halls of the Congress. "My view, and I think most of the people in my
party, don`t believe that you should ever have to offset a tax cut."


MADDOW: Now, this is something that is sometimes called believing in
the tax fairy. It`s a belief that if you reduce the revenue that
government is taking in, the government doesn`t actually take in any less
revenue. You reduce the amount that they`re getting, but they don`t get
any less. If that sounds magic, it`s because it is. It`s called believing
in the tax fairy.

Actually in 1980, when Poppy Bush, George H.W. Bush, was running
against Ronald Reagan, he did not call it believing in the tax fairy. What
he called it was famously, voodoo economics.

When George W. Bush, the Bush the son, was president, his chief
economist described people who believed in this idea as, quote, "charlatans
and cranks."

So, when that whole fight was going on last summer about extending the
Bush tax cuts, the way that we talked about it on this show, was that if
you believed in the tax fairy, you also believed that cats like baths.

Hi. Sorry. I think, do we have one more? Do we, OK. I think --
actually that`s not the one I was thinking of. I think there`s one more.

That`s the one I was looking for. All right. If you believe in the
tax fairy, you probably believe that cats like baths. Thank you blessed

That -- the tax fairy thing has been the Republican mantra for years.
Tax fairy, magic, charlatan, cats like baths, that says that cutting taxes,
cutting revenue doesn`t actually cut revenue. Cutting taxes doesn`t add to
the deficit. It`s free. You don`t have to pay for tax cuts. Tax cuts pay
for themselves.


propose something that may seem crazy to you. You don`t need to pay for
tax cuts. They pay for themselves.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: You need policies like an extension
and making permanent the `01 and `03 tax cuts. They will be paid for
because they create economic growth.

KYL: You should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate
decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.


MADDOW: You should never have to pay for tax cuts. Tax cuts pay for
themselves. That was Jon Kyl then.

Here`s Jon Kyl now.


KYL: I`ve never said that all tax cuts always pay for themselves.


MADDOW: And if I did, it would not have been intended to be a factual
statement. Also, have you tried the badger? It`s delicious this time of

Jon Kyl, you are amazing -- even if you don`t understand how amazing
you are.

The reason that Jon Kyl is now denying he ever believed in the tax
fairy, the reason he`s been caught in this new embarrassing thing which he
doesn`t seem to get how embarrassing it is, is because what has been the
Republican position that tax cuts are free, that you just can freely lard
them on to the deficit because they`re magic and it somehow doesn`t apply
to the deficit if it`s a tax cut, Republicans have now decided that they no
longer believe that, at least not for this year and at least not for one
specific kind of tax cut.

Last year, President Obama signed into law a cut in taxes we all pay
from our paychecks so anybody who gets their income in the form of a
paycheck got a tax cut. Now, really, really rich people generally don`t
get paid by paycheck, so it`s really something that benefits -- this tax
cuts is basically something that benefits people who work for a living and
not the rich. It`s a lot of money, too. It`s like $1,500 per year per

President Obama and the Democrats got that passed last year and want
to extend that tax cut now. And the Republicans up until now have said no.
The Republicans have said they`d like to see the taxes go back up on
anybody who cashes a paycheck.

Realizing that is a really off-message place for them to be, the
Republicans advocating for a tax hike and at Christmastime, they`ve now
started to change their minds a little. But now their line on is it they
would consider going along with extending the payroll tax cut thing but
they have a condition.


will agree to continue the current payroll tax relief for another year, but
we believe it should be paid for. We believe with this kind of deficit, we
ought to pay for it.


MADDOW: Hold on. What happened to the tax fairy? I mean, you should
-- what was that? It was you should never have to offset the cost of a
deliberate decision to reduce tax rates?

Republicans don`t believe that you should ever have to offset a tax
cut. That`s what they said. That`s what Jon Kyl said back in the day.
Did Mitch McConnell disagree with him? No, he did not.

Mitch McConnell saying at the time: "I think what Senator McConnell
(ph) was expressing was the view of the view of everybody Republican on
that subject." So, tax cuts are free, tax cuts are magic fairy dust for
everybody, except now, and except when you`re talking about people who get
paychecks, except for working people.

According to Republicans, the Bush tax cuts for the richest people in
the country, those are free. But the ones for everybody else, those are
very, very expensive.

The big picture is the Democrats are winning on this issue. The
Republicans are in the process of caving in a way that unfortunately Jon
Kyl doesn`t realize is funny.

But the common wisdom about governing in an election year like this,
is that because the primary action is on the Republican side, all of the
political discussion in the country, all of the atmospherics will be about
Republican ideas. And so, it will be really hard for a Democratic
president to get anything done in that sort of environment.

But on this payroll tax thing, Republicans have not been able to hold
it together. They are caving -- somewhat magnificently. It is not over,
but it is ending.

What does that mean for White House strategy moving forward? Deeper
into this election year? And does this strategy they have applied to hit
pay dirt here on this issue apply to their other priorities as well?

Joining us now is someone who knows. White House senior adviser David

Mr. Plouffe, it is good to have you here. Thanks for being with us.

DAVID PLOUFFE, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR: Thanks for having me, Rachel.

MADDOW: I`m sorry to make you sit through me teasing Jon Kyl. I hope
it does -- everybody knows it does not reflect on you.

The extension of the payroll tax cut is obviously not a done deal. Is
it your belief, though, that Congress will pass an extension?

PLOUFFE: Well, they need to. First of all, there`s a vote in the
Senate later this week where all 100 senators have a chance -- it`s a very
clarifying vote. We can cut taxes for 160 million Americans, 98 percent of
the small businesses giving them incentives to hire long-term unemployed
workers and we can actually responsibly pay for that by asking roughly
300,000 people who make over $1 million a year to pay their fair share.

I can`t think of a more clarifying vote, a clear vote, about where
your priorities stand.

And so, the president today in Scranton, Pennsylvania, as he has
throughout the fall, is going to make the case that Congress can`t go home
without doing something to help the economy, help the middle class. And if
we don`t do anything, if Congress goes home without extending the payroll
tax, then taxes go up, $1,000 per person.

Think about that -- weeks and weeks of groceries. Most people out
there are living in fear of an appliance breaking down. People are living
on the edge. And yet the obsession of Republicans in Congress seems to be
do everything they can to not ask anything from the wealthy.

And clearly, we have an economy that`s imbalanced and as we look to
create jobs and produce economic growth, help the middle class, it`s time
to ask the wealthiest Americans to do a little bit more.

MADDOW: How big do you think the economic impact would be if the
Republicans stick with where they have been on this issue at least until
recently, if the payroll tax cut isn`t extended and in effect we get a tax
hike for Americans in this country? How big is the economic impact?

PLOUFFE: It would have a catastrophic effect. First on the
macroeconomic side, every economist of any political stripe has looked at
this and says this would have a huge impact on growth. It would raise the
unemployment rate.

And then think about what it means for the average person. Not many
people out there in the middle class, people trying to get to middle class,
can afford to have $1,000 come out of their paycheck. And again, the vote
this week could not be more simple. We can give everybody who`s working
out there $1,500 tax cut, the president actually wants to expand it a
little bit, give every small business tax incentives to hire new workers,
and we can pay for that by asking 300,000 people in this country who make
over $1 million a year to pay a little bit more. And that`s the right
thing to do for the country.

So, that`s where our energy this week. We are glad to see some
Republican leaders now at the 11th hour saying, well, maybe it wouldn`t be
such a good idea in the holiday season, as you said, to raise taxes.
That`s great. But we got to get this done and we ought to get it done in
the right way.

MADDOW: When you talk about paying for it with the tax on the richest
Americans, 300,000 people in the country, I think that there`s two
different ways of looking at that in terms of its political impact. On the
polling numbers, most Americans say they got no problem with that, that
seems like something that seems like a good economic idea, it`s one of the
highest polling ideas in terms of its popularity among Americans.

But if you look at the first nationwide political ad run by the Karl
Rove group, Crossroads group, it attacked President Obama, not on anything
else of what he`s done in term in office, attacked him as a tax raiser.
They`re banking on the idea, that even though you`re saying you just want
to raise taxes by a small amount on millionaires, they think that people
will just hear that as Obama wants to raise my taxes.

PLOUFFE: We`re very confident and comfortable having this debate.
For the working people in America, the middle class, the president, this
president, has a remarkable record of continuing to cut taxes. In fact, as
he said in Scranton today, if you`re a middle class voter, your taxes are
lower than when he came into office. So, we will win this debate.

And I think it`s pretty clear in this tough economy, most middle class
voters out there believe that the president is looking out for them. He`s
trying to make decisions on their behalf. And as we try and boost the
economy in the short term, but also do the smart things in the long term we
need to do, to get the country on the right track, we`ve got to do this in
a fair and balanced way.

So, all we`re saying is -- and listen, the president has shown his
willingness, cut spending, carefully deal with entitlements, you know,
willing to do tough stuff here. The real barrier to progress, creating
jobs, cutting taxes, reducing the deficit, really resides with, you know, a
few dozen Republicans in Washington, because Republicans around the
country, common sense mainstream Republicans, believe that the wealthy
ought to be asked to do a little bit more.

So, this is really a position only held in Washington and by those
Republicans running for president. And it`s a position that`s out of the
mainstream, not of the country, but of their own party.

MADDOW: That was also true, though, this time last year, or June of
last year, spring of last year, when there was an argument going about
whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans won that one
to the extent that the tax cuts got extended; the president since said he`d
never do that again. He will not allow that to happen again.

Why did the Republicans win that last time if you are confident now
that they will not win it this time?

PLOUFFE: Well, I -- listen, I don`t think they won. At the end of
2010, remember, the payroll tax, which you mentioned a few minutes ago,
goes primarily to working people. That was part of the agreement,
extending unemployment benefits.

MADDOW: You definitely got tradeoffs for it, but you did extend the
Bush tax cuts.

PLOUFFE: Well, for two year, and it was the important thing to do,
particularly for a struggling middle class. Where would we be this year,
by the way, with high gas prices, with the shocks coming out of Europe, the
Japanese earthquake, all the things that are affecting our economy, gas
prices higher, food prices higher, if people didn`t have the $1,000 in
their paycheck.


MADDOW: I don`t have any doubt you couldn`t get other good tradeoffs
for doing it again. But why won`t they get the Bush tax cut extended?

PLOUFFE: It`s not going to happen, OK? The Bush tax cuts for the
wealthy are going away at the end of next year. And that`s why, really, if
Congress was responsible, because you both have the Bush tax cuts and you
have this sequester looming. So, why don`t you control your own destiny
here and reduce the deficit in a balanced way, do smart tax reform that can
actually be both fairer and simpler, but also be something that`s more

So, listen, this debate has been clarifying this fall about whose side
are you on, what`s your view about how to help the economy? And the
president is focused each and every day what are the things to help the
middle class -- put teachers back to work, rebuild schools, rebuild roads
and bridges, give tax cuts to middle class, to small business owners. The
job creators Republicans like to talk about, we`re the ones trying to cut
their taxes.

MADDOW: David Plouffe, White House senior adviser, I can tell that
you`re the guy who`s in part in charge of clarifying by the way you talk
about this stuff. It`s good to have you here, sir. Thanks for your time.
Appreciate it.

PLOUFFE: Thank you very much.

MADDOW: All right. The Tea Party revolution, remember that? That
was supposed to change everything. Throw the bums out, a whole new
Republican Party. Don`t tread on me.

It turns out it`s turned into more of a "don`t retread on me".
Details on that coming next.


MADDOW: When Herman Cain first started having trouble with questions
about foreign countries and foreign policy on the campaign trail, his
campaign tried to reassure Mr. Cain`s supporters through an interview with
"The Daily Caller" saying that Mr. Cain henceforth would be getting regular
foreign policy briefings almost every day. Almost every day the campaign
told "The Daily Caller." Mr. Cain was to be handed a one-page briefing
from his chief foreign policy adviser on news from around the world. I
don`t know if that was full time providing Herman Cain with one page of
information about the world almost every day.

But as the Cain campaign seems to be fading from political relevance
now, perhaps the Rick Perry campaign should think about snapping that
staffer up, to give Governor Perry one-page briefings almost every day on
our country.


what I`m going to bring to Washington when I go there in November.

Those of you that will be 21 by November the 12th, I ask for you
support and your vote. Those of you who won`t be, just work hard.

We`re going to be talking about it in harsh and strong terms over the
course of the next four to five weeks as we get ready for those New
Hampshire caucuses.


MADDOW: See, if it could be somebody`s job to keep Governor Perry up
to speed on the America things.

New Hampshire, for example, not a caucus. When you think caucus,
think corn cob, Governor. Think Iowa. Iowa, it`s a larger state than New
Hampshire. Shorter name, it`s over to the left. New Hampshire has a

Also, the presidential election, the one you`re running in, not
actually scheduled for November 12th but rather for November 6th. Also,
the voting age in the United States of America is 18.

And if, when Rick Perry is elected president, Rick Perry`s presence
will be required in Washington actually the following January. Election in
the fall, inauguration in the -- Rick Perry`s "latest who am I, what am I
doing" moment came again in New Hampshire today which does seem to be where
he has way more fun than success in his campaign these days.

All right. Here`s how it`s going to go. Can we put the big calendar
up here? All right.

All right. Here is the calendar. New Year`s Day is on a Sunday this
year. New Year`s Day also known as hangover day is a Sunday. Two days
after hangover day is the Iowa caucuses, on Tuesday the 3rd. Right now,
here is the latest polling in Iowa. Insider Advantage poll out this week
has Newt Gingrich in first and Ron Paul in second and Mitt Romney in third.

Couple of weeks ago, Rasmussen also had Gingrich in first in Iowa, but
Romney in second and Cain in third. Then the next week, January 10th,
right, that`s the New Hampshire primary. They do a primary in New
Hampshire. Not caucus, Governor. They do a primary in New Hampshire where
Rasmussen`s polling this week has Romney in first, Gingrich in second and
then Ron Paul in third.

And a week and a half after that, on a Saturday, you`ve got the South
Carolina primary. Now, right now, the polling in South Carolina looks like
this. Insider Advantage this week has Newt Gingrich in first, Mitt Romney
in second and Herman Cain in third.

Earlier this month the polling company also had Gingrich in first, but
Cain in second and Romney in third.

And then the last one for January, the very end of January, on the
31st, that`s Florida. In Florida, the Insider Advantage poll this week has
Newt Gingrich in first, Mitt Romney in second and Cain in third place.

That`s how it stacks up through the month of January. I should also
say Public Policy Polling this week also had in Florida, Gingrich in first,
Romney in second and Cain in third.

So this is what January looks like in terms of the standings. Those
are the one, two, three for all of those important dates in order the way
it`s going to happen in January.

We`re less than five weeks from Iowa right now, which means we are
close enough to the start of the voting process that honestly you really
should not be looking at national polling right now. Just look at what`s
going to happen in these individual states, because the order matters.
This is the order in which the voting happens. And each time somebody wins
or somebody comes in a surprising second in one of these early states, that
will actually re-jigger the race for the next contest.

There will not be the same number of candidates at the end of January
that are in there at the beginning of January. This is like the civic`s
dork version of when you get to start opening the advent calendar, right?
We are down to the point of time when it`s time to just start paying
attention to state by state polls, everybody. It`s very exciting.

But now, five weeks -- I mean, is still five weeks. Five weeks until
all this starts happening. In five weeks, it should be noted it about the
length of time that the other non-Mitt Romney candidates have been allowed
to surge in the polls so far this week.

The Rick Perry surge started at the end of August. It was over by the
beginning of October. So roughly about five weeks. Similarly, the Herman
Cain surge started at the beginning of October. It was over probably a
couple weeks ago. So, again, roughly five weeks long.

Newt Gingrich`s surge started a couple of weeks ago and it`s five
weeks yet until Iowa. And so, you know, maybe Newt Gingrich will be more
durable. Maybe the more Republicans get to know Newt Gingrich between now
and Iowa on January 3rd, the more they will love him. Or maybe this will
just be a bubble like all the others.

But from this point on in the process, there`s one thing to watch and
one conclusion I think you can draw already. The thing to watch is -- as I
said -- the polling in the early primary states. You can ignore what`s
happening in the rest of the country. All that stuff will become relevant
after these early primary states but you don`t need to pay attention to
them until then.

Similarly, the serious candidates between now and January will not
spend any time campaigning anywhere except in early primary states. And
so, when you see a candidate like Newt Gingrich scheduling for this weekend
a book signing in Staten Island, as in New York City, that is a sign of a
lack of seriousness in Mr. Gingrich`s campaign even as he leads in lots of
early states right now.

But I think you can draw one conclusion at this point in the campaign
and I think the one conclusion to draw at this point in the campaign is
that barring some miraculous out of the blue surge from nowhere that no one
can see coming from someone who nobody even knows is running, more on that
later in the show tonight, barring something unexpected, everybody who said
that the Tea Party thing was changing Republican politics forever over
these last couple of years, everybody who said that was wrong.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is our moment. This is our morning in

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re going to stand up and we`re going to speak
out. It may take some renegades going rogue to get us there. It may take
folks shaking it up to get there. We`ve got to do this together.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The public is going to have to say, I am so angry
with Washington that I want a novice in office rather than someone who has

SEN. JIM DEMINT (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: This awakening of the American
people, the citizen activism, I think that`s realigning politics in America


MADDOW: Realigning politics in America today. All of the ink spilled
and all of the hot air blown over the last three years about the Tea Party
changing everything, about Republicans having reinvented themselves, about
Republicans now wanting only fresh blood and new ideas, all this idea that
because of the Tea Party this is not your father`s Republican Party
anymore? Turns out when it comes time to choose a presidential candidate -
- this is your father`s Republican Party. Exactly.


MADDOW: About a 45-second walk from where I sit right now, they have
just lit the amazing and iconic Rockefeller Center Christmas tree tonight
and that has brought tens of thousands of people who aren`t normally here,
here. At President Obama`s traffic stopping fund-raiser a few blocks away
from here, and you`ve got gridlock the likes of which New York City felt
compelled to warn people about days in advance. It`s the kind of gridlock
that even includes the sidewalks.

Well, thanks to some artistic geniuses, that uncomfortable cramming
together of pedestrians in crowds and cars has begotten the "Best New Thing
in the World Today." That`s ahead.



business out there, if you want somebody who knows how to handle pressure,
who knows how to handle billions of dollars worth of equipment, who knows
how to operate under fire, hire a veteran. We have an obligation. They
fought over here. They`ve gone through these God-awful sands and deserts
in the middle of a war. They`re in Godforsaken places out in Afghanistan.
They shouldn`t have to come home and fight for a job.


MADDOW: Vice President Joe Biden speaking to NBC`s Ann Curry today in

Mr. Biden is in Iraq for the eighth time since he has been vice
president. More than a million Americans have fought in the Iraq war in
its nine years and counting, but we`re now down to about 13,000 American
troops there as of today and they`re now leaving at a rate of 500 a day.
In just a couple of weeks, they will all have left.

And the Iraq war will not just be over, but our last American troops
there will have come home. Merry Christmas.

In recent days, we got some new information as well about what to
expect about the Afghanistan war. From a peak of about 100,000 American
troops there this summer, 10,000 are ordered home by the end of this year
and 23,000 are due to come home next year.

The U.S. Marine corps saying its combat responsibilities in
Afghanistan will end next year altogether. Of course, as two of the
longest wars in American history end in the case of Iraq, or maybe start to
end in the case of Afghanistan, nothing ends, nothing changes about our
responsibility to keep the promises our country has made to the people who
have been fighting these wars in our name.

One of those promises was made in 2003 when President George W. Bush
signed into law something called the Service Members Civil Relief Act.
Among its provisions, it told mortgage companies that if a mortgage company
wanted to foreclose on the home of a service member who was on active duty,
that mortgage company had to do some special precautions. They had to
follow some special procedures like, say, not using a default judgment to
steal somebody`s house out from under them because they didn`t show up for
a court hearing about it, because maybe it was hard to be at that court
hearing in Pittsburgh while at the same time being in a foxhole in

But as reported in the "Financial Times" this week, a watchdog at the
Treasury reported mortgage companies have basically been doing just that,
illegally foreclosing on the houses of more than 5,000 active duty members
of the U.S. military. The banks say they are looking into it.

But so far, the estimates are Bank of America may have illegally taken
the homes of 2,000 active duty U.S. soldiers, Wells Fargo nearly 900,
Citigroup, 700. And the list goes on. These are the ten largest. We
posted a list at today if you want to check it out.

JPMorgan is not included in the particular round but JPMorgan had to
pay a multimillion dollar settlement this spring when they got caught for
doing this. They illegally seized the homes of 27 active servicemen and

The reason we got this data is because of part of the Treasury, the
federal government that oversees these banks and is responsible for
enforcing this law. But now there`s the word that the crusading attorney
general of New York state, Eric Schneiderman, is also going after this
because of a powerful state law in New York that gives New York as a state
the jurisdiction to punish these banks in a case like this, too.

Joining us now is Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a veteran of the Iraq war

Paul, it`s good to see you. Thanks for being here.

you. My pleasure.

MADDOW: Obviously, this law was supposed to keep people in active
duty from having their houses seized illegally in the first place. But is
this after the fact enforcement now at least a step in the right direction?

RIECKHOFF: It is, but this is crazy. This is absolutely outrageous.

The idea you`re serving in Fallujah while your house is being
foreclosed back home is just outrageous. I mean, it`s disgusting. And it
could be as many as 5,000 people.

And what`s important to note is you also can`t take their house when
they get home. The original provision was for 90 days. And we fought hard
at IAVA in 2008 to make that now nine months.


RIECKHOFF: So, you`ve got another nine months after you come home
where you`re supposed to be protected as well.

So, if these banks did this, they broke the law, and they really put
these folks in a bad position, potentially thousands.

MADDOW: We know from the rest of the mortgage crisis that a lot of
the way the foreclosures happen with robo-signing and all the rest of it is
just fragrantly irresponsible by the lenders and essentially, this law was
designed to give veterans a little extra protection.


MADDOW: Do you feel like taking an intensely punitive action,
attitude toward this would be something that would make them take everybody
more seriously?

RIECKHOFF: They should.


RIECKHOFF: I mean, if they`re doing this to veterans, what are they
doing to other people?


RIECKHOFF: Right? That`s the big question here. And that should be
the question around unemployment, around mental health. I mean, we`re in
many ways kind of like a canary in a coal mine for our society. And if
we`re the folks that are America`s heroes and we`re getting treated like
this, I think it should force all Americans to ask hard questions.


RIECKHOFF: You know? And I think this foreclosure issue -- it runs
deeper than that, too, because folks are coming home and then they also
have to move pretty frequently. We have a veteran in Sergeant Steve (ph),
in our organization who came home from Afghanistan. His baby was born
while he was there. Got home and found out he had two months to move to

He has to sell his house, sell his car, his wife is also pregnant, and
move to Japan, right? So, that guy needs protection.


RIECKHOFF: People like that need protection. And there are thousands
of them serving in harms way and shouldn`t have to worry about the bank is
bolting their house while they`re gone.

MADDOW: Paul, you have had -- IAVA has a lot of success legislatively
since you were founded. But in particular, this year, when nobody else has
been able to get anything done in Washington, the only jobs bill that has
passed this Congress was the veterans jobs bill.

The president, today, was in Scranton and he was talking about overall
legislative strategy and he said that he thought he was finally getting to
Republicans. And his example for that was your bill, was the veterans jobs
bill. What`s your reaction to that?

RIECKHOFF: I think he`s right. I mean, it was the rare example of
everybody in Washington getting along on something other than naming a post
office, right? We had Republican chair of the veterans committee, Jeff
Miller, on stage with Patty Murray, the Senate leader from the Democrats,
on stage together. They issued a joint press release about this bill.

And we`ve been fighting for this bill going back two years, to provide
urgent tax cuts, it`s going to improve the transitional programs coming
home. It`s going to expand the G.I. bill for veterans. It`s a really
critical bill and it eventually went through unanimously, but it took a
long time. And it was a hard fight. It will be -- right now, it`s the
only jobs bill that went through. It`s the only portion of the president`s
jobs package that`s gone through and it might be one of the only things
they get done all year.

So, I think it is significant. Maybe it provides us some headway but
it also shows the power of veterans, like we`re uniting, we`re mobilizing.
We`ve got the American people behind us.

And if folks are looking in the coming years for places to cut, stay
away from the V.A.


RIECKHOFF: Stay away from our staff because we`re going to fight hard
and we`re pretty good at fighting.

MADDOW: That case that Joe Biden was just making about all the
reasons to hire veterans, also the reasons to watch how veterans get stuff
done in Washington, because you guys are good at it.

RIECKHOFF: Oh, we`re trying. And I think it`s a sign for what`s to
come out of this community, not just in Washington but in business and
community activism. There are a lot of incredible dynamic leaders that are
coming out of this community.

MADDOW: I agree. I agree. You`re one of them.

RIECKHOFF: Thank you.

MADDOW: Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America -- I have to say, you`re looking excellent.
Very trim these days, Paul.

RIECKHOFF: Thank you. It was a lot of effort to get through all the
security downstairs.

MADDOW: I understand. Paul actually lit the tree, himself. He just
went like this, bink. We`ll be right back.


MADDOW: Long you have waited for the best new thing today. Your
reward comes soon. Yes.


MADDOW: Here`s the striking thing about this little "Des Moines
Register" story today. It`s not the headline, although the Romney campaign
has been so scarce in Iowa that it`s kind of news he will be at the next
Iowa debates. But here`s the really striking thing. Seven candidates have
met the criteria for participation in the December 10th Iowa debate.

OK. So, seven -- Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Santorum and,
of course, Mitt Romney. That`s seven.

So, who didn`t make the cut? Quote, an eighth major Republican
candidate, Jon Huntsman, has not yet met the criteria for participation.
That criteria would be a 5 percent showing in a national candidate poll or
"The Des Moines Register`s" Iowa poll between October 1st and December 5th
of this year.

To be clear, Rick Santorum is meeting the criteria, barely, but he
did. Rick Santorum, he made it. But Jon Huntsman did not.

In this election in particular, the debates have been the focal point
of the campaign season. Not being allowed to participate in a debate is a
blow even to a last placed candidate.

So this terrible, horrible, no good very bad news for Jon Huntsman
today arrives amid speculation that maybe Governor Huntsman might ditch the
Republican race altogether but still run. Maybe he`d run as an
independent. Maybe he`d run as a third party guy.

Governor Huntsman has signaled in a very politiciany roundabout non-
denial denial way he`s not ruling out the possibilities. "The Boston
Globe" reporter named Glen Johnson (ph) asked Mr. Huntsman yesterday,
quote, "Is there any situation you would run for president as an
independent?" Huntsman replied, "I don`t think so."

The reporter then asked Huntsman if he would flatly deny the rumors,
to which Mr. Huntsman replied, quote, "I`m a lifelong Republican. I`m
running as a Republican and I fully anticipate that`s where we`re going to

For a politician, that does not count as a denial. I don`t know what
it is about the Republican primary process this year, but it`s sparked a
lot of third party ditch the party kind of talk recently.

On Monday, you may recall, we have presidential candidate here on the
show, former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer. Governor Roemer is a
Republican. If you didn`t know, he`s in the race. You`re not alone.

By his own estimation, he`s never risen above 2 percent in the polls
nor has he qualified to participate in any of the Republican debates. He
says that`s because he doesn`t have the money behind him other candidates

Mr. Roemer announced on this show this week, that having not been able
to make tracks in his bid to seek the Republican nomination for president,
he is setting his sights on becoming the candidate for a new kind of party
formed this year called Americans Elect.


Elect, a unity group outside the Republican Party who would go right to
independents and Republicans and liberals and conservatives who put their
country first. I plan on announcing as a candidate for that ticket.

MADDOW: Americans Elect describes themselves as a second way of
nominating a president rather than a third party. That`s because they plan
to do away with any primary voting in order to hold a political convention
online that would treat registered voters like fans of "American Idol,"
giving everyone a shot at picking a favorite candidate.

Rather than just run as the Americans Elect party, they`re welcoming
Democrats or Republicans to compete in their process, but then they`d
require the candidate to run a mixed party ticket. So, requiring the
presidential candidate to pick a running mate from the different party.

There`s more exciting third party news today -- more exciting even
than that. The former Democratic mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, the fire
brand Rocky Anderson, announced this week that he is planning to run for
president and he will make up his own party to do it. Mr. Anderson`s party
got a name today -- thanks to voters on his Facebook page. They are
calling it the Justice Party.

If you want to get a handle on Rocky Anderson`s politics, I`m here to
tell you happily it`s not easy. He`s been known as a progressive Democrat.
As the mayor of Salt Lake City, in deep red Utah, he enthusiastically the
impeachment of President George W. Bush.

But then, again, the last time we had Mr. Anderson on the show back in
the night he was here to sing the prizes of none other than conservative
Republican Utah Governor Jon Huntsman.


is so down to earth. I can tell you, it`s not a show. This isn`t a guy
who likes to look folksy while he`s campaigning and doesn`t really live his
life that way. He lives his life like that every day. And people who know
him, who know his wife have tremendous regard for them, whether in their
personal lives or their politics.


MADDOW: And now, Rocky Anderson himself is throwing his own Justice
Party hat into the presidential race. Perhaps he and Governor Huntsman
could make some beautiful music there together.

Joining us now for the interview is Rocky Anderson, the former mayor
of Salt Lake City.

Mr. Anderson, thank you so much for being with us tonight. It`s
really nice to have you here.

ANDERSON: Great to be with you, Rachel.

MADDOW: So, why form a new party and why run for president as soon as
you form it?

ANDERSON: Because the American people want this option. They need a

What we have seen from the Democratic and Republican parties, where
they have brought this country, is absolutely tragic.

And the polls show that there is a huge desire, a vast majority of
people in this country that want a different choice and we stand for
something so entirely different than what the Republicans and the Democrats
have brought this country.

MADDOW: What`s the most salient difference between the Justice Party
and the Democrats and Republicans?

ANDERSON: Well, for one thing, we will do everything we can, even if
it means a constitutional amendment to get the corrupting influence of
corporate and other concentrated wealth out of politics because Congress
and the White House have been conducting themselves as if they are on
retainer with Wall Street. We are in a new Gilded Age in this country with
the greatest disparity of wealth since the 1920s. And people are
suffering, the lack of a decent jobs program.

This party, the Justice Party, will fight for the people. We`ll stand
for leadership in the area of climate change. We know that regardless of
whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power, we will not see the
necessary international leadership that`s required if we are ever going to
get a handle on this problem.

And then, of course, there is the question of whether we are going to
be a country that continues going around the world kidnapping and
disappearing people, not requiring accountability for war criminals. We
have a two-tier system of justice, just as we have now a two-tier economy,
where there are those very few rich, powerful people who get all of the
favors, including immunity from the law, and everybody else who are
suffering financially now are bound by the law, and sometimes, in very
vicious ways.

We`ve got a young man here from Utah, he is serving 55 years on three
counts of selling marijuana. And after the fact, after the three sells,
the informant said, oh, yes, he had gun in each of these sells. Minimum
mandatory sentence, the judge didn`t want to impose it.

This is a kind of skewed justice we have when felons that engage in
illegal surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, we
know that there were numerous felonies committed by them. In the Bush
administration, not one prosecution of any of these people and then the
telecom companies who colluded with the Bush administration violated the
law. And there was some telecom companies like Qwest, who refused to do
it. They knew it was against the law.

Those who violated the law hired their lobbyist, spent $12 million and
three months on their lobbyist, and they get Congress, including then-
Senator Obama to vote for retroactive immunity for these people. By the
way, Senator Obama promised before he got the Democratic nomination for
president that he would join in a filibuster against that immunity.

So, this two-tiered system of justice that we have in this country,
where the courts are taken out of the equation as checks on abuses of
executive power, we are seeing the undermining of the very core of our
republic and it has got to change. And I think the American people want to
see those changes.

They want an end to wars of aggression. They want an end to the human
rights abuses. They want an end to this enormous disparity economically in
this country, and they want to see jobs. There`s so much better -- so much
more that we can do for the American people and that`s exactly what the
Justice Department -- excuse me, the Justice Party will fight for and
that`s what we are going to be campaigning on, Rachel.

MADDOW: Rocky Anderson, the former mayor of Salt Lake City, founder
of the Justice Party and its declared presidential candidate -- sir, I hope
we can stay in touch with you as this journey is just starting really
today. We`d love to be in touch with you as this goes on in terms of what
support you get. Thank you.

ANDERSON: Look forward to it, Rachel. Thank you.

MADDOW: All right. "The Best New Thing in the World Today" that you
have been waiting for since seventh grade English class, you`ve waited this
long. Wait another two minutes. I promise. I swear to God (ph).


MADDOW: Today in New York, a perfect storm of gridlock. Let me count
the ways. The president`s -- the president`s here to do some campaign
events, it`s matinee day. It`s also the night they light the 30 Rock tree
to jumpstart Christmas. Then there`s the rumor that Justin Bieber`s in
town, adding to the crush. There are lots of signs warning drivers of
gridlock all around New York.

Tonight`s best new thing combines both art and traffic in one neat
package. It is a campaign to make pedestrians think before crossing
streets. Some artful road signs with messages in haiku, for example, this.

Oncoming cars rush, each a three-ton bullet and you, flesh and bone.

Or this one: Too averse to risk, to chance the lottery, yet steps into

Or this one: a sudden car door, cyclist`s story rewritten, fractured

Poet John Morse is the guy who thought these signs up, some are in
Spanish. Haiku signs are now installed at busy corners all around New

If I sound funny, it`s because I`m trying to count my syllables. You
know, a story about haiku done in the same poetic form.

How am I doing? I will not do this again. I have hurt my brain.

I think I prefer iambic pentameter, more like normal speech. Road
sign haiku, art in the big, mean old city, best new thing in the -- it`s
really hard.

Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD" with Lawrence O`Donnell. Please
print this out. You`ll enjoy it more that way. Have a great night.


Copyright 2011 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.>