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

'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Tuesday, November 27th, 2012

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

November 27, 2012

Guest: Charlie Crist

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Thanks to you at home for staying with us for
this hour.

Today in Washington, the acting director of the Central Intelligence
Agency met for more than an hour with Senators John McCain and Lindsey
Graham and Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire, along with the U.N. Ambassador
Susan Rice.

The three Republican senators emerged from the meeting saying that
they were honored by the fact that the CIA director would meet with them,
just three random senators and not in some official capacity testifying
before committee on the Hill. They said they really appreciated the fact
that the administration and the intelligence community was going to such
lengths to assuage their concerns to directly, personally answer their
questions about the Libya attack in a closed-door meeting with the CIA
director himself, even though these are just three random senators who are
not even the chairmen of anything.

The senators said their questions were answered as best that could
reasonably be expected and that they were willing to consider on its merits
the president`s nominee for secretary of state, or any other cabinet
position. They were willing to hear out those nominations fairly and
without prejudice.

Yes, right. Of course, that`s not the way it went. Here`s actually
what happened after that meeting today.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: We`re not going to consider
this nomination until we get answers to our concerns. All I can say is
that the concerns I have are greater today than they were before and we`re
not even close to getting the basic answers.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We`re significantly troubled by many
of the answers that we got and some that we didn`t get.

SEN. KELLY AYOTTE (R), NEW HAMPSHIRE: I want to say that I`m more
troubled today knowing, having met with the acting director of the CIA and
Ambassador Rice.

REPORTER: Can you support her as secretary of state?

AYOTTE: I have many more questions that need to be answered before I
can answer that.


MADDOW: You just met for more than an hour with the director of
central intelligence and with the person about whose comments on a Sunday
show you say you have so many questions about. And after a personal more
than an hour-long, closed-door meeting just for you, who you run nothing,
right? But just for you, just to answer your personal questions -- one-on-
one, face to face with those two officials -- all you can say, I have so
many questions.

Isn`t it starting to seem no matter what answers these guys are given,
no matter what access to what information and what officials, they are
still just going to keep saying they still have more questions?

Here`s one possibility about what maybe is really going on here. Back
in 2004, a guy named Mitt Romney was the governor of the state of
Massachusetts. If you don`t remember who that is, he was a private equity
guy from Massachusetts. He ran the Olympics one year.

Anyway, back in 2004, he was in the middle of his one and only term as
Massachusetts governor. That same year, the Democratic Party`s nominee for
president was a senator from the same state, John Kerry of Massachusetts.
If John Kerry had won the presidential election that year, his Senate seat
would have become open. So, the governor of Massachusetts, the Republican,
Mitt Romney, would have been able to appoint somebody to fill John Kerry`s
Senate seat.

The Massachusetts legislature totally dominated by Democrats was
cognizant that the Republican governor would probably pick a Republican to
fill the seat if Kerry got elected president. And so the Massachusetts
state legislature decided to change the law. They changed the law so that
only a special election could fill a vacant seat. Until then that special
election happened, the seat would just have to be empty.

Mitt Romney tried to veto that new law. But the legislature overrode
his veto, thereby stripping Governor Romney of his power to choose a
replacement for Senator John Kerry. Of course, that all ended up being a
moot point because John Kerry didn`t win that presidential election that
year and so he stayed on as senator.

But then fast forward five years. It`s 2009. New, President Barack
Obama, the country embroiled in a big debate over national health reform.

Those against who were against it were against it to the point of
rage. And those who wanted it were excited to be on the cusp of achieving
something they had failed to achieve for decades. At the time, the
Democrat has a 60-seat majority in the United States Senate, 60 seats is a
filibuster-proof super majority. That is enough to pass health reform.

And that 60-seat supermajority for the Democrats included
Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.

Senator Kennedy spent his career trying to pass health reform. It was
his life`s work. He had done it at the state level with that guy, Mitt
Romney. He had worked on it and led on the issue nationally for decades.
It was his signature issue.

But before he was able to see health reform finally signed into law,
Senator Ted Kennedy lost his life to brain cancer. Senator Kennedy died in
August of 2009.

And when Ted Kennedy died, that meant that his seat did become empty
in Massachusetts and the Democrats no longer had their 60-vote, filibuster-
proof super majority which frankly they really needed to pass health care.
They were short one vote.

And knowing this might happen -- and this is really dramatic --
knowing that this might happen, that might turn out this way, before he
died, Senator Ted Kennedy took a dramatic step, to plan for the future of
the health reform law he had worked for his whole life. This health reform
law that his death might make impossible to pass, thinking about the affect
that his death might have on the prospect of passing health reform, Senator
Kennedy wrote a letter before he died urging that the governor of
Massachusetts, by that time was a Democrat, urging that the governor of
Massachusetts be allowed to fill an empty Senate seat if one were to open

And with Mitt Romney gone, the Massachusetts state legislature agreed.
And so they changed the rules again. So the new Democratic governor, this
man, Deval Patrick, could fill Ted Kennedy`s seat with an interim
officeholder until a special election could be held, thereby restoring with
this interim officeholder the Democrat`s 60-vote margin.

And so, at the last minute, with that assist from the recently-
departed champion of health reform, Ted Kennedy, the Democrats filled his
seat with an interim senator and they squeaked the health reform bill
through with zero Republican votes and President Obama signed it into law
and now everybody calls it Obamacare. Even the Democrats call it Obamacare
and they mean that in a good way.

But then in the meantime, there was the small matter of the special
election to elect somebody to take over the full remaining portion of
Senator Kennedy`s term. It was a strange election to permanently fill Ted
Kennedy`s Senate seat. There was one race on the ballot in that election.
The turnout in Massachusetts was very low.

It took place amid-a right wing backlash to the Democrats passing
health reform with zero Republican votes. Tea Party money and Republican
money from all over the country poured into the state of Massachusetts and
this unknown guy who happened to be a Republican won that special election
in January 2010.

I mean, the next time Massachusetts got a chance to reconsider that
vote for Scott Brown was two and a half years later, and in that election,
which is this past one that just happened, Massachusetts frankly reverted
to form and picked the Democrat. They picked Elizabeth Warren to oust
Scott Brown from that Senate seat that he held for less than a term.

But, actually, the Elizabeth Warren/Scott Brown race was pretty close
by Massachusetts standards. The margin in the Senate race, this election,
had the Democrat winning by eight points, which sounds like a lot in a
normal state that would be a lot.

But in the presidential race, on that same night in Massachusetts, the
Democrat won the presidential race by a heck of a lot more than eight
points. The Democrat won the presidential race by 23 points. And that is
a fairly normal margin by which Democrats beat Republicans in the state of

So given that, Scott Brown losing by only eight, that can be
considered kind of a victory. It`s at least pretty close.

And after that loss, that Scott Brown loss, and than credibly-
expensive and incredibly hard-fought race, immediately thereafter,
Republicans wanted to talk about how to get Scott Brown back to Washington.

And now, today, to them it seems so close they can taste it, because
although John Kerry is still a senator from Massachusetts, after his very
high-profile role in the Obama campaign and a very high profile speaking
gig at the Democratic National Convention, where he brought the House down,
after that, John Kerry`s name was instantly put forward as one possibility,
a leading possibility to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

That, of course, would result in him leaving his Senate seat after
all, which would mean there would be a temporary replacement appointed and
then there would have to be another special election to fill out the rest
of his term, in which Scott Brown would be the Republican nominee again,
which would be the best chance again that Massachusetts could ever have --
putting a Republican in the Senate any time soon.

Which is why Republicans got so excited when John Kerry`s name was
floated as a potential next secretary of state. His name was floated,
along with one other name for that job. Remember who the other name was?

Republican senators were very, very quick to point out that they
really prefer John Kerry to be the nominee for secretary of state over this
Susan Rice person -- a ringing endorsement for John Kerry from Republicans
in Washington, because, of course, if John Kerry becomes secretary of state
there`s going to be a special election for a Senate seat and a certain
former senator could potentially run in that special election, and there
would be this chance that Scott Brown could be back in Washington.

So, the Republicans say emphatically and repeatedly and to any
reporter who will listen, we prefer John Kerry over Susan Rice for this job
please. And if John Kerry doesn`t get secretary of state and he`s maybe
going to get secretary of defense instead, I say woe be unto any feasible
rival for that gig -- somebody who might get that cabinet position ahead of
him too, since that too would stop his Senate seat from opening up, which
Republicans would please like to happen.

And you know what? Maybe this is nuts. Maybe this is nuts. Maybe
this is why to simplistic.

But maybe this makes more sense than the contention we`re supposed to
believe, which is that two active investigations, multiple hours-long
classified briefings, a statement from the president, a statement from the
U.N. ambassador, a closed-door, one-on-one meeting with that ambassador and
a personal one-on-one/ask-me-anything with the director of the CIA have not
given John McCain enough opportunity to ask whatever questions he wants to
ask about remarks made on a Sunday morning talk show two and a half months
ago. Maybe this makes more sense than that.

Joining us is somebody who is more much levelheaded on these matters
than I am, Andrea Mitchell, NBC`s chief foreign affairs correspondent and

Andrea, thank you so much for being here tonight.

my pleasure. I love your theories. It makes as much sense as anything
that`s happening right now in Washington about this potential nomination.

MADDOW: Well, I wanted you to be here in part because I knew you
would debunk my theory, right? Which is very obviously and admittedly born
of frustration.

Could any of this just be the manifestation of these Republican
senators wanting John Kerry in that seat instead of somebody else?

MITCHELL: I`m not sure, but it`s -- we`ve all been scratching our
heads over theories because there really is a reason to investigate
Benghazi and that`s to investigate why after five attacks -- not just
intelligence warnings, but attacks -- why the consulate wasn`t closed, why
security wasn`t beefed up?

That`s why a high-powered group ordered by Hillary Clinton under law
is investigating for the State Department. It`s led by Admiral Mike
Mullen, the former chairman of the joint chiefs and former Ambassador Tom
Pickering, a former deputy secretary of state, a former U.N. ambassador --
men of the highest caliber. They have a panel group.

They are going to report very soon, report to Hillary Clinton. She
has said she will not leave office before she personally presented it to
Congress, which she is mandated to do.

So, this is going to be an uncomfortable exit, arguably, for Secretary
Clinton because she`s going to have to answer as to why the State
Department did not improve security. That is what presumably these
senators would be investigating.

So, Jay Carney and others in the White House are trying to scratch
their heads and say, why what was said on Sunday morning television which
is not under oath and it is not right out of the old or new testaments, why
that has become writ so large and why we`re going through this with someone
who has not yet been nominated? That`s all rather curious.

MADDOW: And you -- you are -- this is why I wanted to talk to you
about it, because this is the thing that`s so frustrating, that there are
real things to talk about here. And the -- why this attack was able to go
so far that it actually killed the U.S. ambassador? Why there wasn`t
better security? All that stuff seems reasonable and is being investigated
through the channels you think it would be investigated in.

In terms of Susan Rice`s predicament here, is she essentially just
being caught up in a proxy war? I mean, her role in this, she had nothing
to do obviously with the security matter, here. The picking on what
happened on the Sunday show -- is it a proxy for something else?

MITCHELL: I asked that very question today of someone who has
understood these things, Nick Burns, far better than I, former ambassador,
former top official both at the NSC and State Department. And he said he
thinks it`s a proxy war. Maybe there`s a personal issue between one or
another of the senators and Susan Rice. She did work for John Kerry in the
`04 campaign. She worked for Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign.

She was in the Clinton administration as an assistant secretary for
Africa. Her policies in Africa and Sudan, in particular, were
controversial. There were other issues she`s been involved in, but she`s
got a very big job at the U.N. There are meetings on Thursday and a
General Assembly vote has been scheduled on Palestinian statehood, a
symbolic vote, but a vote that has really gripped the attention post-Gaza
of all of the Middle East and the Middle East experts.

And presumably, the U.N. ambassador ought to be someone well regarded
around the world and is and now she`s fighting for her future life in this
very partisan atmosphere in Washington. It is very puzzling.

The White House is sticking by her for now. She`s not yet been
nominated. Harry Reid put out a statement today saying that they believe
the -- he believes that the committees that are in charge, foreign
relations committee chaired by John Kerry should be in charge of this and
not members from other committees like homeland security and intelligence
and armed services who are getting involved in this.

But as you pointed out, none of the Republican senators asking
questions chair anything. And it`s becoming very personal and very
puzzling indeed.

MADDOW: One last sort of puzzling element of this to me, Andrea. I
just want your perspective on this because you`ve covered these matters for
so long and you understand the context here. That it seems sort of
remarkable to me that you would have the acting director of the CIA
personally accompanying Susan Rice to that meeting today.

And again, this is not formal testimony before Congress. This was no
-- there was no committee of Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham and John McCain.
They don`t run anything there.

Is it unusual or remarkable to have the leader of the CIA personally
involved like this?

MITCHELL: It was remarkable to me. And it seemed as though -- I
described her on "Nightly News" as her wing man. It seems as though he was
there to take the blame, to protect her, to defend her, to take some of the

And it did seem for an acting director of the CIA to be put in that
position rather extraordinary. He himself is under consideration to become
the permanent CIA director.

There is, of course, a lot of cabinet shuffling that may take place.
Interesting that people are talking about defense secretary as though the
job were open. Leon Panetta has not said when he wants leave and he might
want to stay longer by some reports.

And John Kerry has not said that he`d be interested in that job. Some
people have said that he would take it, but others even closer to him say
that that is not the case. And no job has been offered.

So, this is -- let`s just put it awkward because if she is nominated
and they do fight this through, who is going to chair that committee? And
that hearing is the gentlemen from Massachusetts, the senior senator, John

MADDOW: It`s not quite Kremlinology because it`s America, but it`s
getting closer. It`s fascinating stuff.

Andrea Mitchell, NBC`s chief foreign affairs correspondent -- Andrea,
thank you so much. It`s really great to have you here.

MITCHELL: You bet.

MADDOW: Thank you.

All right. Elsewhere in Republican land, John Boehner was polishing
his tough guy act today. What everybody else calls threatening all
Americans and people around the world with imminent economic disaster, he`s
now calling leverage. That moment in heroism is next.



reasonable, responsible person here in Washington. The president knows
this. He knows that he and I can work together. Now, the election is
over. Now it`s time to get to work.


MADDOW: That was Republican House Speaker John Boehner or as he
prefers to be known as it says in the Celtic script in his full back too,
Mr. Responsible. That was two days after I don`t know about the tattoo
thing. I made that up.

That was two days after President Obama won reelection. "The
president knows I`m the most reasonable and responsible guy in Washington."

And you know, in some ways, John Boehner has proven himself to be
pretty reasonable over the years. In June 2002, during George W. Bush`s
first term in office, congressional Republicans were faced with the issue
of raising the nation`s debt ceiling. That`s the limit for how much the
country can borrow to pay for things.

And no politician ever likes to raise the debt ceiling. Nobody likes
to think the country has to borrow money, but we do. And so, in June of
2002, when that debt ceiling vote came up, that inevitably does, John
Boehner voted yes. Let`s do the responsible thing. Let`s raise the debt
ceiling. It`s the responsible thing to do.

Two years later, November 2004, John Boehner voted to do it again. He
voted again under President Bush to raise the debt ceiling.

April 2005, at the start of George W. Bush`s second term, John Boehner
votes in favor of raising the debt ceiling. No matter how philosophically
opposed you might be to borrowing money, however, distasteful it is to you,
ideologically, everybody realizes that as long as we are borrowing money,
not raising the debt ceiling, defaulting on our debt, would be a very
irresponsible thing to do. It would be a disaster for the country.
Everybody realizes that.

Mr. Responsible himself, John Boehner, realizes that. He says so.


CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Do you agree with administration officials
and other economists that defaulting on the faith and credit of the United
States would be a financial disaster?

BOEHNER: That would be a financial disaster not only for our country,
but the worldwide economy.

WALLACE: So defaulting on the full faith and credit is unacceptable
to you?

BOEHNER: I don`t think -- yes, I don`t think it`s a question that`s
even on the table.


MADDOW: Failing to raise the debt ceiling is not even on the table.

That`s what John Boehner said last January. And yet just a few months
later, with that voting record and with that stated understanding of how
bad it would be for this country to not raise the debt ceiling, there was
John Boehner, leader of the congressional Republicans, threatening to not
raise the debt ceiling, threatening default -- after decades of voting to
raise the debt ceiling, no questions asked under President Bush and under
previous presidents, under President Obama the Republicans decided they
were not going to do it anymore.

Right around this time last year, Republicans threatened to let the
country go into default unless President Obama met their demands. They
explicitly recognized that it would cause harm to the country if we failed
to raise the debt ceiling, but then they said they were happy to do that.
They were willing to incur that harm, to inflict that harm on the country,
in order to get other stuff that they wanted.

And in the end, those threats from Republicans did hurt the country.
For the first time in our history, the United States, because of that
brinksmanship, lost our perfect AAA credit rating. The ratings agency
Standard & Poor`s downgraded the U.S. credit rating -- meaning that we
would have to pay more interest on money we wanted to borrow.

This was something that had never happened before in American history.
This was not a natural occurrence. This was a choice that one side made to
cause that problem after they decided for decades under other president
that that problem should be avoided.

Here`s how S&P explained their decision to downgrade when they made
it. They said, quote, "The political brinksmanship of recent months
highlights what we see as America`s governance and policymaking becoming
less stable, less effective and less predictable than what we previously
believe. That statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become
political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy."

Republicans decided in 2011 that they were going to use the full faith
and credit of the United States of America as leverage for getting stuff
they wanted. And it had concretely negative, unprecedented consequences
for us as a country.

And now, apparently, this year, the lesson they have decided to take
from that experience is we should do that again. It`s amazing to me.

This is from today, quote, "President Barack Obama made a
demand of House Speaker John Boehner near the end of their first White
House meeting on the fiscal cliff earlier this month: Raise the debt limit
before year`s end.

Boehner`s response: there was a price for everything."

A year after congressional Republicans forced the downgrade of the
U.S. credit rating, they are apparently gearing up to do it all over again.
Speaker Boehner told Obama at the White House that the debt ceiling is,
quote, "my leverage."

Despite having direct experience of how this plays out, despite using
the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip last year and knowing what that did
to the country, now, John Boehner says he sees doing it again this year as
his leverage. >


BOEHNER: I`m the most reasonable, responsible person here in
Washington. The president knows this is.


MADDOW: And I will destroy the American economy single-handedly
unless you give me something that I want. But I haven`t decided what it`s
going to be. I will tank this nation`s economy. I will lower the nation`s
credit rating again. Thus, wiping away tens of billions of dollars of
American wealth by my own decision unless you give me what I want, because
I`m the most reasonable man in Washington.

We can have disagreements on matters of policy. We can disagree on
the ideological tales we tell each other about how to get to the best
outcomes for the country. We can even disagree about basic values about
exactly what kind of country we ought to be.

But the thing you can generally assume about everybody who is in
public service is that they are public servants, right? They want the
country to be better off.

No matter how you want to get there. Whether or not some people think
you`re wrong or whether or not some people even think you`re dumb or
misinformed, there`s a general assumption that if you`re involved in
American politics, that at least means that what you want is a good future
for America.

You`re out to help America, not hurt America. You want America to be
stronger and better and healthier. Hurting the country on purpose when you
know that`s what you`re doing violates the most basic thing that we think
we can assume about why people go into public service, why anybody would go
into public service. I think it means that what you`re doing can`t even be
called public service.

None of the Republicans are making these threats again. Incredulous
Democrats are already starting to talk about maybe there are ways that
President Obama could just raise the debt ceiling unilaterally? If
Republicans really are going to do this again, could President Obama come
up with some way to do this on his own just through the executive branch?

It is hard to believe that the president would try that, but it is not
more hard to believe than the fact that he may ultimately be forced to try
it because the Republicans are holding the economy at gunpoint and seem
perfectly willing to pull the trigger. I do not know how this is going to
end this time, after what happened last night. But wow.

Stay tuned.


MADDOW: Hey, here`s a little clip and save moment for you from
today`s news. The one thing that Republicans control in Washington is the
House of Representatives, right? They have a majority there.

And today, the Republicans decided who they are putting in charge of
all their committees in the House.

So, this guy will head the Agriculture Committee. It`s this guy for
Appropriations. It is this guy for Armed Services. It will be this
familiar fellow for Budget.

The Republicans have picked and announced who is going to run all
their committees in the House. In other words, they have put in charge
everyone they have the power to put in charge of everything they are in
charge of.

And here they are. Do you know anything about their selections?
Here. Here is the whole group of who the Republicans picked to run their
committees. They picked these 19 guys. Notice anything?

So, yes, this is what you can clip and save for the next time someone
in the Beltway tells you how seriously the Republican Party is taking their
diversity problem this year.

Clip and save, fellas.


MADDOW: Republican Charlie Crist ran for governor of Florida the
usual way. For example, by eating possum at the local eating possum
festival. By shaking a lot of hands.

Charlie Crist knew Florida and he knew Florida politics right down to
the last rescued loggerhead sea turtle. Charlie Crist was a moderate
Republican and a proud member of the reality-based community as a

And as Florida governors go, Governor Crist was exceedingly popular.
He carried approval ratings of over 50 percent. And also 70 percent within
his own Republican Party.

But then something happened to Florida Governor Charlie Crist,
specifically something happened to his career. In February of 2009, in the
worst of the economic crisis, with the nation shedding hundreds of
thousands of jobs, Governor Charlie Crist hugged, physically hugged the
newly inaugurated Democratic president. He hugged President Obama at an
event in Fort Myers and he said that President Obama`s economic stimulus
plan was going to be good for Florida and good for the country.

A few months after he hugged President Obama, Mr. Crist announced that
instead of running again for governor, he was going to make a bid for the
United States Senate. At the time, the idea was to keep a Republican in
that Senate seat. A Senate seat that was opening up where the Republican
incumbent wasn`t going to run again.

Charlie Crist was popular, so he presumably could do that. He could
hold that seat for the party. He jumped into the Republican primary only
to find he was running there against Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, who
was an anti-stimulus Tea Party candidate.

Mario Rubio and his supporters just wailed away on Charlie Crist for
the hugging and for the stimulus. And it worked. Mr. Crist dropped out
rather than get walloped. He stayed in the race as an independent, but
then, in the general election, he got walloped by Mr. Rubio and Mr. Rubio
went to take that Senate seat.

And that was how popular Florida Governor Charlie Crist got
effectively purged from the Republican Party. This was how his demise was
explained, right? "The hug that doomed Crist`s Senate bid."

Charlie Crist, you embraced the Democrat. Get out of the party. You
are done.

That`s how the story has been told. But maybe there`s something else
about Charlie Crist and what happened to him that is important to his
legacy but has mostly been forgotten.

Now that former Governor Crist is back around. Now, that he`s no
longer just that guy who got run out of the Republican Party, now that
Charlie Crist is also the leading independent speaking on behalf of
President Obama at the Democratic Convention, now that Charlie Crist is
being mentioned as a top contender if not the contender to replace the
deeply-unpopular new Republican governor of Florida, Rick Scott, to get his
old job back, maybe as an independent. Maybe even as a Democrat.

Now that all that is going on in Charlie Crist`s afterlife, I guess,
another story is percolating in the Florida press to which attention should
be paid. This year, for this election, Florida Republicans cut the days
for early voting almost by half, right? You have seen these pictures in
our coverage of what happened in this election.

When the lines stretched from dawn until dawn, Florida Democrats and
the League of Women voters, they asked Governor Rick Scott to explain the
time for early voting by one day. Governor Rick Scott said, no, let the
people stand in line.

Florida had seen this kind of problem before. Back in 2008 when Crist
was governor, Governor Crist extended early voting. He saw those long
lines of Florida voters then and he extended early voting. It was with a
boost from early voting that Barack Obama won Florida and ultimately won
the White House.

The common wisdom is that Charlie Crist got purged out of the
Republican Party for the crime of hugging President Obama and supporting
the stimulus as good for Florida, right? But maybe the story goes further
back than that.

Just before the election, MSNBC`s Joy Reid reported this to us from
south Florida, just before the election.


JOY REID, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Actually, you talked about Charlie
Crist, Rachel, earlier and the fact that he did sign that executive order
extending voting hours. That was the beginning of the end of Charlie
Crist`s tenure in the Republican Party. It was the beginning of the
rupture with his party, because Republicans in the state blamed Crist for
Barack Obama winning the state.


MADDOW: In that other less-told, maybe scarcely-remembered version of
the story, Republicans told themselves that maybe it was Charlie Crist who
cost them their party the state of Florida in 2008 when he allowed that
early voting. Maybe that was traitorous to the party.

Well, this year as the state`s debacle by design, debacle on purpose
election unfolded with those five, six, seven, eight-hour lines, a former
chair of the Florida Republican Party has been telling reporters that
Republicans cut early voting for had election not out of concerns about
voter fraud, like they said, but rather that are the hidden purpose of
suppressing Democratic voters so Democrats couldn`t win the election.

When the former party chairman says that, Florida Republicans now
respond, well, don`t listen to that guy. He`s not a reliable source. He`s
under indictment for stealing money from the party, and so he is.

But now the story is getting more interesting, because now, more
sources are coming forward. Another source, an anonymous consultant
telling "The Palm Beach Post" that Florida Republicans specifically wanted
to cut down on turnout by African-American voters. That`s an anonymous
source, so fair warning, grain of salt, et cetera.

But hey, wait, here`s another name that`s one you`ll recognize.
Former Florida Republican Governor Charlie Crist telling "The Palm Beach
Post" that the Republican Party asked him when he was governor to reduce
early voting so they could cut the Democratic turnout. Quoting "The Palm
Beach Post", Crist said in a telephone interview this month that he did not
recall conversations about early voting specifically targeting black
voters, but he said, "It looked to me like that`s what was being suggested
and I didn`t want them to go there at all."

Wow. With all the caveats about Charlie Crist being in the Republican
dog house, and maybe running as an independent or a Democrat and so on and
so on -- but wow, right? I mean, at this point with what just happened in
Florida, Charlie Crist is a man with a story to tell.

Charlie Crist is maybe more than any other in Florida who has a story
we should all be listening. And Charlie Crist joins us for the interview,



choose a path for our nation. Down one road is extremism where Roe versus
Wade is overturned and being moderate is curse. That`s the road Sarah
Palin, the Tea Party, and Marco Rubio want to take us down. It`s a
dangerous road.

And the polls say I`m the only one who can stop them. So, if you`re
sick of the extremism and the gridlock, then join our fight for common

I`m Charlie Crist and I approve this message. Don`t forget to find me
online nine on your ballots.


MADDOW: Charlie Crist urging Florida voters to avoid the road of
extremis and gridlock during his 2010 run for Senate. But notably having
to close with a reminder that he`s going to be nine spots down on the
ballot, because he was running as an independent. That race did not go his

But nobody thinks that Charlie Crist`s role in politics is over,
especially not now. Joining us now for "The Interview" tonight is the
former Republican governor of Florida Charlie Crist, who is now an

Governor, thank you very much for being here. It`s really nice to
have you here.

CRIST: Good to be with you, Rachel. Thank you.

MADDOW: Republicans have not stopped the process of purging
moderation from their ranks. Not even after their results from this last
election. In the couple years since you fell victim to that process in
your former party, how do you think it has affected them?

CRIST: Badly. I think that, you know, the notion of continuing to
put forward people that are more extreme rather than moderate and to
continue to push out people that want to talk about common sense solutions
to problems that affects people`s lives every single day is not a recipe
for success, it`s a recipe for disaster. And if they continue on that
path, that`s what we`re going to continue to see -- less and less gains in

And it`s unfortunate for the Republican Party, but if that`s the path
they decide to go down, that is the fate that they will enjoy.

MADDOW: Is this one of the things where you see it happening in both
parties? You think there`s a mirror image where it`s happening on both
sides or is this sort of unique to the Republican Party right now that they
are going through a process that the rest of American politics is not going

CRIST: Well, it seems that way to me, Rachel. I don`t see the
Democrats doing this sort of purging, if you will. Do you see the
Republicans doing it?

And I`m not really sure why. I don`t know what has stimulated it. I
suspect that part of it began with the economic downturn. People get
frustrated, they get depressed, unhappy. And ones to blame are not going
to be them. It`s going to be some other entity or individual and it`s got
to be -- someone`s got to be held accountable.

Whether in fact the person held accountable really is the one who
deserves it is almost meaningless, it doesn`t matter. But that`s what`s
happening. And you know, reasonable people like Richard Lugar and others
that did not survive a primary challenge, which would have happened to me
if I would have stayed in the primary with Senator Rubio, and I wish him
the best, you know? I want him to do well because I want my state to do

But I`m sorry about the fact that it seems that the Republican Party,
or at least some in the Republican Party. I mean, my mom and dad are still
Republicans. They are good people. They have common sense. I love them
to death.

But the leadership in the party, at least so far, seems bent on
continuing down this path. And that`s unfortunate for our country.

MADDOW: Let me ask you about a policy matter that we have been
reporting on, because of this election season. But also more broadly, "The
Palm Beach Post" said a couple of days ago that during your term as
governor, Republican Party leaders approached you as governor, talking to
you about changing early voting in order to suppress Democratic voter

How do those conversations go? And when Republicans -- you were a
Republican at the time -- were having those conversations. Was the
conversation explicitly about doing that for partisan gain?

CRIST: Well, there were explicit indications that that was occurring.
And I think they knew better than to confront me directly with it because I
think it was pretty well known how I felt about trying to be more fair,
more open, more inclusive and making sure that we had a government, a state
government here in Florida that would continue to reach out and work with
Democrats across the aisle at the time and work with all people.

And so, usually, they would go to somebody in my administration and
say, you know, can you run this by the governor and see what he thinks?
And, you know, whenever somebody would come to me with that kind of
proposal, I`d say, well, tell him not to waste their time, it would get
vetoed if they try it. And I just think it`s wrong.

And it`s why I ended up signing the executive record order, Rachel, to
expand the early voting hours back this 2008. And it really did displease
a lot of Republican.

Bu, you know, when you`re elected governor of your state, you`re not
elected governor of the Republicans or Democrats, you`re elected governor
of the people, and you have a duty and obligation -- at least that`s what I
felt -- to look out for all of the people. And you`re not supposed to be
partisan when carrying out something as precious as the right to vote,
something that people have fought and died for in our country, and I just
felt partisanship involved in democracy at that level was absolutely wrong.

MADDOW: I feel like because of your position and where you were
governor and because of how recently it was, I feel you`re in this unique
position to shed light for us about what`s in between these two parallel
tracks we`ve got. What -- it seems what`s going on with these restrictions
on the ability to vote, putting all these new hurdles in between people and
their ability to cast a vote, whether it`s shortening early voting, or
whether it`s requiring documentation they never had to show before in order
to vote, all of these different things, restricting voter registration, it
seems clear that it`s being done for partisan purpose.

But then when you listen to Republicans talk about it, they always
say, oh, no, it`s not partisan at all, it`s only about voter fraud.
There`s this big problem with voter fraud and it is about voter integrity.

Is it clear to you that that is just bunk? That that is just a story
that`s being told to cover up why they`re really doing it?

CRIST: It`s crystal clear to me. You couldn`t be more right in my
humble opinion and you know, certainly, we can say this about all these
roadblocks that are put in the way of people exercising their right to vote
and we saw it in dramatic fashion this last election day in Florida, in my
home state. How do you think that makes me and my fellow Floridians feel
when, you know, MSNBC is able to call all these other states and the one
that`s outstanding and lingering for so long is the Sunshine State.

There`s a lot of good people here in Florida and it`s very
discouraging to see that kind of black eye put on us when it`s not
necessary at all. And the fact there`s some massive fraud as the excuse or
the red herring to do that is laughable. I mean, the obvious reason -- why
else would you take 14 days of early voting and, you know, condense it down
to eight days and make that more difficult or make it even harder for
people to do absentee balloting here in Florida?

You know, certainly, it`s not voter encouragement. To say the least,
it is voter discouragement. And I think absolutely the wrong thing to do
is as I said earlier, make this precious right more difficult to exercise
than easier.

This ought to be something that we push as hard as we can to make sure
that every Floridian, every American has the opportunity to vote their will
and to exercise their right to elect their leaders in the most convenient
way possible and people who stand in the way of doing that should be held
accountable for having done so.

It is absolutely unprincipled. It is wrong and it shouldn`t happen.
And here`s the irony. Floridians took care of business. On Election Day,
they took care of business and they stood in line even after the
presidential election had been called nationally, Floridians stayed in
those lines because they wanted to cast that ballot.

They were told in essence, this is what you cannot do. When you tell
people that, they`re like, really? Who are you to tell me what to do?

And so, they were determined. They became infuriated and they
absolutely made up their mind they`re going to exercise that precious right
and cast that ballot no matter what and they did. And God bless Floridians
for it.

MADDOW: Charlie Crist, former governor of Florida, demonstrating
tonight why Republicans are so freaked out about the prospect of you
reentering politics, sir.

Thank you very much for being with us. I really appreciate it.

CRIST: Thank you, Rachel. My pleasure.

MADDOW: Thank you.

All right. Coming up: something you may not know about John Boehner`s
office. Today, it was clothing optional. Brr. That`s next.


MADDOW: Earlier this year, activists with the group, People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, staged a protest outside a meat processing
plant in L.A. Naturally, that called for human nudity. The women stripped
down to their skivvies, got on the meat tray fit for a naked human and
wrapped themselves up in plastic wrap. Sweaty.

Also this year, a man at the airport in Portland, Oregon, decided to
expose the unfairness of the security procedures there by exposing himself
at the airport. Arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.

And in our nation`s capital, D.C., the world naked bike ride happens
every year. Activists take off their pants and hop on a bike to promote
alternative energy to protest our country`s dependence on oil and, of
course, our dependence on standard issue underpants.

Naked protests are a thing. But as far as we can tell, never before
have there been naked protests in Congress -- until today. Today, the
Longworth House Office Building, which itself sounds like a euphemism,
protesting spending cuts on the far side of the fiscal cliff and what that
would mean for AIDS funding specifically, there was a nude awakening.

Protests in the row, AIDS protesters marching into House Speaker John
Boehner`s district office to give the Republican leader the naked truth.
Boehner, Boehner, don`t be a -- rhyme with sick. Budget cuts will make us
sick. The budget cuts are really rude, that`s why we have to be so lewd.

Well, these protesters were trying to lay bare the potential cuts for
AIDS that could be part of ongoing budget negotiations. The protests also
served to put a new naked spotlight on a major statement expected tomorrow
from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. On the occasion of World AIDS Day
this week, Secretary Clinton is due to unveil a blue print for how the U.S.
government could achieve what she has called an AIDS-free generation.
Secretary Clinton will make that announcement on Thursday morning.

But in advance of that renewed commitment to fighting AIDS, this
group, which is known for memorable protests any way, found a way to be
more memorable today. One of the groups involved in today`s naked lunch
event tweeted, "Watch naked AIDS activists take over Boehner`s office at

That was their tweet that you could watch them and you really could.
You can watch these folks put more than a bit of skin into the skin. You
can watch the live stream video of naked protesters standing in the office
of a highest ranking Republican in the country and that does not happen
very often. And because it was that guy`s office, reporters, other
reporters just happened toll milling about.

And they got a surprise. Sahil Kapur of "Talking Points Memo"
accidentally live-tweeted the event, "Seven nude people protesting budget
cuts in Boehner`s office right now. Surreal. Protesters tell me they`re
sticking around until police extract them. Police threatening to arrest
protesters for indecent exposure if they don`t clear out."

In the end, there were seven people who were naked in John Boehner`s
office, three of them were arrested -- all the girls.

John Stanton from "BuzzFeed" summed it up nicely when he said, "There
are actually people who woke up today and said today, I`m going to get buck
naked in front of John Boehner`s staff." And so it was. Getting naked is
a tactic -- a protest tactic. And judging by the wide-eyed tweets from the
press as it happened, today, nudity worked.

That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow night.



Copyright 2012 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.>