tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC November 16, 2010 1:00am-2:00am EST
my dear friend rachel maddow. >> good evening, keith. thank you. and thanks to you at home for joining us tonight. behold the newest republican members of the united states senate. >> this is a little larger meeting than this day two years ago and four years ago. after the '06 election, we had one republican freshman senator. obviously i'm pretty excited to be sitting here with 13 this year. and it's going to be a huge improvement to the united states senate from our point of view. >> that was the top republican in the senate, mitch mcconnell, welcoming to town the newest republican senators who will officially take their seats when the new congress is sworn in january. republicans will still be in the minority in the senate in january, but there are more of them than there were before the elections. and top senate republican mitch mcconnell is therefore about to take on a much more highly visible and politically important role in washington,
d.c. that's really important. here's why. as the lame duck congress gets to work, there's lots of reporting and speculating and negotiating about the tax cuts, right? about whether or not rich people are going to get a giant new tax cut. that has been america's front-page political issue -- actually for a few months now. it started getting debated even before the elections. but honestly, nothing's really expected to happen on the tax cuts issue legislatively until the week after thanksgiving at the earliest. what is about to happen a lot sooner than that in d.c. is a much more dramatic change from what we have been talking about for months now. something that puts the republican party's mitch mcconnell problem at the center of american news and politics. and i'm not sure very many people have seen this coming. here's how it works. president obama has now arrived back home from his nine-day overseas trip to asia. he is just home for a few days, though, and he will hop back on air force one for another overseas trip.
at the end of this week, president obama will fly to portugal where he is to speak on friday at the big international conference about what to do now in afghanistan. did you notice that the elections were about precisely nothing foreign? we have not had any politics about something that didn't start with "a" and end in america for months now. here's how much these past elections were not about anything foreign, including our two wars. sharron angle in nevada and ken buck were the two highest profile senate races of these elections. both of those candidates in both of those incredibly hard-fought races said things on the record during the campaign about the war in afghanistan that were -- oh, boy, take your pick. either completely incoherent or suitable for framing as part of a diagnostic manual for -- [ whistles ] the opponents did not even bother to make political hay out of what these two political candidates said.
they left this stuff on the table. in these two elections where i thought they left nothing on the table. the democrats left this on the table. >> we have two wars we're prosecuting right now. you haven't talked about how we would prosecute those wars. no answer at all? you are literally staying silent about the two wars we're in right now? >> no. the two wars -- it's exactly what we're in. >> just to be clear, sharron angle's only on the record statement to reporters during her u.s. senate campaign, her only on-the-record statement about america's wars was, quoting her exactly, "the two wars that we're in right now is exactly what we're in." ta da.
ken buck's take on afghanistan was more astonishing because he actually went on at length, at pain stakingly, confusing, stupefying length. >> the first i think we need to do is make sure that afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists. and i'm not talking about there isn't a possibility of a terrorist in afghanistan. i'm saying that when you look at other countries similarly situated, somalia, yemen, other countries that afghanistan is at least as safe as those countries. >> at least as safe. see, we want to be as comfortable with afghanistan as we are with somalia and yemen where al qaeda launches its attacks against us from now. that's what ken buck's goal is in afghanistan. that afghanistan would be at least as safe as somalia. during the campaign. but this was money left on the table by democrats during those senate races. the democrats were fighting
against those two candidates in the hardest-fought campaigns of the entire election season did not even bother with that stuff. because this year in american politics, it was not a foreign policy year. anything foreign, including our own wars was almost entirely absent from the elections. and it wasn't just the elections, it's been nearly a full year since president obama made his big speech at west point about what to do in afghanistan. and that topic has essentially been off the table in american politics since then. but it is about to come back. what is expected to happen at the end of this week is that president obama will elaborate on how the u.s. war in afghanistan ends. which means we're going to very quickly change gears in this country from nobody talk about the war in afghanistan to everybody freak out about the war in afghanistan. we started to see a preview of this from republican senator john mccain this weekend. where else? on "meet the press," after david axelrod broached the idea of a drawdown of u.s. troops in afghanistan.
>> you just heard david axelrod say any withdrawal would be condition-based. >> i would like to see the president say it's only condition-based. according to mr. woodward's book, his problem is the base of the democratic party. you win and then you leave, and that's what we've done in iraq. >> that statement from john mccain is so perfect in so many ways. first of all, he's already setting the stage that no matter what president obama will say this week habit leaving afghanistan, john mccain is already against it because it's from the liberal left. also, what exactly does he think we did in iraq? >> i'd like to see the president say that it's only condition based, you win, then you leave, and that's what we've done in iraq. >> actually, the way that we are still leaving iraq is that george w. bush and dick cheney
negotiated with the iraqi government a date certain by which we would leave regardless of what was going on in that country. they negotiated a timetable for withdrawal. george bush signed it and now our country is following through on that signed agreement. an agreement that really had nothing to do with conditions on the ground. the sheer ahistorical incoherence of john mccain's vehement response to this question. his lurch toward partisan gain when he was asked about afghanistan is as sure as sign as we get in american politics we are likely up for another round of partisan politicking about the war. democratic president says he wants to end a war, that's essentially the cue for the republican party's theme song, their fight song to start up just at the thought of it. this is the next big thing that's going to happen in d.c. and there is a very big political problem at the heart of it for the republican party. >> and i believe the american people should have chosen outstanding members to join the united states senate. >> mitch mcconnell, the
republican leader in the united states senate. and former president george w. bush's new book, the opening lines of chapter 12 include a bombshell about mitch mcconnell and the war in iraq. according to president george w. bush, mitch mcconnell came to him with a request right before the midterm elections in 2006. mr. president, he said, your unpopularity is going to cost us control of the congress. well, mitch, i asked, what do you want me to do about it? mr. president, mr. mcconnell said, mr. president, he said, bring some troops home from iraq. president bush said mitch mcconnell asked him privately to withdrawal troops from iraq in 2006 because it might help republicans win the 2006 elections. that was, of course, while mitch mcconnell was simultaneously making the case in public that any democrat wanting to withdrawal troops from iraq was all but a traitor. >> the general had it correct when he said if we leave iraq, they'll follow us. they'll come back here.
so cutting and running is not a strategy for protecting the american people here in the united states. >> spoken in the same month that president george w. bush says mitch mcconnell was lobbying him behind closed doors to -- what did he call it? cut and run. mitch mcconnell is calling it cutting and running. that's what he was saying publicly while lobbying president bush privately to pull the troops out. mitch mcconnell has not denied this new revelation. mcconnell's hometown paper denounced the senator for "contemptiblehypocrisy" because of this story. we reported this on friday night. we asked senator mcconnell to appear on the show to discuss this. his office has declined the request. with that skeleton in the closet now revealed, republicans have a problem on their hands. the debate in this country is about to return to questions of whether and when and how to draw down u.s. troops in wartime.
what's their leader in the senate going to say about it? and why won't anyone believe him that that's what he means? and why will anybody believe him that he's lobbying for the same thing in public as he is in private? and what's his explanation for saying he wanted to change the strategy in the other war to help republicans win the '06 midterms? he's the republican leader in the senate. and this scandal hanging over their senate leader means republicans are now politically ham strung on the war as long as he's there. so what happens next here? joining us now is jim carroll, the reporter who first wrote about the story in senator mcconnell's hometown newspaper "the courier journal." it was the editorial board that blasted senator mcconnell for "contemptible hypocrisy" over this issue. thank you so much for your time tonight. >> thanks for having me. always glad to talk to a fellow red sox fan. >> very good. you keep that quiet, unless it's going to get you in trouble at
home. >> no, it's fine. >> you have obviously covered senator mcconnell for a long time now. what was your reaction when you first read about -- when you first read this account in president bush's new book? >> well, little secret, you know, washington reporters, we do what every time there's a major book that comes out, we do the washington read, you know. we run to the index and we flip through it to see what names are in the back. and i was expecting, you know, this is george w. bush's memoirs, i was expecting some very kind references to senator mcconnell that probably, you know, wouldn't really raise an eyebrow anywhere. and while i was reading this in the bookstore at borders in the middle of downtown washington, my mouth dropped open, and i kind of looked around to think, gee, i hope people aren't wondering what it is i found in here. and i hurriedly bought my copy of the book and scurried back to the office and wrote a story. it's -- it's striking because this is not the kind of
revelation you would expect to see in a book from a republican president about that current republican leader of the senate who is going to be even more prominent the coming years. >> now, senator mcconnell has pointedly not denied the allegations. and yet, i mean, this is -- as far as i understand, senator mcconnell and president bush were pretty close, at least publicly senator mcconnell was one of his biggest defenders, specifically on the iraq war. is there a potential rift between president bush and senator mcconnell we didn't know about before? >> well, we're put at a disadvantage a little bit here because it's sort of a he said/he's not saying kind of a story. oddly it flipped in reverse what you'd normally expect. people like to come out of the white house and say what they said with the president and the president is not saying anything. so you don't know what they're saying anything. you've got president bush saying what he and senator mcconnell discussed alone in the oval office. but mcconnell has said that he is not going to discuss what
advice he gives to the president of the united states, but he's always been supportive of the troops. but he doesn't address the actual issue that's raised in the book. so we're kind of at a disadvantage until either senator mcconnell writes his own book or decides he wants to say something more about it. >> have you been surprised by the muted reaction so far among elected officials? i know in your piece, you quoted the democratic congressman from kentucky. but other than that, there hasn't been broad political response to this yet. >> it's very funny. i fully expected, you know, a lot of forehead smacking and desk pounding and a lot of phone calls in the next day.
and it's sort of -- you know, not too much really came out of it. there's a lot of conversation about it, you know, in the blogi sphere and some websites and your program. but it really has not turned into a big political issue. perhaps, you know, last week congress wasn't here, as you know, when congress is here, washington becomes much bigger -- a much bigger echo chamber than normal. and so it kind of, you know, if bush could've timed it any better, i can't imagine how. but, you know, one other thing i want to point out in this thing is -- this is not just any senator he's writing about. this is mitch mcconnell, who if you looked up -- if there was such a place to look up staunchest defender of the iraq war policy, mitch mcconnell's face would be right there. and this was true, you know, throughout many trying times throughout the bush administration. that's number one. number two, this is a family matter. who was sitting as the longest-serving cabinet member in george bush's administration? mitch mcconnell's wife elaine chow, secretary of labor was there from beginning to end. this was just a -- that's why you called it a bombshell, i was flabbergasted and thunder struck and any other word you can find to read this.
and when talked to some analysts, they -- the word i heard mostly was wow. and people said, i didn't know that president bush had it in for mitch mcconnell. and because we don't know what mitch mcconnell's really thinking about this, we're kind of at a loss ourselves. >> at this point, it feels like suspended animation with him avoiding comment. but i don't -- even if there isn't a huge political fire storm over this, i think to have something on this on the record about him, he's got to comment eventually. i'm going to keep asking him to come on the show, i'll almost guarantee you he'll say no every day. but if you hear from him, will you tell us? >> i'll be glad to. >> jim carroll, thanks for your reporting. thanks for your time tonight. >> thanks for having me. still to come, a protest at the white house today. also john mccain picks another huge, ugly fight with john mccain. and the wife of supreme court justice clarence thomas is maybe going to stop selling those foam statue of liberty hats, or maybe not. major constitutional issues at
stake all to come. please stay with us. [ coughs ] [ breathes deeply, wind blows ] something wrong with your squeegee, kid? uh, i'm a little sick. sick?! you gonna let a sore throat beat you? you're fearless! ahhhhhhhhh! atta boy! [ male announcer ] halls. a pep talk in every drop. and she's going in with no protective gear? her hands could dry out. [ female announcer ] dawn hand renewal with olay beauty. it helps your hands seal in moisture while you do the dishes.
today at the white house, the direct action side of efforts to overturn the don't ask, don't tell policy led once again to multiple arrests. as activists handcuffed themselves to the fence at the white house's north gate. discharged army lieutenant dan choi and a dozen others criticized the president and deliberately invited arrest. we will have much more ahead on that story. we'll be right back. ♪
coming back into session is that maybe it will put an end to the trend of late of which the hottest stories in the media are about the media. although i know i have done my part on this. the meta media stories that have dominated the news the past week or two mostly, i think are more heat than light. i think it's been useful to have the overt acknowledgment over the past couple of weeks that in the 24-hour news cycle and in cable news in particular, honestly it's really political conflict that is most marketable, that drives viewership. one of my favorite political conflict stories of all time is the sharp, bitter, divisive, at times inhumanely polarizing political conflict between john mccain and john mccain. john mccain, for example, against the bush tax cuts for the richest americans. john mccain, on the other hand, totally for those very same tax cuts. >> if you go back to 2004, i know your position on the bush tax cuts did change and you talked about that before.
i do want to play something you said in an interview in 2004 and ask you about it. >> i voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest americans. i would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit. but the middle-income tax credits, the family and child tax credits, all those, i would keep. >> that's exactly what president obama said. >> what does john mccain today have to say to john mccain 2004? he says is there a statute of limitations? no, seriously, that's what he said. >> is there a statute of limitations? >> no? even though john mccain 2004 was against tax cuts for the rich, john mccain now says this. >> it is not the time to raise anyone's taxes. >> anyone's. john mccain is also opposed to john mccain on environmental legislation.
>> cap and trade, that there will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. it's a free market approach. >> that's the john mccain who was in favor of cap and trade. but if president obama's on board with that idea, john mccain finds that he is very much against cap and trade. >> by the way, that's cap and tax, that's not cap and trade. >> i can't even say the words. john mccain who ran for president in 2008 also essentially admitted that he would vote against john mccain's own immigration proposal. >> at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote in the senate floor, would you vote for it? >> it won't. it won't. that's why we went through the debate. no, i would not. because we know what the situation is today. the people want the borders secured first. >> john mccain is also against jerry fallwell, as well as being for jerry falwell. here is against the model.
>> neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of american politics. whether they be al sharpton on the left or pat robinson or jerry falwell on the right. >> now, keep in mind, there is a different model of john mccain who is totally for jerry falwell. >> do you believe that he is still an agent of intolerance? >> no, i don't. i think he can explain to you his views on this program when you have him on. >> every once in a while, a politician changes their mind, and there's nothing wrong with changing your mind. normal humans do it in the normal course of events all the time. they recognize new political realities, ideas shift around in the country.
but this has happened to john mccain on every single policy issue that's come up during his time in the senate. and he's been in the senate a long time. there is not a major issue on which john mccain can be found now to have one identifiable position. not a single one. john mccain's positions on every single major policy issue that he has faced since he's been in the senate are now utterly incoherent. it is impossible to say what he believes unless you're only counting the current model. and that makes it all the more remarkable that john mccain is such a perceived front of wisdom. what john mccain says he thinks about something at any one moment carries a great weight in the beltway and gets written up and pontificated over. despite the fact if you wait five minutes, john mccain is likely to have a totally new stance on the issue depending on who's asking and why. and that is the practical context to understanding john mccain's importance to repealing don't ask, don't tell.
in mr. mccain's 59th appearance on "meet the press" yesterday -- 59. senator mccain made clear his current stance on don't ask, don't tell, which is even though the pentagon is making clear the effects of repealing the policy, senator mccain now demands that there must be another study on unit cohesion and morale. i mean, honestly, to be fair, there are so many different john mccains to choose from on this issue, we should start a few john mccains ago. way back in 2006, he told chris matthews it should be up to military leaders that if and when the military decided it was time for don't ask, don't tell to be repealed, he would be onboard with the military. >> the day that this -- the leadership of the military comes to me and says, senator, we ought to change the policy, then i think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.
>> that was 2006. then the leadership of the military did come to him and say it's time to change the policy. >> it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. >> the president announced he will work with congress this year to repeal the law known has don't ask, don't tell. i fully support the president's decision. >> after that -- after that, the john mccain who wanted to hear from military leaders, wanted to defer to military leadership. that john mccain mysteriously disappeared. the new john mccain was very, very angry that the military leadership was talking about getting rid of don't ask, don't tell. because it meant they weren't being properly deferential to congress. >> i'm deeply disappointed in your statement, secretary gates. your statement obvious is one which is clearly bias without the view of congress being taken into consideration. >> see, that john mccain says
the military must defer to congress. also, there's a different john mccain that says the congress really must defer to the military. i bet those two john mccains hate each other. overall, overall, though, why does john mccain disagree with john mccain on how the decision to repeal don't ask, don't tell should be made? when the host of "meet the press," david gregory asked that question on "meet the press" yesterday, he got the opinion of a whole new john mccain. >> why doesn't that meet your standard of 2006 for you to say, okay, it's time to change views? >> because as i said back then, that we need to have a careful examination. and admiral mullen was speaking personally. we are going to go, hopefully, through a year-long study that will hopefully also have the feelings of the men and women who are serving. >> that was john mccain speaking in february. i stand corrected. john mccain there, february john mccain thinks really that what we need to consider is not so
much congress or military leaders, but what the troops themselves think about repealing don't ask, don't tell. enter a study which surveyed members of the military about their feelings on don't ask, don't tell. the survey has reportedly found that 70% think repealing it would be neutral or nonexistent. >> are you going to stand in the way you -- you personally, in the way of this ban being lifted? >> i will stand that i want a thorough and complete study of the effect on morale and battle effectiveness of the united states military. i will listen, as i've said for years, to our military leaders. and not a study that is leaked as we know this -- >> 7 in 10 members of the military think it would be fine. >> you and i have not seen that study. >> and even when that study comes out, he already knows he wants another study. john mccain is not the chair of
any committee. john mccain does not have any major legislation to his credit from his entire career in the senate other than the mccain/feingold campaign finance law, which he doesn't exactly support with a brass band anymore anyway. senator john mccain's stances on legislation and important policy issues and principles are so fundamentally inconsistent as to render the phrase flip-flop meaningless. and yet john mccain is still viewed as a washington oracle, as a guy you've got to win over. if you do fail to win him over, though, don't worry, a new john mccain might come along any minute now and maybe you will have better luck with him. the ir concerning the medicare part d changes this year. so she went to her walgreens pharmacist for guidance and a free personalized report that looks at her prescriptions and highlights easy ways for her to save. because norma prefers her painting to paperwork.
see how much you can save. get your free report today. expertise -- find it everywhere there's a walgreens. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] some people just know how to build things well. give you and your loved ones an expertly engineered mercedes-benz... ho ho ho! ...at the winter event going on now. but hurry -- the offer ends soon.
and together we'll choose something from our everlon diamond knot collection just for her. that's why only zales is the diamond store. i bought my policy online and i haven't heard from the company since. when pam switches to nationwide insurance, we're not going to treat her like policy 413. we're gonna treat her like pam, get to know her, be proactive. oh and rename the company nationpam. oh, ooh. done. ♪ nationpam is on your... ♪ ♪ sam we'll make that work.
programming note. even if you are a person who saw it when it's aired the first time on this show, evidently you guys are breaking the msnbc.com with all the downloading and the streaming of my extended interview with the host of comedy central's "the daily show," john stewart. because of the high level of continuing interest in that interview, which frankly is almost pestering at this point, but in a nice way, we've been asked to re-air the full sit-down between myself and john stewart, which is fine by me. the interview will happen again this time this channel 9:00 p.m. eastern on friday, this friday here on msnbc. we'll be right back. one thing at a time...? consider this: drop & go charging for up to 4 devices at once... the duracell mygrid™. simple and smart.
it's mygrid™. from duracell. trusted everywhere. whoa! that achy cold needs alka-seltzer plus! it rushes multiple cold fighters, plus a powerful pain reliever, wherever you need it! [ both ] ♪ oh what a relief it is! ♪ we need to finish those projections ♪ ♪ then output the final presentations ♪ ♪ sally, i'm gonna need 40 copies, obviously collated ♪
what's going on? when we're crunched for time, brad combines office celebrations with official business. it's about efficiency. [ courier ] we can help. when you ship with fedex, you can work right up until the last minute. it gives you more time to get stuff done. that's a great idea. ♪ i need to speak with you privately ♪ ♪ i found your resume on the printer ♪ everyone! ♪ i found your resume on the printer ♪ [ male announcer ] we understand.® you need a partner who gives you more time. fedex.
>> it is a pleasure to be with you, what an honor. -- despite the intimidation and the lies from the other side, you are america's political first responders. and we thank you for coming out. >> i've been living and working in the washington, d.c. area for 30 years. and i'm here to tell you a couple of things that they're not going to tell you. first of all, is they're scared to death of you. they're scared and they're hiding from you. with the war going on and washington wants to make it complicated and real technical. and it's not so complicated or technical. they've planted a flag from the ground and stopped tyranny before.
and every generation has its time. and i guess this is our time because we're also feeling pulled to the front line. >> from the front lines, i'm telling you, we need your help. we're at risk of losing the country. we have 61 days to put the brakes on this train that's heading for the cliff. and they thought we weren't going to wake up in time. but they were wrong. join me. >> that is the kind of advocacy work that she's been doing for the past year all the while emphasizing publicly she is married to an associate justice of the supreme court. >> thank you so much. can i just say if something happens in washington, my husband and i are heading to texas. what we're doing at liberty central.org is equipping citizen leaders to lobby for liberty. and so my husband and i do really different things, by the way.
but there was a tornado over our wedding when we got married. god knew that we were both troublemakers coming together. so i do -- i do policy, he does law, and i don't understand that world, and i'm glad god didn't tell me to do that. i don't know how to do that. but thank you all for what you do. >> liberty central is new on the scene, but it is a player on conservative politics already, in part because of a lot of money. in the past year, it got two really big secret donations. one for $50,000, one for $500,000. we do not know who made those donations, presumably liberty central knows where the money came from, but they don't have to disclose it. did they make those donations to justice thomas' wife organization in order to influence how justice thomas might rule on a particular case? nobody knows. there's no public disclosure of those donations. justice thomas, of course, ruled in favor of citizens united paving the way for organizations like liberty central to fund ads for political candidates.
and that according to the l.a. times, "clarence thomas has been the lone justice to argue that large political contributions are unconstitutional." but whenever people criticize her for doing the kind of political activism she's been doing considering her husband and the power he has, ms. thomas has repeatedly says her activism has no conflicts of interest. out of the blue today, however, have come reports that she's suddenly decided to step down from her activist position. a spokeswoman for liberty central's public relations agency telling the "washington post," she'll take a backseat so that liberty central can continue with its message. and a board member is denying that report telling politico.com there have been absolutely no discussions with the board about her stepping down. we contacted liberty central ourselves to try to get clarification. so far we've had no response to them. but what if liberty central's pr agency told the washington post something that is true?
that she is stepping down so her advocacy organization can continue its work without distractions? what prompted that decision? she's been openly marketing herself as an activist based on part who her husband is for years. suddenly this is a distraction? maybe it became a distraction for the supreme court. which is an oddly lawless place if you think about it. because in our system, nobody gets to tell supreme court justices what to do. joining us now is george washington university law professor turly. obviously the spouses of supreme court justices are entitled to their own careers, views, activities, but are we entitled to know whether in pursuing those careers there are conflicts of interest for their judicial spouses? >> i think we are. this was a remarkable -- an act of remarkable poor judgment on the part of mrs. thomas. i mean, the -- you give up
certain things when you become a supreme court justice. and frankly, you give up a few things when you're married to a supreme court justice. most spouses of justices have avoided controversy because they realize that in some ways this is a demonstration of their commitment to their spouses that they need to take a less prominent role. because there's only nine of them, and their roles are so central to this country. it showed almost a contempt for that tradition to take a position of this kind. and no one's saying that a spouse shouldn't have his or her own career or political views, but adults make mature decisions all the time. and that requires some restraint. there's no restraint here. and i think it did hurt the institution a great deal. >> if we ever find out who the donors are to her political organization. if they are groups that either argue cases before the supreme court, have interests before the supreme court -- if there's a case in which justice thomas should conceivably have to
recuse himself because of those donations, does he get to make that decision himself? >> it's pretty much up to the justice. and these justices have not been recusing themselves. justice scalia has refused to recuse himself. and they can make those decisions. this court has been fairly hostile towards requests for recusal. >> the other justices that have stumbled into these controversies recently, include justices scalia and thomas. it was reported they were at secret meetings organized by the head of coke industries, which, of course, funds political groups like americans for prosperity and freedom works. those aren't spouses of justices, those are actual justices. is that against the code of conduct they're supposed to use that says they shouldn't themselves engage in political activity?
>> it is against, in my view, the traditional code of conduct. they're not supposed to be participating in fund raising for political organizations. not supposed to be just paid for members of political organizations. i think some of these definitely cross the line. justice alito just in the news about participating in a fundraiser and he simply said this isn't a problem. it is a problem. and past justices have refused to cross that line. and i got to tell you, i think the directions, really, it's hard not to mistake that we're going back in history. this is the type of thing that samuel chase did in 1804 when he was a rabid federalist. it was one of the reasons he was impeached. but we're going back to a period when our -- when our justices were not apolitical. where they seemed to parade their political affiliations. it's a terrible direction to take this country in. and i'm just shocked that these justices would have such little faith in their institution but more importantly feelty to take a political role.
>> thank you so much for your time tonight. >> thanks, rachel. immediately following this show tonight, lawrence o'donnell will be hosting a two-hour program called "beyond borderlines." it's a very important topic, a very cool two-hour special. that's coming up next. coming up on this show, how many push-ups can you do? and how many can you do by wearing a badger costume and making your head as big as a wood stove? it's very important. coming up next. ♪
[ smack! ] [ smack! smack! smack! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium rich tums goes to work in seconds. nothing works faster. ♪ tum ta tum tum tums but these days you need more than the book. you need website development, 1-on-1 marketing advice,
on friday's show, your cheating and sports update concerned antonio margarito banned from boxing after getting caught with plaster in his gloves again. texas decided to license him to box again anyway even though nobody else would license him. that was for a fight on saturday against manny paquaio in dallas. if he did cheat this time around, he did not cheat well enough. he beat him like he was an egg and he was an angry julia child with a whisk.
here's today's "is it cheating" news. when the university of wisconsin football team scores, the team is happy. the mascots for the team, bucky the badger i'm sure is also happy. but that happiness is tempered because every time new points go up on the wisconsin score board, bucky badger the mascot has to do push-ups for every point that wisconsin has put on the board. so wisconsin scores a touchdown on an extra point, bucky does seven push-ups,
turns out to be a total of 573 push-ups in a big plushy suit with a giant fur head on. here is the mystery after wisconsin scored the 76th point, here is what happened, bucky badger left the stadium after having done 414 push-ups. six minutes later bucky, or someone wearing the same bucky suit came back and finished all the push-ups expected of him or her all 573 of them. by the time the badgers were done running up the score against poor indiana. was it the same bucky? whoever came out the second time seemed remarkably refreshed and capable unlike the bucky badger that left before. is one mascot depicter able to do 573 crowd pleasing push-ups while wearing a plushy badger suit? so far the athletics department is not talking at least to us.
for us bucky the badger gate is still unresolved. next week we're not planning a dna update but we will be watching with beer. a unique sea salt added to over 40 campbell's condensed soups. helps us reduce sodium, but not flavor. so do a few lifts. campbell's.® it's amazing what soup can do.™ [ male announcer ] what does it take to excel in today's business world? our professors know. because they've been there. and they work closely with business leaders to develop curriculum to meet the needs of top businesses. which means when our graduates walk in the room, they're not only prepared... they're prepared to lead. devry university's keller graduate school of management. learn how to grow the business of you at keller.edu.
itching to geicoo grow the business of you or more on car insurance?ercent do woodchucks chuck wood? (high-pitched laughter) man: hey you dang woodchucks, quit chucking my wood! vo: geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. [ breathes deeply, wind blows ] something wrong with your squeegee, kid? uh, i'm a little sick. sick?! you gonna let a sore throat beat you? you're fearless! ahhhhhhhhh! atta boy! [ male announcer ] halls. a pep talk in every drop. as a part time sales associate with walmart. when william came in i knew he had everything he needed to be a leader in this company. [ william ] after a couple of months, i was promoted to department manager. like, wow, really? me? a year later, i was promoted again. walmart even gave me a grant for my education.
he's made headlines mostly by naming this radio host as his chief of staff, the person who would run his office in the capital. >> i don't care how this gets painted by the mainstream media. i don't care if this shows up on youtube, because i'm convinced the most important thing the founding fathers did to ensure me my first amendment rights was gave me a second amendment. if ballots don't work, bullets will. i've never in my life thought that the day would come where i would tell individual citizens that you are responsible for being a militia that the founding fathers designed. they were very specific. you need to be prepared to fight tierney. >> since west announced he would name that radio host chief of staff in washington things have gotten stranger in the story.
first the host announced she would not be chief of staff after all. then mr. west said that not having her as his chief of staff had renewed his commitment to use his time in office as a congressman to bring the left to its knees. >> what they need to understand now is that i'm even more committed, even more focused on making sure that this liberal, progressive socialist agenda, this left wing vile, vicious, despicable machine that is out there is brought to its knees. >> after those comments we contacted congressman west's office to explain what the vile, vicious, despicable machine is and how he would bring it to its knees and whether he would come on this program to talk about it. no response. we are hoping it will. although he hasn't talked to us, he did speak to cnn. >> that despicable action, the way they went after george coffman not only does the liberal left have issues with racism.
if i was a black democratic congressman elect they would not be doing this type of actions. the fact they are attacking a woman like this, that shows me this behavior. >> he says the only reason she's criticized is because she's a woman. reminder, this is joyce coffman. >> i don't care how this gets painted by the mainstream media. i don't care if this shoes up on youtube because i am convinced the most important thing the founding fathers did to ensure me my first amendment rights was they gave me a second amendment. and if ballots don't work bullets will. >> she also said she was going up into the hills of kentucky, midwest, vermont, new hampshire to gather together men and women who understand some things are worth fighting for and dying for
if things didn't go the way she wanted them to november 2nd. i'm going to go out on a limb and say the fact she's a woman is not the controversial thing about her. similarly i'm sure -- i'm not sure alan west has made a strong case his attempt to make her a chief of staff is only controversial because of mr. west's race. to be clear, i think this is why the headlines, congressional chief of staff colon -- >> and if ballots don't work bullets will. >> i think that's more to the point. congressman elect west now says if the prospect of that person becoming a congressional chief of staff is unsettling to you it is because of your racism and sexism. i don't know how exactly but i would really like the opportunity to ask him in person. since we invited him on as a guest, mr. west has done interviews with cnn. he did a very friendly one with fox business. he so far does not want to appe
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC Television Archive TV News Test Collection Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on