tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC September 20, 2013 4:00am-5:00am EDT
>> good evening, chris. thanks very much. that was fun. >> thank you. >> thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. do you ever watch the prison shows here on msnbc? they come on friday nights, after our show, usually, and they're always playing on the weekends? the prison shows on msnbc are really good, and they get really good ratings. so i know that you say, oh, no, i'm not watching them. statistically speaking, at least some of you are. actually, a lot of you are. actually, more of you that are watching me are watching the prison shows. but if you have ever watched one of msnbc's really excellent prison shows, you have probably seen it start with a warning that the subject matter may be for mature audiences only. you've seen that, right? well, this here, tonight, is not an msnbc prison show, this is, in fact, our lead story tonight about what is happening in washington right now, and whether or not we're going to have a government shutdown. but in order to do that story, i actually have to air that same
warning now, before i show you what happened today in washington. >> due to mature subject matter, viewer discretion is advised. >> okay. now you have been warned. now, here's dana bash on cnn. >> i want to read you a quote. again, this is a quote from a house republican leadership aide about a fellow republican senator, ted cruz, saying, quote, wendy davis has more balls than ted cruz. >> tada! i am sorry about playing somebody on cnn saying "balls" on television. that is what the warning was about. but this really happened. the full quote, to be fair, it's from a senior republican leadership aide. the full quote is, "it is disappointing to see that wendy davis has more balls than ted cruz." so really, it is a sad story, it's a disappointing story. but that is the story. and that is the way that republicans in washington are talking about each other right now. congratulations, wendy davis.
what is happening here, big picture, is that the democratic party and the democratic president made a huge political effort, a huge and costly and time-consuming political effort in the president's first term to pass health reform. and it was difficult. and it ended up costing them a lot of seats in congress in the midterms. and a lot of the delay in terms of how long it took them to past, that was democrats fighting amongst themselves about how to move forward and whether to move forward. the president's chief of staff wanted to abandon the effort because it was just too hard. and back in 2009, when we were in the middle of that fight, when everybody could see how hard it was on the democrats, and the democrats were fighting for it but nobody knew if they were actually going to get it and how it was actually going to work out, back in the middle of that, back in 2009, republicans were really excited. because, yeah, maybe they were going to lose on this issue, but they could see what a heavy lift this was for the democrats. they could see the way the struggle to get this thing passed was dividing the democrats against each other. turning the democrats against each other, splitting their party.
they thought that that was their chance to destroy the democratic party and to destroy the presidency of barack obama. >> if we're able to stop obama on this, it will be his waterloo. it will break him. >> "it will break him." that was senator jim demint of south carolina speaking in his inimitable robotic way in the summer of 2009. the republicans and the conservatives did not get that waterloo. they did not stop the passage of health reform. health reform passed. it became law, it got ruled constitutional at the united states supreme court, and it's now going into effect. republicans, of course, say they still hate it, but it is going into effect. and now the political effect of health reform does turn out to be the aforementioned waterloo, but the side that is breaking apart is not president obama's side. it is the other side. there is a huge war of words going on right now in american politics, with more insult and invective and people having to say the word "balls" on cnn that
we have seen over any partisan issue, lately, when it's one party against the other. the fight that is happening right now, which is completely over the top, it is entirely among republicans. and their attacks on each other are turning out to be rather vicious. >> senator, just yesterday, a senior house republican aide said, it's disappointing to see that wendy davis has more guts than ted cruz. now, he used a different word than "guts." but other republicans have called you a phony and a joke. how do you respond that? >> well, i'm always impressed with the courage of anonymous congressional aides. >> which is a good comeback, but it's not just people who want to be anonymous, it turns out. and it turns out it's not just congressional aides. it's, for example, congressman tim griffin of arkansas, who's a republican, saying, "so far, senate republicans are good at getting facebook likes and town halls and not much else. do something."
then there's sean duffy, a congressman from wisconsin, also a republican, saying, "house agrees to send bill to senate that defunds obama care. senator ted cruz and senator mike lee refuse to fight. wave white flag and surrender." so that's republicans attacking republicans. and in that case, it's republicans in the house attacking republicans in the senate. now, when members of the senate attack each other, there's this sort of genteel senate rule, which says they're not supposed to say each other's names while they're attacking each other. so they're still sticking each other with rhetorical shivs, they just don't say each other's names when they do it. >> most of the people who are doing this are new and did not have the experience that we had when the american people who don't like government, but don't want it to be shut down, reacted in a very negative fashion towards congress for doing so. to somehow think we are going to defund it is simply not going to
happen at this time and it will, in my opinion, as it did before, harm the american people's view of the republican party. but i can tell you, in the united states senate, we will not repeal or defund obama care. we will not. and to think we can is not rational. >> "not rational." >> senator john mccain, world-respected arbitrator of what is and what is not rational. bob corker of tennessee was even more blunt in his comments, but, again, day don't say each other's names, which is really weird about the senate, but that's the way it goes. bob corker said today, "i didn't go to harvard or princeton," what he doesn't say there is, like ted cruz did, "i didn't go to harvard or princeton, but i can count. this is a tactic that will fail and weaken our position." again, there are no democrats in these fights. there are no liberals in these fights. this is all republicans and
conservatives going after each other and it has been amazing to watch. >> we can't have the government shut down. we can't be kamikazes. >> when republicans run into the street, despite the fact there's a flashing red light, they're going to get hit by the cars and killed. this is stupid politically, this is stupid at a policy level. we are going to let our party run into traffic in a red light. it's beyond idiotic. >> before peter king and former george w. bush communications director nicole wallace on msnbc this morning, there's karl rove in the wall street journal today, calling what some republicans are trying to do with this government shutdown, quote, ill-conceived. he said that no sentient being believes it will succeed. so you get the anonymous
republican source, cnn "balls" comment, but you also get an unnamed house republican aide, calling senator ted cruz a, quote, joke, plain and simple. you get a republican operative allied with house leadership, describing ted cruz as, quote, idiotic position and saying ted cruz, quote, officially jumped the shark this week. another senior house republican aide telling "the huffington post," if there is no plan to get the defunding obama care provision passed in the senate, or even a plan to fight to get it passed in the senate, then what we're talking about isn't a plan to defund obama care, it's just a plan to shut down the government and hope for the best. that is not a great plan. this is all republicans talking about other republicans. it's just chaos. it's not just a day of like long knives in republican politics. today is a day of long knives when everybody has them out and is using them in a mosh pit. look away. the king of them all, the winner has to be the anonymous, what do they say?
the phrase was senior house republican leadership source, who told ryan grim at "the huffington post" today, that in his or her view, quote, ted cruz is the leader of a secret cabal of leftists that are seeking control of the conservative movement. their aim is to force the party to take on suicidal missions to destroy the movement from within. i cannot top that. but this is interesting insight into the conservative mind. liberals always think that it's performance art, right? like we look at somebody like ann coulter as being maybe secretly a liberal comedian, who is doing an extended performance art project to make conservative pundits seem really unreasonable and unlikable and super mean. or carl paladino. maybe he is performance art. maybe he's the new andy coffman, standing there with his baseball bat, talking about how mad he is, sending around mailers that have scratch and sniff garbage smell. being proud of the people having
sex with horses, racist porn that he sends around to his political colleagues. liberals look at carl paladino or ann coulter or herman cain, 999, liberals think maybe those people are liberal artists, who are designed to make clear through hyperbole what is gross but sometimes true about conservatism and republican politics. that's what liberals think. conservatives, on the other hand, we're now learning, do not think about performance art. they do not think it's art. they, instead, think it's a conspiracy, organized by liberals to plant hyperbolic self-destructive slippery slope radicals in very public positions in the conservative movement to make you guys look bad. con fronted with the same type of people, liberals trust art to do that. conservatives trust liberals to do that. they think that we cooked up ted
cruz. you know what, i wish liberals were that smart. but liberals are not helping with this, as all. this is a full-blown occasionally profane fight, solely among republins. about how hard they want to wage a fight, that they all acknowledge will be futile anyway, against something that democrats feel very comfortable about, and are unified around. this is the kind of day in politics where democrats just shut up, pop popcorn, and watch the other side self-destruct. but how does this end and who is likely to be left standing in this very, very ugly fight? joining us now is ryan grimm. he's the washington bureau chief for the "huffington post" and he is the guy who got the leftist cabal quote today, for which i will be grateful forever. ryan, great to see you. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> the leftist cabal anonymous source who spoke to you in those terms about ted cruz, was that purely out of frustration, or is there an actual belief that there is an effort to do harm to the republican establishment and
that's what senator cruz and these others shut down the government guys are doing? >> well, it's mostly a joke, but it has a certain amount of resonance among republican leadership aides, because they feel like he is a smart guy, and so it's obvious that what he is doing is destructive to the party. now, they don't want to go all the way and say well, therefore, he must be a liberal plant. i think it was mostly in jest that he was saying that. but they're asking themselves, what is going on here? what is this guy thinking? and then you think, well, he is canadian. he is ivy league. he was a rhodes scholar, and maybe the pieces do start coming together. >> as an almost-canadian rhodes scholar myself, who would love to see that outcome, i plead guilty. i have to say, on the senator cruz factor, the part of it that doesn't -- the part of it that seems like just desserts is how angry how many republicans have
been at him since he's been in the senate for frequently embarrassing them, for running ads to try to push them on positions that will be unpopular with their constituents and things like that. but the part of that doesn't necessarily make sense to me is why they're so aggrieved at him. why do they think he's the one that put the whole party in this very bad decision? >> that part is very tactical. and as of yesterday morning, house republican leaders were thinking, you know, the only way that we can get bailed out of this situation is if ted cruz kind of jumps the shark. if he starts attacking our rank and file members. and lo and behold, a couple hours later, he did just that. and so, while there's at of umbrage and outrage that was being expressed on the surface, for people who actually didn't want the government to shut down and thought that this was a dumb plan from the very beginning, they were giddy. and so, what they're doing now is they're training everybody's fire on ted cruz. so where it used to be, everybody kind of debating how
this was going to go and it was ted cruz, aligned with house tea party members against john boehner and cantor, now it's boehner and cantor allied with the rest of the house, all hating ted cruz. so that's a much better situation, if you're john boehner or if you're eric cantor or if you're obama or democrats or the country, for that matter. >> is it sustainable, given this is a proxy battle which stands in for the larger war for the republican establishment or the republican insurgency, who wins this battle and how does it factor into that larger war? >> it's always hard to predict the future, but this very well could be the turning point. because if you think about where the power of the tea party lies, it's in their very credible threat against house leadership. but house leadership can now turn them towards senator cruz. so whenever they're up against,
say, a government shutdown, debt ceiling, whatever else they're getting pressured to do, all boehner has to do is say, look, if your buddy, ted cruz, can come up with a strategy where this can get all the way through and the pressure isn't all on the house, then i'm willing to do it. and ted cruz can't do that, and they know, the tea party knows that ted cruz will just put all the pressure on house republicans, so they'll say, forget about it. you know what, you know, we'll pass our bill, you know, so the house will pass their cr, that will defund obama care. then the senate will push it back to them. and the house will say, well, look, we tried, ted cruz failed. he's the loser. he's the one that the base should start hating on. and then they'll just move forward. and you can reenact that pattern, i think, for the rest of 2014, which is probably all we're going to see of john boehner. >> wow, it's just, it's the exact strategy that works against the biggest guy in dodgeball.
it's like, i learned this in third grade. two lanes, but i learned it. ryan grimm, washington bureau chief for "huffington post." thanks very much for your time. >> thanks for having me. we have a best new thing in the world coming up tonight that goes back to our friends at cnn, but in a good way, and that made me very, very happy. that's coming up at the end of the show tonight. stay with us. >> i believe that this is our time. this is when it really matters. yes, we voted to repeal obama care 30 to 40 times, but this is when it really counts. this is when it's time to put up or shut up. we lowered her fever. you raise her spirits. we tackled your shoulder pain. you make him rookie of the year. we took care of your cold symptoms. you take him on an adventure. tylenol® has been the number 1 doctor recommended brand of pain reliever for over 20 years. but for everything we do, we know you do so much more.
tylenol®. [knock] no one was at home, but on the kitchen table sat three insurance policies. the first had lots of coverage. the second, only a little. but the third was... just right! bear: hi! yeah, we love visitors. that's why we moved to a secluded house in the middle of the wilderness. just the right coverage at just the right price. coverage checker from progressive.
the reason that governor ultrasound is called that, the reason that governor bob mcdonnell of virginia has the nickname governor ultrasound even thousand when he might be turned out of office or criminally indicted for a totally unrelated scandal, the way bob mcdonnell got the ultrasound nickname is because of the bill he supported as a state legislator for many, many years, and a law he signed into law in virginia, which requires virginia woman to get ultrasounds even if they don't want them, even if they don't need them, and even if their doctor does not want them to have them. the state legislature and governor ultrasound are the ones who have decided which medical procedure you will have and you will pay for by order of state law. thus he is known as governor ultrasound.
but rightfully, he should not be the only governor ultrasound. because he is not the only republican governor to sign a forced ultrasound law in the last few years. they have them in texas, in louisiana, in indiana, in kansas and arizona and wisconsin. this is a relatively recent invention, this idea that state government should force you to have an ultrasound, essentially, as the price of having an abortion, even if you and your doctor do not want you to have an ultrasound. it's a relatively recent idea. but since the idea took hold, republicans have been pushing it all over the country. and the push for these laws happened all at once, all over the country, not because republican governors and legislatures all got the same idea all at once, but because of model legislation, a group called americans united for life. it's a big well-funded anti-abortion group, they published a model bill, a template, essentially, for state legislatures on ultrasounds. the sunlight foundation did an analysis of more than a dozen republican-controlled states,
where they moved ultrasound legislation. and they found overlapping language that seemed to indicate that all of these bills were derived from the americans united for life model bill on forcing women to have ultrasounds. model legislation is something that a lot of different groups do on the left and on the right. there's nothing scandalous about that as a tactic in and of itself. what's remarkable about the forced ultrasound stuff is americans united for life have been so successful for it, even though the republican party is ever and always trying to bill itself as a small government party. the freedom party, the party that leaves you alone, except for the ultrasound wand that they insist must be insert -- never mind. it doesn't matter if you say no, doesn't matter if your doctor says no, shawl government republicans are mandating that it be done to you and that you pay for it. it is ideologically awkward, right? which makes the widespread success of that model legislation all the more remarkable. and now, we know what is next from this remarkably successful
group. the vice president of operations from americans united for life, the guy who was there actually running the operations of that group during the time that they published their model legislation on forced ultrasound, the guy who saw it taken up by republican legislatures across the country, saw it moved as legislation in more than a dozen states and signed into law all over the place, even in places where it was blocked by the courts because it simply seemed really, blatantly illegal. the guy who was in charge of that success for americans united for life, the guy who was in charge of actually running the day-to-day operations of americans united for life during that forced ultrasound heyday now has a new job. now he is running the day-to-day operations for this group, which launched a high-profile ad campaign telling college students today that they shouldn't let the government play doctor. hmm? so the last place he worked was helping republicans pass legislation to force women to have ultrasounds against their will.
the new place he works, this is what they do. >> okay. let's have a look. >> ahh! >> so these ads got a lot of attention today, because they're so creepy. they're designed to be creepy, right? there's also one where it's a young man instead of a young woman and he's due to have a prostate exam instead of a gynecological exam. the idea is not that it's bad for the government to be forcing you to have specific medical procedures against your will. the idea here is that it is bad to have health insurance. that's what this ad campaign is.
it is a don't get health insurance ad campaign. you'll be fine! be uninsured! it's actually part of a larger campaign to, in fact, to get you to promise to not get health insurance. they want you to sign your name and pledge on your honor that you will not get health insurance. and to whom are you making that pledge? you're making it to the koch brothers. this group, running these don't get health insurance ads, is funded by charles and david koch. incidentally, the forbes list of the richest people in america was just published again this week. charles and david koch are tied. they are the fourth and fourth richest people in the united states. if you combined their money, they would have $72 billion. if you have that much money, you know what you don't need? health insurance. if charles or david koch get sick, they could just buy whatever they think might be the
best hospital to treat them. i mean, david koch at one point in his life says he did get cancer, which is scary and bad, but what he did in response is he bought m.i.t. a new cancer research center, which is awesome, but not everybody can do that. exact numbers are hard to find, but the average total cost of treating the consequences of, say, a severe heart attack, can run to be about $1 million per person. maybe you might have a less severe heart attack, in which case, try $750,000 for your out-of-pocket costs. if you get cervical cancer, you're expect cost of treatment over the first six months can range from about $4,000 for the easiest to treat to more than $45,000 for the hardest to treat, and that's just the first six months, never mind the follow-up care after that. even if it's just a broken leg, if you're writing a check to treat your broken leg, the average cost of treating a broken leg can be over $10,000. and nobody wants any of those things to happen to them, but those things do still happen,
usually unexpectedly. and if something terrible, lake cervical cancer, happens to you, would you like to be able to get treatment for that cancer? yeah. then, unless you've got $45,000 cash on hand to fork over at the window to pay for your treatment, you're not going to get treatment unless you have health insurance. that's why we have health insurance. that's why we have a whole system of health insurance. that's why every industrialized nation in the world has some kind of a system of health insurance. it's a system. and everybody who can get into the system should be able to go to the doctor when they're sick and get medicine to treat their illnesses and not be bankrupted by some bad surprise that they don't have cash on hand to pay for the treatment of. the koch brothers have launched this new ad campaign today to tell people to not get health insurance. young people, especially. because getting health insurance is part of an evil democratic plot to try to get more people to have health insurance. and that is just like the dr. -- the government playing doctor. and the government playing
the united states, not so much. now, we all know what eventually happened at the 1980 olympics, right? usa! usa! but do you know how it happened? in part, it was some amazing psychological trickery that was played on the ragtag underdog u.s. hockey team by its own coach. coach herb brooks wanted his team to be unafraid of the big, bad soviets who were definitely a better team. he wanted his guys to be loose and confident and to go out there and play with all they had. so as the big game approached, coach brooks repeatedly told his players, pointed out to his players, that the soviet team's captain, boras mchighloft, a player more talented by anybody on the u.s. team by a mile, he went out of his way to point out to them that he was not to be feared. in fact, he would tell his guy that mchighloft looked a lot like the guy from laurel and hardy, the skinny one. there's no way anyone can fear the skinny guy.
look at him, laugh in his face, be not afraid, and it worked. with no reason to believe they could win, the u.s. team played fearlessly and they eked out the most famous upset in all of american sports in all-time. usa! usa! all because of a ridiculous and hilarious doppelganger. and now there's another one. and it's the best new thing in the world today and it's come right up. stay with us.
the whole point of going in and having these limited strikes, i was told, to punish assad for those chemical weapon strikes. now we're willing to say, well, russia's on it, we don't need to punish him anymore, let's get rid of the chemical weapons, and i'm sorry, cornell, but no one believes that that's actually possible. they've been moving chemical weapons, hezbollah probably has them already. this is a farce. it's kabuki theater and we're all in for a very rude awakening. >> so we shouldn't go in and start dropping bombs? is that your point? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay. >> we need to put our muscle where our mouth is. >> "we need to put our muscle where our mouth is." >> that was a host on cnn, a
very nice person, she used to work here, a host on cnn volunteering, personally, to go to the middle east and personally fight in a new american war there. at least, i think that's what happened at the end there. play that part again. >> so we should go in and start dropping bombs, is that your point? >> uh, yes, absolutely. >> okay. >> we need to put our muscle where our mouth is. >> "our muscle." in this case, because i do not think she is enlisting in the marines, i think this is probably a royal "we." another pundit who has a job talking in a television studio talking tough about a war who ought to be started and then volunteering other people, other people's children, to go fight that war. >> first of all, the tyrant assad is a big winner. usa could pulverize his military machine, but because of the so-called compromise, the usa will not bomb him. >> the so-called compromise, which has so disappointed all the pundits who were really looking forward to the next war that they would advocate, but not themselves fight in.
this so-called compromise is the plan for syria to give up its holdout position as one of only seven countries in the world to not sign the chemical weapons convention. to sign that convention, declare its weapons, and start working through an international process of inspections and verifications to give up their nerve gas and their sarin and their mustard gas, which of as two weeks ago, they didn't even admit they had, but now they admit to and say they will hand over. president obama never proposed that the u.s. military start fighting the syrian civil war for one side or the other. the only proposed u.s. military strike, specifically because of chemical weapons. and now syria's chemical weapons are an issue that is being settled diplomatically, instead of by the u.s. of use of u.s. military force. and it turns out the american public loves this idea. the latest "washington post"/abs news poll asked americans if they like this plan to have the u.n. take over and destroy the chemical weapons as an alternative to u.s. missile strikes.
79% of americans say, yes, i like this idea. this is a better idea than sending the u.s. military. whether or not it includes a pundit brigade. 79% is a very high level of support for any policy, ever. people love this outcome. people also hate the idea of using the u.s. military in syria, and day love the plan to have syria turn over its chemical weapons. even with not great confidence in this same poll, that syria will turn over its chemical weapons, people still prefer very strongly that this is the right course to pursue instead of shooting missiles at them. the polling is really, really clear. the polling says, according to the american public, what we are doing now makes sense. pursue this diplomatically, do not send the military. that's what the public thinks. but the pundit brigade does not agree. david ignatius at "the washington post," which "washington post" was, of course, the mother ship of all beltway common wisdom, david ignatius wrote a really interesting column today, kind of coming clean on this. even as his own paper was
running yet another story today, calling the president weak and un-commander in chief like for finding a peaceful way forward in syria, his paper today quoting an ex-john mccain staffer, saying, this was president obama's worst moment, even as "the post," on its news pages, not even just its opinion pages, continues the beltway lament that we didn't go to war again when we could have, there's david ignatius, admitting how puzzling it is that even though president obama has accomplished goals that most persons endorse, the public overwhelmingly backing the course that president obama has chosen, quote, yet the opinion of elites is sharply negative. quote, the mystery is why this outcome in syria is derided by so many analysts in washington. it is a remarkable thing that has just happened in our country. the american public really did not want another war. we did not have another war. the president instead found a diplomatic way forward that the
public loves. the issue was chemical weapons and syria is now on track to get rid of its chemical weapons. without the war that we didn't want, that apparently we're not going to have, because we didn't have to have it. we did it without firing a shot. win, win, win. the public loves it. annoyed and almost the whole pundit class hates it. why is that? joining us now for the interview tonight is barney frank, former democratic congressman of massachusetts. congressman frank, it's really nice to have you back. thanks for being here tonight. >> thanks, rachel. >> why do you think there is this disconnect between american public opinion and what we hear from the pundit class? >> well, there are two disturbing aspects of it. one is, and this particularly troubles me, and i just saw my old colleague, who i'd always worked well with, leon panetta, actually criticizing barack obama, saying, before i go to war, not in clear self-defense, was before i make this discretionary decision to start war, i'm going to ask congress. and panetta attacked him for that and many of the media have, when they talked about the
president's weakness. it's because he apparently has this belief in democracy and said, look, if we're going to use armed forces, if we're going to send our young people in to be killed, we'll ask congress. for years, there's been in drum beat of the presidents acting unilaterally or being highhanded. and you have the view that the president is always -- in the middle ages, there was a saying that the king could do no wrong, which meant if something wrong happened, blame somebody else, because you wanted to preserve the monarchy's integrity. today the view of many in the media is the president can do no right. so when he makes this important democratic step that many of us have been looking for for years, it now becomes weakness. by the way, you see, as far as many of my colleagues complain,
they really wanted to duck the tough vote. the other part is, the media has just decided to be critical. again, it's partly that you don't get points, you don't get leadership, you don't distinguish yourself by praising someone. a sharp mind shows how bad things were. and in fact, by the way, i think the president was right to threaten the use of force. it looks like we're getting a good result, because he threatened the use of force. he then said, i'm only going to do it if it's democratically done, and the russians stepped in. and as you said, the syrians, from having denied they had any capital weapons, have now at least committed to getting rid of the weapons which two weeks ago they said they didn't have. >> in terms of the expert class opinion on this subject, on national security matters, and you've been very critical of the size of the defense budget, the fact that so much in national security is exempt from consideration, you've been so outspoken on these issues for so
long, do you feel like the expert class, kind of the think tank class, the people that get booked on tv shows when these things are being debated, are they structurally hawkish? are they always going to be structurally pro-war? >> they're suffering from severe cultural war. it was for 50 years. there was an existential threat to our existence. it was declining as the soviet union declined. what happened was, chainy and wolfowitz and that crowd managed to pump up terrorism. and i think there's kind of an unconscious bias in the press. it's much more important to write about potential threats to national security than about more humdrum stuff. but you make a very good point, rachel. here's what i want to follow up on. i thought it was useful to threaten that strike, and if the syrians had not moved and the russians didn't involve, a very quick strike there. it never made sense to me to get
involved the way john mccain want to in the whole civil war. but what we have now is a kind of a disconnect. it's clear that the american people have decided that this policy of intervention, militarily, into the internal affairs of iraq or staying in afghanistan else and where is a mistake. we should be taking the is next step. if we're not going to do that intervention, let's stop paying hundreds of billions of dollars a year to have a capability that we're not going to use. >> if there is a cultural lag, like you're describing, in the expert class and in the media on this, what's the corrective? it seems to me there has to be a corrective if 80% of the country thinks something's a bad idea, and 80% of the media is telling them the opposite. >> well, it's a little analogous to another issue dear to both of our hearts, same-sex marriage. reality is a very good way to eviscerate myth. i think the reality of the american people's view now that we are way overextended and need to the do more of this is going
to break through. but there's a very simple response. what we should now be moving on, those of us who think this way, is afghanistan. the american people, as you cite, were overwhelmingly against a new involvement in syria. every argument against a new involvement in syria applies with greater force to continuing to stay in afghanistan. we're spending much, much, much more money, more people are being killed, it's more destabilizing. so i would hope that some of my colleagues would now be renewing the effort that some of us have made in the past, put an amendment in. the president suffers a little bit from that cultural lag himself. he says he wants to get out of afghanistan at the end of next year. i don't understand why another year is there. as i said, when i was for four more years, it wasn't for four more years in afghanistan. so i would hope right now, very specifically, let's push my former colleagues to vote on a resolution that says, we will be out of afghanistan as soon as practical, shooting for the end of this year. if it takes more time for that
logistically, okay, to protect everybody's safety. but we should be building on that. and i believe, once members of congress are confronted with that choice, they're going to hear there their constituents that they ought to make it. >> i think you are right that if that was floated, that people would be surprised by the depth of public opinion in favor of something like that. fascinating proposal. barney frank, former democratic congressman from massachusetts, i miss seeing you here more frequently, sir. it's great to have you back. thank you. >> thanks, rachel. >> best new thing in the world today is coming up. stay with us. ♪ honey, we need to talk. we do? i took the trash out. i know. and thank you so much for that. i think we should get a medicare supplement insurance plan. right now? [ male announcer ] whether you're new to medicare or not, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. it's up to you to pay the difference. so think about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans,
they help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. i did a little research. with a medicare supplement plan, you'll be able to stay with your doctor. oh, you know, i love that guy. mm-hmm. [ male announcer ] these types of plans let you visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. and there are no networks. is this a one-size-fits-all kind of thing? no. there are lots of plan options. it all depends on what we need and how much we want to spend. [ male announcer ] call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find an aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. what happens when we travel? the plans go with us. anywhere in the country. i like that. you know what else? unitedhealthcare insurance company has years and years of experience. what do you say? ♪ i'm in. [ male announcer ] join the millions already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. remember, all medicare supplement plans
help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay and could really save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose your own doctor or hospital as long as they accept medicare patients. and with these plans, there could be low or no copays. you do your push-ups today? prepare to be amazed. [ male announcer ] don't wait. call today to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan to go the distance with you. go long. [ jen garner ] what skincare brand is so effective... so trusted... so clinically proven dermatologists recommend it twice as much as any other brand? neutrogena®. recommended by dermatologists 2 times more than any other brand.
here it is. a whole new idea. never been tried before. untested in the russian part of the arctic, owned, operated by gazprom. the soviet ministry of gas industry turned into gazprom now owns this giant one of a kind death star oil platform above the arctic circle. doesn't take the precautions it should when it drills. the whole arctic region is threatened by it being there. to dramatize the case, one group went up to protest. green peace. went out to the big new russian oil platform in the arctic. went in six vessels including their own big ice breaking ship
s. the arctic sunrise. yesterday, five of their activists tried to board the russian oil platform. the russian oil platform guys turned fire hoses on them to try to knock them off the rig. the russian coast guard turned up and russian coast guard opened fire. they shot at them. nobody was killed or injured. the russians held everybody at gun point. took two green peace activists into custody. the russian coast guard officers you see in footage. wearing military uniforms and you can see that guy is handing a gun. brandishing guns. at one point, one of the guys is holding a knife. something in me doesn't understand pulling a knife on an inflatable boat. the russian coast guard isn't organized the way ours is. their coast guard is part of what used to be the kgb in case that helps understand it. as of tonight we're told two
detained activists have not yet been released. they're being held at sea by the russian coast guard since yesterday. yesterday was the activists boarding the oil platform. then getting attacked at gun point and knifepoint by the russian coast guard. today, it was the green peace ship itself. that was boarded by the russians. a few minutes later, this "russian authorities on board with guns. they're breaking into the communications room." "this is pretty terrifying." loud banging, screaming in russian. they're still trying to kick in the door. then this, a few hours later. russian media say arctic sunrise, the ship will be taken to the russian city in the far northwest of the country. keep in mind this is green peace's version of events. how green peace says things went down.
but, i mean this is what things were look when the russian coast guard was only arresting two people in the confrontation. today they detained the whole ship. green peace hq says they lost all contact with the ship after russians took it over. boarded and took it over to. day people in d.c. showed up at the residence of the russian ambassador to the u.s. demanding activists and ship be released. at this hour that still has the not happened. even if they are released it is not clear how this end. apparently the second time in two months the russian coast guard shot at the green peace ice breaking ship in the arctic trying to publicize and disrupt drilling efforts. however the issue pans out. in the short term, activists and their ship are in vladamir putin's hands. watch this space.
>> i am hoping i get a chance to go over to russia and do a face to face interview with pravda. look forward how to that opportunity. maybe while i'm there get a chance to chat with vladamir, take my shirt off, we can do some things together, huh? >> arm wrestle or something? >> senator mccain. >> that's the loudest uh in the world. tempting to call that the best new thing in the world if only mr. cooper on cnn keeping his composure. as john mccain tells him he wants to take off his shirt with vladamir putin and do some things together. mr. cooper holding it together for that is an excellent thing. this is better behold the best new thing in the world today. oh. why the long face? this dog was reportedly a stray, found on the streets of kiev in the former soviet republic of ukraine. the dog's picture was posted by a ukrainian newspaper under
oddities. if you can't read the alphabet, trust me. why this picture of a street dog is an oddity. does he look at all familiar? thank you, google translate. on khreschatyk found a dog like a putin. the dog is a dead ringer for president putin. amazing. amazing. even more so when you lay the pictures on top of each other. uncanny. putin any face is coming out of the dog. the internet of course exploded over this today. basically my whole morning. all speculation about what exactly is putinesque about the dog? the eyes with the same expression, gaze upon me for i am a bad -- the bridge of the nose, similar in shape. i think on their own neither of the things would be enough. the real reason this dog is so putinesque is because the dog is shirtless.