strom thurmond. even strom thurmond came to for voting rights. but republicans of today can't and won't. >> joining us now, jelani cobb, staff writer for "the new yorker" and professor of jim at columbia university, and eddie glaude, chairman of the african american studies department at princeton university and an msnbc contributor. professor glaude, president biden offered a few different historical frames of where we stand tonight on voting rights, including that point we just heard, that even strom thurmond eventually got there and got to a place where no republican senator stands tonight. >> right. so, first of all, i'm really excited. i am a graduate of morehouse. i am delighted you had the president of morehouse college on and happy new year and the like. so, yeah, so i think president biden made a great point with regards to the historical commitment on the part of republicans to pass voting rights. we need to add a little historical nuance. even though strom thurmond supported the voting rights act and ronald reagan supported the voting

one of the most powerful and popular senators in the history of america was strom thurmond. 2010 when i ran for congress. i ran for congress in the place where the civil war started, and i ran for congress in a republican primary against the son of strom thurmond. i won that race not merely because of would i am but because of who we have become as a nation. the evolution of the hearts of america and the hearts of southerners could not be more clear on a day when the son of a single mother, mired in poverty, runs against the son of one of the most famous senators in the history of the country and comes out victorious. i would love for us to have a conversation about what we're doing for americans as opposed to this negative false narrative of what is

i knew strom thurmond very well, knew his family. his wife, his sister gertrude. i had desks next to each other, when we both worked in state government together. strong thurman and i talked about the voting rights act. he supported. he did, after a while come out against. but he filibustered in 1957, the civil rights act. that he told me on more than one occasion, that he was a bit embarrassed about having done so. >> there seems to be no trace of embarrassment in those 50 republicans. >> yeah, that is the way it seems. at least one republican came out for the john lewis. from alaska. i think she's still there. i do believe there are others who would come out in favor. if we get some movement for leadership. i don't know if mitch mcconnell is making statements that he is making for him to say that some sort of power grab. is it a power grab to want the right to have your vote counted? it's not a power grab. you are trying to be a part of this great experiment that we call a democracy. and i would hope that senator mitch mcconnell would recognize that as such. he

strom thurmond or john lewis? the site of jefferson days and or -- government eggs were abraham lincoln? >> he was trying to frame it in moral terms, much like lyndon johnson d in 1965, say this is a defining moment in american history and you have to pick a side. you cannot just -- you have to live the values that martin luther king fought for, namely the values of the right to vote, which martin luther king called civil rights number one. i thought it was interesting what the president said about republicans previously supporting voting rights. the voting rights act was authorized four times and every reauthorization was signed by a republican president and supported by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in congress. that did not mean every republican like the voting rights a, lots of gop presidents like nixon and reagan did not want to sign a reauthorization of the voting rights act but thereas such a strong consensus bipartisan for these bills that republicans had no choice but to support them. so much of the

even strom thurmond came to support voting rights. but republicans today can't and won't. not a single republican has displayed the courage to stand up to a defeated president to protect america's right to vote. not one. not one. we are 50-50 in the united states senate. that means we have 51 presidents. you all think i'm kidding. [laughter] i've been pretty good at working with senators in my career but man when you've got 51 presidents it gets harder. any one can change the outcome. sadly, the united states senate designed to be the world's greatest deliberative body has been rendered a shell of its former self. gives me no satisfaction in seeing that. as an institutionalist. as a man who was honored to serve in the senate. but as an institutionalist, i believe the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills. debate them. vote. let the majority prevail. and if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the senate rules including getting rid of the filibuster for this. [applause] you know, last year, if

thurmond and many others who stood in the way of civil rights, even strom thurmond came around on voting rights, but if they want to go down in history as standing on the side of segregationists and those who oppose people who look like me having free and fair access to the ballot, then we'll remember them as such. this is that type of moment, and this is the urgency we have to have. >> gloria, i think bakari's response to the speech is very much in keeping with biden's tone. president biden's tone. but what i've heard from democratic senators that are concerned about changing the rule is, what happens when republicans take over the chamber and because we have gotten rid of this precedent, all of a sudden, republicans with a narrow majority of one vote or tie vote plus the vice president, whatever, are able to pass a nationwide abortion ban or change voting rights even worse -- >> sure. >> and that's their concern. but at the same time, they'll be hearing from individuals like president biden and bakari. >> that's right. look, what biden did was kind of dipped his toe in the water or tho

strom thurmond -- none of us have a lot of happy memories about strom thurmond. so, again, since you asked my critique of the president's speech, i thought it was fabulous. i come out -- congratulate him for it. it was well-received, even among those who had some apprehension of what's going to happen with this, all of this, next. so i thank him for it, and i stand with the president in the fight for voting rights. thank you. i unfortunately have to go to the floor to vote for the bill, as well as gavel it down. thank you, all. >> thank you all, thank you. announcer: house minority leader kevin mccarthy faced questions from reporters about his refusal to participate in the january 6 investigation seeking information regarding conversations with then-president donald trump.

even strom thurmond came to support voting rights. but republicans today can't and won't. not a single republican has displayed the courage to stand up to a defeated president to protect america's right to vote. not one. not one. we are 50-50 in the united states senate. that means we have 51 presidents. you all think i'm kidding. [laughter] i've been pretty good at working with senators in my career but man when you've got 51 presidents it gets harder. any one can change the outcome. sadly, the united states senate designed to be the world's greatest deliberative body has been rendered a shell of its former self. gives me no satisfaction in seeing that. as and constitutionalist. as a man who was honored to serve in the senate. but as an institutionalist, i believe the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills. debate them. vote. let the majority prevail. and if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the senate rules including getting rid of the filibuster for this. you know, last year, if i'm not m

i ran for congress in a republican primary against the son of strom thurmond. i won that race not merely because of would i am but because of who we have become as a nation. the evolution of the hearts of america and the hearts of southerners could not be more clear on a day when the son of a single mother, mired in poverty, runs against the son of one of the most famous senators in the history of the country and comes out victorious. i would love for us to have a conversation about what we're doing for americans as opposed to this negative false narrative of what is happening to america. thank you, madam president. mr. warnock: madam vice president. the vice president: the senator from georgia. mr. warnock: thank you, madam vice president. we have been summoned here by history. this is not just another day in the senate. this is a moral moment in america. i recall the words of that great american patriot and -- martin luther king jr., who all of us just observed, dr. king said history has thrust something upon me from which i cannot turn away. we have been sum

one of the most powerful and popular senators in the history of america was strom thurmond. 2010 when i ran for congress. i ran for congress in the place where the civil war started, and i ran for congress in a republican primary against the son of strom thurmond. i won that race not merely because of would i am but because of who we have become as a nation. the evolution of the hearts of america and the hearts of southerners could not be more clear on a day when the son of a single mother, mired in poverty, runs against the son of one of the most famous senators in the history of the country and comes out victorious. i would love for us to have a conversation about what we're doing for americans as opposed to this negative false narrative of what is happening to america. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i have deep and tremendous respect for my friend from south carolina. i'm not a senator from the south, but my family hails from the south, from monroe, louisiana, to alabama, to north carolina. i k

i went to strom thurmond's funeral. he was the longest serving senator in south carolina, and joe biden came and spoke for about an hour about his friend strom thurmond. he said i didn't agree with his policies but he was a good, decent man i could work w. joe biden, that joe biden is dead and buried. what you saw was a guy running scared. he's afraid of the left. they are going to throw him off the ticket. and he's been a failure as a president so he's playing the race card. and i don't appreciate it. you know, i've got plenty of faults. i'm not by any means a perfect person. but i am not a racist. you're not a racist if you want to have the law so you identify people, that they are who they are when they vote by mail. >> tucker: let me ask you and switch gears on you a little bit here and that's about leader mcconnell. he's seeking another term as leader. look, i've been pretty outspoken about senator mcconnell. i was beyond frustrated and disappointed most recently. he gives chuck schumer not one but two extensions a

i went to strom thurmond's funeral. he was the longest serving senator in south carolina, and joe biden came and spoke for about an hour about his friend strom thurmond. he said i didn't agree with his policies but he was a good, decent man i could work w. joe biden, that joe biden is dead and buried. what you saw was a guy running scared. he's afraid of the left. they are going to throw him off the ticket. and he's been a failure as a president so he's playing the race card. and i don't appreciate it. you know, i've got plenty of faults. i'm not by any means a perfect person. but i am not a racist. you're not a racist if you want to have the law so you identify people, that they are who they are when they vote by mail. >> sean: let me ask you and switch gears on you a little bit here and that's about leader mcconnell. he's seeking another term as leader. look, i've been pretty outspoken about senator mcconnell. i was beyond frustrated and disappointed most recently. he gives chuck schumer not one but two extensions and

scott bomboy a lot of viewers will hear the word filibuster and they'll think of strom thurmond in the late 1940s and civil rights. what happened then? well, i think it was the the later in 1950s as strong thurman undertook the longest filibuster, which was 24 hours to. block a civil rights act. it was not a significant as to what i'm 1964 and his filibuster reaction. we did fail, but the act was not meaningful in 1964. the civil rights act was the major civil rights act of the era. it was kind of the culmination of generations of civil rights efforts, and it was a group filibuster led by four or five southern democratic and that was really the important. filibuster that was defeated. it was kind of the end of the cycle of the classic, you know speaking filibuster is where people literally hold the floor for days and days and days. and at that point they had to be on the floor speaking, correct? yes. yeah, i think there is one case for senator like held one foot on the floor and didn't his foot was the outside the floor under the name it a discussion about whether that was proper or no

nancy pelosi criticized him for evoking bull connor and strom thurmond and former congresswoman and democratic presidential candidate tulsi gabbard tweeted "hillary calling tens of millions of americans deplorables was divisive and disgusting, biden has gone further calling those who disagree with his actions and policies domestic enemies, traders, racists and biden did promise to unite us but he is doing all he can to divide us. tonight it appears the only way joe biden is uniting americans is against joe biden. former congresswoman tulsi gabbard joins us with more. give your overall perception of not only the speech but this week and this year. we are a few days away from the one-year anniversary since since he was inaugurated. >> i think there are so many people across the country, those who voted for joe biden, those who did not vote for joe biden who had high hopes that he would carry out his promise, that he would be the president for all americans, showing respect for those who agreed with him or disagreed with him. unfortunately the opposite is true. not only has he not carried out on

thurmond's filibuster, right? in the history of civil rights and voting rights and protection of democracy, you'll go down in history as the one who laid down and said no, we cannot have these protections, americans don't deserve these protections of our democracy. to put yourself in that section of the history book, knowing that vote is coming, i just don't -- i mean somebody's got to be proud to stand and live that way in history, but i don't know how you get there. i don't know how you're manchin or sinema and live with that. >> well, exactly the way you phrased that is one of the reasons that in the past, before the 21st century, senate majority leaders used to bring bills to the floor, important ones, weighty ones, without necessarily knowing they had the votes to win because one thing they were bringing to the floor with them, the historical imperative and moral imperative on their side and they believed that could push just the right number of votes. in this world, the present tense united states senate, i

strom thurmond. you can say that again. wow. you have no how darn hard i worked on that one. folks, then it was signed in to law the last time president by george w. bush. you know, when we get voting rights extended in 1980, even thurmond supported, think about that, the man that led one of the longest filibusters in history in the united states senate, 1957 against the voting rights act, the man that led and sided with old southern bulls to perpetuate segregation in this nation, even strom thurmond came to support public rights. republicans today can't and won't, not a single republican has displayed the courage to stand up to a defeated president to protect america's right to vote. not one. not one. we have 50/50 in the united states senate. that means we have 51 presidents. you all think i'm kidding. i've been pretty good working with senators my whole career. when you have 51 presidents, it gets harder. anyone can change the outcome. sadly the united states senate designed to be the world's greatest deliberative body is a shell of itself. as an institutionalist, it's a t

thurmond. when he had the largest filibuster in the history of the senate, arguing against voting rights, what did he argue? he argued for states rights. that is what we have been hearing in recent days. let the message go out. you cannot remember martin luther king jr. and dismember his legacy at the same time. you can argue whatever side you want, but you do not get to argue both sides. you do not get to offer praises and platitudes in memory of dr. king and marshall the same kinds of states rights arguments that were used against the civil rights movement. and against martin luther king jr.. this is a mormon. -- this is a moment. you have to decide. we are one nation. e pluribus unum, out of many one. that is what voting rights insurers, people from various backgrounds get to speak, and people have their say. in georgia, they are trying to get rid of drop boxes in the middle of a pandemic. who does that serve? who are they trying to help by proposing they get rid of drop boxes in the middle

we'll be the strom thurmond end of the party. then what? >> thank you. much of the power around election protection is going to rest with the department of justice. i don't have any worries that the department of justice will not pull out all the stops to do some of the important things that we need to protect the vote. that was the whole point of ensuring that there were, you know, former civil rights attorneys and voting rights attorneys in leadership the head of the civil rights division is christian clark, an experienced long time voting rights litigation. so there will be things that can be done through the doj for sure and i think many of the ideas that jason talked about and we have pressed the president on this since last year use all your power and influence. i have to disagree with jason that i don't think laying out what those threats are today would have been the best possible move because i think you play out every hand that you're dealt. we're going to see what happens with this vote. i think you're right that we don't have much reason to b

strom thurmond voted to extend the voting rights act. strom thurmond. you can say that again. wow. you have no idea how damn, darn hard i worked on that one. but folks, then it was signed into law the last time by president george w. bush. you know, when we get voting rights extended to 1980, i said even thurmond supported it. think about that. the man who led the, one of the longest filibusters in history, united states senate, 1957 against the voting rights act. the man who led and sided with all southern bulls in the united states senate to perpetuate segregation in this nation. even strom thurmond came to support voting rights. republics in the day can't and won't. not a single republican has displayed the courage to stand up to a defeated president to protect america's right to vote. not one. not one. we have 50/50 in the united states senate. that means we have 51 presidents. you all think i'm kidding. i've been pretty good at working with senators my career, but man, when you've got 51 presidents, it gets harder. any one can change the outcome. sadly, the united states senat

strom thurmond is the ranking member in the senate judicial committee and joseph r. biden is a member of the committee. stephen breyer is counsel to that committee and there's a vacancy in the federal appeals court out of boston, massachusetts. senator kennedy, who was obviously having a contentious time with jimmy carter running against him in a presidential primary, wants archibald cox to get the open slot. carter says, no, not happening. time passes. kennedy withdraws from the presidency, and ken feinberg, who went on to become the pay czar, ran ted kennedy's office suggests that steve breyer, the counsel, get the slot. kennedy asks carter to nominate breyer to the federal appeals court in boston. carter agrees to it. he becomes a federal judge in 1980, and 14 years later when there was an opening on the court ted kennedy asks bill clinton to put stephen breyer on the court. that's how it happened. strom thurmond was instrumental in asking ronald reagan after he beat carter handily in 1980 not to remove breyer's then nomination from the list because strom thurmond

thurmond to vote for it as well. i've been doing my whole career. and so the idea that i, that that i didn't either anticipate or because i didn't speak to it as fervently as they want me to earlier. in the meantime, i would spend a lot of time spent hours and hours and hours talking with my colleagues on the democratic side, trying to get them to agree that if in fact this occurred if is pushed, continue that they would be there for john lewis. and anyway, so, but i think that's, that's a problem. those mile making are not communicating as much as i should have yet in find that when you do members in the black caucus, an allusion and renounced his congress. i so have very close working relationship. so it's like every community, i'm sure that there are those in the community and i'm a big labor. sure. there's people labor saying why haven't able to do a b c or day? so just gonna take a little bit of time. her, you put the vice president harris in charge of voting rights. are you satisfied with her work on this issue

thurmond. who filibusters for 24 hours and 18 minutes all against the civil rights act of $957.00, strong, with a democrat. now this was a later followed in the 1960, when democrats actually attended to block the passage of the civil rights act of $964.00 and filibusters for record 75 hours together. now luckily for america, the filibuster failed, and the senate was able to pass a major civil rights bill. but there, that's actually a rarity. and now the democrats want to get rid of one of their most use tools in order to pass legislation, they believe promote the voting rights. but without the changing of this rule, a sinner schumer knows his voting rights and legislation will be blocked. but if it is a change, which is good for everyone, why is the senate are having such trouble garnering support from both even with their own party. so discuss, we bring in talk radio host and civil rights attorney, robert hello and steve gruber, host at this steve riverside. thanks for joining me gentlemen. th

thurmond, who filibuster, for 24 hours an 18 mit all against the civil rights act of 1957 strong with a democrat. now this was that later followed in the 19 sixty's when democrats actually attended to block the passage of the civil rights act of $964.00 and filibuster, for a record 7 the 5 hours together. now luckily for america, the filibuster failed, and the senate was able to pass a major civil rights bill. but there, that's actually a rarity. and now the democrats want to get rid of one of their most use tools. in order passed legislation, they believe promote the voting rights. but without the changing of this rule, a senator schumer knows his voting rights legislation will be blocked. but if it is a change, which is good for everyone, why does the senate are having such trouble? garnering support from both even what there is on party to discuss. we bring in talk radio host and civil rights attorney, robert hello, and steve gruber, host of this steve river show. thanks for joining me, gentlemen. thing scottie. ok, so i'm gonna start with you robert on this and before we get to th

thurmond. it was joe by right. i'm not the one who was paddling around with democrat segregationist. it's joe biden. now he's grown. i suppose, but his press conference had those confusing moments where the administration had to literally put out a statement. walking it back end. that's happened, the trumpet happened, obama. it felt jarring with by, cuz i think people were wanting something different. that was one of that hope and change that they were expecting falling president trump. but later on in the day, i think this is actually through a k, you know, very, very important people need to realize what happened. it was the defeated the plants reform, the senate rules regarding the filibuster and pushing to federalized elections. i don't think even democrat thought this was even going to be possible to pass phil ladon. what was the purpose of chuck schumer pushing this legislation? if he knew it was going to fail another loss in their category, you know, there's a lot of pressure coming from

thurmond, who filibuster, for 24 hours and 18 minutes all against the civil rights act of 957 strong with a democrat. now this was a later followed in the 1960, when democrats actually attended to block the passage of the civil rights act of $964.00 and filibuster, for record 75 hours together. now luckily for america, the filibuster failed, and the senate was able to pass a major civil rights bill. but there, that's actually a rarity. and now the democrats want to get rid of one of their most use tools. in order past legislation, they believe promote the voting rights, but without the changing of this rule, a sinner schumer knows his voting rights legislation will be blocked. but if it is a change, which is good for everyone, why is the sooner having such trouble garnering support from both even what there is on party? so discuss, we bring in talk radio host and civil rights tourney. robert hello and steve gruber host at this steve riverside. thanks for joining me gentlemen. thanks. got it. okay, so i'm a starkey rubber honest. and before we get to this voting rights bell, i wanna d

thurmond. it was joe by right. i'm not the one who was paddling around with democrat segregationist. it's joe biden. now he's grown. i suppose, but his press conference had those confusing moments where the administration had to literally put out a statement. walking it back end. that's happened, the trumpet happened, obama. it felt jarring with by, cuz i think people were wanting something different. that was one of that hope and change that they were expecting falling president trump. but later on in the day i think this is actually what k, you know, very, very important people need to realize what happened. it was the defeated the plants reform, the senate rules regarding the filibuster and pushing to federalized elections. i don't think even democrat thought this was even going to be possible to pass phil ladon. what was the purpose of chuck schumer pushing this legislation? if he knew it was going to fail another loss in their category, you know, there's a lot of pressure coming from the d

thurmond. it was joe by right. i'm not the one who was paddling around with democrat segregationist. it's joe biden. now he's grown, i suppose. but his press conference had those confusing moments where the administration had to literally put out a statement. walking it back end. that's happened, the trumpet happened to obama. it felt jarring with by, cuz i think people were wanting something different. that was one of that hope and change that they were expecting falling president trump. but later on in the day, i think this is actually what k, you know, very, very important people need to realize what happened. it was the defeated the plants reform, the senate rules regarding the filibuster and pushing to federalized elections. i don't think even democrat thought this was even going to be possible to pass. so ladon, what was the purpose of chuck schumer pushing this legislation if he knew it was going to fail another loss in their category? you know, there's a lot of pressure coming from the

thurmond, who filibuster, for 24 hours and 18 minutes all against the civil rights act of 9 $157.00 strong for the democrat. now this was a later followed in the 1960, when democrats actually attended to block the passage of the civil rights act of $964.00 and filibusters for a record 75 hours together. now luckily for america, the filibuster failed, and the senate was able to pass a major civil rights bill. but there, that's actually a rarity. and now the democrats want to get rid of one of their most used tools. in order past legislation, they believe promote voting rights. but without the changing of this rule, a center schumer knows his voting rights and legislation will be blocked. but if it is a change which is good for everyone, why is this that are having such trouble? garnering support from those even what there is on party to discuss. we bring in talk radio host and civil rights tourney. robert hello and steve gruber, host at this steve riverside. thanks for joining me gentlemen. thanks. got it. okay, so i'm gonna start with you while we're on this and before we get to thi

this has nothing to do with bull connor or strom thurmond, nothing to do with george wallace, jefferson davis, the confederacy or the civil war. this has to do with common sense and each political party vying for the position that helps them acutely more votes. >> jesse: he's not only insulting geraldo which is very offensive, he's insulting senator joe manchin, democrats who don't want to know the filibuster to pass this federal takeover of elections. what kind of strategy is that? >> dana: he said he wants to unite the country and now he's talking about dividing his own party. and geraldo is right on the voter i.d. if you look at the percentages that's on one of the only truly bipartisan agreements in this country, voter i.d. so there's one thing against him. another thing that people don't realize is they don't allow states to take this option of spending taxpayer dollars especially for anybody who is able to raise a lot of small dollar donations. guess who that would be. aoc for example, very good at fund-raising with small dollars. and that's incredibly unpopular all across the cou

how is that jefferson davis or how is that strom thurmond? it is really beyond the pale. and you know, i agree about joy reid's of the world. there is plenty of room to disagree without labeling being reduced to labeling your opponent as a racist. why is that racist? you know, requiring a voter i.d. could have? it is like the civil rights issue of our time is like black on black crime. let me hear joy reid speak about that once in a while. and then come i will give her more slack. >> greg: geraldo you said lowbrow but for nancy pelosi it is highbrow. >> she knew thomas jefferson personally. >> emily: okay, guys stay right there. the cdc try to clean up covid messaging disaster, but did they just make things worse? ♪ ♪ before treating your chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month each lasting 4 hours or more, you're not the only one with questions about botox®. botox® prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they even start, with about 10 minutes of treatment once every 3 months. so, ask your doctor if botox® is right for you, and if a sam

strom thurmond, richard shelby and ben campbell. what is the sales pitch here? >> it's simple. the democratic party has changed more and more. it's leaving middle class america, leaving working america. again, i didn't really leave the democratic party as has been said many times. it left me. i'd be willing to help -- i know it's a tough thing to do. it wasn't tough for me in the end and the right thing to do and i feel better because of it. i'll tell you why. because if you look at what the democratic majority did this year, more crime in all of our major cities, our supply chain is in trouble obviously. definitely see america is in a stage where now we are not having the energy portfolio that we did before. now we have the beg the mideast for energy, that we're on our knees to china, russia, iran. that we're weaker in our military, that our police have been demean and and diminished. how would you want to stay in that party? i don't understand it. i have to think the people of west virginia have to look at joe manchin and appreciate what he's done but say there's more. it's n

bush and strom thurmond. he talked about thurmond, the anti-civil rights icon, who in the end supported the voting rights act. this is something that even republicans found necessary to do by massive margins in the past. that is both an indictment of republicans but also of democrats who won't do what needs to be done in order to get it passed. i wonder about what your reflections were on him talking so much about how the partisanship on this issue has calcified in a way we've never seen before? >> well, i think it makes the case, right? for many of us, as you know, i cherish the work i've done across the aisle. i've passed a bunch of bills, as i've mentioned many times. but the point is, they're not playing on this right now. even though, and that's why i think he felt it was important to make the case, in the past, democracy triumphed. it's more important than any divides between us. but right now, because of the large shadow of donald trump over the republican party, there are very few people that are will

thurmond and maybe they don't mind. that's where maybe a couple of democrats are headed. >>> stick around for the absolute worst. if you thought your commute was pain in the tuchus, you ain't seen nothing yet. seen nothing yet as a professional bull-rider i'm used to taking chances. but when it comes to my insurance i don't. i use liberty mutual, they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wooo, yeaa, woooooo and, by switching you could even save 665 dollars. hey tex, can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. yeah. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ feeling sluggish or weighed down? only pay for what you need. it could be a sign that your digestive system isn't working at it's best taking metamucil everyday can help. metamucil psyllium fiber, gels to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down. it also helps lower cholesterol and slows sugar absorption to promote healthy blood sugar levels. so you can feel lighter and m

thurmond to vote for it. that's what i've been doing my hort -- my whole career. so, the idea that i didn't either anticipate or because i didn't speak to it as fervently as they wanted me to earlier, in the meantime i was spending a lot of time, hours and hours and hours, talking with my colleagues on the democratic side trying to get them to agree that if in fact this occurred, if the push continued, that they would be there. anyway. i think that's a problem of my own making by not communicating as much as i should have. you find that when you deal with members of the black caucus and others in the u.s. congress, i still have a close working relationship there. like every community, i'm sure that there are those in the community -- i'm a big labor guy, i'm sure there's people in labor saying why hasn't he done a b, c, or d. it's going to take time. >> you put vice president harris in charge of voting rights. are you satisfied with her work on this issue? can you guarantee and commit that she will be your ru

strom thurmond broke the record back in 1957, it was a talking filibuster. so if you go back to the talking filibuster, that's one thing. but how would the rules be written so as to make voting unencumbered? >> speaking of, do you think there is value in the filibuster to preserve the rights of the minority, or do you believe when the tables are turned and the republicans are in power, that they will just get rid of it anyway, and so democrats should act now specifically for voting rights? >> i mean, both those things are true. there is value in the filibuster, but it should be limited. it should not be unlimited. what we've got now is a person sitting downtown somewhere in a spa making a phone call, and the filibuster's on. the person doesn't have to do a thing about it. now, if we're talking about giving time for a person to muster support for his or her position, to explain to people why he or she feels the way he or she feels, that's one thing. but if it's just unlimited, and you can hold it up forever, which is what the case is now, that, to me, i am no

thurmond. so i do think that on the sort of core issues about democracy and whether we're going to continue to exist as a democracy, there's a newfound radicalism, an unpatriotic radicalism, the president would say, that you can add on to the obstruction that president obama faced as well. that's a kind of opposition, obstructionism, that is unprecedented. he will get pushback from this, particularly from people that are liberals like me. but i think the president is objectively right about that. >> he was pressed, and i have to say to everyone with a couple of exceptions in the room, it's hard to ask questions, to stand on your feet and ask a president questions. respect to those journalists doing their jobs, with a couple of showboating examples i would exclude from the compliment. but if you're in the room, maybe you don't see it as starkly as from the outside, but the current republican party, it was saturday after the election, finally declaring the election for president-elect joe biden.

bush and strom thurmond. he talked about thurmond, the anti-civil rights icon, who in the end supported the voting rights act. this is something that even republicans found necessary to do by massive margins in the past. that is both an indictment of republicans but also of democrats who won't do what needs to be done in order to get it passed. i wonder about what your reflections were about these things? >> i think it makes the case. i cherish the work i've done across the aisle. i've passed a bunch of bills, as i've mentioned many times. but the point is, they're not playing on this right now. even though, and that's why i think he felt it was important to make the case, in the past, democracy triumphed. it's more important than any divides between us. but right now, because of the large shadow of donald trump over the republican party, there are very few people that are willing to stand up like you're seeing with liz cheney, with the january 6th commission, that she's willing to stand up, over in the house

thurmond when heot chaired the judiciary committee voted over and over and over to reauthorize the voting rights act here yet today, as we debate the john lewis voting rights advancement act, we sadly do not have a single vote across this file to move us forward. how did this happen? how did this consensus so hard one for a so quickly wrecks into a compass because of a a lie. because of a misrepresentation that millions of illegals are voting, famously said that our immediate past president. but a widespread belief that voter fraud was undermining the very credibility of our elections has been adopted across our country and spread and cause a fundamental break. there's also been action by the new conservative majority on the supreme court in shelby county where they took out the section 4b formula been eviscerated section five preclearance to provide free election protection against voter suppression. and just last year burn of edge versus dnc which six conservative justices included -- brnovich dash the state law in arizona that had a demonstrable disparate impact on hispanic and native

. >>> strom thurmond. in 2006, the voting right passed 393 in the house of representatives and 98-0 in the senate. with votes of 16 current sitting republicans in this united states senate. i've been having these quiet conversations with members of congress for the last two months. i'm tired of being quiet! >> that's president biden delivering a strong message to congress yesterday, during his speech on voting rights in atlanta. joining us now to talk about it, white house principal press secretary karine jean-pierre, karine, thank you for being here as always. in the spirit of what the president said, that he's tired of being quiet. he indicated that he had had conversations with members of congress over the last few months on this topic. can you tell us who have the conversations been with and what's been the outcome? >> well, here's the thing, jonathan, you know, as we -- as we tend to say and we do say, is that we keep those conversations private. but he's -- he was very clear. what you saw the vice pr

thurmond voted for it pt mitch mcconnell voted for it. it was 98-0 in the united states senate and now we can't get one republican? so he was highlighting the fact that voting rights have always been bipartisan. but the minority republicans in the senate have obstructed and weaponized the filibuster so we can't even debate it much less vote on it. >> does that sentiment of equating those who were standing in the way of getting this legislation passed, equating them to segregationists, that applies to democrats as well as republicans? >> i think what the president was doing in a very crystal clear manner was defining the moment, and he started the speech saying that this is one of those moments where you want to be on the right side of history. before and after a vote, people will decide what your legacy is. those were clear examples of the past where you had people obstructing voting rights, civil rights and progress and those fighting for it. >> saidcedric, we interviewed t president of naacp, of course, there with the president on this

thurmond when he chaired the judiciary committee voted over and over and over to reauthorize the voting rights act. yet today as we debate the john lewis voting rights advancement act, we don't have a single vote across the aisle to move this forward. how did this consensus so hard won fray so quickly? in short it's because of a lie, it's because of a misrepresentation that millions of illegals are voting, famously said by our past president, but to undermine that voter fraud has been undermining our election has been adopt across our country and spread and caused a fundamental break. there's also been action by the new conservative majority on the supreme court, first in 2013 in shelby county where they took out the section 4b formula that eviscerated section 5 clear clearance to prevent against voter suppression and last year, brnovich versus d.n.c. when six conservative judges concluded that a state law in arizona that has an impact on hispanic and native american voters could stay on the books. we should make sure there is no widespread voter fraud. and on the judiciary committee my

my senior year in high school, 1957, is when my state senators -- united states senator strom thurmond set the filibuster record against voting rights, and it's been there during the '60s. so that is an issue that the president tried to work around. so we needed to get covid-19 under control, and i think the president has done a good job with that. hopefully we'll never run out of the greek alphabets. we haven't yet. omicron is giving us a problem that nobody expected. we remember the delta and what it had visited upon us. so you've got to work -- people have got to be in good health or these other things don't matter. i learned that at an early age. so people need to go to work. people need to go to school. people need to do a lot of things. but you've got to get their health squared away first. so i think the priorities were in the right place. >> so let's talk about now voting rights going forward. you spoke the other day -- you expressed some openness that, look, the electoral vote act is not something you want to do first. you would prefer to do the voting rights bills first. but