Tonight's guests include:
Steve Schmidt, senior strategist for the McCain campaign, political analyst and MSNBC contributor
Fred Karger, Candidate for Republican Presidential Nomination, and the first openly gay candidate for President
Here's executive producer Bill Wolff's preview and tonight's accompanying soundtrack.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: Obama indicates beginning of end of war on terror
Video: Obama to take on GOP anew over Guantanamo closure
Video: Obama wiser to GOP in new Guantanamo push
Video: Protester finds sympathetic ear in President on Guantanamo, drones
Video: Obama on precarious legal ground in American deaths by US drone strikes
Video: Remember Memorial Day's meaning
Video: Freedom of Speech
Leave a Comment:
Not sure if you actually read these comments or not Rachel, but I have something interesting that I wanted to share with you....
I came across a lengthy, but very interesting article. I was wondering if you can break it down and maybe start to introduce some of this stuff on your show.
http://daviddegraw.org/2010/06/is-it-time-for-law-abiding-american-citizens-to-stop-paying-their-taxes-and-start-a-new-government/
I don't know if it will make any difference, but something has to be said about some of these issues. What is going on in the news now, about the contraception issue, the republican race, etc., it's really not that important when you see some of the issues in that article I posted. I like watching your show, and I think if you started to bring these issues to the attention of America maybe SOMETHING can actually happen for the better. That's all....
Hi Rachel...Women's Health Issues? My opinion is...
ONE PENIS, NO VOTE! Take Women's Healthcare out of the Men's field of influence and put it back in the hands of the person who has to make the decision of how their life will be lived. No human being, not even another woman, should have a say in a woman's decisions about their own body.
If a person doesn't have the right to makes decisions about their own bodies, what rights DO they have?
And if the Government can take away your rights to make decisions about your own body, what's next? Are these OUR bodies, or the 'Property of the US Government'? ....or are they just claiming wombs....for now - If so, what's next?
Somewhere I read "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." What part of that is unclear?
It says all men.
Sheesh now we know why. Women are so hot tempered!
'Founding Fathers'; "...all men are created equal..."; 15th Amendment, prohibiting voting discrimination based on Race, ratified February 3, 1870; 19th Amendment, giving prohibiting voting discrimination based on Sex (women voting), August 18, 1920; (White Men could always vote, Black Men could vote starting 1870, but it was 50 YEARS later, 1920, before Women were finally 'Permitted' to vote) - I think I've established a clear pattern. @Katydid00 may have been correct; Penises, and by extension, Testosterone, seems to be the problem!
Ironically, when we were 'helping' Iraq draft it's new constitution after 'liberating' them, we insisted on them allowing women to vote, even though it took us over 140 years!
Now we understand why the Patriarchal Republican/Conservative hierarchy is afraid on a 'Nanny State' - Nannies are almost exclusively Women!
Rick Santorum's Church is run exclusively by Men, from Priests, to Bishops, to Cardinals, to the Holy Father, the Pope - The only women, Nuns, are only allowed to 'Serve', but not even qualified to assist the Priest with Masses - That's reserved for (all-male) Altar-Boys!
Almost all Wars are started by Men, and fought by Men. Maybe the United States, and the world, would be better off if women ran things!
Gave my sister in law a mug once that said warning I have PMS and a gun
That reminds me of an old joke in 'questionable' taste:
Q: What do you call a woman with PMS and ESP? A: A b*tch who knows it all!
For redemption, a T-Shirt Slogan: "In the Beginning, God created Man; Then, He had a Better Idea!"
(with my apologies to all those I'm sure I've offended; My intention was only to be humorous, not derogatory in any way)
I love Rachel. If I had a mom I'd want her to be my mom.
But. If she doesn't stop saying the same exact thing two or three times in a row for dramatic emphasis, over and over and over, I'm going to have to stop watching. I'm already reaching for the remote and muting her by reflex, and it's gotten to the point that I think twice before tuning her in. And no, I'm not joking.
She's better than that, and there's no reason for her to pad the show no matter how lame the news of the day is. Somebody needs to tell her. And I'm volunteering you for that mission.
Love in bunches!
Amen. Overdone dramatic emphasis becomes boring. I always TiVo the show, but when deciding what to watch the padding demotes her a couple of notches. Rachel, can you please hire better writers?
Hmmmm...
I'm a frequent viewer and never noticed that. I think you do just fine, Rachel. Stay with your writers.
Despite all of his other faults, at least Dick Cheney recognizes that Lesbians (and by extension, all gay people, I assume?) can be good, decent, kind, and loving people, deserving of respect. 'To know them is to Love them!'
There is Hope in this world of ours! ;-)
World of ours? I thought the far right owned it.
I logged out of the site and now I cannot log in without a Facebook account. I do not like having to get a Facebook account to log back in to this blog.
Funny, I don't have that problem, Mike.
When I go to post a comment, it keeps trying to make me create a new login. What am I doing wrong?
Change to the White Sox and then try.
It will be a cold day in hell when I change to the White Sox.
Steve Schmidt (and sometimes Meghan McCain) may be the only repub I can stand to listen to. He is smart and sane.
Good spot for between the adds: "The Trees Are Just the Right Height"
http://spydersden.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/mitt-romney-michigans-trees-are-just-the-right-height/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120215/NEWS/302150052/Bill-would-limit-regulation-who-can-live-together
Iowa communities can prohibit women's safe houses &c
Bill Wolff & Rachel Maddow
You really want to look at this (your next BIG series of discussions):
by Eric Byler
Could it be that the Montana Supreme Court has given the United States
Supreme Court the opportunity to reconsider the "Citizens United" decision? The
Montana ruling on Dec. 30, 2011 defied the highest court in the land by upholding
Montana's ban on corporate spending in state elections, prompting a very
interesting response from Washington DC.
John C. Bonifaz, Director of Free Speech For People explains:
In an unusual statement, US Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have called for a reconsideration of the Court’s January 2010 Citizens United ruling. The Supreme Court this evening issued a stay of the Montana Supreme Court's December 30, 2011 ruling which had upheld the state's century-old law banning corporate money in elections. The US Supreme Court's stay order means that, for the first time in 100 years, corporations may make unlimited expenditures in the state's elections.
But, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, issued a concurring statement making clear that this case is “an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”
The Court is likely to accept review of the Montana case. The main question now is whether it will issue a reversal of the state supreme court ruling without a full argument on the merits or whether it will allow that full argument. Either way, this will push even further to the forefront the impact of the Citizens United ruling on our democracy.
Jeff Clements, author of Corporations Are Not People, writes:
The Montana Supreme Court had cited the state’s demonstration of corruption caused by corporate spending in elections, and the effect of Montana law in preventing that corruption, as a reason to distinguish the state’s law from the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act struck down in Citizens United.
And:
In taking the action based on its decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court did not examine the substantial factual record in the Montana case or give the State a hearing. Nevertheless, the Court will decide whether to allow a petition for certiorari and may consider the case further.
Ginsburg and Breyer's statement references a claim made by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion for the "Citizens United" case, speculating that the impact of unlimited and undisclosed election spending by corporations and other special interests would not create the appearance of corruption. Ginsburg writes:
Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. _— (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Id., at _— (slip op., at 42. A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.
According to the customary "Rule of Four," it would require two more Justices on the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari to hear oral arguments on the Constitutionality of Montana's law.
American Tradition Partnership (ATP), formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership, is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization that fights against environmental regulation and laws that oversee corporate spending to influence elections. To that end, ATP filed suit to challenge a Montana law passed in 1912 called Corrupt Practices Act, after the "Citizens United" decree.
Montana's Attorney General, Steve Bullock, defended the state of Montana's century-old law before the Montana Supreme Court, arguing that political corruption made the Corrupt Practices Act necessary in 1912, that the law had been successful in protecting Montana's democratic process from corruption for 100 years, and that the possibility of corruption requires its continuation despite of the Supreme Court's decree. The Montana Supreme Court ruled in the state's favor on Dec. 30, 2011.
ATP then asked the US Supreme Court for three things: (1) a stay on the Corrupt Practices Act, (2) a review of the Montana Court's decision, and (3) a summary reversal. The Supreme Court's reply on Feb. 17, 2012 granted the stay, which means that the Corrupt Practices Act is no longer being enforced as Montana approaches its June 16 primary election. ATP would have preferred that the Supreme Court quietly grant the summary reversal without hearing oral arguments which could attract the attention of the public. But the Court's response implies that this request may not be granted.
Due to Ginsburg and Breyer's striking statement, the public scrutiny ATP had hoped to avoid may be inevitable. The issue plays into a dominant narrative of the 2012 GOP primary race, which has been flooded by Super-PAC money, drawing complaints from across the political spectrum. Less than 24 hours after the statement, there is already talk of a rally at the US Supreme Court to allow the People to weigh in on whether or not anonymous and unlimited campaign donations creates the appearance of corruption (sign up for details). The Court may decide to hear the Montana case as a way of revisiting "Citizens United" with new information to consider.
Update: ​Bonifaz explains:
American Tradition Partnership (ATP), the corporation challenging the Montana law, has until March 29 to file its petition for review before the Supreme Court. It may decide to file it much earlier than that. Under the normal rules, the State of Montana will then have 30 days to file its response, and ATP will then have 10 days to file its reply. However, the Court could possibly order the response and reply briefs on an expedited
schedule.
It is very likely the Court will accept review of this case, given the claim that the Montana Supreme Court ruling defies the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The main question is whether the Court will reverse the Montana ruling without allowing full argument on the merits. If it does that, we could see a decision very soon after the briefing on the petition for review has been submitted. If it allows for full argument, there will be merits briefing and then oral argument. That oral argument could happen this spring or it could be scheduled for the fall (the start of the next term for the Court).
Last fall, Bullock announced his candidacy to succeed Brian Schweitzer as Montana's governor.
Read the Supreme Court's Feb. 17, 2012 order
A response to Citizens United:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YFZAmTUbPEo
Rachel
Justed wanted to let you know that your correct pronouciation of "Boise" on Friday's program (poop fairy story) did not go unnoticed from the spuds out here in Idaho. Thanks for the consideration, even if it was all about the poop.
Signed,
Your girlfriends in Idaho