New Ohio elections law put on hold after groups deliver petitions to put issue on ballot
Judge overturns Ohio law, restores in-person early voting in 3 days leading to Election Day
Supreme Court rejects appeal to block early voting in Ohio
Another Loss for Voter Suppression: Pre-Election Early Voting Upheld in Ohio
Disruption From Storm May Be Felt at the Polls
Poll: Obama, Romney still essentially tied in Colorado
Paul Ryan Goes Local: Vice Presidential Candidate Speeds Past The 100 Local Interview Mark
Paul Ryan Ends Interview After "Strange" Question From Local Reporter
VP RYAN? PROF. RYAN? GOP NOMINEE'S FUTURE UNCLEAR
Win or Lose, Many See Palin as Future of Party
Exclusive: Christie was Mitt's first choice for VP
Obama jokes about being campaign 'prop'
Paul Weyrich - Goo-Goo Syndrome
Leave a Comment:
Let's call it what it is: RomnIraq - where you dictate, by right or wrong, who can have their say/vote in this, the so-called MOST democratic nation on the planet....even semi-totalitarian regimes don't always do it so blatantly !....else they risk riots or worse....but only in America, eh?.....
I wish the Supreme Court could function as one...but then, even THAT is political, isn't it?...Sorry, Rachel...I like your show but all this is beyond the pale !
Note: No personal offense is intended in the following. It's more of a programming suggestion.
Why oh why do you bother asking Steve Schmidt any questions? Granted he was hired as a bona fide water carrier for Republicans, but I have yet to hear him say a single original word that's not pre-programmed. Does he have any actual opinions or perspective of his own based on his experience that we'd find interesting? The show simply stops dead in its tracks when he comes on. Every time you bring up his role in 2008, he ignores the reference and starts to blather. Why on earth do you bother? In the last two debates, he just sat there looking miserable in the face of a reality it was clear he didn't disagree with but had to trot out his half-hearted regurgitation. I look at him and think about the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy's miserable robot Marvin. At any moment I expect him to begin complaining about the pain in all the diodes down his left side. Let Steve be Steve ... somewhere else. Chris has some lively and articulate "opposition" on his show. Can you invite some of those folks on?
On another issue, I think the most interesting thing about the Ryan events is the prominent positioning of a NYT story relating Ryan's plans for an ACTIVE vice-presidency where he will implement his budget including voucherizing Medicare. Timing and positioning on the front page felt very much like a) R campaigners walking back previous stories about Ryan's post-loss options and b) the NYT dutifully reporting it while doing its best to remind voters in no uncertain terms what Ryan will do if elected.
And every time he tried to correct Ms. Maddow's WRONG assumptions on the supposed Romney/Ryan rift, she was insistent there WAS a rift. Why have someone on who is speaking truth, yet the host STILL wants to insist there is a problem brewing (without the facts to support it)? Some people report on the news, some try to make up news. Ms. Maddow seems to be in the 2nd camp, seeing and reporting on things that are just not there/true. No wonder much of our media has lost all credibility with the thinking public.
Miss Maddow has been critical of Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's belief that babies conceived in rape are innocent children of God. Here's a link to a video made by children of rape victims who weren't aborted, and they have a different perspective from Miss Maddow's on whether such children should be aborted. (Of course because they weren't aborted, they're still alive to have a perspective. It's possible the aborted babies would have agreed with Miss Maddow's position had they been allowed to live and have opinions.) Perhaps Mourdock's ideas aren't anti-women after all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqeBHTxPkeA&feature=em-share_video_user
so, by your own logic, you would condone the Nazi experiments on women, I suppose?... how magnanimous of you, !....
Pro life anti death.
Thank You for your contributions. You are correct. Ms Maddow needs to tell the truth on this issue. There at least are opposing sides to the issue that need to be addressed maturely and honestly.
And NO I do NOT believe you are or "would condone the Nazi experiments on women, I suppose?... how magnanimous of you, !...." However that is a perfect example of the absurd response/s you may find here at TRMS blog.
Keep up the good work.
Janet Smith, a professor of moral theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and a popular author and speaker, has long sought to challenge the received wisdom on abortion in cases of rape during presentations at conferences and in classrooms with young people, including seminarians.
“Compassionate young people who are understandably horrified by the act of rape are very confused about the Church’s teaching on this,” agreed Smith, and “partisans also use this confusion to keep abortion legal.”
However, Smith asks her audience to step back and consider what is being asked of a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape.
“Rape is a horrible thing, and no one wants to minimize the consequences for the victim. It would be a huge sacrifice to carry this life to term — and today we just don’t think that people should be asked to make great sacrifices,” Smith suggested.
Such comments may seem shocking, even uncaring, but Smith says her arguments have shaken the complacency of audiences that haven’t been asked to embrace a call to great self-sacrifice.
“When I started to do sidewalk counseling, I spoke with a girl who was pregnant because of rape. She told me she didn’t want an abortion — ‘But everyone says I would be stupid to carry a baby that I got because of a rape.’”
Smith doesn’t think an act of great generosity is “stupid.”
“The simple point is that an unborn child’s right to life isn’t dependent on the goodness or badness of its father. The child becomes the second victim of the rape, paying for the sins of its father if it’s life is taken away.”
Richard Doerflinger, the chief lobbyist on life issues for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, confirmed that the conference had been fielding calls about the Church’s stance on a vexed issue that has left many people in the pews confused.
“Because this question is getting raised in the news in connection with the electoral campaign, I would much prefer to send you background information,” he told the Register. “As you know, the bishops’ conference tries not to comment on candidates and their positions as such.”
With that caveat, Doerflinger provided some context for the moral debate within the Church and the pro-life movement regarding efforts to bar legal abortion in cases of rape.
He noted that in “federal policy this subject has been debated chiefly in the context of the Hyde Amendment, a rider to the annual Labor [Department]/HHS appropriations bill that prevents federal funding of abortion. For many years, that amendment did not allow funding for abortions in cases of rape.”
In 1993, however, “the House of Representatives prepared to approve an appropriations bill that dropped all restrictions on abortion funding. After concluding that his only opportunity to restore the Hyde Amendment would be defeated unless it included a rape/incest exception, Congressman Henry Hyde reluctantly allowed that exception to be added. Hyde and parallel provisions in many other federal laws have included such an exception since then.”
Doerflinger noted that even with the exemption for incest and rape, “the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal funding of well over 99% of the abortions that would otherwise receive federal support. Without the amendment, the government had funded about 300,000 abortions a year in Medicaid; that number was cut down to a few hundred each year.”
Pope John Paul II, in his groundbreaking 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), stated that legislative compromise was morally acceptable in certain situations.
“[W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but, rather, a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects” (73).
Doerflinger echoed this point in his comments for the Register.
“The Church opposes all direct abortion and federal funding for all such abortion. But without supporting the exceptions, the bishops’ conference has supported the restrictions placed on abortion funding by the Hyde Amendment and similar laws for the sake of the good they do and the many lives they save.”
Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register’s senior editor.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/abortion-in-cases-of-rape-todd-akins-slip-spotlights-catholic-teaching-agai#ixzz2BLJFPGq4
Ok fair enough we can debate this in good faith (no pun intended).
I won't pretend to speak for everyone on this issue and only present my own logic and reasoning.
We are stipulating I think very sanely and reasonably that Rape is a horrible thing and that the woman is the victim in the instance and that it occurs through no fault of her own.
That said while the point about making a "Great sacrifice" is valid to an extent and should be regarded with admiration that level of sacrifice cannot be compelled or it ceases to be a sacrifice and becomes a sentence.
Further I do not believe it either ethical or just to force the tenants of a specific faith, or any faith on a person against their will. To do so is in essence conversion at gunpoint and is little more than a brutal exercise of power not moral. The ends do not justify the means.
There is also the question of contraception. The churches position has been against it in all cases but then there is a clear and present contradiction within the doctrine. It must be weighed as to which stand has precedence. That the woman not have an abortion or that she not get pregnant in the first place. To ignore options to diminish the circumstances under which an abortion might be considered is not only foolish but hypocritical and does not pass a simple test of logic.
Then there is the life of the child to consider. It is all well and good that people wish to defend those that they feel cannot speak for themselves but that advocacy seems to end the moment the person arrives in this world. Is it the responsibility of the woman to care for this child? We come again to the idea of "Great Sacrifice" but the raising of a child is no small undertaking and is a devout and permanent change to the life not only of the child but of the parent (I have children I know). For those that choose not to raise this child the question then becomes who will. Many may well be adopted by good people but many more will not. Will it then be the Church with a return to foundlings being left on the doorstep of abbeys and churches or the state with shrinking resources. Either way these children are sure to have lives that are much different than could be expected for a child that was the product of a loving family.
There is also the social stigma to be considered. What will the life of a child be in a society when it's father was a rapeist. I am not saying that it is just or defencable just a reality.
There is also the effect on society to consider. There may well be medical issues such as mental illness and disease that will need to be dealt with and again the question is by whom. There is also beyond those immediate considerations issues of employment education and opportunity to be taken into account. There is strong evidence that children that grow up without strong family ties education or opportunity turn to crime and violent behaviors including rape that may genuinely perpetuate the cycle of violence that created them in the first place.
This is a complex and devoutly important issue that cannot be reduced to sound bites and political theater. It must be dealt with openly, honestly and thoughtfully by people of good conscience and character. It is not fair to condemn a position without ever having heard it fairly or to demonize someone for a position that they have come to through thoughtful deliberation.
Haha, Intellectual Ryan...who can read Ayn Rand to the point of obsession - but without realizing she was a Russian...how inconvenient...for an extreme right-wingnut... have these so called "intellectuals" ever HEARD of the word "Research" before you go overboard - one way or the other....either Randism or extreme Catholicism ?.....who ARE these bozos we put forward as our "Leaders"?....well, the Roman Civiilization had its own share of "stalwarts", I guess !...as did the Third Reich, if my history knowledge is not too mistaken....!
However, Ryan disavows having any knowledge of Ayn Rand when it's inconvenient for him to be tied to those views. Yes, this guy's a real intellectual heavyweight with the courage of his convictions. Sure he is.
It's too bad Republicans won't stand up for--and run on--the things they truly believe. Shows what political cowards they are.
I don't know if this is worth pointing out, but after seeing the crazy lines in some states for voting makes me wonder why states like mine, Washington, or Oregon, aren't discussed as worthy solutions to such madness. We do all absentee ballots. I get it in the mail, I take my time, I read the issues, and about some of the more obscure candidates to learn how best to vote. Once I have filled it jt, I simply
sign it, and slap a stamp on it, and mail it. No lines, no hassle, and I feel I am
a much more informed voter. Perhaps a highlight on your show about this type of
voting will inform voters that there are better ways. Maybe there could be some
change to the process via a solid piece on this on your show. Fingers Crossed! :)
Because, correct me if I am mistaken, your two states are peaceful, educated, filled with a caring for the Earth....unlike most of the rest who tend to be gullible, crass, and, worst of all, pretty ignorant when all's said and done....
Do you have room for someone like me ?....:-)....God Bless !
I'd be curious to hear Steve Schmidt's comments/opinions/insights into all of the voter suppression activities underway in the country
hahaha, the prevailing euphemism is : "True the Vote", so what do you expect Schmidt to say...that he condones the Party's voter suppression strategy?...how else can they even come close to 45%? ....DUDE !
I just watched your show tonight and wondered why you felt the need to misrepresent the numbers of people at Romney's rallies? Tonight in PA there were a reported 25,000 people there for Romney, more not less, than the numbers at Obama's rallies today. I understand you want so badly for Obama to win, but to represent false facts to make him appear in a better light? Also, why are you trying to FORCE the idea there is a rift between Romney/Ryan when it was made clear to you that this is just not the case? I always know where to go when I want to hear what the far right has to say: Hannity...........and the far left: Ms. Maddow. I know in both cases whatever I hear is very much subject to personal bent, not necessarily facts.
http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/11/05/obama-romney-blitz-swing-states-election-day-nears/GsMXE1stJnzyHEsw0OAvuN/story.html
What was misrepresented by Maddow? What "false facts" were being presented here?
She stated that huge crowds came out for both candidates and that both candidates were on a last minute blitz to get votes. Then she went on to list 2 numbers for Romney and 2 for Obama for Sunday. She mentioned the 14,000 person rally your article references, so I'm not seeing what was misrepresented here or what false facts were being reported. She never claimed that 25,000 people didn't show up for Romney in PA. In fact she didn't mention it at all. It seems you're addressing a non-sequitur and then trying to blame Maddow for not talking about this entirely different rally.
Again, Romney's crowd in Pennsylvania FAR exceeded any of Obama's crowd size, yet Ms. Maddow made it appear Obama was drawing much larger crowds than Romney. What's wrong with the COMPLETE facts? The fact is that crowd size has never determined who would win the presidency. There were "losers" who drew HUGE crowds yet lost the election.
I dont' know, maybe it's just me, but it's bothersome to see so much dishonesty today. People feel the need to add to, leave out, or downright LIE about facts to sway others to their side. It shows that people either think others are dumb and easily led, or their position cannot be supported or does not look good so they must be dishonest, in one form or another. In either case, very sad.
So she did this by never ever stating as much? Interesting
She never said they did nor was that her point
It seems to me that you're calling her dishonest because she didn't include information that you felt pertinent. Does it have anything to do with her point? No. Does the absence of the information make her point less valid? No. There isn't a critical thought process going on here in your claim that she's being "dishonest." The fact of the matter is you believe Maddow should say X and when Maddow doesn't say the thing you have in your head as being true you blame her for doing so without considering why it is you believed it to be said in the first place.
For the record the 25,000 rally wasn't on the day Maddow was reporting, but you failed to mention this. Should I automatically assume this means you're being dishonest? This is such post hoc reasoning it's amazing
The figure she used for Obama are in the Boston Globe article I posted. She DID mention the crowd of 14,000, yet failed to mention ON THE SAME DAY, Romney's crowd of 25,000, instead saying the crowds were 3-4,000 while Obama had 14,000 at his rally. She chalked up his larger #'s to people wanting to see the president--any president.
"Does the absence of the information make her point less valid"
Yes, it does. It shows that she willfully misrepresents an accurate image by leaving out facts which do not support the false image she wishes to put forth. Dishonest. Spin it any way you want.
Just saw the Romney clip from 97 where he admitted he vetoed any legislation involving choice for women while gov. Of course he did not know he was being taped. This was on repeat of The Last Word with Alex Wagner.10 minutes ago. He leaves no doubt of his agenda.
I am not any surer now than a year ago about Romney’s policy
and conviction partly because he has shifted his principal and policies based
on the audience and he bowed so badly to the extremist side of his party.
Honestly, I am not sure what he stands for. But I know for sure that he is
against of bellows:
1)
Romney is against women rights and equal pay for
equal job
2)
Romney is against women decision to choose over
their own body
3)
Romany is against expanding healthcare that
covers young adult up to 26 yrs. old and he is against to cover pre-existing
conditions by the insurance company
4)
Romney is against federal Pell grant and student
financial aid that help millions of student to achieve their college dream.
5)
Romney is against in investing in Science, Math
and research especially more fund to education to compete with global economy.
6)
Romney is against tax relief for the vast
majority of middle income earners.
7)
Romany is against financial and wall street
reform that brought down the entire economy.
8)
Romney is against building infrastructure in
this country by expanding broadband, highways and fixing old bridges.
9)
Romney is against Veterans bill that would help
injured vets to get proper rehabilitation and job security once they come home.
10)
Romney is against Job bill that would create
millions of new and or keeps jobs in this country.
11)
Romney is against the labor law that protects
the labor from being abused by the employer.
PLEASE SEND THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYONE AND LET
PEOPLE SEE WHAT ROMNEY IS FOR AND AGAINST.
If Romney becomes the president, he will be supporting the bellows:
1)
Romney will help the big corporation because in
Romney’s world, big corporation are the “People”.
2)
Romney will appoint extreme right wing judges
that will overturn” Roe V Wade”.
3)
Romney will expand federal govt larger than now
to monitor Abortions, contraceptive and will make abortions and contraceptive
illegal and banned.
4)
Romney will give big tax cut to 1% of the
population that are super rich and do not need any tax cut.
5)
Romney will approve 5 trillion dollar of tax cut
for the wealthy that will be paid for by taking away itemized deduction, social
necessary services for the middle class and will shift the tax burden from the
rich to middle class.
6)
Romney will add 2 trillion dollar to defense
spending which Pentagon did not ask for but he will do it to satisfy his arm
contractor like Halliburton.
7)
Romney’s plan will create more dependency on
foreign oil.
8)
Romney’s plans will create safe haven and tax shelter
for those companies who are champion on shipping jobs overseas.
9)
Romney’s Plan will reward and give tax cut to corporations
and businesses that will ship jobs overseas.
10)
Romney’s plan will create two classes of
citizens, very rich and very poor. The middleclass will be vaporized under
Romney’s presidency.
11)
Romney supports the labor law that creates an
environment to ship jobs overseas where corporations can pay 90 cents per hour
to make profits for themselves.
Voter suppression should be a major issue when you vote. Your GOP legislatures are responsible for this all these attempts to limit your ability to vote.. There is nothing more important to maintaining our country, than free, fair elections.
I agree. Free, fair elections. People voting who are eligible to vote---Dem, Repub, Ind. I find it odd how many dems think the GOP is trying to suppress voters. It seems to me that many who are working to CLEAN up the voter roles so only ELIGIBLE people are voting is the RIGHT thing to do, no? As far as times available to vote, etc----that effects ALL voters, not just Dem voters, so again: What is the problem? If Dems have to adjust their voting schedule, do it. We all have the same right to vote---IF we are eligible to vote. If there are any inconveniences in voting, it affects ALL, not just Dems.
I think the one thing that I find most repulsive about the Republican party is that their platform of hate has made the crazies, the bigots and racists, and the criminal aspects of the country feel comfortable and assured that they have a valid place among us.
Finishing the thought on This Week in God. So that once and for all the TRUTH will be told.
The letter sidesteps the concerns raised by other bishops over the punitive Romney/Ryan budget plan, and focuses solely on reproductive rights and contraception access. Jenky's mandatory voting instructions tells Roman Catholics in his diocese "to vote," while remaining "faithful" to his beliefs.
The Think Progress link supplied by TRMS continues that the USCCB officially stated an opposition to Paul Ryan's budget plan.
Now, the facts and the TRUTH;
Catholic Bishops Did Not Condemn the Ryan Budget: See Canon Law and John Paul II Letter
Posted on August 16, 2012 | 7 Comments
There is a very serious untruth being repeated that the “Ryan Budget” has been condemned as immoral, etc. by the Catholic Bishops aka the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), or even the Catholic Church itself. It was not.
Where did this supposed condemnation come from? It came from a USCCB committee that has no authority (see why below) to carry out authentic acts in the Catholic Church and has been exaggerated by entities outside of the USCCB. This USCCB committee is called the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.
Why does this committee have no authority? Because the Catholic Church purposefully denies it authority as stated in the Catholic Code of Canon Law’s chapter on Bishops’ Conferences and especially poignant in Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter issued “motu propio” known as Apostolos Suos (On the Theological and Juridical Nature of Bishops’ Conferences) which clarified and adjusted that law. See Code of Canon Law 455 §4:
Can. 455 §4: “… neither the Conference nor its president can act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent.”
and see Pope John Paul II’s Apostolos Suos (On… Bishops’ Conferences) paragraph 23: “…Smaller bodies —the permanent council, a commission or other offices—do not have the authority to carry out acts of authentic magisterium either in their own name or in the name of the Conference, and not even as a task assigned to them by the Conference.”
That couldn’t be any clearer.
Where is this false condemnation being repeated?
There are many examples. I’ll mention a few for brevity.
•Publications like the Huffington Post’s articles Catholic Bishops Say Ryan Budget Fails Moral Test (click here for story) and Religious Leaders Condemn Ryan-Romney Budget (click here for story)
•Letters from academia like the Georgetown Letter to Rep. Paul Ryan (click here)
•Websites for groups like Faith in Public Life, who publish blog posts like Georgetown Professors to Ryan: Stop Distorting Catholic Teaching on Budget (click here) and Catholic Bishops Defend Pro-Family Tax Credits in Face of GOP Cuts (click here) and Hudson and Ryan vs. the U.S. Catholic Bishops (click here). Also, the group known as NETWORK and its “Nuns on the Bus” tour that has published the following graphics:
•TV networks like MSNBC. Former Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy (left side of screen) states the false condemnation twice in this interview from August 14, 2012. Go to minutes 3:00 to 3:10 and 6:40 to 6:50 of the video clip below:
Why is this false condemnation being repeated? It is being repeated by entities outside of the USCCB (like those listed above) who want to influence Catholics to vote for Barack Obama for president. If you can make Catholics believe falsely that their Church and their Bishops believe something is immoral, you can fool Catholics into voting contrary to a true Catholic conscience. That’s why this repeated untruth is so egregious on the part of these entities. Some repeat this falsehood out of ignorance but, others do it deliberately and they owe it to us to be truthful on this subject as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in section 2469:
CCC 2469 “Men could not live with one another if there were not mutual confidence that they were being truthful to one another.” The virtue of truth gives another his just due. Truthfulness keeps to the just mean between what ought to be expressed and what ought to be kept secret: it entails honesty and discretion. In justice, “as a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest the truth.”
What are some facts about the Ryan Budget? The Ryan Budget actually increased the budget 3% and Obama wanted it increased to 4.5%. The difference is not a cut. The video below is from EWTN’s The World Over Live with Raymond Arroyo. You’ll notice in this video that even a good knowledgeable Catholic like Raymond Arroyo (surely by accident) repeats the committee statement and attributes it to the U.S. Bishops.
•Paul Ryan explains the 3% vs. 4.5% budget increase. Go to minutes 1:20 to 1:30 of the video below.
•Raymond Arroyo points out that there are no real cuts. Go to minutes 6:33 to 7:55 of the video below.
Protect and defend your Bishops. This is not an easy time for them to shepherd us.
O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.
Peter L. Hodges Sr.
The TRMS Blog Author nor Ms Maddow have any further excuse for continuing to further their LIES about the issue. The facts are indeed complete. TRMS is INCORRECT and in serious ERROR in their reporting.
TRMS needs to present this TRUTH as FACTS to their audience. Stop Lying!
"No, don't boo; vote. Vote. Voting is the best revenge."
And the democratic party called Pat Buchanan a hate monger
hate·mon·ger
(htmnggr, -mng-)
n.
One who incites others to hatred or
prejudice.
The most devisive president we have ever had. Obama.
No, EVERYONE called pat buchanan a hate monger, and how devisive is a 6 hour wait to vote in the republican led state of florida? Most devisive president? Far and away the winner there is: richard milhous nixon... a republican... at least he was what USED to be called a republican, although I'm sure he would be much too liberal today to be in this teabagger version of it. Its cool tho, it will all be over soon, and the best place to watch president Obama's re-election until tuesday is here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ ...Cheers!
Here is something interesting. A Dutch investigative report on how Romney avoided taxes by routes through the Netherlands.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2680/Economie/article/detail/3342442/2012/11/05/Romney-ontwijkt-belasting-door-sluipweg-via-Nederland.dhtml
What was that ancient battle cry? "No taxation without representation"? Voter suppression removes representation. Our country was formed by these words---"We the people..." We fought a long war in order to secure every citizen the right to have a say in our destiny yet we have become too complacent now over how our government is run. I would love to see long lines at the polls but then I would also love to see revolts in States that are trying to suppress the vote.VOTE and remember who stood in your way!
How come we don't hear on your channel about all the newspapers that are endorsingRomney and all the military folks that are endorsing Romney. All I saw this morning was stupid editorial in the new york times. Not that I watch your channel much because my tummy hurts whenever I watch msnbc.
I really hope that Rachel will take on Joe Scarborough's disgusting, childish display regarding 6-8 hour long lines to vote. This should be a non-partisan issue plain and simple. For him to ignore this and just chant, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi is beyond childish. I can only imagine his response if Mika would have behaved this way.