I wonder if anyone has a hard copy of the Feb 20 WSJ. In his comments, Byron York says:

(Boehner describes the upcoming sequester as a policy) “that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more."

Yet currently, the online WSJ article contains no such language. Either Mr. York is delusional, or the WSJ has allowed Boehner to change the online version on account of the blow-back over this ridiculous statement - and not advised the reader as to exactly what was changed.

Interestingly, a footnote to the online WSJ article says a "A VERSION (my emphasis) of this article appeared February 20, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal"

A version? You mean the one where Mr. Boehner sounds even MORE like a horse's ass than he does in the edited, online edition?

Brabender was on earlier this afternoon on MSNBC saying the Republicans are the "party of liberty and freedom" (what, the Democrats are the party of slavery and bondage?) and so it gets the votes of those who don't want limits on gun ownership and believe Obama is going to "come for their guns". Nevermind, that is false; he repeated it as if it were truth and therefore, comepletely justifiable for Wayne LaPierre to speak at CPAC. Please challenge him and his rewriting of history.

ARRRG Rachel! Obama won re-election by a margin of about 4.95 million votes, why do you keep saying "three million votes"?

( http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php )

Hi Rachel. Just watching your show and was surprised about the comment you made to a Republican strategist and former campaign person for Rick Santorum. There have been quite a few articles about the Koch brothers creating the Tea Party; why didn't you mention that, and kept insisting it was a movement?

I would disagree with the assertion that the Koch Brothers created the Tea Party. I would say, however that they seized the opportunity it presented and co-opted the movement to suit their own needs. Pity the Billionaire by Thomas Frank lays it all out very well.

Dear Ms. Maddow: Rather than characterizing anti-abortion laws as “traps,” maybe you should characterize them as “bills of attainder,” which of course are prohibited by the Constitution. You (and your writers?) do an outstanding job of framing issues. This seems like an excellent opportunity to throw in some quotes from section nine of the Constitution and possibly the Federalist Papers and show these laws for what they are: attempts to put single, particular businesses out of business.

Sincerely, John Bowman