Great Show By Rachel Maddow Last Night

The Rachel Maddow Show was excellent again last night. The clip below is the first 15 minutes Rachel spent talking about President Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday. We get the fantastic Rachel Breakdown and, to wrap it all up, the great Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Also, classic snark:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Do The "Teabaggers" Know What Teabagging Means?

Republican citizens across the nation are forming "Tea Parties" in opposition to the Democratic budget. I guess they think this is a clever reference to the Boston Tea Party during the American Revolution. The major problem with this is that the Boston Tea Party was based on the idea of taxation without representation. The budget proposed by the Democratic majority has middle-class tax cuts and only raises taxes on the top 3% of the population to Clinton-era levels. Also, Republican citizens have representation - it's called Congress. Yeah, there are fewer Republicans but that is due to the voting decisions by citizens during the 2008 election. We, as a nation, voted for more Democrats to represent us.
So, what does the Republican minority do? Nothing. Well, I shouldn't say nothing. They voted against the stimulus. They voted against the budget. They came up with an alternative budget that offers tax cuts to the rich. They support "tea parties". People are sending teabags to D.C. and Fox News is promoting "teabagging". This is a joke. Or, more sadly, it is not a joke. It is the Republican opposition's grand idea to have people get together and complain about taxing the rich. The bright idea is "teabagging".
Look up the definition of teabagging here. Then watch the video below of Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox trying desperately to take this seriously. An "A" for effort, for sure.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Transcript

MADDOW: The Republican Party controls no real levers of power in Washington. They have yet to settle on any national leadership at all. They did come up with a Republican budget proposal in the House of Representatives, and 38 House Republicans even voted against that.
The GOP, in other words, is clearly in exile. But the conservative movement has found a reason to live. They have found something about which they feel very positive, something which they are ready to rally around. I speak of course of teabagging.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST, “ON THE RECORD”: Angry taxpayers, or at least some of them, are taking to the streets in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party.
BRET BAIER, HOST, “SPECIAL REPORT”: More than 250 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies April 15th.
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST, “YOUR WORLD”: Americans sick of government ballots and wasteful spending, taking their message to the street and it‘s spreading fast. We‘re all over it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They‘re going to try and send teabags to D.C.
D.C. - teabag the White House.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Teabag the fools in D.C.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Teabagging. After spending weeks mailing teabags to members of Congress, conservative activists next week say they plan to hold tea parties to proverbially teabag the White House. And they don‘t want to teabag alone, if that‘s even possible. They want you to start teabagging, too.
They want you to teabag Obama on Twitter. They want you to, quote, “send your teabag and teabag Obama on Facebook.” They want you to teabag liberal dems before they teabag you. And all this nonconsensual conservative teabagging is just the start.
All across America on Tax Day, Republican members of Congress are lining up to speak at teabag tea party events. Even Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina is getting in on the hot teabagging action.
Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, previously most famous for his self-admitted very serious sin with prostitution services - he wants to give teabagging the Senate seal of approval. He has asked the Senate to commemorate the day of anti-Obama protests in law.
In terms of - now, no laughing offset or I will lose it. I‘m only barely making it through this as it is. All right. Ready? In terms of media, our colleagues at Fox News are not just reporting on teabagging, they are officially promoting it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLENN BECK, HOST, “GLENN BECK”: Celebrate with Fox News. This is what we‘re doing next Wednesday. We want to be with you and your tea party, if you have a tea party any where that we‘re not covering one of those, E-mail me at glennbeck@foxnews.com. We may cover your tea party live on April 15th.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Fox News Channel has described the Tax Day events on screen as FNC Tax Day tea parties. And they are dispatching some of their hosts to take part of in the teabagging. But amid the celebration of inchoate right-wing bad feelings and the denunciation of taxes, spare a thought for the man who you‘d think might have the most to gain from harnessing the power of mass-organized public teabagging.
That of course would be Republican Party chairman Michael Steele. Mr. Steele apparently asked to address a teabag tea party event in Chicago next week. But organizers turned him down, saying he is welcome to show up at the event but not welcome to speak. The organizers said they did think the event would be, quote, “a fantastic time for Chairman Steele to listen to what we have to say.” Though, presumably, if he is being teabagged while doing so, the message will be a bit muffled.
Joining us now, Air America‘s national correspondent and “Daily Beast” contributor, Ana Marie Cox. Ana Marie, thank you for being here.
ANA MARIE COX, AIR AMERICA NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT/”DAILY BEAST”
CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be here, Rachel.
MADDOW: The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation, right? The protests planned for Tax Day are about the plan to go back to the Clinton-era tax rates for rich people. Is that the purpose of these and is this a parallel they‘re trying to draw?
COX: Well, it‘s the parallel they‘re trying to draw, Rachel. But you know, it is true that teabaggers are grossly unrepresented in Congress. I‘m trying to work on that personally. But one can only do so much. I think David Vitter really is the right spokesperson for the movement, though.
MADDOW: Well, that‘s a point well-taken and which I was afraid to allude to. And that‘s why you‘re here because you‘re braver than I am. So many Republicans are addressing the Tax Day teabag parties. Michael Steele has been rejected. Is he not considered a true teabagger by the movement?
COX: Well, you know, he said in that “GQ” interview that he thought teabagging wasn‘t a choice, that you couldn‘t change whether or not you would be a teabagger. I think the teabaggers now really believe that it‘s something they‘ve chosen to do, that they could change if they wanted to. But they won‘t.
MADDOW: Well, in terms of what‘s going to happen on Tax Day and what‘s been happening with the teabagging of Congress, which has been happening through the mail, which I didn‘t even know was possible, I sort of never believed you can be held responsible for the people who say they agree with you.
So we had this enthusiasm expressed for the teabagging events by white power groups like storm front and by the secessionists and by the armed militias. And I don‘t think you can really hold the teabaggers responsible for that. But is there a radical message here? I mean, the whole idea here is about revolution, sort of, right?
COX: Well, yes. I mean, I think that the people - the teabaggers would like it to be more radical than it is. But the fact is people have been teabagging for a long time and they probably will continue to do so.
MADDOW: Fair enough. Most of the energy of these events seems anti-Obama. You saw all, you know, the Facebook and Twitter things, “Teabag Obama. Teabag Obama.” But then, there‘s the rejection of Michael Steele and I wonder if there‘s also a chance that this sort of gets channeled into being teabag Arlen Specter, teabag John McCain, against Republicans who voted for any of the bailouts.
COX: Well, who wouldn‘t want to teabag John McCain - that‘s all I have to say. But I really think actually it‘s probably going to be more directed at Obama. And this is actually very much a part of, I think, the midterm strategy. You know, it‘s going to be teabagging like 24/7 when it comes to midterms.
MADDOW: Well, is there an effort to divide the conservative movement from the Republican Party once again, though? Because there is something about the origin of the current Republican Party that owes very much to the conservative movement which was not organized within the party. It was sort of organized without and took it over.
I wonder if they‘ve trying to cleave themselves again and say, “No, we‘re teabaggers, and you‘re not. And we‘re, therefore, the future of the right wing”?
COX: You could say there‘s a big split between the teabags. I think that you‘re right. I think the social teabaggers and sort of the fiscal teabaggers are really starting to move apart from each other.
MADDOW: Actually I just heard from standards we‘re not allowed to talk about fiscal teabags. But thank you for bringing it up. Ana Marie Cox of Air America Radio and “The Daily Beast,” it is always wonderful to have you on the show, particularly more tonight than ever. Thanks.
COX: All right. Thanks, Rachel.

Turley Talks To Maddow About War Crimes

Jonathan Turley talks to Rachel Maddow about President Obama's resistance to war crime prosecutions of the Bush Administration.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here is the transcript of the conversation:

Joining us now is Jonathan Turley, professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University Law School. Professor Turley, thanks so much for coming on the show tonight.

JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON

UNIVERSITY: Hi, Rachel.

MADDOW: So President Obama says all the right things to “60 Minutes” about the Bush administration‘s torture policy. And the Obama administration is planning on releasing these torture memos, repudiating the policies, promising to work to change them going forward.

In terms of lining themselves up with the Constitution, how substantive are these moves? Where would you put the Obama administration‘s policies on these issues as we speak tonight?

TURLEY: Quite frankly, I have to put it very, very low. Yes, the fact that he is having a dialogue with Dick Cheney that he finds irritating is understandable. I mean, Vice President Cheney comes off as sort of the cranky uncle you can‘t get rid of at Thanksgiving dinner.

But there is more to it than that. And the reason Obama seems very irritated by it is that he is responsible for the conversation. Because he‘s the one that is blocking a criminal investigation of Vice President Cheney and President Bush and other Bush officials. It is like a bank robber calling up and asking him to debate bank robbery.

President Obama would say, “Listen, fellow. That is a crime.”

But of course, he hasn‘t said that with Dick Cheney. He can‘t say that.

Instead, he says, “How long will it take for us to reconcile our values?”

These are not just our values. They are the law.

He should be saying what you are describing is a crime. And if he would allow an investigation to well-defined war crimes, Dick Cheney would not be making public statements. He would be surrounded by criminal defense counsel.

And yet the president refuses to allow the investigation of war crimes. And we just found out the international Red Cross, also the definitive body on torture, found that this was a real torture program. And yet, the president is having a debate with the guy over whether it was good policy.

MADDOW: In this case, we keep running up against politics versus law, politics versus law. For the legal case here, is all the president needs to do - the only thing he needs to do is get out of the way of prosecutors who would take this as a matter of law regardless of the politics here?

TURLEY: Rachel, let‘s be honest here. It is just as bad to prevent the investigation and prosecution of a war crime as its commission because you become part of it. There‘s no question about a war crime here. There is no need for a truth commission.

You know, some people say, what do you need, a film? We actually had films of us torturing people. So this would be the shortest investigation in history. You have Bush officials who have said that we tortured people. We have interrogators who have said we tortured people. The Red Cross has said it. A host of international organizations have said it.

What is President Obama waiting for? And I‘m afraid the answer is a convenient moment. The fact is he has been told by his adviser that it would be grossly unpopular to investigate and prosecute Bush officials. Well, that is a perfectly horrible reason not to follow principle.

When we talk about values, the most important one is that the president has to enforce the laws. He can‘t pick and choose who would be popular to prosecute.

Should he be appointing a special prosecutor? What should he be doing?

TURLEY: He should be appointing a special prosecutor. There is no question about that. This is the most well-defined and publicly known crime I have seen in my lifetime. There is no debate about it. There is no ambiguity. It is well known.

You‘ve got people involved who have basically admitted the elements of a war crime that we are committed to prosecuting. We don‘t need a truth and reconciliation commission because we are already reconciled to the rule of law. There is nothing to reconcile to.

What the people have to reconcile are the people who broke the law. They need to reconcile with the law. And he happens to be having a debate with one of those people as if they are talking about some quaint notion of policy.

MADDOW: I wonder, ultimately, if the fact that Dick Cheney continues to talk about this issue and continues to promote it as if it is a solution and something the Obama administration ought to feel ashamed for not having continued will ultimately be the thing that creates the political room the Obama administration feels that they need in order to proceed legally. They may just need to get that mad.

TURLEY: Rachel, I wish that were true. But you know, it is sort of like every great villain in every bad movie, dialoguing to prevent something happening. You know, Cheney is dialoguing. He‘s trying - the more he talks in public, the more he makes this look like a policy and not a legal issue which is exactly what he wants.

And the reason that the Obama administration is now pulling back on the truth commission is because they have finally realized that if the truth commission actually investigates, it will be the shortest investigation in history. There is no question there is a war crime.

And at the end, people are going to wonder how and why did you block this? It is like a live torpedo in the water and it is going to come back and hit him. And that is why President Obama is beginning to pull back.

The easiest thing to do is get out of the way, say, “You know what, this is not about values. This is about the law. I took an oath to God to enforce the law. And you know what, fellow? You are going to be a target of an investigation. And maybe you are not guilty. Maybe you are. But it is not for me to decide it. It‘s for a special prosecutor.”

MADDOW: Jonathan Turley, professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington Law School, thank you for joining us tonight.

TURLEY: Thank you, Rachel.

Happy Pi Day!

Rachel Maddow shows her awesome geekness.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Gov. Jindal Makes Rachel Maddow Speechless

This is a clip of the immediate reactions of Rachel, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews regarding the Republican response of President Obama's SOTU.

Rachel Maddow Explains Economic Stimulus

Video clip titled "Reality Check" from The Rachel Maddow Show on February 5, 2009

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Transcript:
The economy is in crisis because people aren‘t buying enough stuff. There is supply, right? People make stuff that is to be sold and then there‘s demand. Demand is buying.
Right now, there‘s not enough buying. So, what they teach you in the very easiest semester of the very easiest economics class, because it‘s really easy to understand even if you are a total dunderhead about more completed macroeconomics stuff, what they teach is that the government can turn around an economic crisis that‘s caused by not enough demand—by making demand. Stimulating demand, they call it—economic stimulus.
[...snip...]
It is reality check time here. Economic stimulus, most efficiently, is government spending. The most purely stimulative spending would probably be just to give envelopes full of cash to the poorest people in the country. Statistically, they‘d be the most likely to spend it.
In the absence of a political reality, that would make something like that possible, an almost ideal strategy is government spending, say, on infrastructure of which the American Society of Civil Engineers just said we could use $2.2 trillion worth. It‘s good jobs that can‘t be outsourced, immediately, that have the long-term benefit of dragging our country into the 21st century in terms of our ability to compete economically with the rest of the world.

Turley Talks About The Need For War Crime Tribunals

Rachel Maddow explains the situation we have regarding 15,000 Iraqi prisoners we have detained in Iraq. As of January 1st, we no longer have any legal jurisdiction with regards to these prisoners, most of whom are not charged with a crime. President Bush would like Iraq to continue this illegal process.

Also, Jonathan Turley explains to Rachel Maddow (and us) why the Bush Administration should be prosecuted for war crimes. With an adamant sense of urgency, Turley describes that not only are we Americans aware of the committed crimes, but other countries are as well. Do we want our justice system taken over by the justice system of other countries? If President Bush or Vice-President Cheney go out of the country, what risk do we want to take that another country will handle what we should take care of ourselves?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rachel Maddow And Richard Engel

Richard Engel was a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show last night. I always appreciate whenever Engel is on any show because 1) He explains foreign policy and actions in a way that is easier to understand and 2) If he is being interviewed it means he is safe. I worry about that guy. He is always in the middle of a gunfight somewhere. It is a double-edged sword, I guess. He is great at explaining conflicts that are happening in other countries because he spends so much time in the middle of conflicts in other countries, but there is something really calming about seeing him in a television studio and not in the mountains with bullets flying around him.

Last night, Engel was armed with a great tool - a map. Engel and Maddow talked about the Afghanistan - Pakistan - India conflict. If you missed it last night, please watch the video clip below.

Newsweek: Rachel Maddow Article

Maddow and Ana Marie Cox Discuss McCain Campaign's Bad Week

Maddow Accepts McCain's Challenge

Rachel Maddow, you're my heroine.

Rachel Maddow Interview On AfterEllen.com

This is an excellent interview by Julie Bolcer. Maddow answers questions on a variety of topics:

On her "Talk Me Down" segment: “I don’t get mad because somebody has a different perspective than me,” she explains. “I get mad at people who are screwing things up in the country, and screwing things up in the world. But if you disagree with me about even serious issues, and you’re willing to debate them with me in a civil way without being insulting, I’m going to enjoy that conversation.”

On her looks: “I feel like in terms of what I look like, I’m working in a very visual medium for the first time in my life, and I’m just sort of trying to get by in terms of the basic, the minimum that I need to do visually in order to be allowed to be on television,” she says. “And so I put on the suit, so that I can go on TV. I let the makeup ladies put makeup on me, which they do to their own satisfaction. I don’t pay much attention to it.”

On the importance of being out: “That’s the thing that we owe the people who came before us who are the pioneers, and that’s the thing we owe the next generation of gay people in terms of clearing the way and making life easier for them. I think that there is a moral imperative to be out, and I think that if you’re not out, you have to come to an ethical understanding with yourself why you are not."

Lately, there have been many articles and interviews with Maddow; however, this one is the first one I have seen in a long while that doesn't rehash the same information over and over again. Click on the post title to read in full.

Rachel Maddow's Rules For Debate Drinking Game

An expected 100 million people will watch tonight's presidential debate. Will you be one of them? Even your friends who are not interested in politics will enjoy it if you incorporate the drinking game!

NOTE: you can of course drink something non-alcoholic but if you do choose to go the booze route Rachel suggests beer or a half-strength high ball: one ounce of booze in an eight-ounce glass filled with ice and topped with seltzer.
drink once...
if mccain says:prison vietnam table chair
drink twice...
if mccain says "marie the flame of florida"
drink once if obama says...anything about protecting main street and not just wall street
drink once if either candidate...uses jim lehrer's first name in an answer
drink once if obama...uses the phrase mccain-bush or bush-mccain
drink once if mccain says...my friends
drink twice if...obama displays his most presidential ability -- being able to do two things at once -- by patting his head and rubbing his tummy at the same time
drink twice if...anyone says "first dude"
drink twice if...anyone's cellphone goes off and it's giuliani's wife calling
drink once if...obama references that in order to capture bin laden you have to go not to the gates of hell but rather to a country that rhymes with shmakisatan
drink everything in the house if...governor palin shows up in mccain's place
quit drinkin forever if...mccain declares war on someone new (iraq, afghanistan, russia and iran don't count since he's already done the deed with them)

Rachel Maddow: Cheney The Sequel

Is Nice the New Nasty?

The execs at MSNBC sure hope so. She's quirky without being infantile, informed without being bookworm boring, and wholly intelligent without being intellectually condescending. She's Rachel Maddow, now on 5 nights a week somewhere other than just AM ( radio, not morning. I doubt she even gets up that early). Can MSNBC's new Princess Leia help a growing network tamp down on it's growing internal conflicts? Only time will tell. However, one thing's for sure - we will all love watching her navigate the finicky world of visual media on more than a guest host basis with enthusiasm, confusion, and laughter. Guest punditry by Pat Buchanan and all.

Rachel Maddow On Countdown: What We Know About Palin

Think Progress: Maddow On Palin Interview

Rachel Maddow on Sarah Palin
by faizshakir

Morning Joe And Rachel Maddow Convention Clip

He seems so frustrated. It is a permanent expression of exhaustion on his face when Rachel speaks. Or maybe confusion. The cleverly phrased, multi-syllabic words she shoots at him at bullet speed must drive him crazy. You know what I think? I think he is taking mental notes. He really wants to show her up but, alas, he just doesn't have the word power or likability. So, he takes it all in, whines about airtime, and when the cameras are off he practices. Practices his heart out. Maybe he skims a thesaurus. Maybe he practices not looking at her so he doesn't get distracted by that smile of self-confidence she has when she is up against him.
I'm just waiting for actual steam to escape from his ears. Now that would be must-see-TV!

Rachel Maddow Gets Her Own Show

I totally dig Rachel Maddow. Everybody does. She is smarter than most of the political pundits out there in TVLand. She is confident enough to go head-to-head with Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, and anybody else who insists on saying stupid crap. I just signed up for her Air America show a few weeks ago after listening to short clips for a few months. I am interested in finding out if she will continue with that. I hope so but no matter what, this is great news and I wish her much success.

Morning Joe and Maddow Clash

So, yesterday I watched MSNBC's political program called Race for the White House. It was guest hosted by Joe Scarborough, the host of Morning Joe and a former GOP congressman. His panel consisted of three conservatives and one liberal - Rachel Maddow, host of her own radio show on Air America. Joe quotes Senator McCain's statement declaring that Senator Obama has always claimed that he would "begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq immediately". He claims Obama is a flip-flopper because now he says he will consult with commanders about the safest way to do that and he might have to refine his timeline of 16 months due to the actions on the ground. Rachel defends Obama stating repeatedly that his position on withdrawal is consistent - phased withdrawal of one to two brigades a month with discussions about the safety of the troops with commanders. Rachel mentions Susan Rice's statement three months ago claiming the same position, proving it is not a flip-flop. Joe says that it is Obama's word that matters, not his surrogate's. Joe claims that on the ABC debate, Obama says something different. Rachel disagrees and tells Joe to show the tape. The tape is shown and Obama's answer is consistent. Joe then states that David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, says "16 months tops". He refuses to accept Obama's actual words at the debate - "I will still listen to the generals when it comes to tactics" - as proof of his consistency. Rachel is hysterical with laughter at this point because the whole argument is just so ridiculous. Rice's statement to disprove Joe's thesis is not acceptable, but Plouffe's statement can be used to prove his point? At one point, Joe asks anyone on the panel to raise their hand if they agree with Rachel. Nobody does. Rachel mentions the setup of the panel where Joe indulges in his first insult: "I don't know that this has anything to do with conservatives or liberals, it has to do with the English language". Seriously? To Rachel Maddow?? Not only is she one of the most articulate political analysts in American media today, not only does she have a doctorate in political science, but she is also a Rhodes scholar! Rachel is still cracking up when Joe decides that an insultingly sexist remark would be the best way to cut her down. "You might support Obama, but you've got the Clinton cackle down, Rachel." WTF! Click on post title for transcript and video