Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3350

Worst. OBL Conspiracy Theory. Ever.

For about half a day, the political world seemed interested in a detail from a historic day in May 2011. According to a close aide to President Obama, the president ordered the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan, but to blow off some steam while waiting, Obama also played cards that day.

As details go, it's an interesting historical footnote, but it doesn't change our understanding of that day's events. The president was deeply involved in the planning of the mission, scrutinizing the intelligence, giving the order, and watching the raid. It obviously turned out well.

Watch on YouTube

Of course, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer had a slightly different take.

After learning of the president's card playing that Sunday in May, Fischer told his audience this week that the president wasn't really in the Situation Room during the raid on bin Laden -- he was "photoshopped" into the iconic photo.

Remember, the Voice of Russia considers Fischer an "expert" -- on what, I don't know -- and in the 2012 presidential election, most of the GOP field appeared on Fischer's radio show in the hopes of appealing to social conservatives.

Penny wise, pound foolish

Associated Press

The conservative effort to convince uninsured Americans to stay that way on purpose may seem ridiculous -- because it is -- but it's not going away just yet. As of today, the argument's proponents even have a new argument for those with no coverage: just think of all the money you'll save!

A 25 year-old earning less than $24,000 could save $1,000 next year by going without insurance and paying a penalty rather than purchasing coverage on an Obamacare health insurance exchange, according to a new study from the National Center for Public Policy Research. [...]

[Author David Hogberg] determined that the penalty for going without health insurance ($95, or 1 percent of taxable income in 2014) is too low while the cost of purchasing insurance on the exchange (even after subsidies) will too high to attract enough younger and healthier participants.

In other words, there's an individual mandate, but the associated fine is fairly modest (indeed, it's really more of a tax penalty than a "mandate"). And since it would be cheaper for many younger Americans to pay the penalty than pay for insurance, the argument is obvious: skip the coverage and keep more money in your pocket.

There's just one pesky problem that seems fairly important: you might get sick.

I'm not necessarily arguing with the arithmetic, so much as I am with the rationale behind the value of insurance itself. Would coverage cost more than the tax penalty? Probably. Why "probably" and not "definitely"?

Because if you gamble and lose, the costs will exorbitant, devastating, and life-threatening.

Conservatives have quite a sales pitch: help the right sabotage the federal health care system to spite the White House, and at the same time, save yourself some money by going without insurance.

But what conservatives tend to brush past is the fine print.

If you get sick, or get in a car accident, or slip on the stairs, your financial future will likely be permanently ruined. Worse, if you put off medical care because you have no insurance, you could die.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but this is why insurance exists. It's the point of getting coverage. It's not to save money on the front end, it's to avoid crushing medical expenses and medical calamities on the back end.

To reiterate a point from two weeks ago, my suggestion to the uninsured would be to ignore those who want you to suffer to advance their cause. That said, if folks take their advice and find themselves unable to pay their medical bills, perhaps they should consider sending them to conservatives who lobbied them to stay uninsured on purpose -- after all, they seem eager to "help" you, right?

Santorum condemns references to 'middle class'

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R) made a stop in -- where else? -- Iowa this week, and shared some thoughts with supporters on a phrase he finds distasteful: "middle class."

Watch on YouTube

For those who can't watch clips online, Santorum, speaking with righteous indignation at a Republican gathering in Lyon County, argued:

"Don't use the term the other side uses. Who does Barack Obama talk about all the time? The 'middle class.' Since when in America do we have 'classes'? Since when in America are people stuck in areas or defined places called a 'class'? That's Marxism talk.

"When Republicans get up and talk about 'middle class' we're buying into their rhetoric of dividing America. Stop it. There's no class in America -- and call them on it. America's a place where everybody has the opportunity to succeed."

Brian Tashman notes that Santorum is on record referencing the "middle class" many times, making his remarks that much more amusing, but even if we put that aside, the Republican's rant is quite odd, even for Santorum.

The notion that partisans should avoid using the language embraced by rivals is fairly common. Republicans generally don't like to reference "marriage equality," because it's seen as a progressive phrase. Democrats generally don't call private-school vouchers "school choice."

But if we've reached the point at which mere recognition of the existence of the "middle class" is a Democratic phrase, I'm afraid Santorum and his party are in real trouble -- the vast majority of Americans describe themselves as either "middle class" or "working class."

They must have missed the memo about this being "Marxist talk."

RNC unanimously approves 2016 debate resolution

Associated Press

They apparently weren't kidding.

The GOP's governing body approved a resolution on Friday barring NBC News and CNN from partnering with the Republican National Committee in hosting 2016 presidential primary debates.

Members of the RNC, gathered in Boston for their Summer Meeting voted to bar NBC News and CNN from participating in 2016 debates due to forthcoming projects about Hillary Clinton planned by both network. They approved the resolution by a voice vote.

The resolution states that the RNC would not "partner with (CNN or NBC) in the 2016 presidential primary debates nor sanction any primary debates they sponsor."

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus added, "We're done putting up with this nonsense. There are plenty of other outlets. We'll still reach voters, maybe more voters. But CNN and NBC anchors will just have to watch on their competitors' networks."

Also note, RNC communications director Sean Spicer confirmed to Dylan Byers that this new policy would extend to NBC and CNN's Spanish-language channels -- Telemundo and CNN Espanol -- both of which will now also be excluded from 2016 events.

Presumably, Republican officials would reconsider the boycott if NBC Entertainment and CNN scraped plans for specials on Hillary Clinton, though there is no indication the networks are prepared to pull the plug on the productions just to make the RNC happy.

NBC and CNN may try to host candidate debates anyway, but if Republican presidential hopefuls participate in events that are not "sanctioned" by the party, the candidates would face undetermined punishment, probably in the form of lost convention delegates.

For the record, the boycott will not include Fox News, despite Fox's reported role in producing NBC's Clinton miniseries. I haven't seen official confirmation that MSNBC would also be excluded, but if NBC News and Telemundo are out, it stands to reason my employer would be barred as well.

And then, of course, there's the question of debate moderators.

We talked yesterday about a report that Republicans would consider replacing journalists with right-wing media personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The unabashedly conservative Washington Times ran a follow-up report this morning, suggesting there's something to this rumor.

The notion of tapping the trio of conservative talking wonks gathered steam when RNC communications head Sean Spicer, during a Sirius XM Radio interview last week, said that "Mark Levin should ask the questions" in upcoming debates during the campaign season.

His comment followed similar remarks by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, who told Fox News' Andrea Tantaros that a radio debate moderated by her, Mr. Levin and Mr. Hannity would be a "good idea."

"I mean, there's a lot of good people out there that can actually understand the base of the Republican Party, the primary voters," Mr. Priebus said.

In case this isn't already obvious, excluding major news organizations and replacing journalists with right-wing media personalities at debates is a great idea if Republicans intend to have a nice conversation with themselves. The epistemic closure that's helped to define the party's discourse in recent years will have an even more impenetrable dome -- far-right candidates will field far-right questions from far-right loudmouths, all in the hopes of impressing far-right voters. And if the goal is to be elected the leader of a far-right club in a far-right treehouse, all of this would seem quite rational.

But I seem to recall reading the Republican National Committee's "Growth and Opportunity Project" report back in March, and this tidbit of wisdom on page 7: "The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue."

At the time, this sentiment reflected sound judgment and a fair-minded recognition of the party's challenges. Five months later, it simply looks hilarious.

Friday's campaign round-up

Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) isn't just taking heat from the right; he's also being pressured from the left. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee launched this ad in Louisville this week on Social Security.

Watch on YouTube

* In an important setback for Republican Senate recruiting, Rep. Dave Camp (R) announced this morning he will not run for Michigan's open U.S. Senate seat in 2014. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee will instead seek re-election.

* On a related note, National Journal ran a report yesterday, before Camp's intentions were clear, that said Michigan Republicans are "poised to botch" this Senate pick-up opportunity.

* In Virginia, Planned Parenthood is launching a direct-mail campaign, criticizing Republican gubernatorial hopeful Ken Cuccinelli as "extremely dangerous for women." The piece explains that that far-right state Attorney General "would end access to safe and legal abortion, even in cases of rape or incest."

* In New Jersey, Democratic leaders at the national level are eager to shine a spotlight on Republican Senate hopeful Steve Lonegan, whom Dems see as an embarrassing setback for the RNC's "rebranding" efforts.

* And the on-again, off-again feud between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is apparently back on again. Yesterday, in an apparent shot at the Kentucky senator, Christie told Republican National Committee members, "We are not a debating society. We are a political operation that needs to win." A top Paul advisor responded, "So if I translate Gov. Christie correctly, we shouldn't be the party of ideas. We shouldn't care what we stand for or even if we stand for anything. We reject that idea. Content-free so-called 'pragmatism' is the problem, not the solution."

'For a criminal practice, there has to be a gun'

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) hosted a town-hall event in his district this week, and was asked by a constituent about his position on Glass-Steagall and "Wall Street criminal practices" in general. The congressman's response was ... unusual.

Watch on YouTube

For those who can't watch clips online, McClintock told voters, "Well first of all, for a criminal practice, there has to be a gun. It's pretty simple."

Now, McClintock is pretty far out there -- he boasts about his memberships in the far-right Republican Study Committee and Tea Party Caucus -- but I doubt he means this literally. Car thieves are engaged in a criminal practice, whether or not they carry a gun. Those who sell drugs to children are also engaged in a criminal practice, armed or unarmed.

But in context, McClintock seems to believe financial industry crimes aren't terribly serious. Indeed, he specifically referenced predatory loans, apparently unclear what they even are: "When I hear about predatory lending, for example, my first question is, well that's just terrible. You shouldn't be allowed to force somebody to take out a loan they don't want."

First, that's not actually a question. Second, after watching the video a few times, I think he means that unless a loan is accepted at gunpoint, he doesn't much care.

In any case, McClintock went on to endorse a largely unregulated financial system: instead of preventing crises, we'll just "stop bailing out people's bad decisions."

The very idea of financial industry improprieties seems like a foreign concept to the congressman -- apparently because industry insiders carry a fountain pen instead of a literal firearm.

'A truly abominable piece of anti-democratic legislation'

Associated Press

We've been keeping a close eye on the sweeping new voting restrictions imposed on North Carolina by state Republican officials -- if you missed Rachel's segment on last night's show, watch it -- and it's heartening to see the voter-suppression tactics garner broader attention.

The Washington Post editorial board, which is not exactly reflexively liberal, condemned the state's "draconian" new law today in a blistering piece.

The bill includes the usual provisions that have come to characterize the quiet assault on the franchise: a shortened early-voting period, the elimination of the state's successful same-day registration program and, of course, a strict photo identification requirement despite any evidence of voter fraud in the state.

What makes this law unique is how much further it goes. It includes no fewer than 12 extra provisions that prohibit such things as counties extending polling hours by one hour in the event of unusual circumstances (such as, say, long lines); provisional voting should someone, say, mistakenly go to the wrong precinct; and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, who could previously register to vote before they turned 18.

The bill is a truly abominable piece of anti-democratic legislation, the only likely effect of which will be to make it increasingly difficult -- maybe even impossible -- for some people who don't typically support Republicans to be able to vote./blockquote>

The Post's editorial board added that the Justice Department should intervene and challenge North Carolina's new restrictions: "Equal access to the franchise is a fundamental pillar of American democracy, and it deserves nothing less than the strongest federal protections."

If the Justice Department agrees, it'll be up to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper to defend the most offensive voting law seen in the United States in a generation -- and that'll be interesting given how much Cooper hates these voting restrictions.

Indeed, the state A.G. is one of a small number of Democrats who still hold prominent positions in North Carolina's state government, and Cooper has been an outspoken critic of Republican efforts to suppress voting rights in the state. Gov. Pat McCrory (R), who signed the restrictions into law despite not understanding them, hasn't been pleased with Cooper's opinions.

Cooper launched a petition on change.org last week to rally opposition to the bill, calling it "regressive elections legislation."

"The attorney general gave me his political opinion, not his legal opinion," McCrory said in an interview with WRAL News. [...]

The NAACP and other group immediately sued to block the law.... The Attorney General's Office will likely have to defend the law against such court challenges, and McCrory said Cooper's public opposition doesn't help that defense.

"It is a concern of mine that he has possibly showed a conflict as the chief legal representative of our state in his bringing a case against it and it not being a legal case," McCrory said.

Cooper responded in a statement, "It's the duty of this office to defend state laws in court whether or not I agree with them, and we have an excellent track record. My ultimate duty is to the people of North Carolina, and I'm going to tell them what I think about laws that have an impact on their lives, and that includes trying to stop bad laws and advocating for good ones."

As for the likely outcome of court challenges, there are legal experts who can speak to this with far greater authority than I can, but Duke University professor Guy Charles, who heads the Duke Law Center on Law, Race and Politics, told WRAL that opponents of the new voting restrictions face an uphill climb.

Of course, if five Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices hadn't gutted the Voting Rights Act, this wouldn't be much of an issue.

Koch brothers thrive on healthcare confusion

Earlier this week, Reince Priebus, commenting on the Affordable Care Act, said, "People know what Obamacare is. It's European, socialist-style type health care." The quote struck me as fairly hilarious because the second sentence helps debunk the first -- anyone who thinks the federal U.S. system is in anyway similar to European, socialist-style type health care clearly has no idea what "Obamacare" is.

The truth is, most Americans remain confused about the basics, and the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity apparently hope to make matters much worse on purpose.

Watch on YouTube

Last month, AFP invested $1 million in support of a remarkably dishonest ad campaign, hoping to mislead Americans about the health care system, and this week, the right-wing group is at it again, making a six-figure ad buy in support of a radio ad.

The problem, of course, is that the message of the ad is pure garbage. Salon called it the "stupidest anti-Obamacare campaign ever," and given some of the advertising in recent years, that's no small claim.

The spot features a woman voice that tells listeners, "Two years ago, my son Caleb began having seizures ... if we can't pick our own doctor, how do I know my family is going to get the care they need?"

In reality, there's simply nothing in the Affordable Care Act that stops consumers from choosing their own doctor. Literally, not one provision. Under a variety of HMOs, there are limits on out-of-network physicians, but that was an American norm long before "Obamacare" came around.

For that matter, if you're a parent of a kid with seizures, the Affordable Care Act is perhaps the best friend you've ever had -- not only does the law protect you and your family's coverage, but it extends protections to those with pre-existing conditions, and ends annual and lifetime caps. And since treating children with seizures can get a little pricey, that's important.

So why are the Koch brothers saying largely the opposite? Because they hope to use deceptions to scare people. It's as simple as that.

Greg Sargent highlighted the other most obvious misleading claim.

[P]erhaps the most revealing thing of all is the ad's warning of public confusion about the law. To buttress the impression that the ad is a catastrophe, the ad claims: "ABC News says confusion and doubt are prognosis for Obamcare."

And it's true: The ABC News article in question does bear that headline. But the article actually presents this not as a sign that the law itself is flawed, but as a sign that the public remains ignorant about what's actually in it. The article is about how many Americans, even those who stand to gain from the law, are not yet aware of its benefits.

This neatly underscores the game plan behind ads like these: spread confusion about the law -- in a deliberate effort to prevent folks from learning what's actually in it -- while simultaneously citing confusion about the law as evidence that it's a disaster in hopes that folks will give up on it.

If Obamacare were really as horrible as right-wing activists and lawmakers claim, shouldn't it be easier to attack the law without making stuff up? Wouldn't conservatives be eager to simply give people the truth, rather than resort to ugly demagoguery?

Careful, Kochs, your desperation is showing.

'This is a moral conundrum for me'

Weiland campaign website

The Obama administration, under the Affordable Care Act, treats contraception as basic preventive care, vastly expanding Americans' access to birth control. As you may have noticed, the right doesn't see this as much of a breakthrough -- one Republican congressman equated the policy with 9/11 and the attack on Pearl Harbor -- and there are lawsuits challenging the policy.

As a rule, the litigation involves private-sector businesses that want to exclude contraception from their employer health plans. So far, some of the lawsuits have fared well, some haven't. But Katie McDonough reports on a different kind of case out of Missouri, which is worth watching.

A Missouri Republican has asked a federal court to exempt his family from contraception coverage through the state insurance plan, explaining that he doesn't want his three daughters to have access to no-cost birth control because it violates his Catholic faith.

Rep. Paul Wieland, R-Imperial, jointly filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and two other federal agencies with his wife, Teresa.

Explaining his position, Wieland said, "I see abortion-inducing drugs as intrinsically evil, and I cannot in good conscience preach one thing to my kids and then just go with the flow on our insurance. This is a moral conundrum for me. Do I just cancel the coverage and put my family at risk? I don't believe in what the government is doing."

The complaint, which is available online, was filed on Wieland's behalf by the Thomas More Society, a far-right legal group opposed to abortion rights. McDonough's report added that the Wieland family's attorney "acknowledged that the couple may be the only plaintiffs in the country currently seeking to be exempted as individuals."

And that's because they're pushing a deeply strange argument.

Here's the pitch: Wieland, in his capacity as an elected state lawmaker in Missouri, receives health insurance that covers himself, his wife, and their daughters. That insurance, thanks to federal law, makes the Wieland family -- and indeed, every family -- eligible to receive basic preventive care available without a copay. That includes everything from blood-pressure tests to mammograms, contraception to flu shots.

If the Wieland family wants to take advantage of these benefits, great. If not, that's fine, too. It's entirely up to them -- it's about services that are available, not required.

The Wielands say that's not good enough. They've filed a federal lawsuit claiming their civil rights have been violated. Why? Because the law gives them access to medication they find morally objectionable.

Just so we're clear, they don't have to take the birth control, just like they don't have to get a flu shot or have their blood pressure checked. They could simply not seek contraception, but that would be too easy. The Wielands instead want federal courts to give them an exemption from a benefit they have no intention of using.

What's more, they hope to empower others who share their worldview to also have an exemption from a benefit they, too, have no intention of taking advantage of.

I've been following the debate over health care and contraception for a while, and this is one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

What the RNC chair considers 'horrific'

Associated Press

[Updated below] The Republican National Committee, as part of its summer meeting, held an event in Boston yesterday to highlight the party's "Rising Stars," with a clear emphasis on diversity. The party's base may be older, male, and overwhelmingly white, but when the RNC wanted to feature future stars, they picked four people -- including two women, a Latina state lawmaker, and an African-American state lawmaker.

But perhaps the more interesting aspect of this story was a quote, not from one of the "Rising Stars," but from the head of the RNC itself. Brett LoGiurato reported:

In condemning Rep. Steve King's incendiary comments on immigration, RNC chairman Reince Priebus swept in his party's presidential nominee, saying that talk of "self-deportation" was "horrific" and even "racist." [...]

"Using the word 'self-deportation' -- it's a horrific comment to make," Priebus said, in a forceful rebuke. "I don't think it has anything to do with our party. When someone makes those comments, obviously, it's racist."

Is that so.

It's certainly welcome news that the chair of the RNC considers "self-deportation" horrific and racist, but it also comes as quite a surprise. As recently as a year ago, Priebus helped oversee the completion of his party's national platform, and guess what it said on immigration? "Republican delegates hammered out an immigration plank calling for tough border enforcement and opposing 'any forms of amnesty' for illegal immigrants, instead endorsing 'humane procedures to encourage illegal aliens to return home voluntarily,' a policy of self-deportation."

As recently as October 2012, the presidential nominee of Priebus' party was still defending "self-deportation" on national television. As recently as April 2013, a prominent House Republican was defending the concept, too.

If Priebus now considers this horrific and racist, I'm delighted, but I hope he'll clarify his position a bit more. Does the RNC chair reject the policy or the use of the literal rhetorical phrase? Is Priebus offended by the idea of making undocumented immigrants' lives so miserable that they'll leave the country voluntarily, or does he support the policy while finding himself offended by the label?

Update: Business Insider and LoGiurato have changed their reporting in an important way. The report now quotes Priebus saying, "Using the word 'self-deportation' -- it's a horrific comment to make. I don't think it has anything to do with our party. When a candidate makes those comments, obviously, it hurts us." In other words, "racist" has been replaced with "hurts us." The broader point stands -- Priebus did use "horrific" -- but the original report from Business Insider and LoGiurato included a key error.

Second Update: This morning, the Republican National Committee's press office had confirmed the "racist" quote as accurate, which would seem to add some additional questions as to the RNC's and Priebus' attitudes on the subject.