Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3372

Poll highlights Democratic advantage on immigration

Gallup reports today on results the typical person probably could have guessed without looking: when it comes to Americans' views on immigration, the public agrees with Democrats by a wide margin over Republicans. But the closer one looks, the more interesting the results become.

Broken down by race and ethnicity, African Americans (70% to 14%) and Hispanics (60% to 26%) heavily favor Democrats over the GOP, while among non-Hispanic whites, the parties are effectively tied, with the GOP enjoying a slight edge (42% to 41%). Then consider the same breakdown with age groups factored in:

Note that in every group, younger Americans side with Democrats, and this includes non-Hispanic whites under the age of 50. There's only one group of folks that sides with Republicans: older white people.

It's times like these when I'm reminded of this year-old quote from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): "The demographics race we're losing badly. We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

As the intra-party debate continues as to whether the GOP should remain a party focused almost exclusively on support from white voters, here's hoping officials will keep polls like these in mind.

Update: It looks like Yglesias beat me to this one, though I hadn't seen his post first. Honest.

Getting another 'gang' together

Associated Press

Senators will meet tonight in the Old Senate Chamber, and while no formal business will take place, members will use the gathering to see if they can still work something out on executive-branch filibusters. If not, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) insists he has the votes in place to execute the nuclear option.

(Note Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell objected to tonight's meeting, saying Reid was trying to sabotage the get-together by scheduling it for a Monday night, when senators don't usually have to work.)

Since there's only one obvious way out of this showdown -- Republicans can agree to allow the Senate to vote up or down on executive-branch nominees -- and the GOP minority refuses to consider it, the nuclear option appears increasingly likely. There is, however, a "gang" emerging.

[A] group of Republicans are talking to the Democratic leader, hoping to meld a framework that would allow the Senate to head off the historic rules change proposed by the Democrats, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told POLITICO after meeting with Reid Monday afternoon.

In other words, there could be a new gang in town to stave off the nuclear option, which would allow Reid to end filibusters of executive branch nominees with only 51 votes, rather than 60. Much of that gang includes Republicans who worked on immigration reform, McCain said.

You may recall that in 2005, there was a Senate Republican majority eager to execute the nuclear option -- it was, after all, their idea -- when it came to judicial nominees. The fight was sidestepped when a "Gang of 14" got together to work out an agreement, which has since been discarded.

And what might a deal look like in this case?

Joan McCarter highlighted this curious paragraph.

McCain said he and Republicans are trying to strike a deal with Reid would either allow up-or-down votes on seven contentious nominees or at least find "replacements" for those nominees. Reid has scheduled votes Tuesday on seven of Obama's nominees, including the National Labor Relations Board picks, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as well as leaders to head the Labor Department, Export-Import Bank and Environmental Protection Agency.

I'll resist the urge to scrutinize this without more detail, but finding "replacements" doesn't seem like a credible alternative. President Obama was elected -- twice -- and has nominated qualified officials to fill posts in his administration. A majority of the Senate is prepared to vote for those nominees. What more is there to talk about?

McCain is thinking about a system in which the minority "allows" the Senate to vote -- how nice of them -- but only if the president picks different officials? Perhaps nominees that the minority finds appealing?

McCain pegged his group's chances at avoiding the rules change at "50-50."

Watch this space.

Bachmann explains 'the way we spank the president'

Watch on YouTube

I don't generally laugh out loud while watching Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) share her wildly creative views on reality -- I'm usually more inclined to wince -- but this is one of the greatest Bachmann videos of all time. And given her track record, that's not easy.

In this case, Right Wing Watch flags a video of Bachmann sitting down with WorldNetDaily, a fringe conspiracy website, in the hopes of rallying opposition to immigration reform. For those who can't watch clips online -- and really this one needs to be seen -- here's my transcript of the video:

"Contrary to popular opinion, Republicans won't get patted on the back or get new votes because of passing amnesty. They're going to get blamed. And it's my prediction that the House Republicans could put themselves in a position where they could actually lose the gavel in 2014, because I think the president, even by executive order, can again wave his magic wand before 2014 [1] and he'd say now all of the new, legal Americans are going to have voting rights.'

"Why do I say that? He did it in 2012. Do you remember? Anyone who was here as a Latina under age 30, he said, 'You get to vote.' [2]

"What? He decides you get to vote? If he did it 2012, know -- take it to the bank -- he'll do in 2014. And then guess what will happen? Democrat in the White House; Democrats controlling the Senate; Democrats controlling the House. At that point they will change election law, and it will be almost impossible to ever see a Republican majority again. [3]

"Do we get how important this is? I'm not crying wolf here. [4] This is working for the president. It's not working for the American people, but, hey, it's great by him. He has a perpetual magic wand and nobody's given him a spanking yet [5] and taken it out of his hand. That's what Congress needs to do -- give the president a major wake-up call. And the way we spank the president is we do it through the checkbook. We're the ones who say, 'No, you can't have the money.' [6] What's wrong with us? [7]"

Well, congresswoman, that's a question that might take a little time to answer, but we can at least start by fact-checking this hilarious video.

[1] President Obama does not have a "magic wand" that gives people voting rights.

[2] We don't "remember" this because it didn't happen. The president allowed Dream Act kids to stay in the country, but he did not give them the right to vote. Bachmann appears to have simply made this up, and convinced herself that her imaginary world is true.

[3] How election law could be changed to prevent Republicans from winning is unclear. It's far easier to see Republicans at the state level imposing the most sweeping voting restrictions since the Jim Crow era in the hopes of preventing traditional Democratic voters from participating in elections.

[4] For anyone with even the slightest familiarity with reality, Bachmann is, in fact, crying wolf here.

[5] Oh for crying out loud.

[6] It's unclear which funds Bachmann wants to deny the president, but in context it seems to have something to do with immigration. Your guess is as good as mine.

[7] I have the same question about House Republicans all the time. If Bachmann figures it out, I hope she'll let us know.

Keep in mind, Bachmann is not only responsible for helping write federal laws, but House Republican leaders also gave her a seat on the House Intelligence Committee, where she has access to some of the nation's most sensitive national security information.

It's not at all comforting.

Gay couple in Mississippi asks for marriage license. You'll never guess what happens.

The Southern Equality campaign continues its swing through Mississippi. Last week, same-sex couples tried to get marriage licenses in the southern part of the state. On Wednesday, a couple that includes a member of the Air Force Reserve got turned down in tiny Poplarville.

Today in the capital city of Jackson, more couples asked for the right to marry. That's one of them, pictured above (photo by Jessica Bowman of WLBT).

Back in 2004, Mississippi voters put a ban on gay couples marrying in their state constitution. Every single county voted for the ban, with 86 percent of voters saying no to marriage equality -- the most among any state to have put that question on the ballot. Mississippians remain opposed to the idea, in proportions that are oddly inverse to what pollsters are finding nationwide. But the bigger news, I think, is how much opinions have changed. New bipartisan polling (pdf) from the Human Rights Campaign finds that 55 percent of voters now object to marriage equality, a fall of 31 points. Among people under 30, support for marriage equality gets a majority of 58 percent. 

After one of the couples today got turned down, Clarion-Ledger reporter Dustin Barnes tweeted that "sounds of laughter could be heard in clerk's office." A few minutes later, Barnes added more. "Hinds Circuit Clerk Barbara Dunn said when gay man cried in her office about denial of marriage license, 1 of her employees almost cried too," he tweeted. "Dunn said she was sure her employees weren't laughing at same-sex couples who were denied marriage license in Jxn today." I know it may not seem like much in blue states, but I can tell you from experience that when it's no longer acceptable for there to be any hint of making fun of gay couples in Mississippi -- and when it's OK to show some empathy for them -- you're looking at real change.

Click for full poll results.

Mississippi is on the right.

Schweitzer gives GOP new Senate hopes

Getty Images

After Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) announced his retirement, former Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) made one thing clear: he was interested in the race. Indeed, the scuttlebutt suggested Schweitzer was even considering a primary campaign against Baucus if he didn't retire. After statewide polls showed him running strong, the announcement from the former governor seemed to be a matter of when, not if.

It made the news over the weekend that much more surprising.

Brian Schweitzer, the former governor of Montana, announced Saturday that he would not run for the state's open Senate seat in 2014, a decision that further impedes Democratic efforts to retain their majority in the midterm elections. [...]

In an interview with The Associated Press, Mr. Schweitzer, 57, said that while he had considered a race, "people need to know I am not running for the United States Senate." He said that he did not want to leave Montana for Washington.

There are a few angles to the story. The first is what caused Schweitzer to change direction unexpectedly. A "source familiar with his decision" said the former governor "was beginning to recognize what senior Democrats in Washington had feared" -- that Republicans had a thick opposition-research file on him and Schweitzer wasn't necessarily pleased with what they'd found.

National Journal added that "the amount of opposition research on the former governor painted a grim picture. A report in the Great Falls Tribune tomorrow will outline Schweitzer's ties with a dark money organization, which may have been deeper than Schweitzer had let on."

The second is what this is likely to mean for the Senate after the 2014 midterms.

Nate Cohn had a good piece on this, calling Schweitzer's announce "a huge break" for Republicans, adding it's "perhaps the biggest Senate news of 2013."

With the GOP's odds suddenly looking much better in Big Sky Country, their road to 51 seats in the Senate is looking much clearer. Republicans will need to pick-up six seats to make Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader, as Democrats will hold 55 Senate seats after Cory Booker wins in October and Vice President Biden would cast a tie-breaking vote in a divided chamber. Republicans start with easy pick-up opportunities in South Dakota and West Virginia, two open seats on GOP friendly turf where Republicans have strong candidates and Democrats do not.

From there, things get more difficult. Until today, Democrats seemed better positioned in three open races in Michigan, Iowa, or Montana. So Republicans were looking at the possibility of needing to sweep four Democratic incumbents in red states: Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.

With Montana looking more like a GOP pickup, Republicans would need three of those four instead of a sweep. That's not an easy needle to thread, exactly, but Republicans seemed more optimistic after Schweitzer's news than before it.

Of course, it's probably worth mentioning that at this point in 2011, it was widely assumed that Senate Republicans would make significant gains in the 2012 cycle, and they even had a credible shot at reclaiming the majority. And yet, when voters actually went to the polls, the opposite happened -- Democrats gained seats and expanded their majority. In other words, the speculation is interesting at this point, but neither side of the aisle should get too excited. (How this may play into the possibility of the "nuclear option" is anybody's guess.)

And finally, let's also keep in mind that Schweitzer was seen as the strongest Democratic candidate in Montana, but the bench is not empty. Monica Lindeen, the state Insurance Commissioner, is reportedly interested, and Denise Juneau, the state Schools Superintendent, has also demonstrated statewide appeal.

Monday'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:

* As expected, with Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) stepping down at the end of his term, state Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) kicked off his campaign over the weekend. Though he's likely to face primary challengers, Abbott is considered the early favorite for the GOP nod.

Watch on YouTube

* Speaking of Texas, state Sen. Wendy Davis (D) raised $933,000 in just the last two weeks of June, which is an extraordinary sum for anyone, especially an official who has not yet launched a statewide campaign.

* In still more news out of the Lone Star State, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has scheduled summer visits to New Hampshire and Iowa, fueling speculation about possible national ambitions.

* In Iowa, Public Policy Polling shows Rep. Bruce Braley (D) with double-digit leads over all of his likely opponents in next year's open U.S. Senate race in the Hawkeye State.

* On a related note, the same PPP poll found Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad's (R) approval rating slipping to just 45%. In a hypothetical rematch against former Gov. Chet Culver (D), Branstad leads by five, 47% to 42%.

* Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) traveled to Nevada late last week for some fundraising, and had agreed to be interviewed by Jon Ralston. Less than 24 hours before the appearance, Paul canceled, claiming a "meeting" came up.

* Organizing for Action, an outgrowth of President Obama's campaign organization, has reportedly struggled financially, but nevertheless announced on Friday that it nearly doubled its fundraising haul from the first to the second quarter -- it brought in $8.2 million between April and June, compared to $4.8 million from January through March.

* And to the disappointment of the DCCC, Brendan Mullen announced on Friday that he will not seek a rematch against Rep. Jackie Walorski (R) in Indiana. Mullen came up short in 2012, losing by just one point, and was under pressure to give it another try.

'This law will lead a lot more women to try self-abortion'

Associated Press

When the debate over health care reform began in earnest, it wasn't unusual to hear conservatives boast about the greatness of the American health care system, noting that people come from around the world to take advantage of the care available in the United States.

But occasionally we're confronted with instances in which Americans would find it easier to leave the United States for Mexico in order to pursue health care options.

At the Whole Woman's Health center [in McAllen, Texas], a young woman predicted what others would do if the state's stringent new abortion bill approved late Friday forces clinics like this one to close: cross the border to Mexico to seek an "abortion pill."

"This law will lead a lot more women to try self-abortion," said Jackie F., a 24-year-old food server and student who was in the health center last week for a follow-up medical examination after getting a legal abortion.

The report refers to medication that can induce miscarriages, and is readily available south of the border. Indeed, the NYT notes that literally yards past the Mexican border, there are pharmacists on hand to offer misoprostol at discount prices: "generic at $35 for a box of 28 pills, or the branded Cytotec for $175."

Republicans in Texas insist their sweeping new restrictions on reproductive rights are intended to promote "safety," including closing down all but a handful of the clinics that provide women's health services. But as history has told us, these restrictions tend to have the opposite effect -- forcing women to pursue less safe options on their own.

Indeed, on Friday night, following the vote in the Texas legislature, Fox News contributor Erick Erickson encouraged "liberals" to bookmark a specific link -- which referred readers to Store Supply Warehouse's page for "Hangers & Garment Bags."

This is the state of the debate.

Reproductive-rights restrictions poised to become law in Texas

Two weeks ago, state Sen. Wendy Davis' (D) heroics were able to derail sweeping restrictions on reproductive rights in Texas, but last night, there just wasn't much abortion-rights proponents could do to prevent defeat.

Texas legislators overturned a temporary victory by state Democrats and standard bearer Sen. Wendy Davis, passing a bill late Friday that puts new restrictions on abortion procedures.

The bill passed the Republican-controlled Senate just before midnight, two weeks after the Legislature failed to put the restrictions to a successful vote in its first special session..... Twenty-one amendments were offered, debated and rejected.

The final vote was 19 to 11.

The sweeping legislation imposes a 20-week abortion ban, despite pleas from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which warned that the measure would be dangerous. The bill also impose new regulations that will close all but a handful of the state's 42 clinics where reproductive services are provided.

The bill now heads to the desk of Gov. Rick Perry (R), who called this special session of the legislature specifically to pass this piece of legislation. Immediately after the governor signs it into law, the measure will face a legal challenge -- and given the fact that Texas' restrictions are at odds with Supreme Court precedent, reproductive-rights advocates are cautiously optimistic.

As for Wendy Davis, she spoke from the floor late last night, explaining, "The fight for the future of Texas is just beginning." Soon after the vote, Davis used a bullhorn to tell a large crowd of activists in from front of the Capitol building, "Let's make sure tonight is not an ending point. It's a beginning point as we work to take this state back."

Postscript: For the record, I've seen no evidence that anyone threw tampons at the state senators.

This Week in God

First up from the God Machine this week is one of the more intriguing quotes from TV preacher Pat Robertson I've seen in a long while.

On his nationally televised show on Monday, Robertson complained that Facebook does not offer a "vomit" option alongside "like" when it comes to pictures of same-sex couples. On Thursday, however, the Republican televangelist insisted, "We are not anti-gay."

Watch on YouTube

How can a man who's made a living hating gay people say he's not "anti-gay"? Because, as Right Wing Watch reported, Robertson apparently believes gay people are really just confused straight people, so there's nothing to hate.

He claimed that people are gay "because they have forsaken God, it's not something that is natural and when people reunite with the Lord, the Lord will get their priorities the way it is supposed to be." [...]

He argued that many gay people are simply straight but are confused due to child abuse: "A lot of people are into this homosexual thing because they've been abused...."

Robertson maintained it may be possible the some gay people "maybe got some chromosomal damage that's different from heterosexuals," and concluded by calling for another ex-gay ministry to emerge "to help people who want out."

It's worth pausing to realize that as recently as mid-September 2012, Robertson's influence was significant enough in GOP politics that he had a private meeting with the Republican Party's presidential candidate.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* As a growing percentage of the American population chooses not to identify with any faith tradition, a large percentage of the country isn't happy about it. A report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 48% of Americans say the growing number of non-religious people is "bad for society."

* In Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court upheld a conviction this week of a mother and father who were convicted of homicide for praying instead of seeking medical help as their daughter died. The state has a law offering immunity provisions for prayer treatment, but in the 6-1 ruling, the court said that applied to child-abuse charges but nothing else.

* A software entrepreneur in Oregon offered an unconventional defense for tax evasion this week, saying he can't pay income taxes without breaking his "blood covenant" with God. For some reason, the federal judge found this unpersuasive and sentenced the accused to eight years in prison (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).

* And in St. Louis, there's been a contentious debate in recent weeks over the use of Christian symbols being etched into the pitcher's mound at Busch Stadium. The St. Louis Cardinals announced on Monday that the practice has been discontinued (thanks to my colleague Kent Jones for the tip).

MSNBC to air George Zimmerman trial special, 9 pm-11 pm ET

MSNBC will air a two-hour special on the George Zimmerman trial beginning at 9 p.m. ET tonight, hosted by MSNBC's Lisa Bloom and Craig Melvin.

As you've likely figured out by the math, that means there is no Rachel Maddow Show this evening. Rachel will return on Monday.