Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3399

Rubio threatens to betray his allies on immigration reform

Associated Press

As we discussed in April, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) spent a few months playing an awkward game on comprehensive immigration reform. On the one hand, Rubio has been a high-profile member of the "Gang of Eight," helping negotiate the details of the legislation. On the other hand, the Florida Republican signaled his willingness to oppose the legislation he's ostensibly helping write. Rubio would say he likes his own bill, but wouldn't commit to it.

Many of those involved in the process grew weary of Rubio straddling the fence. It was common to hear Capitol Hill insiders joke that the senator thought he could be "a little bit pregnant" on the policy.

But all that changed in mid-April, when Rubio got off the fence and began championing the legislation he helped craft. And all of that changed again late yesterday when Rubio said he's prepared to reject his own legislation.

Speaking with radio host Hugh Hewitt Tuesday, Rubio said the Senate should "strengthen the border security parts of this bill so that they're stronger, so that they don't give overwhelming discretion to the Department of Homeland Security." He said he was working with other senators on amendments to do just that.

Then Hewitt asked: "If those amendments don't pass, will you yourself support the bill that emerged from Judiciary, Senator Rubio?"

Rubio answered, "Well, I think if those amendments don't pass, then I think we've got a bill that isn't going to become law, and I think we're wasting our time. So the answer is no."

Even for Rubio, this is bizarre. The Florida Republican had concerns about provisions related to border security, which he worked out through the "Gang of Eight" negotiations -- his colleagues made the changes he wanted to see, which in turn led Rubio to endorse the bipartisan legislation.

But now the senator is moving the goalposts, saying the changes that have already been made aren't good enough, and unless he's able to move his bill even further to the right, Rubio is prepared to reject his own legislation.

Well, maybe Democrats can once again give Rubio what he wants, keeping the larger effort intact?

I'm afraid not -- Rubio is asking far too much.

Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn intends to introduce a sweeping amendment to the immigration bill when it goes on the floor next week, seeking to replace an entire section devoted to border security and tweak the national security and criminal justice titles.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), one of the members of the Senate's bipartisan Gang of Eight, has been working with Cornyn on the amendment "for weeks," a Rubio aide said.

The Texas Republican wants stricter border patrol provisional "triggers" before registered immigrants are allowed to apply for green card status. His amendment would require 100 percent operational control of the Southern borders and that 90 percent of illegal border crossers be apprehended. It would also require 100 percent border surveillance, or situational awareness, of each one-mile segment of the Southern border and installment of a national E-Verify system before registered immigrants can pursue green cards.

No serious person involved in the negotiations believes this is a responsible approach. Indeed, no one even thinks these standards are realistic -- it's exactly why the Gang of Eight considered and rejected these measures during their negotiations. Rubio said they weren't necessary to earn his support for the legislation, and now he's saying they are.

He is, in other words, apparently prepared to betray his allies.

And why would Rubio do this? Because the Republican Party's radicalized base opposes comprehensive reform, and Rubio's support for the bill will undermine his future career ambitions, including a likely run for national office in 2016. [Update: Adam Serwer notes this is ultimately pointless, since the right will still resent the fact that he helped write a bill they hate, and the left will resent the fact that he walked away from a deal reached in good faith.]

There is an important caveat to all of this: Rubio has waffled before. I don't recall him going as far as he did with Hugh Hewitt, but the Florida Republican occasionally waffles, only to be brought back into the fold. Reform proponents can hope that McCain and Graham will give him a call this morning, Rubio will walk back his comments from yesterday, and the process will move forward. Rubio isn't a policy guy, so it's possible he got rattled yesterday and said what he didn't entirely mean.

But if we take his words at face value, Rubio has put the future of immigration reform at great risk, basically because he's worried right-wing activists won't like him anymore.

Rice to become NSA, Power headed to UN

Getty Images

Susan Rice never did get that apology she deserved from Senate Republicans who tried to destroy her reputation for no reason, but she's nevertheless poised to receive a promotion.

Susan Rice will replace Tom Donilon as national security adviser, the White House is expected to announce Wednesday.

Rice, currently the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, will be formally introduced in her new role by President Barack Obama at 2 p.m. ET. A White House official says Samantha Power, a former special assistant to the president on the National Security Council, will be nominated to replace Susan Rice as the U.N. ambassador.

I suppose it's possible that Rice's GOP detractors -- led by Sens. McCain, Collins, and Graham -- will try to tear her down again, but in this case it doesn't much matter. The NSA post does not require Senate confirmation, so Rice's critics don't have much say in the matter.

Regardless, when rumors of Rice replacing Donilon first surfaced last month, Foreign Policy reported that "prominent Republicans don't seem inclined to make a fuss" about Rice again.

But nearly as interesting is Power's nomination to replace Rice at the United Nations. In campaign circles, Power is perhaps best known for having made an intemperate remark about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primaries, a comment that led to her departure from the Obama campaign.

Power's extraordinary career, however, should render this minor incident irrelevant. She is, after all, a Pulitzer-prize winning scholar who has spent most of her professional life combating genocide and raising awareness of human rights abuses and global humanitarian issues.

Up until recently, Power has served as the senior director for multilateral affairs and human rights at the National Security Council. To say Power is qualified to succeed Rice at the U.N. is an understatement.

Chuck Grassley, waiting by the phone

Associated Press

Congressional Republicans have, on more than a few occasions, complained about a lack of outreach from President Obama. But of all the GOP lawmakers with concerns, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is arguably the last person who should be whining to the press.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, a pivotal deal-maker in Congress, said Tuesday that he has not received a phone call from President Obama in four years.

The lack of communication between the Iowa Republican and the president is an indication that Obama's new "charm offensive" with Republicans on Capitol Hill has come up short.

Grassley, who struck landmark legislative deals with both former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said he is surprised there hasn't been more outreach from the 44th commander in-chief.

The Iowa Republican told The Hill that Obama reached out to him quite a bit in 2009, but has received "scant personal attention" from the White House since.

I can't speak to why (or whether) the president has avoided calling the senator, but if Grassley genuinely wants to know why the White House doesn't keep in touch, I might be able to help shed some light on the subject.

Grassley, for example, has said publicly that he considers President Obama "stupid." This may have given the White House the impression that Grassley isn't interested in a cooperative relationship with the president.

But even if we put that aside, let's take a nice stroll down memory lane, and revisit what happened when Obama and his team reached out -- with sincerity and regularity -- to the Republican senator from Iowa.

Those who followed the debate over health-care reform closely may recall that by the fall of 2009, "no Republican received more TLC from Barack Obama" than Chuck Grassley. The president and his team reached out to him constantly, hoping that he was the kind of senator who would work in good faith towards bipartisan solutions.

The president and his team were mistaken. While Grassley claimed to be serious about bipartisan solutions on health care reform, he was also, at the same time, making fundraising appeals urging donors to send him cash to help him "defeat Obama-care." Grassley then proceeded to talk up "death panel" garbage and tout Glenn Beck's book.

By August 2009, Grassley told MSNBC that he was negotiating with the White House on a health care compromise, which Grassley was prepared to vote against, even if it included everything he asked for.

I have a strong hunch that Obama saw all of this and thought to himself, "Maybe there's no point in reaching out to Chuck Grassley anymore."

And if the president did reach this conclusion, it would be hard to blame him. Grassley has conducted himself in a ridiculous manner for the last several years, and when the White House made a sincere attempt at outreach, he betrayed them.

So why is it, exactly, that Grassley is whining now?

When basic governance is deemed controversial

White House photo

President Obama yesterday with his three new judicial nominees

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, widely seen as the nation's second most important federal bench, has three vacancies. President Obama yesterday introduced three non-controversial nominees to fill those vacancies. And were it not for the breakdowns of the American political process, none of this would be especially interesting.

But here we are.

Senate Republicans have come up with lots of reasons for not wanting to advance President Barack Obama's nominees to the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, whether it be false accusations of "court-packing" or claims that the court doesn't need its three vacancies filled because it's not busy enough.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued there was another problem with moving Obama's nominees: a "culture of intimidation" being fueled by Democrats.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) went further, responding to the nominees by telling reporters, "There is no basis for the president inventing these crises. It's unpresidential. It's embarrassing to me."

Just so we're clear, we've apparently reached the point at which a president nominating judges to fill existing vacancies is seen by Republicans as outrageous. They not only decry "court packing" -- a phrase they use but clearly do not understand -- they also feel "intimidated" and "embarrassed" by a basic governmental process outlined by the Constitution.

Indeed, according to Lamar Alexander, Obama is creating a "crisis." Worse, it's "unpresidential" for the president to exercise his presidential duties. I realize it's a little unusual for the White House to introduce three judicial nominees at once, but this GOP freak-out is excessive by any sensible standard.

But, Mitch McConnell says, there's no reason for Democrats to complain. "You know, we've confirmed an overwhelming number of judges for President Obama," the Minority Leader told reporters yesterday. "So the president's been treated very fairly on judicial [nominees]."

Is this true?

Greg Sargent took a closer look.

It is not easy to conclusively determine whether GOP obstructionism is unprecedented. But there are some data points we can look at. For instance, Dr. Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts who focuses on judicial nominations, has developed what he calls an "Index of Obstruction and Delay" designed to measure levels of obstructionism. In research that will be released in a July article he co-authored for Judicature Journal, he has calculated that the level of obstruction of Obama circuit court nominees during the last Congress was unprecedented.

Goldman calculates his Index of Obstruction and Delay by adding together the number of unconfirmed nominations, plus the number of nominations that took more than 180 days to confirm (not including nominations towards the end of a given Congress) and dividing that by the total number of nominations. During the last Congress, Goldman calculates, the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Obama circuit court nominations was 0.9524.

Goldman told Greg, "That's the highest that's ever been recorded." He added, in reference to the most recent Congress, "[I]t is unprecedented for the minority party to obstruct and delay to the level that Republicans have done to Obama in the 112th Congress."

The Congressional Research Service also found (pdf), "President Obama is the only one of the five most recent Presidents for whom, during his first term, both the average and median waiting time from nomination to confirmation for circuit and district court nominees was greater than half a calendar year (i.e., more than 182 days)."

It appears that by objective standards, McConnell's boasts have no basis in fact. Imagine that.

Nevertheless, the Minority Leader yesterday refused to commit to allowing the Senate to vote up or down on the new nominees, not because he can think of something wrong with them, but because he thinks the D.C. Circuit isn't busy enough to need filled vacancies.

With each passing day, the "nuclear option" becomes more viable.

About those 'secret' email accounts...

White House photo

With Scandal Mania 2013 struggling, the search is on for a new controversy. The Associated Press yesterday threw a new possibility into the mix:

Some of President Barack Obama's political appointees are using secret government email accounts to conduct official business, The Associated Press found, a practice that complicates agencies' legal responsibilities to find and turn over emails under public records requests and congressional inquiries.

The prospect of "secret government email accounts" certainly sounds problematic, and quickly offered Republican members of Congress something new to be excited about. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) appeared on Fox News yesterday morning, arguing, "Get it all out there; get it all out there now. If there's nothing to hide, and in fact what they're claiming is that this was incompetence, not that this was deliberate, then get all the information out there quickly and let's dispose of this once and for all."

Rubio was confused. The administration isn't claiming "this was incompetence"; they're claiming this is routine and uninteresting.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that having two email accounts has been a routine practice during this and previous administrations.

He said administration officials have one address that they use for public email and another that they use for internal communication, but he said all are searched in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

"Let's be clear: This is a practice consistent with prior administrations of both parties," Carney said, and added that the secondary accounts are not "secret" but rather "alternative work" accounts.

I'll concede that I'm not an expert on the nuances of FOIA and/or email transparency, but there doesn't seem to be much here.

Josh Israel had a good piece on this.

The AP story gives the impression that this is unprecedented, making no mention of the use of the multiple addresses by previous administrations.

U.S. Senators and Representatives also typically have non-published e-mail addresses, though Congress exempted itself from Freedom of Information laws. It seems obvious that political figures of both parties would need an unlisted e-mail address that cannot be easily guessed for communications with advisers and colleagues -- just as cabinet secretaries private cell phone numbers would not be publicly available, though their main office number would be.

This seems pretty obvious. Top officials in government could, I suppose, make their direct email accounts readily available to the public, but the inevitable spam and crank messages raise legitimate practical concerns. It's why the Clinton and Bush administrations used the same email practices as the Obama administration, to the concern of no one.

But, some of you with good memories might be thinking, wasn't there a problem with access to Bush/Cheney emails? Yes, there was, but it had nothing to with separate/ alternative email accounts and everything to do with a flawed system that failed to properly archive messages.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story

Associated Press

Following up on Rachel's segment from last night, which I really hope you watched, it's truly amazing to see how some myths take root at Fox News, even after they're proven false.

On Thursday night, Bill O'Reilly told his viewers that there may be a "smoking gun" in the IRS controversy: former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, the host said, visited the White House 157 times between 2009 and 2012. This proved ... something. We learned a day later, however, the smoking gun was shooting blanks: Shulman had been cleared for a series of routine White House gatherings, but only attended 11 events over the course of four years.

So on Thursday, O'Reilly thought he had a big scoop. On Friday, it was debunked. And on Monday, O'Reilly pretended his story hadn't been discredited, and repeated it all over again. "We still don't know much about former IRS Chief Douglas Shulman visiting the White House 157 times," the Fox host said. "That's extraordinary."

Well, something is certainly extraordinary here.

And while Rachel was marveling at this story last night, O'Reilly returned to the subject again on his own show. He told viewers last night:

"What I can say is that the White House still has not told the nation what the hell ... Douglas Shulman was doing in the White House all those times. What's the holdup, Mr. President? How about that transparency deal?"

It's simply amazing. O'Reilly shouldn't have made the original mistake on Thursday night, claiming a bogus story was a "smoking gun," but let's say it was an innocent mistake. That original slip-up, however, was five days ago -- and it's not unreasonable to wonder how long it takes for the host and his team to catch up on the basic details surrounding their own story.

What's more, this allergy to facts appears to be contagious.

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward appeared on O'Reilly's show on Monday and said:

"You say they aren't answering this question about the 157 visits by the IRS commissioner. They should. They should get on top of this story."

Actually, they're not the one who are failing to stay on top of this story -- it was proven false last week.

I've heard of media figures joke about some stories being "too good to check," but this is ridiculous. It's already been checked, and the allegations are baseless. So in what universe do media professionals continue to push a bogus story several days after it's been discredited?

Kevin Drum argued yesterday that Fox is in the business of keeping Tea Partiers "whipped up," and if that means touting stories the network knows to be false, so be it.

Outrage is how they do this, and neither facts nor the long-term health of the GOP are allowed to get in the way. Pounding away mendaciously on Shulman's 157 visits might be the kind of overreach that hurts Republicans in the long run, but who cares? The rubes don't read the Washington Post and don't know that the story is bogus, so Fox will keep at it because it's good for business. The tail is now wagging the dog, and the Republican Party is being held hostage to the bottom line of the conservative media.

This is the Republican Party's core problem.

Given that O'Reilly is seen by millions of Americans as one of the leading faces of today's GOP, that's certainly a fair assessment.

Morning Maddow: June 5

National Park Service

National Security Adviser Tom Donilon is stepping down, to be replaced by Susan Rice.

What the October special election could mean for NJ Senatorial hopeful Cory Booker.

The schedule of memorials and tributes to Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

Missouri elects a new congressman.

FL Gov. Rick Scott vetoes a bill to give children of undocumented immigrants driver's licenses.

Gawker reports that the video purportedly showing Toronto's mayor smoking crack is "gone."

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher compares his Russia guide, Steven Seagal, to Ronald Reagan.

Seriously, who does this? And if that made you angry, this could help.

Ahead on the 6/4 Maddow show

Tonight's guests include:

John Stanton, Buzzfeed Washington DC bureau chief

State Rep. Joe Dorman, (D) Oklahoma, who hopes to put his a proposal to establish a $500 million bond for building “safe rooms” before Oklahoman voters in the next election

Here is tonight's soundtrack to accompany executive producer Bill Wolff's preview of what's in store for tonight's show:

Tuesday's Mini-Report

Today's edition of quick hits:

* An important hearing: "The nation's top military brass came under withering criticism Tuesday from high-profile female senators who slammed the military's handling of allegations of sexual assault."

* Massive: "The tornado that struck El Reno, Okla., on Friday night is believed to be the widest on record in the United States at 2.6 miles across, the National Weather Service reported on Tuesday."

* Syria: "Reporting 'new levels of brutality' in Syria's more than two-year-old conflict, United Nations investigators said on Tuesday that they believed that chemical weapons and more indiscriminate bombing had been used in recent weeks and urged world powers to cut off supplies of weapons that could only result in more civilian casualties."

* Fort Hood: "Maj. Nidal Hasan said Tuesday his defense will explain that he killed 13 people in the 2009 shooting rampage because soldiers were about to deploy to Afghanistan. He says he was trying to prevent the imminent death of Taliban fighters."

* Keep an eye on this one: "The Obama administration on Monday threatened to veto any spending bills for the coming fiscal year unless Republicans and Democrats reach agreement on a broader budget plan that 'supports our recovery and enables sufficient investments' in White House priorities."

* Remember in 2010, when congressional Republicans convinced the media establishment that "deem and pass" was outrageous and scandalous? Well, never mind.

* A good start: "The White House announced a set of executive actions on Tuesday to crack down on abusive patent infringement lawsuits. The steps will rein in firms, described by detractors as 'patent trolls,' which acquire portfolios of patents and make money by suing other companies."

* Aurora: "A Colorado judge allowed Aurora massacre suspect James Holmes to change his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity on Tuesday and ordered an independent mental health evaluation."

* Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee, one of the nation's highest-paid university leaders, announced his retirement today. It comes on the heels of an AP report that quoted Gee saying of Roman Catholic priests in December, "The fathers are holy on Sunday, and they're holy hell the rest of the week. You just can't trust those damn Catholics on a Thursday or a Friday, and so, literally, I can say that."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Chambliss reflects on the military and 'hormone levels'

Getty Images

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) became the subject of national ridicule in March when he offered a rather narrow-minded approach to marriage equality. "I'm not gay," the Republican senator said. "So I'm not going to marry one."

As mind-numbing as that quote was, however, Chambliss also raised eyebrows with these comments this morning.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) called on the military to do more to crack down on sexual assault in its ranks on Tuesday, while also worrying that they may be hard to stop because of the natural "hormone level" of the young men serving.

"The young folks who are coming into each of your services are anywhere from 17 to 22 or 23. Gee whiz, the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur. So we've got to be very careful how we address it on our side," Chambliss told top military officials at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

In fairness, it's important to emphasize that Chambliss did not express indifference to the scourge of sexual assaults in the military. On the contrary, he urged military leaders and lawmakers to do more to combat the growing problem.

But that doesn't negate the fact that his "gee whiz" talk about natural "hormone levels" is far from constructive. In fact, it suggests Chambliss sees these sexual assaults as somehow understandable. And that is clearly not the appropriate attitude.

What's more, as Jamelle Bouie noted, Chambliss is not the only one who needs to reevaluate their approach to the issue: "Given the wide number of sexual assault cases, it seems hard to argue that the current system is adequate to the scope of the problem. But [Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and Texas Senator John Cornyn] have adopted the case for the status quo."