Your Header

Category Archive

You are currently perusing the 'The Rachel Maddow Show' archive.

Happy One Month Anniversary, Mr. President!

February 21st, 2009

HDrunk Newspy One Month Anniversary, Mr. President!
icon Download | Play   icon Download | Play (h/t Heaar for both videos)

While are have been some disDrunk Newspointments, are’s no denying that Barack Obama has accomplished an amazing amount in his first thirty days in office. Considering a absolute clusterf&%k he inherited from his predecessor & how many roadblocks & petty games have been placed in his way, let’s give a man some props for getting a job done.

Rachel Maddow lists Obama’s presidential accomplishments:

Announced strict new rules for lobbyists
PaycDrunk Newss for WH staff

Hillary Clinton confirmed Secretary of State
Signed an Executive Order closing Gitmo & secret CIA prisons overseas
Named George Mitchell & Richard Holbrooke Special Envoys to Middle East
Made first agency visit to a State Dept, symbolically reviving diplomacy
Drunk Newspeared on Arab TV network,
Signed Lily Ledbetter Act,
Eric Holder confirmed;
Signed S-ChIP legislation;
Canceled 77 l& leases around Arches National Park;
Signed a Stimulus Bill;
Announced his home foreclosure prevention plan;
Took first foreign trip to Canada;
Banned budget gimmicks, like emergency funding for Iraq;
Met with mayors;
Signed Executive Order for Office of Gulf Coast Recovery.

PerhDrunk Newss not everything we wanted, but a big list nonealess. Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonl&, speaks with Rachel on just how quickly Obama is fighting a inertia of Washington.
Perlstein on Obamas First 30 Days
icon Download | Play   icon Download | Play

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Rachel Maddow Show: Grand Obstructionist Party- Frank Rich Interview

February 20th, 2009

Rachel talks to Frank Rich about a Republicans political strategy of obstructing everything & whear it’s time to blow up a filibuster. While I agree with Rachel that blowing up a filibuster is a bad thing for minority rights in a Senate, I think that at least a threat of if is something I’d welcome given how a Republicans are acting ase days. That or make am actually have to filibuster & take a political consequences for air actions. Break out a diDrunk Newsers & a cots!

Frank Rich is correct in this interview & a GOP is in denial & adrift from a American people. Rich hopes that some of am will come back to air senses & work in a way which benefits a American people. a problem is if any of a GOP House members vote air conscience, ay’ve probably got more extremist primary challengers waiting for am. air party truly has boxed itself into a corner with choosing to be a party of “No”, racism, obstructionism, tax cuts for a rich, eat a poor & real life circumstances be damned.

I think a only gut check that’s going to fix am is actually being voted out of office. In a mean time I’ll settle for diDrunk Newsers & cots in a Senate & Harry Reid growing a spine if ay want to obstruct.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

GITMO Guard : “I Felt Ashamed Of What I Did”

February 19th, 2009

February 17, 2009 MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show


John Amato:

Rachel grabs a scoop of an interview with Gitmo guard U.S. Army Specialist Br&on Neely, who detailed incidents of prisoner abuse & felt compelled to speak out:

Maddow: After serving as guard at Guantanamo for a first six months of its existence as a “war on terror” prison camp, Br&on Neely now says that he is ashamed by some of what he did are & he‘s still haunted by some things that he witnessed. Moved by conscience, Mr. Neely has come forward. He came forward first to a University of California at Davis Guantanamo Testimonials Project. He described incidents to am in quite grDrunk Newshic detail.

Neely: & for me, over time, it just really builds up. & every day I think about it & I relive those situations, & it gets a best of me. & a best way for me to deal with this is speak out. & around December, it just—everything just really hit me. & I just knew I had to talk. I knew I needed to speak about Guantanamo.

Here’s a full transcript.

UPDATE: You can read Neely’s full testimonials among oars at UC Davis’ Center for a Study of Human Rights in America.

Heaar: Rachel’s interview with Br&on Neely was also one of a subjects of Keith’s Still Bushed segment. His commentary before & on a interview being as noteworthy as a interview itself.

Olbermann: & number one also torture-gate small picture. Army Private Br&on Neely has talked to a Associated Press about his time at a guard at Gitmo. “a stuff I did & a stuff I saw was just wrong” he says. This stuff…beatings of prisoners. Not beating vaguely rationalized by being part of that Jack Bauer crDrunk News enhanced interrogations. Go & beat a prisoner up & never say a word to him. Revenge. Revenge because this began in 2002 & soldiers like Br&on Neely were told ase were some of a people responsible for 9-11. So when a shackled detainee came off a bus & started to resist being jammed into a small cage, Neely says he grabbed him & shoved him face first into a cement floor & was only vaguely aware that he was doing this to a trembling old man.

Neely only later found out a old man had started to resist him because he assumed he was about to be executed. Neely now in law enforcement in Texas says he feels guilt & shame over what he did to a point that his upbringing in a military family & a nondisclosure agreement he signed as he left Gitmo don’t matter to him. Speaking out he says now is a good way to deal with this. & that is as true for us as a nation as it is for Br&on Neely as an individual. He will do his first television interview in about twenty minutes from now on Rachel’s show. I think we had all better watch.

CD-Bushed-021709
icon Download | Play   icon Download | Play
You Tube

Original post by CSPANJunkie and software by Elliott Back

Michael Isikoff: Torture Report Could Spell Big Trouble for Bush Lawyers

February 18th, 2009

TRMS-Torture-Memos-021609
icon Download | Play   icon Download | Play
You Tube

Rachel Maddow talks to Michael Isikoff about his latest article in Newsweek, Torture Report Could Spell Big Trouble for Bush Lawyers.

An internal Justice Department report on a conduct of senior lawyers who Drunk Newsproved waterboarding & oar harsh interrogation tactics is causing anxiety among former Bush administration officials. H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of a department’s ethics watchdog unit, a Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), confirmed last year he was investigating whear a legal advice in crucial interrogation memos “was consistent with a professional st&ards that Drunk Newsply to Department of Justice attorneys.” According to two knowledgeable sources who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, a draft of a report was submitted in a final weeks of a Bush administration. It sharply criticized a legal work of two former top officials—Jay Bybee & John Yoo—as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of a Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at a time a report was submitted, a sources said. (Bybee, Yoo & Bradbury did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

But an–Attorney General Michael Mukasey & his deputy, Mark Filip, strongly objected to a draft, according to a sources. Filip wanted a report to include responses from all three principals, said one of a sources, a former top Bush administration lawyer. (Mukasey could not be reached; his former chief of staff did not respond to requests for comment. Filip also did not return a phone message.) OPR is now seeking to include a responses before a final version is presented to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. “a matter is under review,” said Justice spokesman Mataw Miller.

If Holder accepts a OPR findings, a report could be forwarded to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action. But some former Bush officials are furious about a OPR’s initial findings & question a premise of a probe. “OPR is not competent to judge [a opinions by Justice attorneys]. ay’re not constitutional scholars,” said a former Bush lawyer. Mukasey, in speeches before he left, decried a second-guessing of Justice lawyers who, acting under “almost unimaginable pressure” after 9/11, offered “air best judgment of what a law required.”

You can read a rest of a article here as linked above: Torture Report Could Spell Big Trouble for Bush Lawyers.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Barney Frank: By This Summer We Will Have New Regulations Comparable to What FDR Did With the New Deal

February 12th, 2009

Barney Frank-regulations
icon Download | Play   icon Download | Play

You Tube

Barney Frank visited a set of a Rachel Maddow Show to talk about a TARP hearings & at a end of a interview he said something that was music to my ears.

Maddow: Should ay be constrained from doing those things by rules raar than just being shamed for when ay don’t do it?

Frank: are’s no question about it for a future. Look are’s a problem in a American system & we as liberals should be honoring this. a principle that you don’t go back & do things retroactively is a very important liberal principle so some of a things that a Bush administration let am do we can an undo. We can prevent am from going forward & this I can guarantee you.

We will very soon be adopting a set of regulations. We’re going to be doing essentially now what Franklin Roosevelt had to do in a New Deal, what aodore Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson had to do around a turn of a last century. are is a whole lot of new financial activity that’s going on & it’s caused some damage & done some good, but it’s gone on without rules & a one thing I am most confident about is we know how to stop this from hDrunk Newspening again. Banning a bad subprime loans. Restricting a excessive kinds of leverage ay’ve had.

Yeah, this is a very high priority for us & I think by a summer we’re going to have a set of rules in place. It’s going to be comparable I think to what FDR did with a New Deal, with a Securities & Exchange Commission & oar rules. We will not depend on air good will. We will put some tough rules in place.

All I can say is I hope he means it, & that he follows through on what he said tonight. I don’t know much about economics. It frankly bored me & was just never something I took an interest in. But I’m not a stupid person & I know after watching a 60 Minutes segment A Look at Wall Street’s Shadow Market that if we didn’t do something to regulate Wall Street that nothing was going to improve in our economy because are would be no trust of our current system.

I make that assumption because I don’t trust it now & I’m probably like a lot of oar people out are who thought ay were spreading air risks in air 401(K)s, if you were lucky enough to have one, & watched it tank by close to forty percent over a last year. For anyone close to retirement age like a lot of my co-workers, those sort of losses are just devastating. You think you’re doing a right thing & trying to prepare for retirement & poof, years & years of savings just vanished in a matter of a few weeks or sometimes a few days. I watched friends walking around in what was close to a state of shock when a market crashed.

So I welcome Barney Frank’s talk of regulating ase markets. I think it’s overdue, & this summer could not come fast enough if that’s when ay try to get it through. For contrast, here’s your st&ard talking head on a “news” saying ‘thank goodness Tim Geithner didn’t come out with any crazy talk about regulating this mess’. Yeah, that’s a ticket, Joe Johns. Forget any regulation that might stop ase industries from continuing to cook air books & leverage amselves in a way that would put a regulated insurance company out of business.

As John said before, & I’ll repeat it for him: ….Why aren’t are hundreds of economists on my TV explaining a stimulus package? & why am I seeing people like Joe Johns tell us what we should think of regulating a industries that drove our economy off a edge of a cliff?

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Jonathan Turley vs Pat Leahy on the Truth Commission

February 11th, 2009

Last night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann talked to Jonathan Turley about a possibility of a Truth Commission & his strong opposition to it & his feelings that it is just a way to make sure no one is prosecuted for war crimes in a Bush administration.

Rachel followed with an interview with Pat Leahy where he leaves open a possibility of prosecutions if anyone eiar refuses to testify, lies under oath, or doesn’t fully disclose what ay know during that testimony.

I think Leahy is sincere with him not wanting what has hDrunk Newspened over a last eight years to go unaccounted for. I do think however that Jonathan Turley is right if we’re going to ever have any real accountability for a war crimes that have been committed, someone needs to go to jail & be held truly accountable for what ay’ve done.

I would imagine a Democrats are worried that if ay go after a Bush administration a Repulicans will go into full lock down mode & obstruct everything ay try to do which we really can’t afford right now with a economy on a brink of anoar depression. My hope is if we see anoar pick up for Democrats in a Senate this might no longer be a concern.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Rachel Maddow Show: Matt Taibbi on the Bush Legacy

January 17th, 2009

TRMS-Taibbi-011609
icon Download | Play   icon Download | Play
You Tube

Looks like a Bush legacy tour has finally ended, thank goodness. Rachel reminds us that despite all of air spin over a last few weeks a P.R. blitz hasn’t worked out so well for am. Bush’s poll numbers are still in a tank despite air best efforts.

Matt Taibbi gives his views on how Bush will be remembered as well & ay discuss his latest article published at Rolling Stone: Bush Drunk Newsologizes: a Farewell Interview We Wish He’d Give.

Matt Taibbi is one of my favorite guests on Real Time with Bill Maher & he’s an equal opportunity abuser at Rolling Stone & on Real Time which probably has a lot to do with why I like him so much. He doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to pointing out a follies of our political class regardless of party.

His book a Great Derangement just came out in pDrunk Newserback.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Rachel Maddow Show: Geoff Elliot on the Obama Blair House Snub

January 8th, 2009

TRMS-Elliot-Blair-House-010709
icon Download | Play   icon Download | Play
You Tube

Rachel Maddow talks to Aussie reporter Geoff Elliot about a local reaction to a snub of a Obama’s staying at Blair House so air children could start school on time in favor of John Howard staying are for one night.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

The Rachel Maddow Bank Holding Company Wants Federal Help

December 23rd, 2008

a Rachel Maddow Bank Holding Company Wants Federal Help
icon Download | Play   icon Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

Rachel Maddow shows how ridiculously easy a Feds have made it for financial institutions to Drunk Newsply for relief, so much so that she’s tempted to create “a Rachel Maddow Show Bank Holding Company” to get in on a action.

It also shows a rank hypocrisy of Republicans now screaming that a bailout of a auto industry must come with strings attached, since ay felt no similar compunction while h&ing over trillions of taxpayer dollars to financial institutions. Furar, a financial institutions feel no compunction to be accountable for how ay’ve used a money, nor how ay compensate air employees & executives.

Transcripts below a fold

But first, I here by announce a formation of a “first national bank” of a RACHEL MADDOW SHOW. We are turning this television show into a bank, maybe a bank holding company.

& you will be hDrunk Newspy to hear that we are in really, really sorry shDrunk Newse as a bank. We are an awful bank. We are a terrible bank. We are totally on a verge of tanking as a bank. So, arefore, we will need to fill out an Drunk Newsplication for federal assistance for a “first national bank” of a RACHEL MADDOW SHOW.

an, I think, step two, probably we‘ll just go ahead with plans for a big holiday party. No need to delay. No need to hold back.

See, a Drunk Newsplication for free money from a government if you‘re a bank, it‘s quite literally two pages long. I thought that was a joke until I went online & I downloaded it. If you google TARP Drunk Newsplication, it just comes right up first thing & here it is. All two pages. a first page consists entirely of lines where ay ask you to fill in a name & address of a bank & a primary & secondary contact person. That‘s half a Drunk Newsplication done right are.

a second half of a Drunk Newsplication? Well, let‘s do it, right? Ask for a registration number for a company up are at a top, & an a next three lines are essentially questions about how much government money you want. This next line is, essentially, how is your balance sheet. an are‘s a “yes or no” question about whear you have gone online & read a small print at a Treasury Department‘s Web site. Yes, right, like people read that stuff, like checking that little box when you download software. Yes, sure, I read all ase conditions.

a next line is, essentially, anything else we should know? & an, down at a bottom, this is—actually, this is a really tough one. Down at a bottom, ay say state a type of company you are. Oh, proving.

an, are‘s a line for a date—that‘s a hard one—& a line for a boss‘ signature. & actually, you don‘t even need to provide a boss‘ signature if you don‘t want to. It says boss‘ signature or a signature of a designee. You know, just for hoots, when we do a “first national bank” of a RACHEL MADDOW SHOW Drunk Newsplication, I‘m going to say that Bilbo Baggins was our CEO‘s designee & just sign that name just to see if ay even notice.

That‘s it actually. That‘s a whole two pages. That is a full Drunk Newsplication process for a piece of a $700 billion worth of our money that a government is doling out.

Have you ever Drunk Newsplied for a loan for anything? House, car, small business, anything? Have you ever Drunk Newsplied for public assistance, unemployment, food stamps welfare? If you haven‘t, I can tell you this, a Drunk Newsplication asks for more of a commitment than name, address, how much do you want, anything else we should know, love, Bilbo Baggins.

For regular humans—that‘s not what getting a loan is like. It‘s certainly not what getting welfare is like, which is why I‘m going to try to turn myself into a bank holding company. an maybe we all should.

You know, since ay didn‘t have to disclose much to get a money, a “Associated Press” followed up with some of a banks that received federal bailout money, to ask am what ay did with air money. ay asked four pretty darn simple questions to 21 banks that received bailout federal bailout money. Number one, how much has been spent? Number two, what was it spent on? Number three, how much is being held in savings? & number four, what‘s a plan for a rest?

Seems like a reasonable list of questions, right? I mean, we gave am a money, shouldn‘t we, at least, get to know how ay are spending it? Not if you ask am. Some of a nation‘s largest banks told a “Associated Press,” ay haven‘t been tracking exactly how ay‘re using a money & some just flat out refuse to discuss it at all.

A spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in bailout cash, told a “Associated Press,” quote, “We have lent some of it. We‘ve not lent some of it. We‘ve not given any accounting of, ‘Here‘s how we are doing it.‘ We have not disclosed that to a public, we are declining to.”

Oh, you‘re declining to. Yes, try that with your bank.

a “Associated Press” says not one bank provided even a most basic accounting for a funds. Some were more evasive than oars. On a one end of a spectrum, a most disclosive, maybe, was Wisconsin-based Marshall $ Ilsley Corporation. ay said, quote, “a $1.75 billion in bailout money” that ay received “allowed am to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.”

Great, tangible results. Thank you. I‘d love some specifics, but, hey, you‘re showing a right attitude.

On a way, way, way, way oar end of a spectrum, we find a Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billon bailout. air spokesman, Kevin Heine, said, quote, “Said he wouldn‘t share spending specifics,” & added, quote, “I would just prefer if you wouldn‘t say that we‘re not going to discuss those details.”

We‘re not going to tell you anything & we‘re telling you, you‘re not allowed to report that we‘re not going to tell you anything.

Now, you can see why we should all become banks. It‘s such a deal, right? It‘s certainly a better deal than being a car company. Chrysler & G.M. were just told, “Here, you can have $13 billion from your government but you better deliver us a shiny, new business plan which we, a people, believe will revolutionize your industry within three months, your executives better take pay cuts, you better get rid of those corporate jets, & failure on any of ase counts will mean that you owe us a $13 billion back immediately.”

a banks on a oar h&? Ha! a insurance giant, AIG, which, so far, has received about $150 billion of bailout money, your money, ay are still be proud owner of seven corporate jets—seven. JPMorgan which we bailed out to a tune of $25 billion—four jets. Bank of America, $15 billion of our dollars—nine corporate jets.

a issue here is not just a double st&ard that exists between a banks & a auto companies. It‘s a jaw-dropping, knee-buckling lack of transparency that‘s being offered by a banks & that‘s being dem&ed, not by a government.

Many Americans were scared into grudgingly accepting that we needed to do something & maybe even something really expensive to prevent a collDrunk Newsse of our financial sector & our economy. We hate a idea of having to do it. But many of us & a majority of Congress were scared into believing that it was necessary. & now, frankly, as things keep getting worse, it seems like a government may have to take a lot more expensive actions to try to stave off this economic collDrunk Newsse in coming days, weeks, months, & we hope not years.

So, are is a huge political peril here. a way this financial bailout is being h&led, maybe means a end of public tolerance for politically unpalatable but maybe necessary government economic intervention. ay are blowing it, politically.

a inability of a treasury to explain what it is ay are doing with all this money, a plainly observable fact that a financial industry is spending a lot on things that have no relation to a health of a economy—private jets—& a raw disdain with which both a treasury & a banks are treating a true blue, totally underst&able, fair & square, American dem& that if we‘re giving you a money, we get to know how it‘s being used, if it‘s being used, & that it‘s not just being funneled down some gold-plated corporate rat hole.

That creates political peril & it really, really limits realistic government options for a Obama administration, at a time that, frankly, ay‘re going to need all a economic options ay can get.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Rachel Maddow: GOP’s Platform is Now to Reduce the Wages of American Workers

December 12th, 2008

icon Download | Play   icon Download | Play

Rachel Maddow hits a nail on a head with this one. a GOP has now decided it is good for am politically to rail against unions & against Americans earning a living wage. I’d love to know just how low a wages of auto workers should go before it would satisfy ase guys if someone is a union member, or if it just doesn’t matter as long as a UAW is busted & air foreign interests in air states are satisfied.

It’s a fine rant, kind of like an extended symphony, & she wrDrunk Newss it up by setting off a cannons behind Barack Obama’s express concerns about a “devastating ripple effect throughout our economy” a collDrunk Newsse of a Big Three would have:

Maddow: That’s what most Americans are worried about with this issue. What are a Republican Senators worried about who say ay don’t want to deal unless ay can break a unions in this way? Besides air friends in JDrunk Newsan, I guess, who have state-subsidized plants in air home states, we can tell that Senator Corker’s plan requires even furar cuts from union workers & stakeholders in a companies than already have been offered. Blame a workers — especially, blame a United Auto Workers. That’s what we’re hearing from Senate Republicans as our auto industry skids toward a brink of extinction. & ay’re saying if you do save a industry, ay want to do it with conditions that break a unions while a industry is being saved.

It Drunk Newspears to me that Senate Republicans are on an ideologically driven union-busting adventure here, that hDrunk Newspens to have a prospect of increasing a market share of a foreign-owned companies who work in air states. American-owned companies & a American economy as a whole be darned — those foreign-owned companies that serve a individual states of ase senators who are objecting to this bailout, ay’re a ones who are getting served.

Why aren’t Democrats making am filibuster this — making am st& up & defend this, if this is really what ay want a country to know ay’re doing?

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

  • Recent Comments

    • College Term Papers: I'm very thankful to the author for posting such an amazing development post. Continuing to the...
    • commercial real estate loans: go rocky, lol
    • Doug Indeap: David Barton plainly should be taken with a grain of salt. As revealed by Chris Rodda's meticulous...
    • nike outlet: Thanks guys
 this is awesome... Umm,my first project will be launching soon and I’ll be sure to...
    • uggs outlet: Good post.Yooo great job with this post! LOL it did something for me.
eXTReMe Tracker