Guests: Rachel Maddow, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Anthony Weiner, Howard Fineman, Melissa
Harris-Perry
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, HOST: Good evening.
Nine days after the United States launched airstrikes in Libya, President Obama has explained the U.S. mission. Speaking at the National Defense University in Washington, the president laid out the United States‘ objectives, gave a progress report on where this mission stands, on NATO taking over this mission.
Joining me now is Rachel Maddow to discuss the president‘s speech.
Rachel, we just heard the president lay out his reason for this. It‘s basically a humanitarian mission. You can listen as carefully as you want, and it‘s hard to find anything other than a humanitarian mission in here.
RACHEL MADDOW, TRMS HOST: He named this as an important strategic interest of the United States and as being in America‘s national interest.
But the things that he described as proving that were potential flood of refugees in the Middle East, the democratic impulses on view in the Middle East with the various revolutions and uprisings being quenched by this brutal dictator, and also U.N. credibility, being able to speak for the international community and stepping up in cases like this.
That is the sort of thing that you could—you could make that case about America having a strong national strategic interest for any number of other conflicts or potential conflicts that we could get ourselves embroiled in in the region or in any other region.
What he defined tonight was why Libya and not Syria, why Libya and not Yemen, why Libya and not all these other places where there‘s bad things going on that could cause, you know, a flood of refugees. And these other things that he defined. And he essentially said it was because it could be done in Libya, that the United States had an opportunity.
O‘DONNELL: But to the refugees, this country is located in between Egypt and Tunisia. And so, he was very specific about the problem being the flood of refugees, over those particular borders, which indicates there could be another situation with another refugee movement that wouldn‘t be as strategically important as refugees flooding into Tunisia or Egypt at this fragile point in the aftermath of their revolutions.
MADDOW: I think that the refugees point was sort of inchoate enough that it sort of—it led to the more specific point about why Libya, and the more specific point about why Libya was international coalition, the Libyans themselves asking for it, and the ability to accomplish the mandate of the international coalition, without putting in ground troops. And so, he‘s saying, listen, you could—you could make a case for us intervening everywhere. Part of the reason we‘re doing it here is because we felt like we could, that we were—that it would mean something to intervene, and it wouldn‘t cost us so much that we would regret having done it. It‘s very pragmatic.
O‘DONNELL: And those other elements—the other elements you‘re talking about being invited to do it in effect by the rebels, having that international coalition. But all of those elements being together, and what he doesn‘t say specifically but what seems clear to me is we looked at this theater of war.
MADDOW: Yes.
O‘DONNELL: And thought we were our equipment could be successful in what we‘re trying to do in this particular place. We may look at a place like Somalia and say, the stuff we can bring there won‘t really work.
MADDOW: Yes.
O‘DONNELL: Or, you know, one of the other countries, what we have to bring won‘t really work. So, it seems to me there‘s a practical war-making, tactical success they believe they could have in this particular country.
MADDOW: Exactly. He kept describing himself as sort of acutely aware of the risks and the costs of America doing any sort of military intervention. And so, you‘re exactly right. What he is weighing is what are we getting for paying that cost? What is going to be the payback for us doing that?
And you can spend infinitely in war. But what you actually get for
what you pay is the thing that he has to consider as president. And also,
what is marking up, right, when you went to me, I‘m sorry, I was looking
away from you, but I was marking up his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
--
O‘DONNELL: Oh, don‘t do that tonight. That‘s not fair tonight.
MADDOW: You see similarity. He‘s making—he actually was making the very same case, this broader idea about why and how America gets involved in things from the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, America cannot act alone. This whole idea that, yes, we are the world‘s most powerful nation, but what will happen during my presidency is we will use your power to get other countries to come along.
O‘DONNELL: And it strikes me as Nobel Peace Prize winner‘s definition of when we go to this kind of action, I‘m reluctant to use the word “war” because it doesn‘t quite seem like that from the American perspective. It seems like this unilateral intervention, there isn‘t any real fighting back against the American intervention in here.
MADDOW: Right.
O‘DONNELL: But, anyway, he stresses this humanitarian intervention. He says in this particular country, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We have the unique ability—he uses that phrase—unique ability. Keeps using phrases like that which says, in effect, there is no doctrine here. Don‘t look to this to predict where we will do something next.
MADDOW: Bingo. Exactly. This is not a precedent-setting mission. The precedent, broadly speaking, is that America is not isolationist. We are reluctant to get involved under this president in additional wars, and when we do so, we will weigh what we can do against what we may get out of it.
I mean, when he did that most broadly (ph) I think when he said, this is not why we‘re not trying to topple Gadhafi with force. He essentially said, yes, we could go in there and try to topple Gadhafi with force. We would love it if Gadhafi wasn‘t there. But you know what we‘d spend to get there? We would spend something that look a lot like what we spent in Iraq, and, frankly, we can‘t afford it. He‘s actually used the phrase—we cannot afford that right now.
O‘DONNELL: So, it‘s a combination of humanitarianism intersects with practical possibilities, and what we can—what he believes we can practically achieve.
MADDOW: Well, yes. But beyond humanitarian, he essentially said that we will—he said we will respond obviously when our safety is at risk. But there are times when we will respond when it is not our safety at risk, and it may be to stop genocide, it maybe to keep the peace, it may be to support the flow of commerce. I mean, it may be any of these very broad—this very broad list of American interests that he defined.
He‘s essentially saying we reserve the right to intervene when we want to. But the thing that should make you feel at ease about that, if you‘re worried that that sounds like a belligerent America is that the way that we‘ll intervene is that we will persuade other nations to join us and then we will participate in an international action. He‘s not promising unilateral action on a broad basis. He‘s promising multilateral intervention on a broadly considered basis informed by pragmatism about costs and the benefits.
O‘DONNELL: And he makes a point about what our interests actually are in a very broad way. And he‘s final paragraph when he says our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. That seems to be unarguable, that our future is safer and brighter, the more people are living in the bright light of modernity and freedom and dignity.
MADDOW: But he‘s a picking a fight by saying that, too, to all the people who say, yes, we like the idea of democracy, except we‘re a little afraid of the idea of Arab people choosing their own leaders, because what if they choose somebody we don‘t like. That is saying—you know, I mean, that‘s what was beautiful about Bush‘s second inaugural, which was this idea that we believe in this idea of a human value of democracy and self-determination that transcends all of our national differences—our international differences. That is, it shouldn‘t be a controversial statement, but he is sort of picking a fight there.
O‘DONNELL: You know, I said something on this afternoon‘s coverage with Contessa Brewer when—just when Mitch McConnell was on the Senate floor complaining about everything President Obama has done in Libya. I just pointed out what I thought was old news, which was that on March 1st, the United States Senate voted unanimously—unanimously—to urge the United Nations to create and enforce a no-fly zone in Libya, and it was then treated as news.
And I think it kind of was, even to the Washington press corps that ignored what happened on the Senate floor that day—and that‘s one of the reasons we‘ve heard very little objection from the Senate and most of the objection we‘re hearing is coming from people in the House.
MADDOW: We also heard the president assert tonight, “After consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action.” I think you could look at that vote and call that consultation with Congress. You can look at more informal discussions that happened between the president and leadership of Congress and to call that consultation.
I do think the president is a little out on a limb there by calling
that formal consultation in a formal address like he gave tonight, giving -
asking for a formal use of—use of force authorization vote would be a way of formalizing that consultation in a way that I think would do more justice to what he said about tonight.
O‘DONNELL: If there were any members of the leadership who had any contact with the president or administration about this who could say, “I told them not to do this”—
MADDOW: Yes, that‘s right.
O‘DONNELL: -- I think we would have heard from them by now.
MADDOW: That‘s exactly right. And that‘s why you are hearing most—you are hearing from the teeny, tiny libertarian caucus of the Republican Party in the House, and the actual liberals among the Democrats in the House as well—those are the people who are loudest on this. You‘re right.
O‘DONNELL: The Congress has, over time, ceded its war-making power and by delegating it, in effect, through the War Powers Act and these other things. Is there anything in this incident that looks it might put some kind of check or some momentum for some kind of check on presidential war-making power?
MADDOW: No. I mean, not—no. That would have to be an assertion by the Obama presidency. I mean, you look at the way that Congress tried to stop Bill Clinton from going into the Balkans the way that they did, and the way that his action without consulting Congress was essentially upheld as appropriate under the War Powers Act. A president would have to make—cut new ground here and do something like Barack Obama promised as a candidate that he would do, which is to say, no, I believe in defining presidential authority to wage war in a way that is more explicit, and therefore more constricted.
He has not done that. He is acting consistent with the way that Bill Clinton acted and consistent with the way that other presidents have acted in modern times. If you would have thought that he was going to be different on that issue in particular, you are wrong. But he is certainly making the case for the grounds on which he did intervene.
O‘DONNELL: Rachel Maddow, thanks for joining me. Now, go back to your real job, and dissect this speech for us in the next hour.
MADDOW: I‘m just going to be cribbing from you talking there. Thank you, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: President Obama‘s decision to take military action in Libya has also uncovered another situation where Democrats like Dennis Kucinich agree with some Tea Party Republicans. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Anthony Weiner also disagree on the course in Libya. They will join me next.
And you would think that Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich are in a private competition to steal all the attention from any potential Republican presidential candidate who could actually win the White House.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich is trying to cut off funding for any more U.S. action in Libya. He‘s even gotten some Tea Party Republicans to go along with him. Congressman Anthony Weiner doesn‘t think that‘s a good idea. Weiner and Kucinich, both here tonight.
And as the media pretends that both Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich are serious candidates for president, we will just have to explain to you what they have in common, which is three marriages each. And why only one of them has to talk about that over and over again. That‘s in tonight‘s “Rewrite.”
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all, even in limited ways in this distant land. To brush aside America‘s responsibility as a leader and more profoundly, our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances, would have been a betrayal of who we are.
Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: In the House of Representatives, a rare coalition of Republicans and Democrats wants to shut down U.S. military intervention in Libya.
Democrat Dennis Kucinich, Pete Stark and Lynn Woolsey, along with Republicans Ron Paul, Walter Jones and Tom McClintock plan to offer a bipartisan amendment to cut off funds for U.S. participation in the NATO enforced no-fly zone.
Did President Obama say anything tonight that would make any of them reconsider?
Joining me now are: Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Congressman Anthony Weiner.
Thanks for joining us tonight, congressmen.
REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: Thank you.
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D), OHIO: Thank you.
MADDOW: Congressman Kucinich, did you hear anything from the president tonight that changed your thinking about this?
KUCINICH: No, I heard an Obama doctrine, which war is an executive privilege. And I also heard him make statements that sounded eerily reminiscent of George Bush saying he wasn‘t going to wait for gathering dangers. We all know how Iraq turned out, lest we forget, we were misled into war.
And I‘m very concerned that this new executive privilege for war that‘s being asserted here isn‘t mindful of the fact that the president also admitted that he had 21 days to put together this alliance, but he didn‘t come to the House of Representatives to ask for approval to go to war. And breaking down the first article of the Constitution, and basically asserting this executive privilege for war actually abolishes the dynamic equilibrium that has protected this country and kept us out of some wars because some presidents thought they had to come to Congress. Now, we‘re in dangerous territory here.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Weiner, the United States Senate on March 1st, on a resolution sponsored by Senators Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, your senior senator, Chuck Schumer, Ron Wyden and others, Democrats, they voted unanimously—Senate voted unanimously to call for a no-fly zone in Libya. The president tonight said that for us to have stood by and watched the slaughter of innocents in Libya by the thousands would have been a betrayal of who we are. Is that true?
WEINER: Yes. I mean, look, what‘s the point of being a powerful country with high ideals if we don‘t ever lift a finger to do anything about it. You know, I respect Dennis Kucinich, but this really is a false choice. You can‘t always make the argument that while it is not a bright line, clear example of when we should use force. They very barely, rarely present themselves in foreign policy. We have a lot of difficult gray areas.
But I think the president was right to say we want to have to make sure that the Arab states support this, that we don‘t want to be the front edge of every single effort.
And, listen, I agree with Dennis Kucinich, I think the Congress should have been consulted and we should have had a word here. But let‘s separate the issues.
Then the issue isn‘t whether the president is doing the right thing and exercising the power of our country to try to defend people, to try to be that beacon that we always that we would be in. I think the president struck that right tone.
Let me just say thing else—you know, you can probably get six people opposed to just about anything President Obama does. But I don‘t think we should be giving aid to those that are simply oppositionist to the president at all terms.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Kucinich, if the president had consulted with Congress, do you believe there would have been an overwhelming voice from Congress saying, “Don‘t do this”?
KUCINICH: You know, we don‘t know because he didn‘t consult with them. But I will say this, that the no-fly zone, which is why the president said, you know, he said we got to go in the direction of a no-fly zone, but we‘ve already gone beyond the U.N. mandate. We‘ve gone beyond to stopping Gadhafi‘s advance, and now to assisting the rebels. We intervened in a civil war.
And there is no question while the president says he wants regime change but says he doesn‘t want the military involved in that, the military is creating circumstances towards regime change by assisting the rebels and providing cover for them as they advance. I mean, we have to—we have to understand what‘s really going on here.
And what is mystifying to me is this—you call, I don‘t have any brief for Gadhafi, but you call his government illegitimate. In 2003, he was involved in dealings with the IMF. And the World Bank had a broad privatization scheme visited upon Libya which resulted in about 20 percent unemployment in Libya, which is one of the reasons you have a restive population. Now, there‘s some contradiction here that hasn‘t been reconciled, nor talked about.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Weiner, what was the alternative facing the president?
WEINER: I was just going to say that exact same question. You know, the 2003 IMF measure means very little to someone having their house blown up or being dragged out of their house and shot by one of Gadhafi‘s tyrants. I mean, the fact is that this was a very circumstance we were faced it.
I think the president did the right thing. And Secretary Clinton did the right thing by saying, you know what, we‘ll be involved and we don‘t want to be the entire force. I think he was right to say here are the parameters by what we‘ll do to get involved and here are the goals we‘re going to move forward on.
Again, I agree, I would have liked to see the House of Representatives dealing with this rather than defunding NPR last week, but I really don‘t think the president had a lot of other options. And also this, there have to be values that guide when we get involved in military engagements and I think the president articulated them perfectly tonight.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Kucinich, the president said, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries, the United States of America is different, and as president, I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
KUCINICH: Well, this is a new Obama doctrine, which is that you act on threats. Remember, that‘s what George Bush did. He said we had weapons of mass—that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And so, here we are, $3 trillion later for the long term cost of the war, deaths of thousands of our troops, deaths to millions of Iraqis, civilians have died as a result of the conflict. And we‘ve got to be careful about slipping into these wars.
And not even to get into the issue for too long, of can we afford it, can we trash our domestic agenda when the Pentagon is already taking over 50 percent of discretionary spending of the United States and we are paying 25 percent of the bill for NATO? I mean, one, a discount is no good in any event, and we are really at a point here in our country‘s history where we are buying into a form of militarism that could take us anywhere in the world.
It might make us feel good for a few days. But once a civil war starts and we get enmeshed like we are enmeshed in Afghanistan and Iraq, it‘s not going to feel so good after awhile.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Weiner, the president kept stressing phrases, like, “in this particular country,” “at this particular time,” “unique ability.” He seemed to be making a one-off case here. He didn‘t seem to be make ago case for doing anything like this elsewhere, unless all those same conditions applied, which they are unlikely to anywhere else in the world.
WEINER: Well, because I think he was setting up the answer to the question: how is this different from Yemen? How is it different from the Sudan?
The fact of the matter is, all of these cases are to some degree unique, and I empathize with Dennis Kucinich‘s point. You know, you would like to never have to use military engagement. You‘d like to never have to take up arms in another country.
But, you know, I wonder what it is about our country that makes us different, and one of the things is that we stand up and defend certain values and principles. And I think of something else, I think that when you‘re in an international organization like NATO and when you‘re involved with allies in the Middle East, and we‘re always saying we want to be there to try to be a good friend and neighbor to these countries, when they turn to us and ask for help stopping a massacre, how do you say no? How do you explain to the world if we say no?
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Kucinich and Congressman Weiner—thank you very much for joining me tonight.
WEINER: Thank you.
KUCINICH: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: At the conservative values conference in Iowa this weekend, Michele Bachmann told the crowd to fear Jimmy Carter, and Herman Cain explained why we should fear Muslims. What else do they value? That‘s ahead.
And later, Newt Gingrich‘s flip flops on Libya were nothing compared to the bipolar logic he used to explain why we should simultaneously fear that both atheists and Muslims are going to take over this country at the same time. That‘s in the “Rewrite.”
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Still ahead this hour, Donald Trump‘s skepticism over President Obama‘s birth certificate was originally triggered as a joke, a joke that wasn‘t funny. And now, Donald is a full-fledged convert to birtherism.
And if Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney want their presidential campaigns to get attention, they‘re going to have to spend less time talking about issues and a lot more time talking about secret Muslim plots and birth certificates—just like Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain did this weekend.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Today, Mitt Romney announced his policy director, Tim Pawlenty released the names of his fund-raising team, and Jon Huntsman‘s allies are ramping up their PAC. That‘s the latest on the serious Republican candidates.
The rest were at Steve King‘s Conservative Principles Conference in Iowa on Saturday. It wasn‘t about policies or ideas. It mostly just was about words, words like Obama-care, Europe, freedom, China, values, and, of course, taxes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN ®, MINNESOTA: He didn‘t understand that free markets would help us bring the costs down. What‘s his credibility on Obama-care? Not so much.
REP. ALLEN WEST ®, FLORIDA: I have an announcement for the liberals. We are an exceptional nation, and we are going to keep it that way.
BACHMANN: By the way, just so you know, I introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act.
WEST: We have to out grow China, not sing Kumbaya with them.
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: If you don‘t start with values and you don‘t start by establishing who we are as Americans, the rest of it doesn‘t matter.
BACHMANN: Our current United States tax code is a weapon of mass destruction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now is Howard Fineman, MSNBC political analyst and senior political editor of the “Huffington Post.” Howard, they have gone to Iowa. And the Romney, Pawlenty decision to stay out of there, is that a safe decision under the circumstances? Or do you have to be out there playing to that side of the party?
HOWARD FINEMAN, “NEWSWEEK”: They didn‘t go to Iowa. They went Iowa. They went Iowa, because at the early part of the primary season, primary and caucus season to nominate the Republican candidate, Iowa is where all the action is, where all the conservatives are, where all the Evangelicals are.
That is the heart of the heart of the heart of the heart of the base of the Republican party today. And the people that you mentioned had to go. People like Pawlenty and Romney are out there saying we can speak to everybody in the country, not just Iowa.
As a matter of fact, I spoke to Tim Pawlenty not long ago in this very building. And I asked him, you know, what about you. Lawrence O‘Donnell says you‘re the guy. And he said it‘s because I‘m the one who can speak to everybody in the party and everybody in the country. That‘s what Romney and Pawlenty are trying to do.
O‘DONNELL: The only thing Pawlenty has going against him right now is that Lawrence O‘Donnell says he‘s the guy. That‘s going to hurt him with Republican voters more than anything.
FINEMAN: He seemed to be proud of the fact.
O‘DONNELL: Now, Haley Barbour was there. He is the most establishment guy there, an actual governor. He had a tough time, because he wasn‘t doing all that baiting of the audience, giving them all that crazy stuff they wanted to hear.
FINEMAN: Well, there really are at least two Republican parties right now. There‘s the Iowa Republican party. And that is the one that‘s going to be the first to speak in the nominating race. And there‘s sort of the establishment Republican party.
And it is a crude way of dividing things, but it‘s pretty accurate. People like Pawlenty and Romney and Barbour are the ones who think they can speak to the whole country, or at least they haven‘t given up on the thought of doing so. Right now, the other candidates are focused on one thing, getting 25 to 30 percent of the caucus votes in the Iowa caucuses early next winter.
That‘s all it is about for all these people. They can‘t be focused enough on Evangelical issues, on the hardcore rhetoric. That‘s why they are out there doing what they are doing.
O‘DONNELL: Now, Michele Bachmann was the most enthusiastically received speaker of them all. She‘s the best rabble rouser of them all.
FINEMAN: I rest my case.
O‘DONNELL: How far can she go in a presidential campaign in the Republican party this time around on rabble rousing alone?
FINEMAN: I think she can get pretty far. Her family is from Iowa. On every point, she‘s right on point with the Evangelical Christians in those big mega-churches out there and the little churches in the rural areas. She speaks about the values. She speaks about abortions. She speaks about taxes. She speaks about fear of government. She speaks about xenophobia, sort of, on a lot of issues.
O‘DONNELL: If Huckabee doesn‘t get in, can she win Iowa?
FINEMAN: First of all, I think her presence is one of the reasons why, as Palin was before her, that Huckabee held back. That‘s the first thing I would say. Second thing—
O‘DONNELL: Huckabee knows his vote would split with someone.
FINEMAN: Having covered it last time around, Huckabee got those people better than anybody did. And he did it in a way that still might have allowed him to go elsewhere, because he has a mild temper meant, that kind of thing.
This is different from Huckabee. This is much more distilled. This is the 100 proof. Huckabee was only the 80 proof. This is the 100 proof. And yes, I think if there‘s not another real Evangelical focused candidate, I think Michele Bachmann can run it very close and very strong there. And that‘s what she‘s planning to do I think.
O‘DONNELL: Now, Newt Gingrich is starting of his campaign on defense. He‘s trying to neutralize social conservatives on the question of has Newt been socially conservative enough in his own personal life with maybe a few too many marriages. Can he get that issue neutralized before the campaign gets into high gear?
FINEMAN: No, because everybody else in the race, even if they don‘t do it publicly, is going to be doing it privately. I mean, this is the hardest of hard ball in these Republican caucuses out there. Since it is all a question of values, since it is all going to be about values and traditional family values, Newt Gingrich has a really tough road to hoe in Iowa.
Now, he is a brilliant guy. He‘s a great thinker. Nobody is more mesmerizing to listen to talk about anything from ancient archeology to outer space. But these voters are going to want to know do you represent my values, and he has a tough task in Iowa.
O‘DONNELL: Howard Fineman, MSNBC political analyst and senior political editor of the “Huffington Post,” thanks for joining us.
FINEMAN: Thank you, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Coming up, there are so many reasons that Newt Gingrich will never win the Republican inauguration for president, including his history of serial adultery. However, the former speaker is assuring voters that he will never stray again because of one simple thing. That‘s in tonight‘s Rewrite.
And on Fox News this morning, Donald Trump said he was suspicious of President Obama‘s birthplace because no doctors or nurses at the hospital remember the president being born there. Why the Donald has been born again as a Birther, coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Time for tonight‘s Rewrite. Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump have exactly one thing in common. They each have had exactly three wives. This fact, along with everything else we know about Gingrich and Trump, make them long shots, very long shots for winning the presidency. But only one of these candidates keeps getting asked about his three marriages, while the other is never asked about them.
Because two is the record for most marriages ever to appear on the resume of a major party nominee for president, the three marriages thing fascinates the political media in Newt‘s case, because Newt is a career politician, and a conservative, and a professed family values champion. So there‘s only so many families you can actually have and succeed as a political family values champion.
Donald, on the other hand, has always lived by the rules of celebrity and show business. And those rules allow you to have as many wives as you want, or as many affairs as you want. Bill Clinton rewrote our political understanding of affairs.
Prior to Bill Clinton‘s first presidential campaign, it was assumed no presidential candidate could ever survive an affair. Then Bill Clinton got caught in one, a big one with Jennifer Flowers, who had telephone tapes to play and stories to tell to TV cameras. Bill Clinton survived it by going on “60 Minutes” and only pretending to talk about it, when, in fact, with his wife at his side, Bill Clinton successfully dodged the questions.
And the new rule that seemed to emerge was a politician can survive an affair as long as his wife stands by him strongly. The amendment to Clinton‘s rule that Gingrich is now trying to write is that a politician can survive an affair as long as he then marries the woman he‘s had the affair with.
Let‘s take a look at how that is working for Newt so far. Here he is yesterday with Chris Wallace.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You love your country and you‘re working hard, and so you strayed. That wouldn‘t work with my wife.
GINGRICH: No. It didn‘t work in my wife. I went on to say that I had to seek God‘s forgiveness, and I had to seek reconciliation, and I had to believe that being genuinely repentant mattered.
As you know, Calysta and I had a great marriage, two wonderful daughters, two great, wonderful grandchildren. People have to measure at 67 have I matured.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: That sounds familiar. What did he say to the Christian Broadcasting Network about why his third and possibly final wife could trust him now?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GINGRICH: I am now, you know, 67. I am a grandfather. I have two wonderful grandchildren. I have two wonderful daughters and two great sons in law. Calysta and I have a great marriage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Uh-huh. And what did he say on Iowa public TV last week?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GINGRICH: I am 67. Calysta and I have a great marriage. Have two wonderful daughters. We have two grandchildren who are terrific.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: It is boiler plate now. I‘m 67. I‘m a grandfather. Calysta is at that and I have a great marriage, two wonderful daughters, two grandchildren. Newt is the only 67-year-old presidential candidate who has ever stressed his age. He‘s stressing it only when making the point that he thinks maybe he can now finally be trusted to maintain sexual exclusivity with his third wife.
He‘s basically saying, I‘m too old to do it the way I can‘t do it.
Viagra can‘t work miracles. You don‘t have to worry about me any more.
It is the only part of Newt‘s answer to these questions that is absolutely consistent, the I am 67 and the grandfather bit. He is the only candidate who wants you to think he‘s old. You didn‘t hear John McCain reminding you that he was 72 when he ran for president. Bob Dole was not fond of mentioning that he was 73 when he ran for president.
As the only exposed serial adulterer in the Republican field, Newt is naturally talking religion more than any other candidate, particularly his sudden embrace of it a couple of years ago in an obvious preparation for a presidential campaign where he could try to exploit his new religion, Catholicism for all it is worth.
It was not surprising he took his campaign this weekend to the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. That‘s the church run by John Hagee, who is famous for saying that the Holocaust was God‘s idea. Endorsements from Hagee are not without their problems. John McCain had to reject Hagee in May of 2008 after it was discovered the pastor had said Hitler was sent by God to force Jews, quote, “to come back to the land of Israel.”
Newt told Hagee‘s willing to believe anything audience he worries that by the time his grandchildren are his age, America, quote, will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”
Now, Newt neglected to explain to his audience how a secular atheist country could be dominated by radical religious extremists. Obviously, the one great thing—the one great thing about a secular atheist country is that it could never be dominated by radical religious extremists. Just ask all the radical religious extremists in China how their plot to dominate China is working.
Hagee‘s musicians played the anthem for each of the five military branches. And veterans and active duty members in the church stood during their song. Newt, of course, one of the many cowardly lions of militarism, never served in the military, so he had to sit that out. While the people in the audience were being applauded, Newt was probably still in shock from questions Chris Wallace asked him earlier that morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: You were leading the charge to push Bill Clinton from office for lying about an affair. And yes, he lied in a court proceeding—in a deposition where he had sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But at the very same time you were leading that charge, you were having an affair. Isn‘t that hypocrisy?
GINGRICH: No. Look, obviously it is complex. And obviously I wasn‘t doing things to be proud of.
WALLACE: I am just going to ask you man to man. Did you ever think to yourself, I‘m living in a really glass house?
GINGRICH: Yes.
O‘DONNELL: Maybe I shouldn‘t be throwing stones.
GINGRICH: No, I thought to myself if I cannot do what I have to do as a public leader, I would have resigned.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: OK. So no, it wasn‘t hypocrisy. Yes, I lived in a glass house. And yes, I should have been throwing stones. Newt failed even Fox News‘ logic test on that one. And more than once, Newt found it a little desperate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GINGRICH: I don‘t know what you would have had me do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Well, Newt, how about stopping the affair? Did that ever occur to you when you had your pants down in your glass house and you were trying to chase Bill Clinton for the same thing? That would have been my next question for Newt. But I guess we know what he would have said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GINGRICH: As you know, Calysta and I have a great marriage. We have two wonderful daughters, two great, wonderful grandchildren. I am now 67. And I am a grandfather. I have two wonderful grandchildren. I have two wonderful daughters and two great sons-in-law.
Calysta have a great marriage.
I am 67. Calysta and I have a great marriage. We have two wonderful daughters. We have two grandchildren who are terrific.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I want him to show his birth certificate. I want him to show his birth certificate. There‘s something on that birth certificate that he doesn‘t like.
(CROSS TALK)
WHOOPI GOLDBERG, “THE VIEW”: I think that‘s the biggest pile of dog mess I‘ve heard in ages.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Donald Trump has chosen to begin what is sure to turn out to be his fake presidential campaign with a lie. But it is a lie that many people believe. In fact, 51 percent of Republican primary voters believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Donald is doing everything he can to lock in his identification as the birth certificate candidate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn‘t. And I didn‘t think this was such a big deal, but I will tell you, it‘s turning out to be a very big deal, because people now are calling me from all over saying please, don‘t give up on this issue. If you aren‘t born in this country, you cannot be president.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think he was born in this country?
TRUMP: I am really concerned. And I will tell you, when this all
started a week ago, I assumed—hey, look, you have no doctors that
remember. You have no nurses. This is the president of the United States
that remember.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now to discuss the lies of Donald Trump, Princeton University associate professor of politics and African-American studies and MSNBC analyst Melissa Harris-Perry. Thanks for joining us tonight, Melissa.
MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: This is why I went to school, was so I could talk about Donald Trump.
O‘DONNELL: I laugh almost every time I hear something about Donald Trump, but I‘m getting concerned about has Trump now crossed the line of the joke into something very serious here. I want you to listen to what Bill Maher said about the whole Birther issue. Let‘s listen to Bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL MAHER, COMEDIAN: If 51 percent think he was not born in America, I don‘t know where that else is coming from except race. What more could this man do to be the perfect family man. I mean, there‘s nothing about this man that is un-American, except to them his color. I got to think it is coming from that place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Melissa, 51 percent of Republican primary voters don‘t
believe he was born in the United States. And what makes it all even
worse, 21 percent are not sure. So you‘ve got 72 percent right there; 28 -
only 28 percent of Republican primary voters think the president of the United States is a legitimate president. Only 28 percent of them think he was born in the United States.
HARRIS-PERRY: Listen, I don‘t think Donald Trump is really running for president. People, you know, run for president for lots of reasons. Mostly what he‘s doing here is putting out and increasing his brand. But he is—because of these poll numbers, he‘s following a tack that many of the Republicans are following, which is rather than attack President Obama on his ideas, rather than challenge his ideas, his strategies, policies, they challenge his identity.
And they are doing that precisely because of these polls that you see. They have managed to bring into being this anxiety, this fear based solely on repetition of a lie.
But there is no way that this can be about anything but race. And let me explain. I think when we say that, it sounds like we‘re saying anybody who‘s a Birther is a racist, and probably a card carrying member of the Klan or something. That‘s not what I mean.
What I mean is that in America historically birth right citizenship is always about race. In 1857, in the Dredd Scott case, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Dredd Scott had no rights that a white man was bound to respect, it was a decision that though Scott had been born here in the United States, he was not a citizen under the Constitution.
In 1866, after the end of the Civil War, and just before passage of the 14th Amendment, birth right citizenship in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 establishes American citizenship based on birth right, as a response to the end of slavery. And it is ratified in the 14th amendment. It is turned into our current modern understanding of citizenship.
Citizenship in this country is about race. It is about the challenge of slavery. There is no way to be having this conversation except for the fact that in his very body as a black man of descent from both Africa and Midwest America, Barack Obama challenges Americans‘ deeply held conception that whiteness and Americanness go hand in hand.
So walking through this is good for us, because we will get on the other side of it with a better and clearer understanding of citizenship.
O‘DONNELL: There‘s actually more public documentation of Barack Obama‘s American birth than mine. All I have is a birth certificate. I don‘t have that little advertisement, that little line in the Hawaii newspaper when Barack Obama was born announcing his birth, the birth announcement.
The governor, the current governor of Hawaii, as it happens in history, as you know, was a personal friend of Barack Obama‘s parents in Hawaii at that time, met them in their university studies in Hawaii. So he actually bears witness. You have a full fledged real witness to Barack Obama‘s birth who also has great credibility as governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie.
Listen to what Donald Trump says about that particular witness.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You know what I get a kick out of, the governor of Hawaii says I remember when he was born 50 years ago. I doubt it. I think this guy should be investigated. I doubt he remembers when Obama was born. Give me a break.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: He sounds just completely ignorant of the situation. Sounds like he hasn‘t read a word of David Remnick‘s book or anything about this. Surely there were friends of Donald Trump‘s parents who remember when Donald was born.
HARRIS-PERRY: Look, this is the very best part. Everyone in politics knows that the fastest way to get the media to investigate you is call for the investigation of someone else. I figure the New York media, after all, is right there in New York. They don‘t even have to fly off to a place like Alaska or Hawaii.
So it is going to get so good, because surely now what this will do is prompt investigations of every element of the birth of Donald Trump. And much more important, let‘s get clear, no more birth certificates. I want to see tax returns.
O‘DONNELL: All right, tax returns, that‘s the latest. Melissa Harris-Perry with “The Nation” and Princeton University, thanks for joining us tonight.
HARRIS-PERRY: Of course. Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: You can have THE LAST WORD online at our blog, TheLastWord.MSNBC.com. You can follow my Tweets @Lawrence. “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” is up next. Good evening, Rachel.
END
Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE, LEAVE THE LINK
