tv Up W Steve Kornacki MSNBC November 24, 2013 5:00am-7:01am PST
money you spend here, stays here. in this place you call small business saturday is november 30th. get out and shop small. a major breakthrough with iran, but will it last? after eight years in office, mahmoud ahmadinejad left the presidency of iran this summer, in august. he was widely viewed by the west as that country's most divisive president since the revolution that created the islamic republic in 1879. while feared by the west during his ten yeariuretenure, he was mocked. in austere diplomatic venues, during his rambling speeches before the u.n. general
assembly, western diplomats would walk out en masse. trips to new york were a chance for the iranian delegation to go on huge shopping sprees, not necessarily for luxury goods or souvenirs, but to drugstores and discount warehouses and cheap shoe stores to stock up in bulk on the basic necessities that had become all but impossible to buy under years of tough international sanctions in iran. talking about shampoo, soap, vitamins, tylenol, things like that. life was tough in iran under ahmadinej ahmadinejad, but tough by design. not his design, but a design of western governments, including the united states, looking to impose consequences for iran's nuclear program. and it wasn't just under ahmadinejad. diplomacy between the west and iran seemed immoveable. since a brief glimmer of hope late in the clinton years when reformer ca talky won the presidency of iran, before he was reined in by his country's hard-line supreme leader. real negotiations with iran
started only ten years ago, wasn't until the people of iran decided to go in a new direction and came time for ahmadinejad to leave office the change started to seem even remotely possible. to succeed ahmadinejad, iran elected a moderate, a centrist candidate, rouhani, campaigned on hope and prudence and said he would reduce the high tension between iran and the rest of the world who said he would try to do something about the sanctions related to the nuclear program. first sign that things might actually be different under rouhani was of all things came in a tweet, a tweet in which the newly elected leader of iran wished jews a happy rosh hashanah, happy new year, something ahmadinejad never would have done. meanwhile, all the while the united states and iran were engaging in secret high level talks, talks that are only coming to light now, and talks that expanded to include five other nations. and those talks led to the --
toward this morning from geneva very early this morning that both sides had finally reached a preliminary deal. now, basic outlines are this. the next six months iran freezes its nuclear program. in exchange, the u.s. and other western nations agree to roll back some of those sanctions. so in reality, it is not much of a deal. but after three decades, after ten years of negotiating on and off, it is a start. and it is a deal meant to create the conditions that will lead to a bigger deal, another deal down the line. >> these are substantial limitations which will help prevent iran from building a nuclear weapon. simply put, they cut off iran's most likely paths to a bomb. meanwhile, this first step will create time and space over the next six months for more negotiations to fully address our comprehensive concerns about the iranian program. and because of this agreement, iran cannot use negotiations as cover to advance its program.
>> so is everyone happy with this? well, not by all a long shot. can start with israel, which is calling it, quote, historic mistake. prime minister netanyahu saying he's not bound by the agreement. saudi arabia is also skeptical about washington pursuing any deal with iran. haven't specifically commented on this one yet, but they have long felt they would have to counter any nuclear threat from iran with one of their own. meanwhile, here on the domestic front, the united states, you've got congress. senator lindsey graham saying in the wake of the president's speech, he thought the senate would still impose new sanctions on iran. but might delay enforcing them for the six-month term of this deal. senator john cornyn, republican from texas, a little more blunt, taking to twitter to complain, quote, amazing what the white house will do to distract attention from obama care. it is not just republicans. last week senator chuck schumer from new york signed a letter to secretary of state john kerry saying he didn't feel the terms
of the agreement being discussed go far enough. pointed out that they don't even, quote, require iran to even meet the terms the prior u.n. security council resolutions. so how significant is the temporary agreement reached today in geneva? the very fact that an agreement has been reached after ten years of negotiations and more than three decades of authoritarian rule in iran, is that by itself significant enough? to discuss this wasn't to bring in now mark jacobson, senior advicer to the truman national security project, which trains leaders on national security issues. mark, i know you support this deal. i guess you're here to say this morning, yeah, the sanctions worked and we're getting something real because of it. >> well, we have a significant first step here at challenging iranian sincerity. you summarized it perfectly. not only is this going to be -- this has brought the iranians into the game, but we now have a situation where we can verify iranian sincerity. there will be an inspection
regime, there will be steps the iranians have to take and the genius to this is if it doesn't work, if the skeptics are right, we can go back to where we are now, and reimpose the crushing sanctions that have actually brought the iranians to this point. >> well, so tell us about this deal. because it is being described and we started to describe it there as sort of a limited deal. the criticism i'm hearing from the more cynics, skeptics, hard-liners, the criticism is like centrifuge isn't involved in this, this does not go far enough to really truly hinder the iranian nuclear program in a meaningful way. how would you respond to that? >> well, first, just to reiterate, and don't think this can be overstated, this is an interim deal, a six-month process, but it does involve the iranians stopping the work that they have done to enrich uranium, and in some cases rolling it back. both secretary kerry and president obama spoke last night about -- the iranians will take that uranium that they have enriched to the 20% mark, and dilute it. and in other words, the major
concern from both the united states and israel has been the iranian capacity to take the work they have done now, and break out to a point where all of a sudden we'll wake up in the morning and we'll have a viable nuclear device. this agreement stops that process and tests iranian sincerity. >> in terms of then a longer term deal, this being an interim deal and ultimate goal being bigger and longer term, one of the skeptics from israel who weighed in on this, this was the defense minister last night, saying that basically there are two models for a deal. there is libya and north korea. and we need libya. that's referring to 2003 when libya basically completely totally gave up, destroyed the basis for its -- for a nuclear weapons program. it seems to me that iran, when you look at the technological development in iran, they are much farther along than libya ever was ten years ago. what would an acceptable point be for iran in terms of
something that could meet the concerns of israel, and be acceptable to the united states and also be something that iran would be willing to do. >> i hate to kind of push this off a bit, but that's exactly what will be negotiated over the next six months. i'm okay with the skepticism that you see understandably from netanyahu, though don't forget shimon peres came out with a little bit of a lighter statement, essentially saying that, look, this is a good first step, let's see if iran is sincere. i'm okay with lindsey graham's criticism that any deal is going to have to have significant -- any permanent deal will have to have the destruction of iran's capacity to take this approach again. what concerns me is the irresponsible statements from someone like senator cornyn that this is a distraction. this really is progress. this is diplomacy in action. this is what the american people need. and, frankly, in the end, i think you will see support in israel if a permanent deal is reached that eliminates iran's
capability to break out at some point and develop a nuclear weapon. >> and what do we know about the politics inside iran. we're always -- we have the new elected president over there, rouhani, you had the public outreach between obama and rehani, a big breakthrough. but the million dollar question when you're talking about iran is the supreme leaders, khame i khamenei. do we have any sense about how far he's willing to go and if he is somebody who might ultimately sink this as a hard-line force over there? >> well, unfortunately we continue to see statements blasting israel's right to exist that are completely, again, these are not -- not only are they not helpful this is what would cause me concern to see the fact that despite the efforts by rouhani to push an agreement forward, you will see resistance among the hard-liners. this is exactly why you need a six-month period, there can't be a permanent settlement at this point. and, steve, the implications for
an iran that is willing to come to the table and work with the international community, go far beyond the nuclear deal. we have regional crises such as the situation in syria. there is also the long-standing lack of diplomatic ties between the united states and iran that if re-established could be used to foster a greater sense of trust within the entire region. >> all right, mark jacobson from the truman national security project, thank you for joining us this morning. for more now on how this development all came together, we'll go to ann curry, nbc news international correspondent, who has been reporting on the story exclusively for some time. she joins us from geneva. ann, i wonder if you could pick up on that point you were talking about, sort of how this deal all came about, because the reporting that i'm seeing this morning suggests there was even before rouhani was elected there was some talk, very, very secret talk between the u.s. and iran, it accelerated after rouhani was elected and only after a month or two then did the united states let israel and other
countries know this was even happening. can you give us a little bit of the back story about how we got to this moment today? >> well, that's a very good question. in fact, you're right, the associated press is reporting that there were secret meetings over the course of many months, proved by president obama to begin discussions with iran leading up to this deal. we can report that some three months ago president rouhani said he wanted to dramatically change the relationship between iran and the rest of the world, and that he was willing to negotiate more fully its nuclear program. and really what's really remarkable is that in just about two months, three rounds of discussions over two months, we are now at this point, which was inconceivable three months ago, inconceivable three months ago that we would be at a point where there is a first step deal that could lead to a final comprehensive nuclear agreement. last night was pretty dramatic here, steve, because basically after four days of marathon bargaining that lasted late into
the night, we got the word at just about 3:00 in the morning that seven of the world's foreign ministers and all of the other negotiators had announced -- had reached a deal. and so it was very dramatic. you already have been talking about some of the details of the deal. we should probably also add to that we had an exclusive interview last night with iran's foreign minister who said that while john kerry has said that there would be a slowing down of the efforts at the heavy water facility in the place called arak, he said, the foreign minister said that that facility will not -- the construction of that facility will not be halted. of course, that is something that israel fervently wanted, steven. >> just to follow up on that point, about israel. you had netanyahu last night making lots of critical comments about this. one thing he made clear, a quote, israel has a right and the duty to defend itself by itself.
when you look at how the ap is reporting this deal came together, how israel was sort of cut out for a long time, the critical comments coming out of there, if there is distance between the united states and israel, maybe saudi arabia as we were talking about a minute ago, is that going to affect sort of the viability of this deal going forward? >> well, i think absolutely certainly it will. it was interesting to note that in addition to his comments that you expressed, from prime minister benjamin netanyahu, you said israel is not bound by this deal. i think that's a very important point that he made. clearly israel and prime minister are very upset about this deal and i don't know that we can say any longer if there is a tension of relations, there are clearly more tense relations between the united states and israel because of this deal. add to that the question that you just raised about saudi arabia, look, this saudi arabia is a sunni nation, iran is a shia nation. both nations have vast oil
reserves, iran is not at the moment allowed to export its oil. but if it is, in fact in a comprehensive agreement allowed to export its oil, that clearly also would put it at odds with saudi arabia. so there are vast implications of this deal. even this first step deal. and because it could lead to a comprehensive agreement that would really change the relationships, all across the middle east. financial relationships and political relationships and that's one reason why we're going to see a tremendous political fallout to this deal as more and more details emerge over the coming days. steven? >> ann curry in geneva, very historic morning in geneva, thank you for joining us. appreciate the time. much more on these overnight developments after the break. we'll talk with our panel and a democratic member of the senate armed services committee. that's coming right up. customer erin swenson ordered shoes from us online
but they didn't fit. customer's not happy, i'm not happy. sales go down, i'm not happy. merch comes back, i'm not happy. use ups. they make returns easy. unhappy customer becomes happy customer. then, repeat customer. easy returns, i'm happy. repeat customers, i'm happy. sales go up, i'm happy. i ordered another pair. i'm happy. (both) i'm happy. i'm happy. happy. happy. happy. happy.
happy happy. i love logistics. discover card. hey! so i'm looking at my bill, and my fico® credit score's on here. yeah, you've got our discover it card, so you get your fico® score on your monthly statements now, for free! that's nice of you! it's a great way to stay on top of your credit, and make sure things look the way they should. awesomesauce! huh! my twin sister always says that. wait...lisa? julie?! you sound really different on the phone. do i sound pleasant? for once in your life you sound very pleasant. at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. free fico® credit score. get the it card at discover.com.
i know that there are those who will assert that this deal is imperfect. well, they too bear a responsibility, and that is to tell people what the better alternative is. >> that was secretary of state john kerry last night, here in new york with me this morning we have msnbc political analyst joan walsh, editor at large of salon.com, john stanton of buzzfeed.com, he's sitting about as far from me right now as he used to sit from me at role call many years ago. sahil kapur for talking points memo.com and john yarmuth, a democrat from kentucky. and we have richard blumen all that of the senate armed services committee. we're seeing some oth initial
reaction from republicans in the senate, you have lindsey graham, who is suggesting that he wants to pursue sanctions. some sanctions are being lifted as part of this deal. he's saying he would like congress to act and reimpose those sanctions, maybe with the six-month delay. i know we had democrats like chuck schumer expressing in the past week some reservations about this deal. do you share those reservations and think congress right now should be looking at reimposing some sanctions, even on a provisional basis? >> i do think there is a continued need for some kind of congressional action and i will be working with my colleagues on a senate bill that is careful and cautious, perhaps in delaying the sanctions, by six months, to see what comes of this interim deal, but -- and iranian sanctions bill still is very much worth considering and moving forward to achieve. count me as a skeptic. not about the administration. in fact, i admire the
persistence and perseverance of my former colleague, john kerry, and the administration in seeking to stop a nuclear armed iran through some kind of agreement. but this agreement is only interim, only temporary, and the other point that i think is tremendously important is in this interim space, or time, we need to continue vigilant and vigorous enforcement of the existing sanctions. the great advantage for iran is that it will have the ability to continue exporting oil at existing levels. there is no continued tightening or reduction of those levels. but as to the sanctions in place, right now, that will continue to exist, we need to prevent a wink and a nod and a stampede toward relaxing the sanctions. i think that's very important. >> i take that point. just to follow up for something more specific, if you're talking
about crafting legislation right now, that might have some kind of, like, six-month trigger on it, where it wouldn't go into effect for six months what specifically is it you will be looking for in those six months or whatever that period is what specifically is it that you have to see to say you don't want further sanctions to go into effect? >> what is important is what emerges after the six-month period. remember the best intelligence reports say that this agreement would only stop iran's dash to build nuclear capability by a few months. so during this six-month period there has to be continued progress, there has to be a permanent agreement that actually rolls back eventually this kind of nuclear capability, not just halting it, but rolling it back, and point number two, there has to be continued, even enhanced and more vigorous inspection and monitoring. that's an advantage of this interim deal that cannot be disregarded, but it must be real
and tangible and effective. >> senator, i want to ask you what do you make of the mood in the senate now with regard to this issue and how do you think the president's announcement and the announcement of this interim deal would affect what is happening on the armed services committee, the efforts by some to impose some new sanctions. will this move it in that direction or is there a doubt in your mind that the senate might go along with this deal? >> i think is hope as there should be that this deal really is in the libyan model as we just heard the contrast between libyan and north korean models, and certainly there is a basis for hope in the administration's very hard work. and productive results, can't dismiss this agreement as simply a sham. but it will be tested by what happens in the future. i think that's the general mood of my colleagues, that we're all hopeful because we want this issue to be solved by peaceful means. but, again, speaking only for
myself on this score, iranian ankss in t actions in the past give me no cause for great hope that they will abide by this kind of an agreement without strong enforcement of the sanctions, which has brought them to the table, remember that's why they're entering into the interim agreement, tough enforcement of the sanctions and vigilant monitoring and inspection and hard negotiating. but at the end of that six-month period, we need to be prepared, we need to give the president authority and the tools he needs for stronger sanctions, so that they will either stay at the table or be brought back. >> senator, the white house has repeatedly said they don't want to have new sanctions imposed now because these kind of talks and trying to work with the iranians. how do you thread the needle between doing a six-month bill and not undermining the work they're trying to do right now, and essentially making this deal unworkable by doing something like that. >> certainly we don't want to
undermine the president's diplomatic efforts or the secretary of state's very, very valiant and vigorous work and i admire him for his persistence, but threading the needle should be possible. and i'm going to be working with my colleagues in seeking to do so. there is a group of 14. we have indicated that we're pressing forward. whether that movement goes forward in a matter of days or weeks, we'll have to see. and what the substantive provisions are also remain to be seen. but, you know, the important point is that sanctions have brought the iranians to the table. enforcement of these sanctions, continued tough and vigorous insistence that the world community observe and follow the provisions relating to oil exports, even if they get petrochemicals and automobile parts, even if the existing reductions in oil exports are
halted, there needs to be continued enforcement and i think the senate needs to consider a measure toughening the sanctions to create the incentives and the hammer that is necessary in the event that this interim step is unsuccessful. >> all right, want to thank senator richard blumenthal for joining us this morning, covering breaking news. we appreciate it. we'll talk it over with the panel and get more into this as soon as we come back. it's a stationery and gifts store. anything we purchase for the paper cottage goes on our ink card. so you can manage your business expenses and access them online instantly with the game changing app from ink. we didn't get into business to spend time managing receipts, that's why we have ink. we like being in business because we like being creative, we like interacting with people. so you have time to focus on the things you love. ink from chase. so you can. just unroll, fill... top, bake...
and... wow. this is your best ever. thank you. [ female announcer ] pillsbury pie crust. make the holidays pop. [ female announcer ] pillsbury pie crust. hey, buddy? oh, hey, flo. you want to see something cool? snapshot, from progressive. my insurance company told me not to talk to people like you. you always do what they tell you? no... try it, and see what your good driving can save you. you don't even have to switch. unless you're scared. i'm not scared, it's... you know we can still see you. no, you can't. pretty sure we can... try snapshot today -- no pressure.
yep. got all the cozies. [ grandma ] with new fedex one rate, i could fill a box and ship it for one flat rate. so i knit until it was full. you'd be crazy not to. is that nana? [ male announcer ] fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex. setting up the perfect wedding day begins with her arthritis pain, and two pills. afternoon arrives and feeling good, but her knee pain returns... that's two more pills. the evening's event brings laughter, joy, and more pain when jamie says... what's that, like six pills today? yeah. i could take two aleve for all day relief. really? and... and that's it. [ male announcer ] this is kathleen... for my arthritis pain, i now choose aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy open red arthritis cap. ♪ maestro of project management. baron of the build-out.
you need a permit... to be this awesome. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle... and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. (aaron) purrrfect. (vo) meee-ow, business pro. meee-ow. go national. go like a pro. i have consistently said that we have got to talk directly to iran, send them a clear message they have to stop, not only with their potential funding of militias inside of iraq, but they also have to stop funding hamas, they have to stop funding hezbollah, they have got to stand down on their nuclear weapons. there will be continued consequences for those kinds of actions, but that here are also some carrots and possible benefits if they change
behavior. >> back with the panel here and congressman yarmuth, i remember barack obama took a lot of heat for the position he took about seeking out a dialogue with iran. he was mocked for it a lot in the first couple of years of his presidency, had disputed elections, dispute is putting it mildly, elections in iran in 2009. here we are, the story emerging this morning is that very quietly starting earlier this year, back in march or so, the administration started holding these top secret dialogue with iran and it led to this moment and this seems to me at least on the surface, we'll see if the deal holds, but this is a validation in a way of an approach he laid out five years ago. >> absolutely. and i think this will be viewed very, very favorably in most parts of the world. and this is a major accomplishment when you're talking about a moratorium on talks that lasted 30 something years. and all of a sudden, we have an opportunity to help nurture the most important potential democracy in that part of the world. and iran has that potential. so i think it is very, very
positive. the skeptics, i think, kind of stun me in a way. first of all, that they would like senator cornyn would try to make some kind of political issue out of this, and that this is a major accomplishment, and, you know, for the idea that we're going to be inspecting these facilities on a daily basis now will finally figure out what the iranian -- they'll be closer to figuring out what the iranians have going. there is a lot of intelligence out there that says they don't have any intention to build a nuclear weapon. so we'll get a much better handle on what they're doing and, again, the potential for this deal, far more -- far reaching than just this nuclear program. >> my question whenever there is a deal like this, talk like this internationally, is it always comes back to the idea that both sides, the hard-liners on both sides who are sort of most antagonistic to each other also have the potential to in a way sort of informally unite.
you hear john cornyn's tweet today there is a guy that has no interest in this deal, at least at this point, and you also have the open question in iran, sure, they have the elected president now who seems to have more open attitude to the west, but ultimately this is a country run by a supreme leader who embodies -- and embodies the 79 revolution, so i, you know, it is an open question to me about where the hard-liners go on this. >> senator cornyn's tweet was beneath him. let's just give him a break and say he was having too much fun on a saturday night and wishes co-ha he could have that one back because this is a serious situation and that was not serious. i have respect for senator blumenthal. i listened to him. i don't know how you thread the needle of not undermining the president and secretary kerry and push for more sanctions at a time like this. these people have not -- this administration, they're not patsies, they're not doves. they're not naive. they are pushing for as much
accountability as possible. they don't want them to get away with anything, so the idea we need hard-liners in the senate to make sure they don't do i don't know what is a little -- it is a little bit disconcerting this morning. >> you guys cover capitol hill, you know probably the temperature down there. what do you think is going to -- listen to blumenthal, the tweet from cornyn, graham, schumer what is the reaction to this. >> how harry reid reacts. if he falls in line with the white house and if they can get schumer to back off a little bit of the criticism, then that essentially ends this. he's not going to bring a bill forward that has sanctions or anything that is going to undermine the white house. if he comes out against it or if he starts to line up with where schumer has been, it could become a problem for the white house. they could in theory move legislation that has some kind of sanctions regime, even if it is a sort of six-month delay on it, that still could hurt the administration's ability to deal with iran. >> i agree. harry reid is in a difficult
position after this. the white house is clearly planting the seeds. i think the president wants two things. he wantize ran to not g-- the n months will prove whether this can happen. i think on capitol hill you -- it will be up to harry reid to implement this and make sure the president's efforts here don't get undermined. it is not going to be an easy task. all the momentum, all the movement and the desires and the senate now are towards more sanctions. >> on capitol hill, in the house, among your colleagues, democratic colleagues in particular, certain level this is all always going to be politics, a lost republicans who want to take shots at this because it is a democratic president, that's what happened. among democrats, what do you think the mood is, how widespread do you think the kind of skepticism we're hearing from the schumer types -- how widespread would that be? >> i don't think it will be particularly widespread.
but you also have the question of the israeli lobby in congress. and that's going to be -- it is going to raise people's sensitivity and, you know, there will be a lot of pontificating based on the strength of the israeli lobby. and that's -- i've been in israel, i've talked to groups of former military intelligence people who are totally on the other side from netanyahu on this. but that's -- that lobby is very potent in congress. >> interesting to see that the signal is coming out of israel where you have really negative comments from netanyahu, the defense minister as well, also sh shimon peres, the voice of moderation it sounds like, interesting if israel is speaking with one voice ultimately or if it is a little more muddled than that. we'll see in the days ahead, i'm sure. we'll be switching gears next. beginning with the question of what harry reid and an aspiring republican senator have in common. that is straight ahead. the amerm is of a better future, a confident retirement. those dreams, there's just no way we're going to let them die.
♪ like they helped millions of others. by listening. planning. working one on one. that's what ameriprise financial does. that's what they can do with you. that's how ameriprise puts more within reach. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] laura's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today her doctor has her on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack, be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.
having the full public support of the other members of that dynasty. without that, well, just ask rory reid, the son of harry reid, in 20 10 rory reid jumped into that state's governor's race. the problem, at the same time his dad was fighting for his own political life in an uphill re-election campaign of his own. and rather than support each other, what the reids offered was distance, cold distance from one another. as one headline put it, rory reid is no longer related to harry reid. ouch. the result, well, the dad survived, he's still in politics, but the son, rory reid, he was trounced in the governor's race and no dynasty was established. political family disunity, led to another dynasty debacle. and that's next. sales event is back. which means it's never been easier to get a new passat, awarded j.d. power's most appealing midsize car, two years in a row. and right now you can drive one home for practically just your signature.
get zero due at signing, zero down, zero deposit, and zero first month's payment on any new 2014 volkswagen. hurry, this offer ends december 2nd. for details, visit vwdealer.com today and it feels like your lifeate revolves around your symptoms, ask your gastroenterologist about humira adalimumab. humira has been proven to work for adults who have tried other medications but still experience
the symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease. in clinical studies, the majority of patients on humira saw significant symptom relief, and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma, or other types of cancer, have happened. blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure have occurred. before starting humira, your doctor should test you for tb. ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. tell your doctor if you have had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores. you should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. ask your gastroenterologist about humira today. remission is possible. shhhh! i have a cold with this annoying runny nose. [ sniffles ] i better take something. [ male announcer ] dayquil cold and flu doesn't treat that. it doesn't? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus fights your worst cold symptoms plus has a fast-acting antihistamine. oh what a relief it is!
plus has a fast-acting antihistamine. customer erin swenson ordebut they didn't fit.line customer's not happy, i'm not happy. sales go down, i'm not happy. merch comes back, i'm not happy. use ups. they make returns easy. unhappy customer becomes happy customer. then, repeat customer. easy returns, i'm happy. repeat customers, i'm happy. sales go up, i'm happy. i ordered another pair. i'm happy. (both) i'm happy. i'm happy. happy. happy. happy. happy. happy happy. i love logistics. in 2004, republicans were relentlessly attacking democrats over same sex marriage. surprisingly it was the democrat john edwards who used it in the vice presidential debate.
>> you can't have anything but respect for the fact they're willing to talk about, the fact they have a gay daughter. >> that debate, liz cheney, sitting in the crowd, reportedly stuck her tongue out at edwards as he invoked her sister to score political points. nine years late ir, guess who is scoring political points on the same issue today? >> you talked about your position against same sex marriage. your sister mary who is married to a woman, put out this post. she said, for the record, i love my sister, you, but she is dead wrong on the issue of marriage. >> yeah. and, listen, i love mary very much. i love her family very much. this is just an issue on which we disagree. >> mary's quote, i'm not supporting liz's candidacy. are we seeing the end of the cheney political dynasty before it even begins? and this is an amazing story. there is the interfamily fighting that has come to the surface here. this is like the, i don't know,
43, 43,000rd taererrible thing happen to liz cheney since she got into the race. all the reporting is that dick cheney and lynne cheney are heavily invested in getting liz into politics and getting the next generation in there and this is just a disaster, this is blowing up in their faces. >> you're acting like this is a terrible thing that happened to her. she created most of the terrible things that have happened to her, right? and, you know, the reason that i think this is devastating -- more devastating, the last devastating thing is that, okay, it would be very -- i have to concede it would be very tough to be pro gay marriage in a wyoming primary, right? however, this comes on the heels of her -- her family trashing mike enzi to get in the race, basically betraying someone, stepping on someone, trying to step on his back to climb. that didn't go over well with mike enzi. or with ellen simpson. she's already got this kind of back stabbing reputation. and then she does it to her sister? >> her own sister, right.
>> that's a good point. wyoming is a very conservative state. i don't think that, you know, being against gay marriage and being against someone in your family, being married who is a lesbian or gay, is going to necessarily hurt you. this notion of sort of a pattern of attacking people that have relied on you and you have -- you should have some sort of loyalty to, that's something that will hurt her. people out west, loyalty is a premium to people who live there. and this is -- this is a behavior they would not sort of -- >> loyalty in family, that's the part -- that's the thing i see on this, dick cheney basically supported gay marriage. i think i never really saw the right revolt against dick cheney because of gay marriage because i sort of understood, he's talking about his daughter here. they never connected that to the broader policy implications. if liz cheney spoke of this in wyoming, as this is my sister and i'm standing with my sister, i think even among conservative people in wyoming there would be -- she would lose for a thousand other reasons, but i think on that she would be okay. >> i think so too. you have the legacy of the
matthew shepherd case in wyoming and i think what we're seeing here is -- in this particular case, is -- this is the problem with the republican party right now. and it is all about primaries and it is all about how do you deal with the most extreme elements of that party. so from a democratic perspective, there is a lot of good -- going on. but it is really sad. you hate to see this with the family, particularly again when they have been so receptive to mary's lifestyle. >> they threaded that needle so well when dick cheney was vice president, even in 2004 when bush and cheney ran on a platform of enshrining the -- enshrining in the constitution opposition to same sex marriage there was that. now it is completely out in the open, now there is no -- there is no ability to keep it under wraps. everything, i think, bad that could have happened to liz cheney's campaign seems to have happened. she's thrown her sister under the bus. i would say this is not an issue where siblings disagree. i disagree with my sister plenty, but never argued she should be treated unequally
under the law. >> and beyond that, she's alienated family friends, she's had embarrassing moments like when she couldn't get a fishing license in wyoming because she wasn't there for long enough and she's down 50 points in the polls, can't quit because her slogan is i'm a fighter. >> that's the thing. this could end really ugly in terms of the numbers if she sticks it out to primary day. part of me is heartened by all of this, because i have very conflicted feelings about political dynasties in general. i come from a state in massachusetts that has the most famous political dynasty of them all, but also i completely get the backlash that they create, when you have, like, you know, open seats for all of us and hey they have the magic family name, whatever it happens to be in that state, i completely get the backlash too because it is, like what did you ever do besides get born into the right family? >> yeah. and, you know, especially, look, we on the east coast, you know, we had kennedys in new york. mostly they stayed -- mostly
they stayed in massachusetts or haven't gone that far, i guess florida too. this is -- she's lived in virginia. she really should be running for senate in virginia. basically if you look at the amount of time she spent, she's talking about her roots. there is that sense she's kind of a carpetbagger, coming back to this place where she thought it was going to be easy to knock off this older gentleman that she thought maybe had served long enough and he didn't agree. and it is up to the voters and it looks like the voters agree with him. >> she can't win the republican primary in wyoming. she probably couldn't win the general election in virginia, the way that state is going. no future for liz cheney. >> just so i guess if we can say one thing, i guess, a little bit in her defense, she's facing some -- she was facing harsh attacks. let's remember the reason the whole thing came to light is because there was some mysterious shadow pollster saying she was radically for abortion and gay marriage when that's not really true. >> she said, well, if i throw my sister under the bus, maybe i
can -- not a lot of tears here for liz cheney. liz cheney can take some pointers about how to win the west from this former red state governor. he's going to join us. we'll tell you who he is right here, right after this. hey wayne, quick question... did you try restarting it? no, not that. i was thinking about getting a tablet as a gift... verizon has tablets. they got a lot of them? accessing brain information... yes, they have a lot to choose from. did you really just... and now you can get $100 off any tablet. thanks, wayne. save like never before on any tablet at verizon now. get $100 off any tablet. plus trade in your old tablet for up to $150 or more. that's powerful. verizon. can you move your beverage away from the keyboard? it's making me anxious. sure thing.
we pull our seafood from the best waters on earth... like the cold alaskan seas. it's the cleanest, clearest water. a haven for crab. [ male announcer ] and the unspoiled coast of maine. maine lobster is the tastiest, the sweetest. [ male announcer ] we serve it the only way seafood should be... prepared to order by experts. if i wouldn't eat it, i'm not gonna serve it. [ male announcer ] and delivered hot from our kitchen, right to your table. ♪ that's how we sea food differently. now get ten dollars off any two seafood bakes, crab or lobster entrees.
every once in a while, a politician will catch his or her party's attention in a way that nobody else does. mario cuomo, ann richards in 1988, barack obama in 2004. and there is also 2008, when a speech at the democratic convention caused many national political watchers to take note for the first time of the democratic governor of a very red state. >> they need all of you to stand up. stand up, colorado. stand up. florida, stand up! michigan, stand up! pennsylvania, stand up!
>> a guy bill clinton was laughing and cheering for there, brian schweitzer. in the middle of his two terms of governor of montana. they have been trying to figure out how to traverse the red/blue state divide. the story of schweitzer intrigued and inspired a number of grassroots democrats. left office earlier this year and did so after touting with extreme popularity and did so even after touting a populous economic message in a state that voted overwhelmingly for mitt romney. schweitzer did it with some flair, folksy aforeisms, bow low tie, a branding iron he used to symbolically veto bills as you can see there. that's why for several cycles now in the names of perspective presidential candidates are bandied about, his name continues to come up. long time democratic senator max baucus announced earlier this year he would renear 2014,
democrats begged brian schweitzer to run. he was their first choice. maybe the only choice. but he declined and said no thanks. but he didn't say no thanks to us because he's here now. former montana governor brian schweitzer joins us. no bolo tie this morning. we were looking forward to that. >> it's sunday. you don't wear a bolo on sunday see, i'm not -- >> you don't understand that. east coast, you don't understand the etiquette of a bolo tie. >> no bolo tie on sunday. i'll remember that. tell us about that, though. you understand, obviously you come from -- you ran and were elected in a very red state, a conservative state. and it is not just that you were a democrat winning in a red state there are lots of democrats who win in red states and national democrats, they tend to drive national democrats crazy, ben nelson in nebraska, they vote with republicans all the time this sort of thing. you actually spoke and pursued a fairly progressive agenda in montana, in a red state, and it didn't cost you -- didn't hurt
your popularity, only helped your popularity. what was the key, tell us about that experience? >> you have to explain what you're doing. for example, when i took senior citizens across the border to buy their medicine in canada because canada sells it for one-third, what conservative would be against that? i guess the ones who would lobby us for the pharmaceutical companies in washington, d.c. would be against that. when i proposed to spend more new money on education than any time in history and reform education in montana and then ultimately montana increase the percent of our adult population with a college degree at the fastest rate in the country, who would be against that? when i built the eighth largest budget surplus in the history of the state while i was governor, who would be against that? but we also took care of children's health. we also reformed the way government delivered services. and so you can call that conservative. you can call it liberal. i call it just running the business of government. >> i think democrats nationally tend to -- we live in this red state/blue state era with five
swing states in the middle. both parties are guilty of this. the republican s write off the blue states. what do you think national democrats, like democrats in washington what is it they get wrong that they fundamentally don't understand about red states like montana? >> probably don't know how to explain things. for example, let's talk about the health care bill, just why they didn't explain it properly. from the get-go, they probably should have said many of these insurance policies aren't worth the paper they're written on. you're paying preem yim ining after year month after month and when you get sick, they say we're not going to pay for that because you got sick on a tuesday, we're not going to pay for all of it because you have a cap. we should have started by saying, look this is what is happening and this is how we're going to fix it. instead, we have a huge health care bill and people can't even understand it. when i hear people screaming, i want to keep my health insurance and i'm losing it, i didn't know anybody in america that loved
the health insurance company until just now. almost everybody who ever had a claim with health insurance companies has been screwed. and yet now 5 million people are going to lose their insurance. really? most of those people didn't like their insurance companies and yet democrats and washington, d.c. can't explain that. >> you were begged, i think is the right word to run for the senate earlier this year and decided not to. i have seen your name linked to every -- 2016 who is going to take the kind of message you're out toi i touting now, you said a year ago, if hillary runs in 2016, your quote was, if hillary runs, walks away with the nomination and then beats whichever republican, do you believe that? >> that's probably true. that's probably true. the question that we have is will it be the hillary that leads the progressives or is it the hillary that says i'm already going to win the democratic nomination and so i can shift hard right on day one. we can't afford any more hard right.
we had eight years of george bush. now five years of obama, which i would argue in many cases has been a core test. the health care bill that was written was written by the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies and the medical device companies. and so when people say this is a socialist plan, no, it was actually written by the insurance companies and it was the heritage foundation's plan all the way back to the '90s. >> we're going ing ting to much former governor brian schweitzer. we'll take a break and come right back. across america people are taking charge
of their type 2 diabetes with non-insulin victoza®. for a while, i took a pill to lower my blood sugar, but it didn't get me to my goal. so i asked my doctor about victoza®. he said victoza® is different than pills. victoza® is proven to lower blood sugar and a1c. it's taken once-a-day, any time, and comes in a pen. and the needle is thin. victoza® is not for weight loss, but it may help you lose some weight. victoza® is an injectable prescription medicine that may improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and should not be used in people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. victoza® has not been studied with mealtime insulin. victoza® is not insulin. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients.
symptoms of a serious allergic reaction may include: swelling of face, lips, tongue, or throat, fainting or dizziness, very rapid heartbeat, problems breathing or swallowing, severe rash or itching. tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. serious side effects may happen in people who take victoza®, including inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis), which may be fatal. stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have signs of pancreatitis, such as severe pain that will not go away in your abdomen or from your abdomen to your back, with or without vomiting. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, and headache. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. if your pill isn't giving you the control you need ask your doctor about non-insulin victoza®. it's covered by most health plans.
wout of landfills each year? plastic waste to cover mt. rainier by using one less trash bag each month, we can. and glad forceflex bags stretch until they're full.* so you can take them out less often. in the year 1843, president john tyler nominated congressman caleb kushing of massachusetts to be his treasury secretary. kushing was a chairman of the foreign affairs committee, so the nomination didn't come out of left field. policiwise it probably made sense. the folks in washington didn't like kushing that much. they weren't fond of how on one hand he was a critic of slavery, but on the other hand he still wanted to allow southern states
to keep it. that compromise didn't win in new england many friends those days. john quincy adam said kushing had no moral compass. and so when the president nominated kushing to be his treasury secretary in a lame duck session of congress, no less, his nomination was blocked not once, but twice. that was 170 years ago when that happened. and at no time since then, in all of those years, has another sitting member of congress had his nomination to administration post blocked. until now. three weeks ago senate republicans unsuccessfully blocked a vote on the confirmation of congressman mel watt of north carolina to lead the federal housing finance agency. because of that, democrats decided that they had had enough and came to the conclusion it wasn't just mel watt and wasn't just going to stop with mel watt. on the same day that republicans blocked a deal on watt, they also blocked a vote on patricia millett, one of three nominees for the d.c. circuit court of appeals. last week they blocked a vote on the second one of those nominees
as well, cornelia pillard and robert wilkins. the d.c. circuit court has jurisdiction over washington, which means it hears appeals over every regulation that congress passes, every piece of legislation a president signs. three vacant seats on the court, those three obama nominees would tip the ideological scale in the democrats' favor. it seems reasonable enough, since obama is the duly elected president. he won the election, after all. he's won two elections. but the republicans don't quite see it that way. instead of playing by the rules, they're trying to change the makeup of the court. instead of filling the three empty seats in the d.c. sicircu court, they want to eliminate them. they say there are three seats too many. it is an absurd argument but republicans have sticking with it and blocked all three nominees from joining the court n short, they have been picking a fight. they have picked fights like this before, only this time harry reid did not back down from the fight.
this time, not just threatening to take the filibuster power away from republicans, but he actually filed through and did it and democrats did it with him. they did away with the filibusters this week for most nominations by presidents. >> this was nothing more than a power grab in order to try to advance the obama administration's regulatory agenda and, you know, they just broke the senate rules in order to exercise the power grab. so i would sum it up by saying it is a sad day in the history of the senate. >> despite mcconnell's professed anger and sadness, in reality he did nothing to stop this. no talk of back room deals between the parties of emerging gangz gangs of six or eight or 12 or 14 of senators scrambling to strike a deal with democratic constitutionalists. i guess it is possible that republicans thought reed was bluffing, but i doubt it. they had plenty of time to change their minds as this thing
came to a head. i think if they secretly wanted this to happen or a lot of them did, a lost the republican senators did and the reason is simple. the republican base, the tea party base, the base that scared the bejesus out of republicans in congress with the threat of right wing primary challenges, that base wants and has wanted for the last five years an all-out war of obstruction against obama. which means that any vote by any republican senator to allow any obama nominee to advance in any way is a vote that could potentially come back to haunt that republican senator in a primary. to beat a filibust, democrats need five republicans to cross over. that's how they get to 60 votes. but that situation was untenable for republican senators. because it required that on any given nomination five of them step forward, involuntarily go on the record to kill a filibuster, to do something that the tea party base that they're terrified of doesn't want them doing. in the end, only two crossed over this week.
this way, in a post nuclear senate now, that stress is gone. republican senators no longer have to choose between defending increasingly absurd and unreasonable filibusters, and offending their base. they don't have to cast those votes anymore. they can just stand back and they can play victim. they can accuse reed and obama and the democrats of all sorts of crimes against democracy, like mcconnell did on thursday. well, here to talk about what happened this week and what it means going forward, we still have with us, sahil kapur from talking memo.com, joan walsh of salon.com and john stayit of becau buzzfeed.com. i think it is inevitable that republicans were going to come out and cry foul over this. that's politics. that's what they do. but i think there is a lot in this -- from what i just explained it takes republican senators off the hook, i think
there also might be a longer game for republicans here where they're thinking, hey, if we get the white house back in 2016, if we get the senate back in our control, this gives us a precedent to do with the filibuster altogether, i sense this was not really the story of democrats changing the rules and republicans fighting them, i think this is a lot more consensus here beneath the surface than people appreciate. >> i think both sides also -- the notion there is going to be another lyndon johnson, will come in and create this environment in the senate, where people can work together. i think that's pretty dead for the next couple of cycles at least. and i think this is -- this is everyone acknowledging, there is a new way of things being done in washington, and they're not going to go through the presense anymore of we're going to work together. there are some small things doing that, military sexual assault, where both sides are -- they're not based off of the parties, but by and large, the
parties are not going to go at it with each other over the senate. >> that's the way american politics are now. there is a governing party, there is an opposition party and the filibuster always raises the question, is our system built for the way politics are sorted out? >> i think the escalated use of the filibuster made it obsolete. it has been an arms race. democrats pioneered judicial filibusters in the bush years when they tried to filibuster a bunch of d.c. circuit nominees too. they eventually backed off. it has gotten to a point where one of the reasons i think 52 democrats decided to just pull the trigger and do away with this, the nuclear option, is i haven't met a single democratic senator or aid and i talked to many of them who doesn't think mitch mcconnell would do this anyway. >> exactly. >> the precedent was set in october of 2011, when reid changed the rules from 51 votes, a minor thing to suspend the rules, but the precedent was set, give mcconnell more than enough justification to do this if he becomes majority leader. >> that's the thing.
the history in this was, a few weeks ago, we started hearing rumblings this might happen, i assumed, all right, democrats will make their threat and at the last minute there will be some kind of deal, the filibuster will be safe. and it just didn't happen this time. and it was almost as if, know, republicans were saying, yeah, you know, we're sick of this too. >> it was a win-win. as you say they don't make the tough votes anymore there was nobody -- there isn't an institutional center anymore. there are people who talk about it. there are people who fitfully have tried to establish one. but basically republican -- senate republicans have gone along with what mitch mcconnell wanted to do. and i have to take issue with you saying, yes, the democrats sort of kind of started it. it started under clinton. they started under clinton. it got a little worse under bush. and then it went crazy under obama. it reached new levels. so i don't -- i would never imagine democrats doing this again, had they got -- had they lost power. now they would.
now, you know, all sides will. >> so the exemption that is built into this is right now, at least, the supreme court nominees. but i'm wondering if you get to -- that's a formality, right? >> as soon there is one, doesn't matter whether it is under obama or who it is, they're getting rid of it, it's gone. >> one other thing, this was more about the actual substantive nominations. the republicans have been using it as a form of nullification of the law. incapacitating agencies that they don't like, basically letting agencies stagnate with lack of leadership. so it was more than just this guy or this woman is not appropriate. >> yeah, democrats were not holding up agency appointments that i recall and also on the judges, they did have ideological objects. you can say they shouldn't have done it. there was no pretense -- >> what this is, in a way, i think, you -- joan is right, you say the start of the clinton years is when this really
escalated. the filibuster is this tradition of the senate, not etched into the constitution, this tradition that evolved in the senate. and when politics reached a point where the parties were sorted out, like we're talking about, it became a tool that, you know, each party i think started to ask itself, why can't we use the filibuster on this and this and this. and republicans took it to a much greater extreme, they started it in '93 and since '09, taken it where we have never seen it before. congress, what people say is doing away with the filibuster now on nominations, probably eventually supreme court nominations, the senate is becoming much more like the house. a simple majority rule. is that a good thing? >> well, probably not. but on the other hand, you know, that's the way democracy works. very frustrating. i think most americans don't understand when something fails with 55 votes or 57 votes, as we have been used to, so i think the problem that we have now is the senate still has -- still
six-year terms, there is an opportunity for people to be more reflective in the senate if they choose to be. and unlike everybody in the house is fighting -- basically for the next election cycle all the time. so i think there is some difference there because of the six-year terms that won't be exactly as reactive as -- and as short sided as the house votes. >> i wonder if -- in the end if it could become worse because you have so many members have never been in the minority or the majority, right? majority of the senate is sort of like that. and they're going to spend six years fighting from one position and especially if that continues. if democrats continue to hold it over the next couple of years, you could really see people become very, very rigid and not ever look to try to find any kind of middle ground, even when they flip. they could become, you know, a long-term war of retribution against each other. >> i want to pick that up. there is one of the democratic constituti institutions, one has been carl
leven, been in the majority, been in the minority, he had warnings for his colleagues. when you have diabetes like i do, getting the right nutrition isn't always easy. first, i want a way to help minimize my blood sugar spikes. then, a way to support heart health. ♪ and let's not forget immune support. ♪ but now i have new glucerna advance with three benefits in one. including carbsteady ultra to help minimize blood sugar spikes. it's the best from glucerna. [ male announcer ] new glucerna advance. from the brand doctors recommend most. advancing nutrition for diabetes. ♪ by the end of december, we'll be delivering ♪ ♪ through 12 blizzards blowing ♪ 8 front yards blinding ♪ 6 snowballs flying ♪ 5 packages addressed by toddlers ♪ ♪ that's a q ♪ 4 lightning bolts ♪ 3 creepy gnomes ♪ 2 angry geese ♪ and a giant blow-up snowman ♪ that kind of freaks me out [ beep ] [ female announcer ] no one delivers the holidays like the u.s. postal service. priority mail flat rate is more reliable than ever. and with improved tracking up to 11 scans,
you can even watch us get it there. ♪ and his new boss told him two things -- cook what you love, and save your money. joe doesn't know it yet, but he'll work his way up from busser to waiter to chef before opening a restaurant specializing in fish and game from the great northwest. he'll start investing early, he'll find some good people to help guide him, and he'll set money aside from his first day of work to his last, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. afghanistan in 2009. on the u.s.s. saratoga in 1982. [ male announcer ] once it's earned, usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation because it offers a superior level of protection and because usaa's commitment to serve current and former military members and their families is without equal. begin your legacy.
if it can be changed on judges or on other nominees, this precedent is going to be used, i fear, to change the rules on consideration of legislation, and down the road, we don't know how far down the road, we never know that in a democracy, but down the road, the hard won protections and benefits for our people's health and welfare will be lost. >> carl levin, democrat from michigan, he'll be retiring from the senate in 2014, sounds like he might be happy he's leaving the chamber now after this. but so -- there are a couple of
issues in what he said there, i want to get to them. the first one that comes to mind is this. we can say, for the immediate future, this is going to help the president's agenda, no question. he'll get people confirmed who he was not able to get confirmed before. he'll get agencies up and running, get judges on the bench. this helps in 2013 and 2014. here is one question i have. if nominations now have become basically straight party line votes, the problem here was republicans were willing to supply no votes for any nominee to even get a vote. okay. what happens if in 2014 republicans win back the senate? you have a democrat in the white house, 51, 52 republican votes in the senate. if votes on nominations are straight party line votes then, even without the filibuster, obama can't get anything through. >> you can start -- they would be able to stop any appointment he wanted to do. there is risk in doing that as well. i think one of the reasons that mitch mcconnell is in such trouble in kentucky now is because he's seen as part of the dysfunction of the senate. and if that were to go on,
another two years, i think it would hurt them in the 2016 election and individuals would pay the consequences too. i think there is a political price to pay if they lose that situation to block everything that president obama wanted to do. >> i do think the republicans unfortunately both sides have got -- republicans in particular, with ted cruz and some of the more conservative members are looking at this very much like house members, where they have a constituency that they're going to identify with and they're going to push forward their ideas. and right now tlahey really do e their job as blocking everything that the white house does. they see that as an offensive move as opposed to sort of playing defense, which is normally how this has gone in the past. >> that gets to -- you start asking if the system is really made for this kind of thing, if everything is a party line move, and you have the majority of votes in the senate and the senate has to approve and confirm a president's nominee and the president is from the other party, then it sets up a situation where we all -- all
the frustration that obama had in getting the people through could come up again. the other issue that levin raises there, the hard won protections and benefits for health and welfare, being endangered, what he's talking about there is the idea of republicans getting the white house, president chris christie, january 2017, senate majority lead, i don't know, rand paul, whoever it is going to be, and they decide, you know what, we're going to do away with the filibuster by simple majority vote on all legislation. and now every piece of legislation that republicans have, like the paul ryan budget, anything like that, they can get through with simple majority in the senate. that's what levin is warning about. >> but i think they would have bon this anyway. i don't think you ever see democrats fighting as hard as you see republicans fight. if democrats did what republicans did, we wouldn't have a an alito or roberts on the supreme court. i mean, maybe then it turns democrats into crazy warriors too? it could be that the upshot of this is very ugly.
but every time we lament that or look at that possibility, we're really looking away from how ugly it already is. >> can't imagine a scenario where if republicans controlled the white house, the senate and the house, that they would let the filibuster stand in the way of accomplishing huge things like the ryan budget. they demand it and cave in a moment and they would be happy to change the rules. i don't see a scenario. unlike carl levin, i would say i don't see a scenario where this filibuster change on nominations will work against the president. i don't see how that happens. if there are 51 votes, as mcconnell, he would have to negotiate anyway, he'll have to do it and 51 votes is easier to get than 60. the benefits are huge. entire second term agenda runs through the d.c. circuit court of appeals. nothing is getting through congress, all has to be through regulation and executive authority, things like health care, climate change, dodd frank and financial reform, d.c. circuit has been very hostile to the president's initiative so far, overturned many of them and that will happen, it will be an issue in the wars over obama care and climate change and
wants to regulate carbon and make that part of the presidential legacy. >> you said the word. negotiate. he'll have to negotiate with mitch mcconnell. at this point, i think there is no negotiation. if the republicans take over the senate, i don't see them having any reason to say, yeah, okay, we'll give you these five nominees or we'll we don't like those guys, but we like these guys. that's how it used to be done. i don't see after this point there will be much appetite on their part. >> that's sort of negotiation that was -- negotiation through the use of threats that brought about these periodic, you know, breaks in the logjam that would get a few nominees confirmed like over the summer. but i completely agree with you. i look at it and there was no choice, i think, that democrats had this week but to make this move. there was no choice given the blockade they were facing. one of those questions. i don't know there is a great answer to it about what is the future going to look like now. >> hard to tell. i know short-term the big losers are mitch mcconnell and rand paul. and the other senators who actually use nominations as
leverage to get something else they otherwise can't get. we have three district court vacancies in kentucky and one circuit court of appeals and 6th circuit vacant right now. the white house is just -- has been negotiating with mitch mcconnell. i'm the only democrat in the delegation. they don't even talk to me. they're talking to mitch. he's lost that leverage and that power. >> i want to thank joan walsh, john stanton, and anyone who knows me knows i love the 1970s. i also love jerry brown. today, as governor again of california, i believe jerry brown needs to be talked about very much in the present tense. there is a reason. i'll explain. i have low testosterone. there, i said it. see, i knew testosterone could affect sex drive, but not energy or even my mood. that's when i talked with my doctor. he gave me some blood tests... showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% testosterone gel. the #1 prescribed topical testosterone replacement therapy increases testosterone when used daily.
women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child, or signs in a woman, which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure. men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer, and women who are or may become pregnant or are breast-feeding, should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs. tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting. in a clinical study, over 80% of treated men had their t levels restored to normal. talk to your doctor about all your symptoms. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up. androgel 1.62%. many cereals say they're good for your heart, but did you know there's a cereal that's recommended by doctors? it's post shredded wheat.
recommended by nine out of ten doctors to help reduce the risk of heart disease. post shredded wheat is made with only one ingredient: one hundred percent whole grain wheat, with no added sugar or salt. try adding fruit for more health benefits and more taste in your bowl. it's the ideal way to start your heart healthy day. try post shredded wheat. this has been medifacts for post shredded wheat. try post shredded wheat. customer erin swenson ordebut they didn't fit.line customer's not happy, i'm not happy. sales go down, i'm not happy.
merch comes back, i'm not happy. use ups. they make returns easy. unhappy customer becomes happy customer. then, repeat customer. easy returns, i'm happy. repeat customers, i'm happy. sales go up, i'm happy. i ordered another pair. i'm happy. (both) i'm happy. i'm happy. happy. happy. happy. happy. happy happy. i love logistics. i'to guard their manhood with trnew depend shields and guards. the discreet protection that's just for guys. now, it's your turn. get my training tips at guardyourmanhood.com in 2010, a bad midpeterm ye for democrats, meg whitman was presenting herself to voters as the face of change that californians needed. but it was the democrat in that race who crafted a message that
knew wasn't necessarily better. >> 30 years ago, anything was possible in this state. >> jerry brown, jerry brown, the candidate who already served as governor three decades before, now he's something of a model for how all governors, democrat and republican, can make their agendas work outside of washington. we'll talk more about that next. [ tires screech ] ♪ [ male announcer ] 1.21 gigawatts.
yo, yo, yo. aflac. wow. [ under his breath ] that was horrible. pays you cash when you're sick or hurt? [ japanese accent ] aflac. love it. [ under his breath ] hate it. helps you focus on getting back to normal? [ as a southern belle ] aflac. [ as a cowboy ] aflac. [ sassily ] aflac. uh huh. [ under his breath ] i am so fired. you're on in 5, duck. [ male announcer ] when you're sick or hurt, aflac pays you cash. find out more at aflac.com. not sure if there say single politician in america who fascinates me more than jerry brown. right now he's the oldest governor in california's history, four decades ago, the youngest. elected in 1974, at the age of 36, took him just over a year to decide it was time to run for president. he entered the 1976 democratic race, very late. like really late, in may of that year. months after the new hampshire primary, something unthinkable today. a different era back then.
nominations could thee crea s s be decided at conventions. so he jumps into the race for the democratic presidential nomination in may of 1976 and he starts winning. he wins in maryland, he wins in nevada, he wins, he wins big in california. too late for him to make the ballot in rhode island and new jersey, so tells voters to check off uncommitted on their ballots. uncommitted wins those states. jerry brown was a national political sensation in 1976. democrats across the country looked at him and saw a vibrant forward thinking breath of fresh air from the west coast. his plan had been used all of that late momentum from the late victories to steal the democratic nomination from jimmy carter at the convention. it was a long shot, but he actually came pretty close it pulling it off. the thing is, this was supposed to be just the start for jerry brown. if he didn't make it to the top in 1976, there would be another day. that's what everyone figured. it didn't quite work out that way. he tried again in 1980, but with carter facing a primary
challenge from ted kennedy, just no room for anyone else. brown's popularity in california started to crumble. tried running for the senate in 1982, a good year to be a democrat, it was reagan's first midterm, unemployment was over 10%, but he was defeated in that race too. and then, well, then he disappeared. he spent the 80s in mexico, india, japan. worked with mother theresa, studied zen buddhism, came back a changed man, a man forgotten by the political world, outsider, something of a radical. ran for president again in 1992. and in the new jerry brown had no patience for the political system, no patience for politicians like bill clinton. the whole system was corrupt, he thought everyone in the system was corrupt. that was brown's message and he had no problem saying it to bill clinton's face. >> you ought to be ashamd of yourself for jumping on my wife. you're not worth being on the same platform with. >> ralph nader called me this
afternoon, read the article from the washington post. i was shocked by it. i was shocked by it because i don't think someone -- >> i get time. >> in that '92 campaign, jerry brown really was a pariah, a political pariah. his old friends and allies didn't recognize him. the media thought he was an unhinged madman and washed up one at that. and bill clinton, now president bill clinton was not about to throw him a lifeline from the white house. jerry brown was alone, he was done, he was finished. all of that potential from the spring of 1976 and this is where it ended up. now, flash forward to 2010, nearly two decades after the lowest of low moments for jerry brown, he found a way to crawl back to a little bit of relevance in the late 1990s, starting at the bottom as the mayor of oakland, california. and got himself elected attorney general of california in 2006. then governor's office opened up in 2010 and he ran and won the democratic nomination. and he found himself in a
dogfight in the general election. so he needed some help. a late boost. and so with his comeback on the line, jerry brown turned to the same guy he had relentlessly savaged back in 1992. >> president clinton not only was great in office, he's great after office. he didn't retire to palm springs to play golf. he's out there doing stuff. he's helping people in haiti. he's fighting aids. he's dealing with victims of tsunamis, he's the guy who is mobilizing the highest spirit, the angels of our better spirits. and he's doing it and that's the spirit i would like to bring to california. >> that's what i love about politics. scenes like that, so much history, so much complicated history, just beneath the surface. and brown won that governor's race and at the age of 72, he was back. governor of the country's biggest state again. so far, it has gone pretty well. at the start, people figured he would serve one term. his popularity is high.
he's gotten big stuff done. last year he asked voters to aprf approve a tax hike to pay for education and they said yes. they said yes in california. so never supposed to happen out there. when they said yes, they also rewarded brown, they rewarded his policy with a super majority in the state legislature, first time democrats had that. one thing brown has used that power to do is to aggressively implement the affordable care act. you know the story out of d.c., broken website, angry white house, cackling republicans, poll numbers dropping all around, here is the story out of california -- sacramento, california encouraged by health plan enrollment, from the new york times this week. website is working very well in california, the exchange is up and running. that critical group that is absolutely essential to making obama care work, those young healthy people that need to, that have to sign up for the exchanges, if they're going to work, they're signing up in california. look at this, 18 to 34-year-o
34-year-olds, they account for 21% of the population, what% of the californians signing up for private insurance on the exchanges are 18 to 34, 22.5%, a little bit more. jerry brown, governor jerry brown, is creating a national model for making obama care work. he's attracting national press coverage. he's captured the imagination of democrats. he's -- i really can't believe i'm about to say this, i'm kind of happy too, he's getting a little bit of buzz about a 2016 presidential campaign. >> jerry brown, if he wins with more than 60%, re-election, has a record to run on, a health -- a health exchange that works pretty well, does he end up running and challenging the clintons? >> i know. i know. brown will be in his late 70s in 2016, hard to believe he'll run, but it is fun to think about. fun to imagine, such a quirky character could even possibly run a serious presidential
campaign in 1976, and then do it all over again 40 years later. what it really is, though, is testament to the political benefits that come with being a governor. of being a major political figure who operates far away from washington, d.c., who is not caught up in the daily partisan warfare that defines national politics who has the power to enact big, meaningful legislation. doesn't necessarily face total reflexive paralyzing opposition from the other side. that's why you hear so many republicans today talking about picking a governor as their candidate, in 2016. their national party label is mud, but some of the governors are actually pretty popular back home. a road to the white house goes through the state house, that's the old cliche. is it truer than ever in this area of hyperpolarized washington. here to help me answer all of this, we have back with us, sahil kapur, john yarmuth of kentucky, he's still here. want to bring in april ryan, the white house correspondent and
washington bureau chief for american urban radio net works and our resident former governor back at the table, democrat from montana, brian schweitzer. thank you for being here. april, i'll start with you. you're covering washington, you must notice this disconnect, when you see the coverage out of washington over health care or anything else and you start looking around the rest of the country, what is the difference that makes things work in state houses that doesn't work on capitol hill? >> the will of the people. the governors know what the people want because they're right there in their faces working together and also the state legislatures. they're closer to them than what is happening in washington. but there is a clear problem, up and down pennsylvania avenue. you can see when the people come to the white house, not that the -- the tourists are not like, oh, yea, it is very tepid now. when the president talked with a group of people, these education -- some of the award people, educational award recipients this week, there was an issue where we were watching the president and he did not
have that same, i guess charismatic attitude that he normally had. and prior to that, he was in the briefing room and he seemed like he was downtrodden, looked like he had been beaten up. and then on the other end of pennsylvania avenue, they're trying to figure out how they're going to function, period, as you know, congressman. it is a situation up and down washington, up and down pennsylvania avenue, that has been played out in our face, we're seeing it on social media. that's something we have not seen before, social media is also turning the tide, twitter, we're seeing congressmen and senators come out talking about this is what i'm going to do in real time. and people are responding, but in the state house, you can go to the state house, you can talk to your local state legislature, you can talk to the governor. they're with the people. the will of the people is there more so than it is playing out in washington. >> and so, governor, maybe you can talk about this, you, awe sit and talked to you earlier, people wanted you to run for the u.s. senate to become part of
capitol hill. you said no. was part of that calculation thinking about how you worked with your legislature in montana, and what the interaction between the governor and the legislature was like there, and saying, i just don't see it working the way it did in montana in washington if i was part of the senate? is that part of what your thinking was? >> i said it wasn't goofy enough to be in congress or senile enough to be in the senate. the republicans in washington, d.c. are less popular than the belly of a short legged pot belly pig. they're absolutely at the bottom. the reason that people are looking at governors is because, a, we have to balance budgets, it is part of our constitution. b, we need a budget every single year. and, 85% of our budget is to educate, medicate and incarcerate. we have got to keep eager teachers in front of good students. we have to keep bad people locked up. and we have to make sure that these medications are making it to our disabled, we have to take
care of people who are pregnant, we have to take care of children through the medicaid programs. we have got to deliver. you can't just talk about things. a lot of what congress does, it is motion masquerading as action. but when you are the chief executive of a state, you've got to deliver. you're the ceo. >> congressman, do you -- you're in the house, the republican-controlled house, one of two legislative chambers. when you look at the experience of somebody like governor schweitzer or governor in your state, democratic governor of kentucky. >> good guy. >> implementing obama care, do you get jealous of that a little bit? >> i think everybody, particularly when you're the minority in the house, which basically means you're pointless, in relevancy, you yearn for a position where you actually can do something, you can actually direct something. and change. and i have an urban district, i have the same constituency as the mayor of louisville and i envy the mayor because he has
the ability to get things done. he can fill the potholes, he can move people, he can move people to action. and you don't get that sense in congress. everybody is frustrated, even the republicans i know, very frustrated with what the inability to get anything done and move. and so i think the governor is absolutely right. and steve deserves all the credit in the world for the successful launch of health reform in kentucky it is going great, but it is because he could do it. he brought the right people in, and he gave them marching orders and made a commitment early on to expand medicaid and get the exchange done and it worked. >> that's something that i would imagine democrats looking across the country, they take note of that, that, you know, the story in washington is still, hey, the website can be fixed, this can get up and running, can still work out. but there is an opportunity here for democrats, maybe, who might have a little national ambition to make names for themselves by saying, look, while they were screwing this up in washington, i made it work in kentucky, i
made it work in california, i made it work in -- oregon is having trouble now. there are opportunities for democratic governors. >> that's true. one thing that democrats can consistently point to and the us who white house consistently points to is it is working in states they want it to work. in kentucky it is working very well. when mitch mcconnell is asked about it, he has to gloss over it and mentions it is all medicaid is, but that's a huge part of obama care. what democrats in california like to point out, they made things work, they threw out all the republicans, sometimes one party rule does work very well if you have a situation like we do have in washington right now. the deepest divisions from all around the country from red mississippi to blue california, they're all symptomatic there. in states it not that bad. their also dealing with the issues in the here and now, education, security, police department, things like that. they don't have the luxury of just sitting back and saying we're going to play games. >> one more thing. in the states, many of the states passed term limits. you get elected to congress, you got here with idealism, you want
to change the world, you want to deliver back home. then they tap you on the shoulder and say, no, you need to raise money, today, tomorrow and the next day tork get re-elected. you can't be successful if you're not re-elected. in the states, we have term limits. legislator comes to town to get the job done because they know the clock is ticking and they're going to be -- >> that gives more power to the executive, though, doesn't it? you don't have legislators who built up -- you must love that as a governor. >> steve, i think it is about the winning picture who is winning the picture now, pennsylvania avenue? no. not at all. and look at what is going to happen come january because we're expecting there might be another kind of budget crisis again. so, yeah, so d.c. is in trouble. if you're a politician in d.c., looking for the oval office, you might as well say not right now. look at the winning picture. let's go to new jersey. chris christie, sandy. he was this guy, it happened, i'm going to make this happen, i'm going to turn things around and he did. he even acknowledged obama, believe it or not, and that
showed he could work -- he would work across party lines. let's go to a democrat. let's say california. california is working out with the situation with the affordable care act, with their website. 80,000 when the federal website only had 27,000. so 27,000 enrollees. so kentucky, and california are the prime example. but at the same time, remember this, 17 governors were president of this country. 17 governors. is it the time for governors, the people who touched the people, to become -- >> so the -- we'll pick item un one second, republican governors all gathered this week, they had interesting thoughts along the same lines. we'll hear from one of them, play a tape from one of them and keep the conversation going after this. e heard there's a new rinse that talks about protecting, even after eating and drinking. crest pro-health has always done that. it's clinically proven to fight plaque and gingivitis. rinsing with pro-health after brushing can take your oral health to a new level.
now that's the new you need. right from the beginning i could really feel it changing something for the better. i know there's been an improvement. my pearly whites, they feel really good. [ male announcer ] go pro. with the brand you can trust, crest pro-health. yep. got all the cozies. [ grandma ] with new fedex one rate, i could fill a box and ship it for one flat rate. so i knit until it was full. you'd be crazy not to. is that nana? [ male announcer ] fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex.
we'll take something tasty and healthy. ♪ must be the honey! ♪ there's a party going on in your cereal bowl ♪ ♪ o's can help lower cholesterol ♪ ♪ oh why does it taste so great? ♪ ♪ hey! must be the honey! how old is the oldest person you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed much
is the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪ i think it has to be an outsider. i think both the presidential and vice presidential nominees should either be a former or current governor, people who have done successful things in their states who have taken on
big reforms, ready to move america forward. >> that rules out marco rubio, ted cruz, rand paul. >> all good guys, but it has got to be somebody viewed as being exceptionally removed from washington. >> governor scott walker, wisconsin, talking with john carl about how outsider status could make a better candidate for the republicans in 2016. that was before the republicans held their republican governors association meeting this year. and governor schweitzer, that becomes sort of the -- that's the thing now on the republican side, like, look at chris christie winning in new jersey, you know, we need somebody like that because our national party label is terrible. we need somebody -- a governor like christie to save us in 2016, a lot of movement from that. >> high escott walker has riotse capital, people sleeping in sleeping bags because he's throwing people off their jobs, that's what we want in washington, d.c.? it may well be true that there are some governors out there
that are qualified to be president. but they have to have a record that they can talk about and these two guys, not so much. >> well, so, there is -- i don't want to just ask the standard question of the are you considering running for president in 2016 or not thing. here is what i do want to ask. based on your experience in montana, and based on the little taste of what a schweitzer/christie campaign might look like that you gave us there, i wonder if your experience in montana as a governor and what you were able to do in a red state, do you think that that can be -- you could export that to washington? could what you did in montana work if you were president of the united states? is what you did as governor work in the climate of washington, d.c. as president? >> dammed if i know. you need a legislature that wants to get somethingen to. the problem you have in washington, d.c. is the fund-raising, it is what they do every single day and that means they have to get money from the companies they're regulating, insurance companies, military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical companies, they're getting money from them on friday. and then let's see voting with
them on a tuesday. you've got obama who brought some very good ideas to washington, d.c., and he can't move things and why? because these companies are writing the checks to get these people re-elected and how can they vote against them on tuesday if they took their money on friday? >> it is a huge problem. and governor is absolutely right. but the other thing is that, you know, you got eric cantor the other day going to the republican conference, holding up a blank sheet of paper saying this is our agenda for 2014. that's pretty much a problem too. you have a group in charge and a house that has no agenda. there is nothing they want to do. they want to oppose obama on everything they can, even the republican ideas he brought forward, cap and trade, obviously, obama care was a republican concept, he's got a jobs program that has many elements that republicans have suggested. they want to stop him. and so far that's been successful at keeping them in the majority. >> can you one a horse race if you ain't got a horse? >> no. absolutely not. mccarthy, the t
ranking house republican came out saying yeah, i know, ift's not going to be one of us. he wants to be a governor as well. >> there's a notion the next republican nominee should be an outsider. but, i don't think it really matters to the extent it has to be a governor. the people we were talking about, they are doing everything they can to distance themselves from washington. every day, they talk about how they hate washington. i don't think they are going to have that problem. there are different realities and reasons to consider the governor. >> as the governor said, there needs to be someone who knows how to run something, a ceo. just because you are a governor and may be a ceo, one thing that is need second-degree the story. everyone can be a governor. do you have the story that is
compelling to the american public? everyone, all the candidates saying they want to run or you perceive they are going to run, they don't have the story. the story is critical. you want someone to connect with you. >> being a governor was the key, then governor tim pawlenty would have done better. >> i'll give you three reasons the governor of texas could be president of the united states. >> oops. >> what should we know today we didn't know before. our answers are coming up after this. not choosing the right medicare d plan. no one could have left this much money here. whoo-hoo-hoo! yet many seniors who compare medicare d plans realize they can save hundreds of dollars. cvs/pharmacy wants to help you save on medicare expenses. talk to your cvs pharmacist, call, or go to cvs.com/compare to get your free, personalized plan comparison today. call, go online, or visit your local store today.
quickly going to find out what our guests think we should know. april? >> this week, the pardoning of the thanksgiving turkey at the white house. is it sedated or not? the fact is the turkey's are raised and people are touching them all the time. it's not sedated, supposedly. >> i lived in the middle east for seven years. what's interesting is not that
we are going to have a treaty with iran, it's going to tip the balance away from the saudis and the egyptians to the persians, the enemies for the last 3,000 years to the arabs. big changes are happening in the middle east. if we cozy up to iran, we are not going to need saudis anymore. we will be energy independent. >> all the teem that signed up so far, 56,000 of them, 41% are under 35. there's an indication the administration is right, there are going to be adequate numbers of young people for it to work. >> the filibuster is an accident. it's not productive of the constitution after they killed alexander hamilton. the rules changed. it ended up making it impossible for leaders to cut off. also, i want to ask, steve, i would like to ask you, will you run for president in 2016? >> i'll say i have around 100
counties in iowa. on my bucket list is to make it to all the counties of iowa some day. >> i am glad you asked that question. we just made news. i want to thank april ryan, thanks for getting up this morning and thank you for joining us. back next weekend with brand-new live shows with brand-new -- that's the same word twice in the prompter. join us saturday and sunday. don't go anywhere just yet. up next is melissa harry perry with another high profile nomination. the first female chair of the federal reserve. that and the best man holiday. malcolm lee stops by nerdland. stick around and thank you for getting up with us. ♪
[ male announcer ] for a love that never fades over any amount of time, there's iams. with 50% more animal protein than other leading brands... ...to help keep his body as strong as his love. iams. keep love strong. there's new iams woof delights. some wet food has gluten and artificial flavors. iams has real meat and eggs in our tasty chunks. now that's real love. new iams woof delights. it means trying something new. [ woman ] that uncertainty of what's to come. ♪ ♪ ♪ customer erin swenson ordebut they didn't fit.line customer's not happy, i'm not happy. sales go down, i'm not happy. merch comes back, i'm not happy. use ups. they make returns easy.
unhappy customer becomes happy customer. then, repeat customer. easy returns, i'm happy. repeat customers, i'm happy. sales go up, i'm happy. i ordered another pair. i'm happy. (both) i'm happy. i'm happy. happy. happy. happy. happy. happy happy. i love logistics. i got this. [thinking] is it that time? the son picks up the check? [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired.
this morning, my question how can a convicted rapist end up in a nonviolent offenders program. plus, a closer look at the republicans who want to be president. and uniting from our friends from the bestman. first, the late breaking news out of geneva on iran's nuclear program. good morning, i'm melissa harris-perry. for the first time in nearly a decade, iran agreed to temporarily halt their nuclear program. the united states along with five other major world powers announced the deal last night after marathon negotiations in geneva, switzerland. it's set to last six