tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC February 15, 2013 4:00am-5:00am EST
i'm ed schultz. the "rachel maddow show" starts right now. od evening, rachel. on a day that made history. today something happened in american politics that has never before happened in the history of our republic. in all of the trials and tribulations we have been through as a nation, through the wars, through the great depression, through the time senators used to beat one another with canes inside the capitol. in everything we have ever been through as a nation, what happened today has never happened before. not ever. not one of the 44 presidents our country has had has ever been blocked by a minority in the senate from choosing someone for his cabinet. but that happened today to president barack obama. republicans in the senate decided to do something unprecedented to him. and to thereby set an entirely new precedent for how the presidency itself is treated in our country.
when they said today that even though they could not muster a majority of votes on their side, they would maneuver anyway as a minority to block president barack obama from appointing his chosen secretary of defense. this has never happened before. to anyone ever. i mean, we have had cabinet nominees not make it through the senate confirmation process before. people who could not win over a majority of the senate so they did not get confirmed. we've had that happen. we've had people pull their name from contention when it became clear they could not win confirmation in the senate. but president obama's nominee for defense secretary chuck hagel, he does have majority support in the senate. what happened today is that a minority of that body, the republicans, decided that they were going to block him anyway. never happened before. they filibustered a cabinet nomination. in the past, over the years there have been a couple of
token efforts at maybe doing this in the past that got a handful of votes. didn't actually slow down or stop anything. but the minority actually blocking the nomination, that is a whole new thing. this is a fresh hell in american politics. and that is why before today, even republican senators said it would be nuts to do this. before today these senators, these republicans for example all said yeah, listen. i might be opposed to chuck hagel for defense. i might vote no on his nomination, but i'm not going to blow up 220-something years of precedent and filibuster the guy. i'm not going to block there being a vote on him. we've never done that before. republican senators john mccain, roy blunt, roger wicker, susan collins, lisa murkowski, all of these said before today that they might vote no on chuck hagel, but they wouldn't block a vote from the minority. they wouldn't filibuster. well, today when push came to shove, it was only susan collins and lisa murkowski who kept their word.
the others said they wouldn't filibuster and then they did it anyway. john mccain, row wicker, lindsey graham. they all did it. senator graham says he does not want his filibuster today to be thought of as a filibuster even though that's what it is. he says he prefers to think of what he did is blocking the nomination because he wants to use it as leverage to get more information out of the administration on the president's birth certificate, i'm sorry i mean aliens in area 51. i'm sorry. i mean his thoughts about what happened in benghazi. what does hagel know about benghazi? nothing. he had nothing to do with it. but lindsey graham is filibustering his nomination over it anyway. since chuck hagel had nothing to do with it substantively, why block his nomination instead of, say, the john kerry nomination
which sailed through the senate? don't know. why not? wrecking stuff is fun, maybe? hulk smash. the guy who the republicans waited to spring this on for the first time in our nation's history to break all precedent is a former republican senator from a red state, a decorated and wounded combat veteran nominated to lead the pentagon while we are at war. republicans have never before felt the need to filibuster a cabinet nominee in the history of the country but apparently this is the guy worth waiting 224 years to spring it on. it has never happened before, but why not now? heck. the white house is not pleased. quote, today's action runs against both the majority will of the senate and our nation's interest. this waste of time is not without consequence. we have 66,000 men and women deployed in afghanistan and we need our new secretary of defense to be part of significant decisions about how we bring that war to a responsible end.
next week is brussels the united states will meet with allies to talk about transition in afghanistan at the nato defense ministerial. for the sake of national security it's time to stop playing politics with our department of defense and to move beyond the distractions and delay. allow this war hero an up or down vote and let our troops have the secretary of defense they deserve. remember when the top democrat in the senate harry reid declared just a few weeks ago the democrats would not change the rules in the senate? remember that? wouldn't change the rules. to stop senate republicans from abusing the process there. harry reid decided he would just instead make a hand shake deal with the republicans' top senator mitch mcconnell. he said he was satisfied with the republicans agreeing to be more reasonable on issues like this. remember? they wouldn't change the filibuster rules. they would just agree as gentlemen that the republicans would curtail of excesses of filibustering everything.
democrats decided to not only change the rules on the filibuster and just make that agreement with the republicans instead. they said, you know, at a minimum this would at least improve the confirmation process for the administration's nominees. how's that working out now? just a couple of weeks later. how's that gentlemen's agreement going? now that we've just had a filibuster of a cabinet nominee for the first time in american history. joining us now is andrea mitchell. great to have you here tonight. thanks for being here. >> thanks, rachel. >> what happens next year? does leon panetta stay on as defense secretary even after he's gone through the motions of stepping down and going back home? >> yes. we've had all of these farewell speeches. the most recent today. then he went off with his wife sylvia for a valentine's dinner and was hoping that he wouldn't have to come back. but now he will come back because the senate is in recess.
you know, when these things happen, they don't change their plans for recess. and so he, leon panetta, is going to have to leave the delegation and represent the united states at nato for the big meeting of the nato defense ministers. this was to be the debut performance of chuck hagel on the world stage. that is only the first impediment to hagel by this delay and what they claim -- the republicans claim is not a filibuster but by any stretch of the imagination when you have a cloture vote and they go into recess, that smells like a filibuster. >> have you heard anything about how people inside the defense department and even the state department, the other national security major agencies, how they're reacting tonight? is there any concern that this oldup is going to project weakness or otherwise be bad for
the country? >> i think there's a lot of embarrassment, annoyance, anger. we have leon panetta and the secretary. there is leadership. but the other sort of incidental but not unimportant victim of all this is also john brennan's nomination. whatever you think of it, that has also been held up until after the recess for very good reasons many say because diane feinstein is now demanding seven more legal documents on targeted killings from the administration. the administration says that that's an exaggeration. that some of those that were already turned over actually were simply expansions of some of the seven she's demanding. but you're not going to have a cia director either until after the recess. >> if chuck hagel ends up confirmed and that was part of the statement today. he has majority support. he got 58 votes on the cloture vote today which implies he will be confirmed if they allow a vote.
once we get defense secretary chuck hagel, what does what we just went through mean for what the relationship's going to be like between congress and the pentagon? congress and the pentagon are a little bit at each other's throats anyway about the negotiations around the sequester and how the pentagon budget will proceed. what's it going to mean between congress and the pentagon once hagel is in charge after they made him go through this? >> if the president thought by having a republican in the cabinet at the pentagon he was going to buy any kind of loyalty or relationship with republican senators, he can think again about that. because this simply isn't happening. chuck hagel is not going to have relationships with people who humiliated him to this degree. secondly, he was weakened by his own poor performance. and whether he was playing rope a dope and this was a tactic to not pick a fight and get in an argument with john mccain and the others on the committee that
he would then have to work with, he didn't fight back enough. claire mccaskill and other democrats, claire you saw on our show and other forums saying, look. he clearly is better at asking questions than answering questions. but still came strongly to his defense as did the other democrats on the committee. saying joe manchin and others saying he is clearly qualified and the president should have his man there. and to take one statement out of context from a speech he gave when he wasn't in office is not really taking the measure of the man. he's not going to have a good relationship with republicans on that committee. and he is weakened within the pentagon where you have that crisp military, be-prepared attitude. you know it better than anyone. you've written a book. you've been with the military far more than i have. and rachel, you know they all have things down very carefully. the way he answered questions buzz damaging to him.
despite from so many people from colin powell and people who republicans revere who all said this man should be confirmed. >> i think we are at an important and fragile and sort of unsettled moment in terms of civilian relationships of the military and political civilian relationships with the military. and this is the biggest wrench in the works that could have possibly imagined. we'll see how it plays out. andrea mitchell host of andrea mitchell reports. thank you so much for being here. >> my pleasure. the president left washington today for the comparatively grownup environment of a room full of 4-year-olds. went well. hold on. that's coming up. ( ♪ ) for those nights when it's more than a bad dream, be ready. for the days when you get a sudden call from the school, be ready.
this man was the democratic nominee for president in the year 1984. he served as vice president in the late '70s and in the very early 1970s, as you see him here in all his early 1970s glory he was a senator. senator walter mondale, democrat of minnesota. mr. mondale entered the u.s. senate at the beginning of our national war on poverty under lbj. senator mondale outlasted president johnson in office, but he kept working on that basic idea, of using public policy to help out the least well off among us. by 1971 he succeeded in getting passed with big bipartisan support a bill that would have created a daycare system
essentially in this country. universal preschool for american kids. the tuition was on a sliding scale so everybody could afford it. senator mondale got his bill passed and it went to the guy who was president by then. it went to richard nixon. and richard nixon vetoed it even though it passed with lots of republican votes. president nixon said the idea of preschool for everyone had quote, family-weakening implications. he said quote, the child development envisioned in this legislation would be truly a long leap into the dark for the united states government and the american people. a long leap into the dark. 40 years after president nixon said no to preschool for all american kids with the weird leaping in the dark analogy, president obama is trying to bring a version of that idea back with a plan for early education for all americans. but this time the president has wind in his sails blowing in from an unlikely source. it's blowing in from a really, really red state. from maybe the reddest of all red states. this is how oklahoma voted in
2012. mitt romney swept every county. in 2008 john mccain swept every county. in 2004 george bush swept every county. oklahoma is the reddest place we've got in america. and republicans, you may have heard, like to think that they do not think much of the policy ideas of barack obama. which is why it was so interesting to hear the two states that president obama mentioned as models when he announced his state of the union plan for preschool. >> tonight i propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every single child in america. [ applause ] in states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children, like georgia or oklahoma, studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, form more stable families of their own.
>> president obama took that proposal on the road, visiting a pre-k class, pre-kindergarten class in decatur, georgia. he played a game of i spy with the kids there and noticed the magnifying glass. nancy drew style. he had phonics. he did the kinds of things you do in pre-k if you have pre-k where you live like they do in georgia. georgia is a conservative state. but no state is conservative like oklahoma is, right? and yet oklahoma has had universal pre-kindergarten since the late 1990s. and they got it in the most amazing way. the story starts with this guy, joe eddins. he's a rancher, a biology teacher, an oklahoma state representative, and that rarest of all oklahoma political critters, joe eddins is a democrat. at the time he got to office in 1994, oklahoma schools were putting 4-year-olds in school because the law allowed them to and because a glitch in state law said inadvertently oklahoma schools would get paid for having extra kids enrolled in
kindergarten. well, they started putting 4-year-olds in kindergarten and it turned out putting pre-kindergarten aged kids in kindergarten classes didn't necessarily suit those kids all that well. so mr. eddins proposed closing the loopholes that let 4-year-olds be in oklahoma's kindergarten classrooms. but when he did that, he snuck in way deep in the legislative thicket of the where for's and the hereby withes he snuck in an entirely different grade, for prekindergarten for those kids he kicked out of kindergarten for being too young to be there. in doing so he gave oklahoma the most successful pre-kindergarten education program in the entire united states of america. and it was all done kind of on the qt. joe eddins, oklahoma state rep, hoped that nobody would catch on to what he was doing. but it worked. oklahoma's pre-k kids got a chance to learn their letters and their numbers and their colors and how you wait your turn and you take only your own graham cracker and you nap when you are told to nap. on the world's greatest radio
show, "this american life," my friend alex bloomberg got a chance to ask joe eddins about how this all happened, about his sneak bill. alex asked whether mr. eddins could have gotten this thing done in oklahoma if people had really known what he was doing at the time he was doing it. listen. >> i don't see it ever being funded if you had it like other states do. if you had to say here's a program that we want to implement. here's how much money it'll take. whoo, where are you going to get the money? okay? if you would have to have a line item appropriation, nobody would have supported it except the young mothers, and they have no political clout. >> what lessons could other states -- say, other states want to try to do something like this? >> they don't have a prayer. they don't have a prayer. they don't have a prayer. because it's expensive.
and there's -- state legislatures are run by people that don't want -- they want to cut programs, not add programs. >> those other states don't have a prayer of getting what oklahoma kids got. what oklahoma kids got by stealth. and now oklahoma loves. oklahoma loves it because kids in oklahoma just a few years into this started making truly long leaps in their letters and their spelling and their problem solving. oklahoma kids made truly long leaps. black kids, white kids, native american kids, hispanic kids. everybody. it really worked. and yes, it costs money to do this. but the academics who track this stuff say that the earlier you invest in a child's development the more you get back. they say that this is among the smartest money you can spend in public policy. and that was president obama's case this week. >> we know this works. so let's do what works and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind. let's give our kids that chance.
>> we know this works. specifically, we know this works in the reddest of all of the red states. we are not used to policy being extrapolated from oklahoma to the whole country. and i do not mean to offend oklahoma with that statement. it just doesn't really happen. but could this be the time with this democratic president saying hey, you know what? georgia and oklahoma are doing it right. and the whole country should follow their lead. could it work? after all, richard nixon is not going to veto it this time. joining us now is james heckman. he's a nobel prize winner and professor of economics at the university of chicago. he is an advocate for the idea that you can increase equality by investing more in very little kids. professor heckman, thank you so much for being here tonight. >> it's my pleasure to be here. >> in the states that have the kind of program that the president is calling for, are there any lessons to be learned? clear lessons about what works and what doesn't work, what might be extrapolatable to a larger platform or to other states. >> well, it's not just a question of these particular states, although they're models
and they provide an example. but there are many programs that have been evaluated for many, many years where we can see what the economic and social benefits are of these programs. and so i think it's important to draw lessons from a broader portfolio of policies that have been implemented. >> what is -- what explains or what is it about these programs that is so economically beneficial? what gives us such a bang for the buck is the way we think of this as a policy matter. >> you're asking for the particulars of why they work or -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- just how it's evaluated? >> or how we know that they work. >> well, we know they work because we've actually done experiments where we give people these programs, randomly assign them, and others are not randomly assigned, and we follow these people for as long as 40 or 50 years in their lifetimes to see what the benefits are of these programs in terms of their income, in terms of their participation in crime, even in terms of their health, and in terms of their schooling and many other dimensions of social performance.
>> are there specific aspects of the type of pre-k or early education that have larger benefits later on? i mean, pre-k education can be lots of different things. lots of different states have different standards. do we know anything about what is most important about getting it right if you want to get those kind of benefits? >> well, getting it right involves putting quality into the program. there's no question. you can't do it on the cheap. that's for sure. >> what is -- what do you look for in terms of quality education? what are you spending more money to get? >> well, we have to understand what these programs are doing. these programs are working with children and with families. and they're supplementing the family lives of disadvantaged children. that's really the ingredient. the successful ingredient is really asking how you can replicate for disadvantaged children the kind of advantages that more -- that children from wealthier and upper-class environments come from. get.
>> how does that speak to the prospect of having this as a universal benefit, something that kids of all different advantage levels or economic strata, all sorts of different demographic orientations, how does it speak to that being something that everybody gets if it disproportionately benefits kids who are from worse off background? >> first of all, you have to understand, as you said yourself in your introduction, the proposed idea, i guess going back to walter mondale, was a sliding-fee schedule. everybody could have access to these programs. but the payment would vary depending on the income level and the degree of disadvantage. >> in terms of the politics here, i know that you're not a political scientist in these matters -- >> no. >> -- but do you think there is -- do you think that there is an economically and scientifically sound argument to make to counter the political conservative concerns that this is going to supplant family life in some way, it's going to undermine family living? is there something we know from the data that could be used politically in that argument? >> see, it's interesting. i hadn't realized this quotation you read from richard nixon. it's just the opposite. these programs are actually
bolstering family life. we know that one of the biggest challenges and something president obama and many politicians can't say, one of the biggest challenges in american society is the changing family environment, especially for disadvantaged kids. a lot of kids are born into environments where they're not getting the same stimulation. single-parent families where the mothers are high school dropouts or not very well educated. are not getting the same benefits as children from more advantaged homes. and that has consequences. and we can remedy some of those deficits, and we can actually improve those consequences by giving those children the kind of -- at least some version supplementing the family life and giving them some of the same opportunities and working with both the parents and the children. this is really a family strategy. and this shouldn't be a liberal or democrat versus republican conflict. this should really be something that should resonate with people who value and talk a lot about family values and also people
who are interested in inequality and reducing inequality. this is one of the rare public policies that has two features. it's economically productive. it survives very stringent analyses. and at the same time it reduces inequality and promotes social mobility. >> james heckman, nobel prize-winning professor of economics at the university of chicago. it's fascinating to have your perspective on this. thank you so much for being with us here tonight. i really appreciate. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. that last point that he made, i think somebody should cut that into a youtube clip and send it to everybody they know on facebook maybe. maybe we'll do that in the commercial break. no, i'm busy. we'll be right back. nnouncer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep.
do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo
[ heart beating, monitor beeping ] woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen.
group while the democrats sat and waited sullenly for their turn. and then the other side, the other side of the room would jump up and the republican side would all sit down. that's the way it was for years. but we don't do it that way anymore because for the past couple of years it is non-partisan seating. they go out of their way now to sit next to someone from the other party. so republicans and democrats at the state of the union now are all mixed together. congress started doing it that way just in 2011 when the state of the union that year was scheduled just days after the mass shooting in tucson, arizona that killed six people and that nearly killed congresswoman gabby giffords. her intern daniel hernandez, who helped save her that day, and her surgeon, both of them went to the state of the union that year, as did the parents of the little girl, christina taylor green, who was killed in that shooting. arizona's congressional delegation held open a seat for gabby giffords herself that year, and the president mentioned her right at the top of the speech. but even with all of that attention to what had just happened days earlier in tucson, tucson was not discussed that
year at the state of the union as a catalyst for policy change. the president made no mention in that year's speech of the problem of gun violence or any related policy reforms. that was in 2011. one of the most moving moments of the next state of the union, the following year, 2012, happened before the president began his speech. as lawmakers filled the room, a quiet applause started up in the chamber and initially it was hard to tell why people were clapping. but as the applause continued to build, it became clear that the capitol was applauding louder and louder and with more and more emotion for gabby giffords because she was there and she made her way to her seat. she was in the chamber for the president's speech that night, one year after suffering a gunshot to the head. gabby giffords' husband, astronaut mark kelly, was also there in 2012. he was seated with the first lady. but yet again in 2012, even with that very emotional presence, there was no mention from the president about gun violence or related reform as a matter of policy.
this year finally things were different. the first visual reminders of gun violence that we saw at the speech this year were the green ribbons, right? vice president joe biden wore one. several members of congress did as well. in honor of the kids and the educators who died in the mass shooting at sandy hook elementary school in newtown, connecticut. green and white are the school's colors at sandy hook elementary. in addition to the green ribbons, which were everywhere, more than 30 people who were personally affected by gun violence, people who lost their child or another loved one, more than 30 people with that connection to gun violence were in the gallery, were in the audience watching the speech. people who lost loved ones in mass shootings like aurora and newtown and tucson or in the kind of one-off gun violence that happens every day in our country. accidental shootings, drive-by shootings, workplace shootings. the parents of one of the little girls killed at sandy hook, grace mcdonnell, her parents were there at the state of the union, along with the younger brother of vicki soto, a teacher who was killed at the school that day. two sandy hook teachers were in
the audience including one who survived gunshot wounds to her foot and leg and hand. she was invited by the congresswoman from newtown, elizabeth este. several of these folks also spoke at a press conference on gun violence that took place before the state of the union, highlighting the fact that they would be there watching in person. first lady michelle obama had gun violence victims seated with her for the speech. she invited cleopatra and nathaniel pendleton. their 15-year-old daughter hadiya pendleton was killed last month in chicago just about a mile from the president and first lady's chicago home. the first lady also invited police lieutenant brian murphy, who was the first on the scene police officer at the oak creek, wisconsin sikh temple mass shooting in august. lieutenant murphy took 15 bullets to the head, neck, and body when he confronted that well-armed shooter that day. he survived. also seated with the first lady was another sandy hook teacher, kaitlin roig. the first lady has hosted victims of mass shootings at the state of the union before, but
in past years that honor, that symbolism never translated to the speech itself. right? to policy. well, that this year in 2013, it changed. >> senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets because these police chiefs, they're tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned. each of these proposals deserves a vote in congress. >> if you want to vote no, that's your choice. but these proposals deserve a vote. because in the two months since newtown more than 1,000 birthdays, graduations, anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from
a gun. more than 1,000. one of those we lost was a young girl named hadiya pendleton. she was 15 years old. she loved fig newtons. she was a majorette. she was so good to her friends they all thought they were her best friend. just three weeks ago she was here in washington with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. and a week later she was shot and killed in a chicago park after school. just a mile away from my house. hadiya's parents, nate and cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence.
they deserve a vote. [ applause ] they deserve a vote. they deserve a vote. gabby giffords deserves a vote. the families of newtown deserve a vote. the families of aurora deserve a vote. the families of oak creek and tucson and blacksburg and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence, they deserve a simple vote. >> while the president was speaking, you could see a woman wiping her eyes and holding a picture of her son.
that's caroline murray. she's from illinois. her son justin was shot and killed at 19 years old. that's whose picture she's holding. caroline was invited to the state of the union by illinois congresswoman jan schakowsky. today marks two-month shooting of the shooting at sandy hook elementary in newtown, connecticut. and today more than 5,000 people gathered at hartford, connecticut in the state at the capitol many in the crowd were wearing green to honor sandy hook just as members of congress did at the state of the union speech on tuesday. the people there in hartford were there to honor the children and the educators shot and killed there two months ago but they were also there with policy demands, with demands that the country not forget sandy hook and that we specifically turn what happened there and our outrage over it into change. a lobbyist who works for the nra's wisconsin branch last week told an audience that the organization the nra is now just waiting for what he called the connecticut effect to wear off in the country before they think things will return to business as usual.
justification for making the kinds of change that we all desire seeing. we will not rest until we have changed america. we will not rest until we have changed connecticut. we will not rest until we have done that, which makes our children safer. >> connecticut governor dan malloy today speaking at the state capitol in hartford, where more than 5,000 people turned out today, two months to the day after the newtown shootings to demand policy changes in response. joining us now is connecticut senator richard blumenthal. he serves on the senate judiciary committee. he has introduced the ammunition background check act of 2013. senator blumenthal, thank you for joining us again tonight. i really appreciate your time. >> thank you, rachel. >> it has been two months since what happened at sandy hook. you and i have talked several times on this show since the tragedy about how the nation's going to respond. what is your assessment today? particularly after the issue played such a large role at the state of the union. what's your assessment today about how we're doing in terms
of our national response? >> first and foremost, rachel, clearly the connecticut effect, as that nra spokesman termed it, and i asked the nra to repudiate it, that connecticut effect is not going away. the rally today in hartford shows it. the state of the union response shows it. where the entire chamber literally rose to its feet when the president said those measures deserve a vote, the families deserve a vote. i think we've really reached a tipping point or turning point in the national debate. and what's also different this time, as the president said, is that the nra has lost a lot of its political heft. you know, wayne lapierre has spoken the last couple of days with the kind of hate and fear that clearly consumes him but also consigns the nra as an organization to the political fringe of this national debate. and certainly, he no longer
speaks for many nra members, no longer speaks for the majority of gun owners, and that's a fundamental difference as well. so i think the sense of urgency has been maintained and sustained. the momentum is there. the judiciary committee's going to mark up a bill. in other words, frame the final language of the bill next month if not this month. and those votes will occur on the floor of the senate, i hope and believe, because the president's absolutely right. those families, the victims, the first responders, all americans deserve a vote. >> in terms of the way that the president phrased that in that repetitive cadence that he had that was so moving but also very specific saying these deserve a vote, deserve a vote, deserve a vote, and he went out of his way to say if you want to vote no that's okay but we ought to vote. i wonder what your assessment is of what he's getting at there politically. my sense was that he meant the way that the gun lobby works is by preventing people from ever having to take a stand on this
issue, preventing people from ever having to put themselves in the position of voting against something that would be very popular like a background check. that the way that they get what they need is by making stuff not ever come to a vote. and we ought to vote on it. is that what you think he meant? >> i think that is exactly what he meant, and i think that's our hope for exactly what we want. 90% of the american people say they are in favor of background checks for all firearms purchases. approximately the same percentage, maybe closer to 80%, say they are in favor of background checks for ammunition purchases. keep in mind right now the law says that criminals, drug addicts, domestic abusers, people who are seriously mentally ill are barred from buying both ammunition and firearms. and yet there's no background check to make that law enforceable. the president was very specific as you said so well.
not only about who deserves a vote but what measures deserve a vote. background checks, the assault weapon ban, the high capacity magazine, prohibition, trafficking in illegal weapons, straw purchases and of course mental health initiatives and school safety. there ought to be a comprehensive strategy. we deserve to have a vote. people can vote against it, but the american people deserve a vote. our constituents deserve a vote. and small minorities should not block it. >> senator blumenthal of connecticut, thank you for being here tonight. i'm sure we'll continue this conversation as long as you come back. >> thank you, rachel. i'll be back. msnbc is launching a documentary on monday. i am hosting it. we are expecting this to ruffle a lot of feathers, but i'm going to be able to tonight give you the first exclusive sneak peek. the first preview clip of this. that's here. that's next. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up
in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake
without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪
i'll get you a rental car. i could also use an umbrella. fall in love with progressive's claims service. what's your favorite? >> integrity. >> what do you appreciate most in your friends? >> honesty. >> your idea of happiness? >> a day on the south fork at the snake with a fly rod. >> what do you consider your main fault? >> my main fault? well, i don't spend a lot of time thinking about my faults, i guess would be the answer. >> that's the start of the trailer for a new showtime documentary about to show it's called "the world according to dick cheney" who has no idea if there's anything to object to about him. today with the filibuster of the
president's nominee for defense secretary because republicans are filibustering chuck hagel, we have a soft spot for security leadership. we have over 60,000 americans fighting a war in afghanistan. we have newly heightened tensions with iran over their potential nuclear program. and their involvement in the terrible war next door in syria where the war continues in its brutality where the assad regime holds on even with the rebels announcing more gains. an iranian general was reportedly assassinated inside syria. which among other things means that iran has its generals in syria. they're on the assad side, naturally. this is a tough time in the world for republican senators to decide that america doesn't need a secretary of defense. but they are blocking chuck hagel. leon panetta has said his good-byes, had his going away ceremonies. but they are not letting him leave now. because they don't now how long republican senators are going to keep filibustering. nobody knows.
we have no idea how long it will take. one of the reasons it seems not awesome to not have the leadership in place in our key national security jobs right now is because there is someone inside the u.s. government right now who is leaking things to the press to try to get us to go to war in syria. someone described as an obama administration official started a few weeks ago leaking information to the press that is clearly designed to make it seem like syria has crossed red lines that would require us to get involved in that war. the leaked information is designed to make it seem like syria is using chemical weapons. quote, the official warned if the u.s. does not react strongly to the use of chemical weapons in homes, assad may be emboldened. there is no real proof they're using chemical weapons. and the administration says that is not true. it's not happening. but someone inside the administration right now over
the past few weeks has been trying to make it seem like there are wmds in syria and that syria is using them and we have to get into that war because of that. wmds, we got to go. sound familiar? the difference, of course this time, is it's the official line of the administration this time we should be cautious about the wmd intel. it's just the people lobbying to get us to go into the war who are calling it a slam dunk? the last time we went through this as a country, the roles were reversed. it was our own government. like dick cheney, the president, the defense secretary. they were the ones telling us things that were not true to get us to start a war. it was not that long ago. this is our first preview clip from the new msnbc documentary that's going to premiere on monday about how that deception went down and whether we have learned from it and whether we might be susceptible to the same
kind of thing again if anybody ever tries to do that to us again. watch. >> atta, mohamed atta. leader of 9/11's hijackings. from prague comes a report of a photograph allegedly showing atta meeting with a high-ranking iraqi intelligence officer. the photograph of the supposed meeting is never made publicly available. >> mohamed atta was a slight guy. 5'6" and skinny. the guy in the photograph was muscular and thick and had a neck the size of two of my necks. that's not mohamed atta in the photograph. send it to the lab anyway. in my mind it's put to bed. >> but even without definitive evidence, the vice president goes public with it. >> it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to prague and he did meet with a
senior official of the iraqi intelligence service in czechoslovakia last april. >> i was sitting in my den in my home and remember looking at the tv screen saying what did i just hear? and i -- first time in my life i actually threw something at the television. because i couldn't believe what i had just heard. >> over and over again, the vice president for years would say we had a report of this meeting. it's true. there was a report. and nobody believed it. that's what they didn't add. >> that is from "hubris" based on the same book by david corn and michael isikoff on monday night right here. i will be hosting the documentary on what happened when our government lied us into war. how they got away with it, and whether we understand it well enough to stop it from happening again the next time somebody