About this Show

The Rachel Maddow Show

News/Business. (2013) New.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Virtual Ch. 787 (MSNBC HD)






U.s. 33, America 14, Iraq 13, Karzai 11, Us 9, Washington 9, Rachel 6, No Jerks 4, Advair 4, Baghdad 4, Phillips 3, Obama 3, Jack Lew 3, United States 3, Warfarin 3, Steve Clemons 2, Pentagon 2, Jean 2, The Pentagon 2, John Boehner 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show

    January 11, 2013
    6:00 - 6:59pm PST  

their families. some of them lost businesses, ended up $20 million in debt as he was. it's hard to know. we definitely want athletes to know who are maybe in debt, considering that, there is help. you can't get some treatment that will make you feel better. and we're working as rapidly as we can on a treatment that will actually slow or stop the disease. >> gosh, you look at an nfl game today, it's like a train wreck every play. the contact is unbelievably brutal. the players are faster, stronger, more advanced in their training. do you think the nfl has an obligation to do more to prevent cte? >> yes, absolutely. i mean, a few years ago, as you know, we fought about whether even cte was real. now the nfl has made probably more changes to their game than just about any other professional sport. and now they're funding a lot of research. they just donated $30 million to is the nih foundation. they've led some of the fights for state laws that require education on concussions. and you have to see a doctor.
but we need to do a lot more because we don't even have our arms wrapped around this problem at all. >> chris nowinski, great to have you on "the ed show" tonight. thank you. that's "the ed show." i'm ed schultz. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, ed. do you have a big football weekend ahead of you? >> i'm all in for the packers. we'll see you in the super bowl, rachel. >> i hear you. once we get through the texans, we'll see you there. have a great weekend. >> you too. >> and thanks to you at home for staying with us this fine friday night. on the night of august 31st, 2010, which was a tuesday night, statistically speaking, if you were planning to watch tv that night, you were probably planning to watch a show called ncis" at p.m. that night. if you were not planning on watching "ncis" that night, the next likely according to the ratings was a show called "wipeout." those shows were scheduled for 8:00 p.m. that tuesday night on
august 31st, 2010. but those shows did not air as planned that night. at 8:00 p.m. because at 8:00 p.m. that night, this is what was on tv on all of the networks at the same time, an address to the nation by president obama announcing the end of something that for a very long time had felt like it was never going to end. >> good evening. tonight i'd like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in iraq. >> the time difference between washington, d.c. and baghdad is eight hours. so when president obama started speaking in the united states at 8:00 p.m. on that night, august 31st, it was after midnight in baghdad. it was already september 1st in baghdad. and so what is recorded as the end of the u.s. combat mission in iraq gets listed in the history books as september 2010. it was not the end of everything in iraq for the united states when we went through that transition, but it was really when what started in
2003 finally started to end. the page was turned. >> operation iraqi freedom is over, and the iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country. >> when president obama spoke that night, there were still 50,000 u.s. troops in iraq, and 50,000 americans stayed in iraq after that night for another 14 months until everyone finally left the following december, december 2011. but when the mission changed from a combat mission to the train, advise, assist mission, then it wasn't operation iraqi freedom anymore. it wasn't that same war. it was the way that war came to an end, and that's why it was worth interrupting "wipeout" and "ncis" that night and all the other 8:00 p.m. programing. and that's why it was worth -- at least for me i thought it was worth -- flying out to baghdad to be there for that historic ending as the combat mission ended. that was what happened on august 31st and september 1st, 2010.
and today that's what the president said is going to happen this spring in afghanistan, that same transition. in a surprise announcement, the president today announced a newly sped-up timetable for how the war is going to wind down in afghanistan. >> today we agreed that as afghan forces take the lead, and as president karzai announces the final phase of the transition, coalition forces will move to a support role this spring. our troops will continue to fight alongside afghans when needed, but let me say it as plainly as i can. starting this spring, our troops will have a different mission -- training, advising, assisting afghan forces. it will be a historic moment. >> it will be a historic moment. coalition forces will move to a support role this spring. now, like we saw in iraq, this does not mean that everybody is going to come home immediately this spring.
remember, 50,000 americans stayed on in iraq after the announcement in september 2010. and it wasn't like the danger level for those americans dropped to zero. just being there was still dangerous, and we did still have some americans and some americans wounded in that last year of being there after the change in mission. but this is what ending it looks like. president obama today saying today that it will still be a dangerous environment, that we will still need to do force protection. but the mission is going to change. this is how we start to leave. and it's going to happen as of this spring, which is a surprise, which is faster than anybody said it was going to happen. now, the justification for speeding up the way out, i have to admit, is a little holey, knoll holy as in ahh. president obama saying the acceleration was possible in part because of what has been made in terms of afghan security
forces, their ability to take the lead. i don't know anything about afghan security forces, and neither do you unless you're newly back from the war, and welcome home, but the pentagon's report on that suggest which was reportedly ready before the election this year, but did not get released until after the election for some reason, the official pentagon support on the readiness of afghan security forces says far from afghan security forces being ready to take the lead, it says out of 23 afghan army brigades, only one of those 23 brigades is capable of operating independently without support from international or u.s. troops. this is the graphic in that report that says that. brilliant graphic, right? this is how the pentagon presents data that it doesn't really want to make headlines. but i can interpret it for you. you see the 23 i've circled there? that's the number of brigades. how many brigades can operate, you see there, independent with advisers? well, oh, one. 1 of 23. even if you're bad at math, you
can tell that's not good. the same report, the pentagon's own report shows after the u.s. troop surge in afghanistan, violence in that country was actually higher than it was before the surge, not lower than it was before the surge. so in what case was the surge a success? so it is a bit rich that the reason we can afford to speed up the ending of this war is because things have worked out so well in this war. it's a bit rich. but you know what? the supposed reason we could leave iraq is because of the stable democratic iraqi government we left behind, right? success of the surge and all that. well, the day after we left iraq, the prime minister of iraq issue and arrest warrant for the vice president of iraq, the very next day after we left. so that little story we told ourselves on the way out of that war, that was pretty rich too. but knowing that, do you wish we were still in iraq? do you wish we hadn't left? more importantly, even we do not hit any of the supposed benchmarks that we tell ourselves irrelevant for why and when we can leave, peace in the
provinces, or the afghan government getting less corrupt, to development of trustworthy and capable afghan security forces, even if we have not met any of those benchmarks, do you believe that the u.s. fighting there longer, the u.s. fighting this war for a 13th year, a 14th year, a 15th year would get us closer to those benchmarks than 12 years of fighting have gotten us thus far? will staying longer help? you really believe that? or do you stay as long as you can and do what you can, and then do you go? today quietly and without much ceremony, today president obama announced that we will go, sooner than we had been led to believe we could hope for. in a way that felt familiar for a reason. >> starting this spring, our troops will have a different mission -- training, advising, assisting afghan forces. >> going forward, a transitional force of u.s. troops will remain in iraq with a different mission, advising and assisting
iraq's security forces. >> afghans will have full responsibility for their security. >> and the iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country. >> we still face significant challenges. >> many challenges remain. >> but because this progress, our transition is on track. >> this completes a transition to iraqi responsibility for their own security. >> president barack obama is still in his first term as president. he has not been inaugurated for a second term yet, right. president obama's predecessor started two of the longest wars in u.s. history and never finished them. in this president's first term, he has already ended one of those wars, and he is now ending the second one. and he is doing it in the same way that he ended the first one. it has been a long time coming. for america's military families who are in their 12th straight year now of multiple deployments, years of deployments in support of two wars, two of the longest wars in this country's history that 99% of this country has not fought
in? for afghanistan, for america's military, for america's military families, this is a long time coming. this is a long time coming. this is a very long time coming. joining us now is steve clemons from the new america foundation. steve writes at the atlantic magazine where he is washington editor at large. thank you so much for being here. >> my pleasure, rachel. >> president obama's announcement today that u.s. troops are going to change mission, move to a support role this spring. we had known that it was possible maybe as early as this next summer before today. do we know why the president felt he could accelerate the pace today and do it by this spring? >> well, i think that the president has looked at the -- he just won election. he has looked at the political tea leaves in the united states, and there is not very much support for this. and i think he is making a very important strategic judgment that the timing, that you've got american men and women still on the front line. they're still going to be in danger, but there is nothing strategically achievable in the spring that is different than
what is strategically achievable in the summer or fall. and i think for those people who thought that barack obama was going to acquiesce to an era of permanent war, they're totally wrong. this is a very important day. i was rereading a book called "drift: the unmooring of the american military power" written by one rachel maddow today, and in that you just see the remarkable change in what happened in the decisions to raid iraq and afghanistan, and what was set up just one year ago, the pentagon was simply whispering. jerns simply saying steve, this is korea. we're never really going to leave. so what barack obama has done is extraordinary today. >> how was president obama able to change that common wisdom, at least that common sort of beltway defense wisdom that we would maintain a large troop presence in afghanistan forever? i mean he is seriously talking about the possibility of having zero troops left behind. and president karzai has not said whether he will give the kind of immunity which we know is the foundational -- the
foundational thing that has to happen in order for that to be true. >> when president obama came into office, he did a deal with the military. and at that time, it reminded one of the cold war where if you were at the highest lad of the foreign policy sphere, you had to be a soviet expert or a weapons expert. when you wanted to be a big cheese in the foreign policy environment, you did afghanistan. and that's what the generals did. that's what richard holbrooke, that's what others who were involved in drew their power from. and he did a deal with the military, and particularly david petraeus. i will give you 30,000 troops on top of what is already there to gut punch the taliban and try to soften up the system. and that's all you get. if you can change the circumstances. the military overpromised and underdelivered. and i think that the resolve of not only the president, but joe biden having always been in that view in coordination with others on the team like dennis mcdonough and tom donilon, really recall the deal and the terms of the deal and they took the troops back. and that broke the back of a
notion that a large military footprint delivered automatically the kind of security deliverables that the military was promising. it actually created blowback and counter reaction much like the alliance that you showed in that piece that there is more violence after the surge than before the surge. >> that i think is the key c conceptual that security advances from troop numbers. you didn't get the advances you said would come with the troop numbers. so now you don't get troop numbers indefinitely because they haven't been proven to have the strategic effect that you said they would. that breaking in that logic train has happened in the national security establishment in the obama administration. the question is whether it has happened in congress. do you anticipate a conservative congressional freak-out here, other than from the predetermined one from john mccain? >> well, i think john mccain and lindsey graham and a few others may say it. but listen, very important to go back to the debt ceiling debate,
which we came to the edge of real financial crisis in this country. guess who was on jon stewart and stephen colbert in saying we're spending $120 billion in a country with $14 billion of gdp and it's not good for america. grover norquist. grover norquist was out educating conservatives that this afghanistan war was not in their interests from a financial perspective. forget the strategic questions. and from his work, i think, you really begin to see a quick collapse of conservative support. progressives and i think most independents already had a great deal of skepticism about afghanistan. but it has been these debt issues that have really driven a real collapse of interest and support for afghanistan. so anyone that comes and radically supports an ongoing troop presence in afghanistan is going to look very, very much out of the mainstream to use some of the comments lately that folks have tried to rile up about chuck hagel. >> let me ask you one last question briefly about chuck
hagel. what do you know about how things are going for senator hagel in terms of trying to win over his critics? what is happening with that nomination? >> i have communicated with him, and he is off meeting members of congress. over 24 senators in the last couple of days. he has a lot of other senators. and he is communicating to them that he is strongly supportive of the shaheen thaemt provides support for women in the military who have been raped, regarding abortions. he says he is really going to be a strong leader inside the military of really dealing with something which is a taboo and horrible subject, which is rape in the military of american servicemen against american servicewomen, and also indicating that he is going to be a strong and adamant advocate of continuing the process of aligning with the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." so i think all of those messages he is communicating very solidly, and, you know, he is working senator through senator. i'm hearing it's going well. >> steve clemons of the new
america foundation, the washington note and the atlantic magazine. fascinating stuff, steve. great to have you here. >> thank you, rachel. >> all right. we'll be right back. >> thank you, rachel. [ female announcer ] research suggests cell health
and live a long, happy life together where they almost never fight about money. [ dog barks ] because right after they get married, they'll find some retirement people who are paid on salary, not commission. they'll get straightforward guidance and be able to focus on other things, like each other, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. it's just common sense. why let constipation stry miralax.? mirlax works differently than other laxatives. it draws water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. don't wait to feel great. miralax. before the president can deliver his annual state of the union address to congress, he has to get invited to congress by congress. and today president obama got his invite from house speaker john boehner. so now we can all mark our calendars. february 12th, that's when we'll get to see president obama's first state of the union of his second term.
what does he want to happen in the second term? how does he plan to get it done? we already had a bit of a preview last week once the fight over the bush tax cuts deal was finished, the president gave a speech in which he laid out five issues he said he was ready to move on with the new congress. the first is ending the war in afghanistan. we found out today how the president plans to move forward on that plan with a surprise announcement that u.s. troops are going to have a mission change, that they'll be taking on a supporting role starting this spring. surprise. as for immigration reform, well, back in november, it was during his first press conference after being reelected that president obama said he would push comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to legal status for people without legal records and citizenship for the so-called dream act kids, the dreamers, who are brought here illegally as kids, obut who have grown up here and they want to be citizens. on gun violence, we'll find out what the white house is pushing for very soon. vice president biden was put in charge of the issue by the president. vice president biden says he'll be ready with his
recommendations on tuesday. again, surprise. this is weeks ahead of the deadline that was given to him by the president. on the fourth issue, climate change. we really do not know what the president has planned. back in november all he really promised was a wide-ranging conversation on the issue. same goes for his fifth and final stated priority, education. the president said last week it would be one of his second term priorities, but we do not yet know how it will take shape in his second term, other than the things he talked about on the campaign trail that is the broad outline of what we know is on deck. plus, i think you can add election reform to it. that is probably also on deck. but now we know when we know we are going to know about this agenda for sure, and when we're going to get the details about it. it is february 12. you can mark your calendars that is also abraham lincoln's birthday, and it is also that day that we will find out what happens next for our country. well will find out at least where the conversation what should happen in our country for the next four years is going to start. it's also happening to be my favorite day of the year, state of the union, yeah! ap, merv. [ merv ] thanks, other merv.
programing note. there is no bigger, bolder, or less apologetic advocate of gun control in the entire country than new york city mayor michael bloomberg. he is also really hard to book for an interview. but mayor bloomberg is going to be our guest here on this show on monday night. the politics of gun reform have never been more promising in this country in modern times, and he is the most aggressive, most strategic proponent of that reform in the whole country, and he is here with us monday night. i hope you will watch.
xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com. part of what you and i pay for as american taxpayers is the cost of a whole bunch of other americans living in foreign countries.
we pay for their housing. we pay for their paychecks. we pay for their health care. we pay for their day care for their kids. we pay for their kids' schooling, all while they live in other countries. and the reason this is not denounced in washington as comie wasteful spending on [ speaking in a foreign language ] ness is because we the americans the american taxpayers pay to live abroad the members of our u.s. military and their families. i think we have shown this map before. this is the online interactive modern version of the age old army recruiting pitch to join the army and see the world. indeed, the u.s. military stations people all over the world in ways that are not nearly as controversial as the controversy around deploying people for specific wars. now often american military posts overseas are the long-term result of a war that we fought once upon a time. the major u.s. navy presence and air force presence in japan, for example, started off as an outgrowth of the surrender of japan in world war ii.
the big u.s. military presence in south korea is originally an outgrowth of the fact that big war we thought there and did not end one side surrendering, but in a ceasefire, a tenuous ceasefire, one we still help keep decades later water tens of thousands of american forces. one of the longest wars in history did not result in u.s. troops staying there for after the war and keeping some big u.s. presence, and that was the iraq war. when we left eric iraq, after eight and a half years of war there, no american bases were left behind, and no major u.s. presence is in iraq at all other than the embassy and the consulates, our giant embassy and three other consulates. and that is because the iraqi government would not agree that if u.s. service members in iraq got into some kind of trouble or were accused of some kind of crime, that they should be subject only to american military justice. iraq would not agree to that. they wouldn't agree that americans shouldn't be hand over to iraqi courts if they committed a crime in iraq.
iraq would not agree to give up that criminal jurisdiction over u.s. service members staying on in the country. and so president obama said no. president obama would not agree to subject u.s. troops to iraqi jurisdiction. and that stalemate, that inability to come to an agreement on that issue is why we left zero troops behind in iraq. well, today when president obama announced his speeded up timeline for ending the current u.s. combat mission in afghanistan, he raised the prospect that we may not leave any american troops behind in afghanistan either if the afghanistan government insists that u.s. troops would have to be subject to afghan law and afghan courts in the event that they got in trouble. the same way that iraq insisted on that. this is not an issue that is unique to our latest wars. or this latest decision about where troops are going to be stationed and for how long. what you're looking at here is footage from protests against u.s. military personnel in japan and in south korea after u.s. military personnel stationed
there committed high profile crimes there, and the local population was angry with how the issue was handled in terms of the criminal liability of those u.s. soldiers. this is a sensitive thing. this is a sensitive thing in any part of the world for any country for any leader. and right now it is a sensitive thing for all of us, because our president just told us today how our longest war in american history is going to end. the combat mission changes to a train, advise, assist mission this spring. which is faster than we thought that was going to happen. but how long will americans be in afghanistan at all in any capacity? when the defense secretary was on his way to afghanistan last month and he was taking questions from soldiers on his way there, a master sergeant asked him if in five years, ten years, all those soldiers who had served in afghanistan should expect that their kids would be serving there too, maintaining stability in the region. the defense secretary's response to that master sergeant was essentially, yeah, probably. but it depends on president karzai. the question of whether american
kids born today have some kind of tour of duty in afghanistan in their future is basically in the hands of president hamid karzai right now. and the only person outside the u.s. government who has talked to him at length on this subject any time recently is now our guest. joining us is atiyah abaoui. atiyah had an exclusive and sitdown interview with president karzai in kabul last month. great to have you i don't here. >> great to be on. thank you, rachel. >> in terms of a potential agreement between the u.s. and afghanistan, for a long-term presence for u.s. troops, what -- from talking to karzai, what matters more to him, the number of americans who are still in the country or the circumstances under which they're there, where they are and under what law they're subject to? >> i think what matters to president karzai most from our interview was the circumstances, really, that he wants the americans there in a training role. and on the outlier, he does want
them to fight the insurgency, which he says in pakistan. he hopes the americans will be able to their special operation missions to get the insurgency, the taliban that won't talk. and he says most of those are actually across the border. he also mentioned he will talk about the immunity, that he needs to talk to the afghan people. but in the end, it's the afghan people who are going to decide whether or not they will be willing to give the american troops that immunity. >> the u.s. government insisted both starting with leaks and then publicly from the white house and then personally from the president today that there will be zero troops if there isn't an immunity deal. do you get the sense that president karzai believes that, or does he think that this is something that can be bargained? >> i do believe that president karzai believes that. people around him may not believe that. in fact, his chief of staff earl yes said america needs afghanistan more than afghanistan needs america, which
many of us here would say that's not the case. if anything, we've heard more and more and more americans wanting to pull out completely, seeing this really as a failed mission in afghanistan. president karzai knows that there is a possibility that america can and will leave afghanistan if they don't get what they want. and in fact, president karzai's trying to put his ducks in a row just in case america does leave. he is talking to other governments. he is talking to russia. he is talking to china. he is talking to countries that don't necessarily have great relationships with america. and those countries are trying to take advantage of the situation as well. when i talked to some of president karzai's officials on background, they've told me there have been governments that have been shown satellite images of the various bases, american bases, and saying because of these bases, that america is not planning to leave, and that has angered afghan officials. but president karzai himself, he does know there is a big possibility that america could abandon afghanistan. >> hen he is talking to china and russia and other countries, he is talking to them about bringing their own security forces into afghanistan to supplant a u.s. presence that
might leave? >> he knows they're not going to bring their own security forces in. >> that i can't imagine. >> absolutely. but he is looking for other things, airplanes, helicopters, support for the afghan forces. president karzai knows he is no longer going to be president in august of 2014, that he is going to allow another elections. he won't change the constitution. but right now he is thinking of his own legacy, and really, he is thinking about the afghan people, no matter what the afghans or we may say about him. what i have noticed is he does care about the future of afghanistan. and he even said during our interview he wants his own children to grow up in the country. >> what do you think it would look like logistically in afghanistan, not in the long run, but this year, starting this spring when the president says the mission will change, it will become train, advise, assist. he didn't say it will be the end of combat operations, the same way he said that in iraq. but he did say it's going to be a change in mission. what do you think logistically that will be like in afghanistan? how do you think it will affect daily life? >> i think it's going to be similar to what we've already been seeing.
a lot of the country has already been handed over into afghan hands. and they need their hand-held right now. and basically, when america goes to the train, advise and assist role, they're going to be holding afghanistan, the security forces' hands. they're going to be sitting in the background, waiting for the afghans to ask for help. and they do eventually ask for help. in 2012 we saw a decline in nato casualties, a decline in u.s. casualties in afghanistan. and that was great news. but we also saw a sharp rise in the afghan casualties and deaths in the country. they have taken on the lead. they're working hard to take on the lead. but the question is can they really handle it. we have to remember when we look at security forces, when we look at the army, the marines, the navy, when we look at them, they're fighting for america. they look at that american flag, and they see this country that they're fighting. they have a sense of nationalism. when an afghan soldier looks at an afghan flag, the doesn't see that. the country is so divided right now, they're not thinking about afghanistan as a whole, they're
thinking of their family, their thinking of their village, their ethnicity. afghanistan is too divided at the moment to have a security force that is going to be able to stand on its own two feet without assistance. >> and that is something the u.s. aimed to change over 12 years there, 11 1/2 years there. i'm not sure that america ever could. but the kind of help we lend in the long run is really going to be substantially determined by this very important president for the president. atia abawwi, your interview was terminal in terms of determining where the president is heading. thank you so much. the difference between a hawk and a peacock, pretty much the story of the republican party right now. and it will be told with real life evidentiary facts. plus lots of pictures of peacocks, coming up. copd makes it hard to breathe,
if you're still having difficulty breathing, ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. get your first full prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com. is a fantastic experience. 30 shrimp for $11.99. i can't imagine anything better. you're getting a ton of shrimp, and it tastes really good! [ male announcer ] hurry in to red lobster's 30 shrimp for just $11.99! choose any two of five savory shrimp selections, like mango jalapeño shrimp and parmesan crunch shrimp. two delicious shrimp selections on one plate! all with salad and unlimited cheddar bay biscuits. 30 shrimp, just $11.99 for a limited time. wow, that's a lot of shrimp. i'm ryon stewart, i'm the ultimate shrimp lover, and i sea food differently. if you go for the kind of heroism that is just regular folks heroism, just kindness and decency to a heroic degree, then stay tuned. we have a tribute to exactly
that. and frankly, a really excellent way to wrap your week of news on a friday night. that's coming up. riend. i told her i wasn't feeling like myself... i had pain in my pelvic area... and bleeding that wasn't normal for me. she said i had to go to the doctor. turned out i had uterine cancer, a type of gynecologic cancer. i received treatment and we're confident i'll be fine. please listen to your body. if something doesn't feel right for two weeks or longer, see your doctor. get the inside knowledge about gynecologic cancers. knowing can make all the difference in the world.
at the white house this week, president obama had to bid his official goodbye to the only treasury secretary he has ever known as president. tim geithner. and in so doing, president obama uttered a phrase that i have never heard before. i definitely never heard it in washington. but this saying is apparently common inside the u.s. department of the treasury, and
it has now been liberated outside of its walls. >> there is an unofficial saying over at treasury -- no peacocks, no jerks, no whiners. that would be a good saying for all of washington. no peacocks, no jerks, no whiners. few embody that ideal better than tim geithner. >> tim geithner looks like he is about to explode with laughter listening to the president say that but the phrase is no peacocks, no jerks, no whiners. i mean jerks and whiners, we all get that. but the peacocks part here i think is a term of art. i don't think they mean peacocks in a generic way, i think they mean in a way that is specific to the treasury. here is what i mean. peacocks as birds are strutters, right? they puff their chests out. they like making a big show of their big fantastic feathers, and no offense to our corporate overlords, i'm aware that you can see one particular tiny
little peacock often at the top of our screen right now while i am talking. in politics, the peacock metaphor means you are talking about somebody who struts and doesn't deserve to be strutting. someone who talks the talk, but doesn't really walk the walk. and in the case of the treasury in particular, the president's no peacocks line was put into further context when he went on in his remarks to introduce the new treasury secretary nominee just a few moments later. >> as a congressional staffer in the 1980s, he helped negotiate the deal between president reagan and tip o'neill to save social security. under president clinton, he presided over three budget surpluses in a row. so for all the talk out there about deficit reduction, making sure our books are balanced, this is the guy who did it. three times. >> he didn't just talk about balancing the budget and tackling the deficit, he did it, three times. the president seeming to take a
certain amount of pleasure in being able to describe his treasury nominee, jack lew that way, given the deficit peacockry which pervades washington, honestly, particularly on the republican side of the aisle. republicans really like to talk about cutting the debt and cutting the deficit, as if that is the long-standing prerogative of their party. but it was under republican leadership that we passed two debt exploding rounds of george w. bush tax cuts as well as two wars without any plan to pay for any of it. in the process, republicans took a massive budget surplus that they inherited in 2001 and they turned it into a massive budget deficit eight years later. the person that they inherited the surplus from, that would be a guy by the name of jack lew. >> for all the talk out there about deficit reduction, making sure our books are balanced, this is the guy who did it, three times. >> three times. jack lew's job in the clinton administration is that he was
bill clinton's budget director in the final three years of his presidency. and it was during those final three years of the clinton presidency when the u.s. government for the first time in over a generation ran surpluses. washington took in more money in those years than it spent. take a look at this chart. you see those years in which the deficit stopped being a deficit, and instead became a surplus in those were the jack lew years. those were the years that jack lew was in charge of the budget. those were also the years in which debt clocks had to be unplugged because they had never been programmed to run backwards. it was not jack lew alone who led us to that fiscal breakthrough as a country. but he was budget director, and with success comes bragging rights. and even know the obama administration kind of declared war on peacocks in this announcement yesterday, it is worth wondering if they might not actually be better off if they did strut on these issues a little bit more than they like to, because you would never know it from the way the deficit peacocks are crowing against this administration, but the
deficit is now more than $200 billion smaller than it was when president obama first took office. we are currently witnessing the fastest deficit reduction in this country since the end of world war ii. the alleged big spending liberal barack obama has already signed into law approximately $2.4 trillion deficit reduction measures over the next decade. and that could be higher, except for the deficit peacocks on the other side of the aisle in congress keep balking at ideas like cap and trade and the dream act and closing tax loopholes, all of which would reduce the debt and the deficit. and all of which are policies that republicans used to like until president barack obama said that he liked them too, and then they turned against their own ideas. even the dreaded obama care was one of the biggest debt reduction proposals considered in washington since the clinton era. and republicans hate that with the heat of a thousand suns. so some talk the talk, and others walk the walk. all right. there is a school of thought
that says that deficit reduction shouldn't actually even be a national priority right now, as we slowly recover from the most brutal recession since the great depression, there is a strong case to be made that the government should just borrow away. the government should take advantage of how low interest rates are, should take advantage of a market in which the world is eager to loan us money. we could bore relike crazy right now, invest that money in job creation and infrastructure and economic growth. we could worry about debt creation when we are full by back on our feet. if we took that path we could get back on our feet faster if question use that spending to invest in our economic strength. but the political world is going to reject -- if the political world is going to reject or ignore that school of thought, if we are going to be all ringing our hands about the debt and the deficit about the debt all the time, we should at least get our facts straight about who has been better for the deficit and who has been worse. no peacocks, no jerks, no winers. it sounds good in establinglish
it's going to sound even better when they put it in latin on the back of a quarter. and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do.
republican house speaker john boehner sometimes gets criticized for being a crier. i think he gets criticized for that because some people see crying as a sign of weakness. but honestly if you are a crier it is not a sign of weakness or strength or anything else. you are just a crier, it is just a thing about you. you are just wired that way. i think it find that crying to be endearing, because i, too, am a crier, the national anthem, for example, i cry every single time i hear it. unless you do a terrible job, i'm going to cry, unless you sing it poorly. also, busters in the subway, and really good political speeches. even if i can't stand you as a
politician i may cry at your speech. i cried a lot at the george bush essential address, i couldn't stand that guy. if you're a crier, you're just a crier, god made you that way. don't even get me started on those sad puppy commercials, all right? one of the things has to do with the fact i'm an openly gay person, i have been out since a teenager. and i have done my share of time at gay pride parades, which happen in may and june. and even though i have been to many of these things and even in some way, they're all the same, i'm here, i'm kwooqueer, i'm uso it. the idea i may see something like this again at a gay pride parade, one thing at a gay pride parade makes me weep. these are the parents of gay people marching in gay pride parades, just to say they love
their kids, basically. makes me cry every time. and my parents love me. this is not borne out of a personal hardship or anything. but seeing those straight parents out there on the streets saying yeah, i'm here in this parade because i love my kid and i am not ashamed kills me every time. anyway, the reason this exists, the reason this phenomenon exists in america, the reason there are all of these totally normal average moms and dads out there with this dignified claim of love for their kids is because of this specific incident. this moment in time. this is the first time it ever happened. this is 1972. the woman at the front there and sort of the center of your screen on the left side. that is jean manfield, her son was gay, she made that sign herself. it says parents of gays unite in support of our children. and she held that sign and marched with her son in this
parade in 1972. she did not belong to any group. she was not there with anybody other than her kid. but she didn't like the way her gay son was treated in public and decided to make that sign, to appeal to others out there. she made that sign in greenwich village, when she did that, she later thought the screaming and cheering she heard from the crowd, as she went down the parade route. she thought the cheers were for the famous dr. benjamin spock, who marched behind her in the parade. but as the cheering people screamed and crowded around her she realized the cheering and screaming was for her. as we marched in the parade, she realized, so many people came up and cried for her and others in the route. she said she got calls after calls, calls from parents of other gay kids who just wanted
themselves to talk with her. and in 1973, she put together the first meeting. she marched alone in 1972, formed the group in 1973. and by 1978, jean man fred found herself unwittingly the leader of a movement. >> the most important thing is love and understanding. and of course, when the parents come, they're full of guilt. there is shame, they don't want to tell the neighbors. and we try to relax them. we can understand their initial surprise. and -- but we try to let them know that homosexuality is just another shade of sexuality. it is no better or worse. our children are as good as anybody's. and we love our children. and all the parents love their children. and there is certainly the most
important thing in our lives is to see that our children are happy. and i don't care what people know, personally, because my son is more important to me than the gossip that might go around the neighborhood or among people. and people, my friends, i have many who respect me and understand. and they feel as i do. they respect my son, and they, in fact -- when they see things that are not right, they will write to protest. because they realize that i have helped educate them, and they are educating other people. >> that was jean manford speaking on "the today show" in 1978. the organization she founded is a national nonprofit, with 180 affiliates, starting with the move to support her son. it became a powerful thing, a cultural advance on this thing that is a civil rights issue. an advance that is widely
credited as a development for the civil rights. watch this. >> soon after the protest at stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft spoken elementary school teacher named jean manford. it was 1:00 a.m. and it was the police. now her son, morty, had been at the stonewall the night of the raids. ever since he felt within him a new sense of purpose. so when the officer told jean that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely caught off guard. and then the officer added one more thing. and you know, he is homosexual. well, that police officer sure was surprised when jean responded, yes, i know. why are you bothering him?
and not long after, jean would be marching side by side with her son through the streets of new york. she carried a sign that stated her support. people cheered, young men and women ran up to her, kissed her and asked her to talk to their parents. and this gave jean and morty an idea. so after that march, among the protests and the difficult time for our nation, jean and her husband, jules, two parents who loved their son deeply, formed a group for parents and other children, as well. in the meeting, about 20 people showed up. but slowly, interests grew. morty's life, tragically, was cut short by aids. but today, the organization endu endures, they have more than