tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC November 1, 2013 8:00pm-9:00pm EDT
in american government and raise your love that's already there for american-style politics. it's packed with the stories i witnessed personally in the back rooms of washington when i was a bit younger. it also reinspire you to how self-government in this country can really word. that's "hardball" for right now. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes, and as this week draws to a close, we're witnessing a republican party embarking on a new frontier of obstruction, shutting down the government didn't work, threatening to default on the country's debts didn't work. and so now the gop is back doing something they said they would not do anymore. they are targeting america's courts. >> breaking news tonight, it's a major court decision impacting texas women. >> yesterday, a federal appeals court reinstated parts of texas' anti-abortion law that a lower
court had struck down. the law that blew up during the epic filibuster means as many as 13 of 36 clinics in the state that provide abortions will have to stop doing so immediately. yesterday's appellate court ruling means millions of women in the state of texas will not have access to reproductive health services. but it wasn't the only big decision to come down yesterday. >> the federal court of appeals has now blocked changes to the nypd's controversial stop and frisk program. >> in new york, a federal appeals court froze a lower court's ruling that had stopped stop and frisk practice. and that ruling means thousands of people of color in new york city will be stopped and will be frisked because the court said they could be. both of these decisions came from the federal appeals court. the court presided over by judges who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. the decision, these judges have massive impacts on all of our lives and no one understands how
important those judges are more than republicans. and they are hell bent on stopping the president from seating his own. in five years, the president has been only able to confirm one judge in the d.c. circuit court of appeals. >> time and again, congressional republicans cynically used senate rules and procedures to delay and even block qualified nominees from coming to a full vote. >> and yesterday, senate republicans filibustered to the d.c. court of appeals. not because they take issue with her but because the official republican position is that the president of the united states cannot appoint anyone to the second most important court in the country. >> one federal court in washington, d.c. holds a whole lot of power. >> the d.c. circuit court of appeals. >> this is a court that can rule for or against the executive orders of this administration. >> a court that some people have called the second most important
court in the nation. >> it is delivered rebuke after rebuke to the president's agenda. today, the court overturned an obama care provision mandating businesses cover their employees' birth control. this year, it invalidated the president's national labor relations board appointments, making the body nonfunctional. last year, it struck down epa rules on air pollution. all of that from this one court. now, republicans filibustering a nominee isn't new. what is new and dangerous is the reason. you see, the d.c. appellate court has 11 seats, three of those seats are now vacant. and the judges who are there reliablely deliver conservative rulings. if the president could appoint one judge, it would tip the court's balance. if he could fill all three vacancies, it would transform the court and all of american justice. but republicans are now saying that democrats can appoint no one to fill those vacancievacan. in fact, they are now saying that appointing people to fill
vacancies is, get this, court packing. >> this court is not one that needs more judges. as he's trying to pack the court in order to affect the outcomes. >> packing the court because it has issued rulings against the administration is a cynical approach to the judicial branch. >> i certainly hope that neither the white house nor my democratic colleagues will, instead, decide to play politics and seek to pack the d.c. circuit with unneeded judges. >> i don't know what else you'd call it other than court packing. >> actual court packing refers to fdr's attempt to expand the size of a court with extra nominees, not filling vacancies that already exist. if republicans are allowed to get away with this, they are allowed to get away with anything. it cannot stand. and there's a way democrats can end it. >> joining me now to discuss it
is jim manly, he worked in the senate for 21 years, now senior director at public affairs. you have been through the confirmation battles, jim. >> sure have. >> let's start on this. we are in new territory here with this new position by the republicans that filling existing vacancies is absolutely forbidden and will not be accepted, right? >> absolutely. funny how this works, back in the bush administration, it was all fan and dandy to fill all 11 of those seats, but now that we have a democratic president, oh, no, not for them. they're pulling up this phony charge, nothing short of a lie accusing the president of packing the court. which, again, as you have pointed out, the president's trying to do nothing more than fill the current slots. >> now the question becomes, what do we do with this? and i feel like this conversation is loosy with the football, vis-a-vis filibuster and nominations. democrats get angry, republicans filibuster nominees, democrats
get angry, really angry, they say we're going to do something about it, we shall do something. we're going to change the filibuster rules and everyone gets panicked and then there's a conference and everybody talks and come to a gentleman's agreement and all come out and say, well, we're going to let these pass and we're at the same place two months later. why don't we just get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees for the love of god, jim, tell me. >> well, chris, you and i may have a slight difference of opinion. >> i think we do. >> i've got a real problem when it comes to this. if you do away with the filibuster, here's my worst nightmare. grover norquist is calling the shots on the tax policy. all of a sudden under the rules of the senate you need a supermajority to pass tax increases. if you're a pro choice woman especially in light of the fact that with a current make-up of the supreme court, you be concerned you're going to lose your right to access and safe abortion.
so, again, the fact of the matter is, you know -- >> connect those dots for me, though. connect those dots. is the argument this? that if you muck with what the current filibuster rules are, you essentiallyegin to slide down a slippery slope, which will mean in the future republicans will muck with it in all kinds of radical ways? >> exactly. you're playing the long ball. if you're the democratic leadership looking out for the institution as a whole, you've got to be concerned about what may occur in the future. because after all, you know, you can't guarantee -- >> in the minority some day. >> yeah. you can't guarantee. >> here's the problem with the argument. right now, we seeing violations of all kinds of norms. the amount of filibusters has spiked. you have a crazy situation which republicans filibuster anyone to have the consumer financial protection bureau. now we have a situation in which they're saying no one on this court, what happens next, what if they say we won't confirm any of the president's nominees whatsoever.
we're fill bustering them all in perpetui perpetuity. >> i don't want to add further fuel to your anger, which is well chosen, by the way, but the fact of the matter is everything is subject so a filibuster in the senate right now. everything all but the most routine piece of the legislation subject to 60-vote thresholds. you know this and i'm sure most of your viewers know this, but the fact of the matter is, the requirement for 60 votes isn't in the constitution -- >> nope. >> and sure as heck isn't in the rules of the senate either. >> nope. >> it's an artificial threshold these guys set up a few years ago as they tried to undermine the entire democratic agenda. something's got to give. i'm not so sure what it is. but the fact of the matter is, you know, the anger level as you mentioned is rising once more in the caucus. and i'm not so sure what senator reid's going to do. but i'm confidence he's going to do the right thing in the end. >> well, i think the right thing is just scrapping this whole
antidemocratic institution which i loathe from the bottom of my soul. jim manley, thank you for your time. joining me now is barry friedman a professor at new york law, and staff writer for the "new yorker" and colleague of mine. this is just a small part of this massive iceberg, right? which is the filibuster. but this is a new innovative use of it. >> well, this -- it's been horrible, absolutely horrible for almost a generation. and it's gotten much, much worse now. and the filibuster is an obviously antidemocratic -- and i think obviously against the spirit and letter of a constitution. the constitution calls for super majorities in seven cases and for other business, it calls for generally speaking for a majority of a kwarquorum,
quorum's -- >> and the draft is a constitution. who are not in any ways infallible. they thought about super majorities and specifically name places where super majorities are necessary. treaties are a good example. >> part of the reason they had the convention to get rid of the articles of confederation was to get rid of super majority requirements. >> the d.c. appellate court, how important is it, really? >> well, it's extraordinarily important, but let's be fair, all of the federal courts of appeal are important, it's not just happening in d.c. but all over the country. here in new york in the stop and frisk case. you know what's extraordinary about this? to decide not that there's anything wrong with the judge. >> you study this. i'm an msnbc host and i'm mad at republicans because they're obstructing. so stipulated, right? but this does seem like this is off some kind of cliff. like this is different, this is
qualitatively different than . e >> this is beyond gridlock as usual. at least there's usually an excuse about the problem with the judge. in this case, we had a squeaky clean judge, they couldn't think of an excuse, so they announced we're not going to approve any judges. >> and they can do that. these vacancies sit open. there are a ton of vacancies throughout the federal -- in fact, barack obama, has had a lower number of his judges confirmed. >> the president was slow out of the gate with some of his nominees, so there's a little blame to go everywhere. but the decision to shut down the judiciary is incredible. people need judges for things and it's not happening. >> those two decisions, i think, just coming -- you know, three decisions. two decisions yesterday, the reinstatement of the parts of the texas abortion law that were blocked, the reinstatement of stop and frisk which had been declared unconstitutional after a lengthy trial by a district
court judge who gave an interview to one of your colleagues at "the new yorker." and today's decision by the same court striking down this very important and controversial part of obama care. they highlight how important the courts are. but, rick, there's an asymmetry between the left and the right on this score. >> yeah. the left, the democrats never used -- never used the filibuster in this way. if it's court packing to a po t point -- two new judges to an 11-member court. what happens when the next supreme court opening comes up? is it going to be packing the court for the president to nominate? >> that's a great point. if justice scalia says -- i love his descents, they sound like someone in a workplace where he has to work with the biggest idiots in the universe. i can't believe i have to come to work with these idiots. he's one of the most brilliant people in the country, but scalia decides he's had it, right, he retires and there's
now a vacancy. the same logic of republicans would be like, well, it's court packing if you fill that seat. >> double speak, people say court packing. court packing was when roosevelt wanted to add six judges to the nine he had to get the results in every case. the idea that filling vacancies is court packing is -- i just almost can't believe people are saying it and the fact that people would believe it is extraordinary. >> and to jim's point that what happens when the democrats are in the minority? then don't we want the filibuster? the problem with that over the long-term is democrats want the government to work. democrats want the government to be accountable. and if that means when there's a republican government they can pass their program and be judged on it, so be it. and if -- because it also means, for example, with no filibuster, right now, we'd have -- we'd have cap and trade. we would've had a much stronger health bill. a much bigger stimulus. that was the program. and people should be allowed to judge the government on the
basis of its program. >> yes, there's a fundamental -- there's a fundamental way in which the filibuster as currently constituted makes the government dysfunctional and does violence to the mechanisms of democratic feedback in which you vote for a party on an agenda and you judge it based on how it's been implemented. >> a terrible strategy for the democrats. playing defense when they should be playing offense. and when you think about it, the senate's already not democratic. two senators from every state. montana gets two, california gets two, but now it takes 60 senators to get anything done. >> barry friedman and rick hertzberg. thank you, gentlemen. coming up -- >> in the first chapter of genesis, god created adam, placed him in the garden to work it. work is not a penalty. work is a blessing. we have failed in introducing the blessing of work to abled bodied people who have the
ability. we have robbed them of knowing a better life they helped create for themselves and their families. >> that's real sound, by the way. we did not make that up. tonight with 11.3 million people unemployed, 1 in every 7 americans is trying to make due with less after their food stamp benefits were slashed today. we'll talk about who's responsible for it and the impact it's having on families and the economy ahead. so stay with us. avo: the volkswagen "sign then drive" 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,
you heard of the stephen colbert superpac americans for a better tomorrow tomorrow. a stuntish endeavor to point out how lack they became after citizens united. now someone running for congress is actually using the stephen colbert method of fund raising for real. i'll explain later on in the show. [ male announcer ] this is pam.
her busy saturday begins with back pain, when... hey pam, you should take advil. why? you can take four advil for all day relief. so i should give up my two aleve for more pills with advil? you're joking right? for my back pain, i want my aleve. because you can't beat zero heartburn. woo hoo! [ male announcer ] prilosec otc is the number one doctor recommended frequent heartburn medicine for 8 straight years. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn.
when provisions from the 2009 stimulus package expire tomorrow night, $5 billion in cuts to the food stamp program will take effect. the cuts to food stamps also called snap benefits are the first big hit in what activists have taken to calling the hunger cliff. >> i need food stamps and food pantry in order to survive and feed my three children. >> on wednesday night, we brought you the story of the hunger cliff. and today, we went over it as $5 billion of cuts to food stamps went into effect causing hardship for the nearly 1 in 7 americans on food stamps and panic for those scrambling to keep them from going hungry. since our report, there's been an explosion of coverage of the cuts, mostly focused on what they mean for the poor. but fox business had a different take. >> november 1st, could be a very, very -- well, iffy kind of
a day. i'm not just talking about what many in the catholic church view as all saints day. this could be all hell breaks loose day. the homeland security spending $80 million on protecting the irs and buildings in new york. nothing terrorist threats, mind you, but from american citizens because on november 1st, the food stamp program is set to start decreasing the amount that is allocated to food stamp recipients. >> food stamp riots. there's something to be afraid of. of course, nothing like that happened today. just the lies of a whole lot of people millions of our fellow citizens got a lot harder. nothing for someone like neil cavuto to worry about. we called dhs to ask if they spent $80 million to protect against the hordes after the very friendly spokesperson let out an exasperated sigh, dhs sent us a statement that the fox report and those like it was false.
simply for money to replace an expiring security contract and was, quote, not in response to or anticipation of any potential situation. where did fox news get its information? we don't know for sure, but most websites source it to a story on the notorious conspiracy site infowars.com run by alex jones where you can also find speculation about navy s.e.a.l.s being involved in the boston marathon bombings. the "wall street journal" also covered the hunger cliff today and highlighted another angle. what the food stamp cut means for companies' bottom lines, that angle is worth paying attention to. the food stamp cuts don't mean less money being spent on food. as a jpmorgan chase economist told the "new york times," some poor americans may maintain the same food intake but reduce spending on other items. they are one part of an entire austerity agenda that continues to produce completely unnecessary hardship and misery for millions of americans, a full four years into the
recovery. joining me now president and ceo of food bank for new york city and economist jeffrey sachs. and jeff, i want to begin with you. there is a real macro economic effect to a $5 billion cut to food stamps. there's an estimate that $1 spent in food stamps produces $1.74 in economic activity. it is very efficient stimulus. >> yes. although, i want to stay on the main point. it is an agenda of cruelty beyond belief. and one can talk about the macroeconomics and i know you want to, but it's unbelievable what this country is coming to, which is actually taking -- literally, food from the hungriest children in this country. it is disgusting, there is no rationale for it. it would be simple to fund this. in fact, simple to fund it from the richest people in this country who get tax breaks galore, often pay no taxes whatsoever, and the abuse of our
spirit, our morality is shocking and this today is one of the worst things we've seen, period. >> come on, you're a hard-headed economist, and we've got deficits as far as the eye can see america's going bankrupt. it's becoming greece, haven't you heard this? we've got to have tough cuts. we have about 40 hedge fund guys who made $16 billion. and they pay much lower taxes than the average working class american because they get tax gimmicks. you put their taxes at a normal level not even a superhigh level for these unbelievable checks that they take home and you fund 47 million people. >> this is a solution, get rid of what's called carried interest, the loophole you're
talking about. get rid of the carried interest loophole for the top 40 people. do it just for the top 40 -- >> you'd probably get about $3 billion a year from the 40 people alone. this would be, you know, i have here, i brought it because i thought it was relevant. to a piece of legislation submitted by senator levin, which is all of the worst tax phony loopholes for american companies, putting their money in the caymans, this is $220 billion over ten years, it's not about raising tax or anything, it's about closing the most disgusting, egregious loopholes we could feed our children decently without breaking a sweat. >> okay. margaret, why did there's been a lot today. i don't think they're being disingenuous. i think if you look at the record of the parties, there's one party absolutely taking an
action to the party. it's important to point out why, why did this happen today? why did this expire? >> it goes back to a broken promise. you know, couple years ago, we needed to find a way or the president needed to find a way to have a real driver. they were looking to try to improve the nutritional value of school meals. and so, in order to get everyone to agree, we'll take it from the snap program. the extra that the program was getting. but then they were told, but it will never happen. >> right. >> the money will come back. >> right. >> so some democrats were absolutely against it but went with it saying it's coming back. >> this is important. this is what's known in washington as a pay for. and here's what a pay for is. pay for is under the democrats, rules in congress, everything you spend you have to pay for it. and when they were going to spend money on the new nutrition program, which i think is good in many ways, their pay for was sunsetting these this spending a
year earlier than it had been and that's a pay for. that's why the expiration. this was something the democrats put through. >> democrats put through. and now the result has been we're going to ensure that the nutritional value of lunch is better but now there's now dinner. >> right. >> that's really the decision that was made. >> now, i'm not an economist. >> so you can think clearly. >> thank you. however, i will say this, the reason we do need to understand that whole basically 2 for 1 on food stamps is because, yes, people who are concerned about their tax dollars, you're right to be concerned about your tax dollars. but this is a program that truly pays your local economy back? the fact that we would cut it is what really shows why this is cruel. because we have decided to just be completely illogical, which is we're not going to do what makes sense. >> right. >> to potentially punish a
group. >> margaret, the whole thing is a game for tax breaks at the top. >> yeah. >> and that, i think, a lot of people unfortunately don't see because that's all disguised. this isn't about taxing the middle class to pay for this. the is about the taxes at the top that aren't paid. and we have our biggest companies putting money in bermuda, putting money in the cayman islands. earning profits and paying no taxes on them at all and lo and behold, we're told there's no money for the poorest people in the country. >> here's the other thing i would say. you have in your hand here, these are pay fors, right? money -- revenue you can raise. >> absolutely. >> this is what i would say n. the absence of being able to pass this, just have a bigger deficit. i'm serious, i would prefer a bigger deficit in the amount of $4 billion than literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry people which we are doing today in the most shameful way imaginable. >> absolutely. >> and if it doesn't agree with
you, fine, but you're in new york city alone. we're going to lose at the end of this month, $17 million and the end of next month, $17 million and it's going to continue. >> to the local economy. >> it was a great pleasure having you both here. >> thank you for having us. what happens when a sort of joke way to raise money for a fake campaign becomes a totally real way to raise it for an actual campaign thanks to citizens united. we'll be right back. retirement plan.
i started part-time, now i'm a manager. my employer matches my charitable giving. really. i get bonuses even working part-time. where i work, over 400 people are promoted every day. healthcare starting under $40 a month. i got education benefits. i work at walmart. i'm a pharmacist. sales associate. i manage produce. i work in logistics. there's more to walmart than you think. vo: opportunity. that's the real walmart.
you remember citizens united, right? gave us rather iconic moment in 2011. >> last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the flood gates for special interests. including foreign corporations. to spend without limit in our election. >> citizens united in broad strokes effectively opened the gates for corporate spending and election campaigns. but more than that, basically allows anyone or any corporation to spend whatever they want whenever they want to help a candidate win an election. that's the executive summary. the details are pretty complicated and the best illustration ever of the kind of absurd loopholes that citizens united opened up came from stephen colbert. >> you cannot be a candidate and run a superpac. that would be coordinating with yourself. you could have it run by somebody else. >> wait, what? someone else can take it over? >> yes, but someone else who you
would not be coordinating with in terms of pac ads and strategy. >> i think there might be a guy. jon? >> colbert superpac transfer activate. >> colbert. colbert superpac is dead. >> but it has been reborn. definitely not coordinating with stephen colbert superpac! >> all right. so the joke there being that citizens united allows you to create a super pac that raises money and spends money on ads,
quit that super pac, hand off the reins to your best friend, run for office while your best friend supports your candidacy with money from that super pac. >> can i run ads supporting stephen colbert who i believe in very deeply and perhaps attacking his potential opponents who i don't believe in at all? >> yes, you can as long as you do not coordinate. >> can i legally hire stephen's current super pac staff? to produce these ads that will be in no way coordinated with stephen? >> yes. >> okay. so check this out. that comedy routine is now reality in the state of montana. ryan zinky, a former state senator and navy s.e.a.l. is running for congress but before that he was running a super pac
called special operations for america. >> special operations for america is a grass roots pac, you know, aimed at giving the military a voice. giving special operations to guys on active duty, the retired guys a voice in what's happening. >> back in september, zinke quit his super pac, writing down i'm stepping down as chairman and a new leader will take the helm. that new leadership taking the helm would be his best buddy and former navy s.e.a.l. a few weeks after this, zinke declared his candidacy for congress and since then the super pac hasn't exactly been subtle in showing the support for zinke. today is our former chairman for congress' birthday. that links to a fund raising letter from the pac's website. special operations for america is committed to elect leaders like ryan zinke.
donate to special operations for america to support candidates like ryan zinke. they've got the money to do it. and in the most recent filings, special operations for america reported almost $250,000 cash on hand which turns out to be a little less than all the outside money spent in montana's congressional race in 2012, which is the year the special operations for america super pac got off the ground and began to get a decent amount of national exposure for backing mitt romney for president. >> how much are you looking to raise? and is this going to be part of the ads that i assume your super pac is going to put out? >> the unfortunate part of politics is, our voice is directly in relationship to how much money we have. i'm not taking a paycheck. i'm doing this for god and country. >> but as mother jones points out in a terrific piece of reporting on zinke's scheme to financially support his own campaign, looks like his super pac paid more than $26,000 to a company called continental
divide international. and according to zinke's linkedin page, he happens to be ceo of that same company, in other words zinke set up a super pac that happened to cut a $26,000 check to his own company. zinke seems to be taking full advantage of citizens united. prior to the exploits, it was a show on comedy central that exhibited those effects. but the reality has caught up with the satire. and there's nothing funny about it. vo: it's that time of year again. medicare open enrollment. time to compare plans and costs. you don't have to make changes. but it never hurts to see if you can find better coverage, save money, or both. and check out the preventive benefits you get after the health care law. open enrollment ends december 7th. so now's the time. visit medicare.gov or call 1-800-medicare
add brand new belongings from nationwide insurance and we'll replace stolen or destroyed items with brand-new versions. we put members first. join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ explaining my moderate to severe so there i was again, chronic plaque psoriasis to another new stylist. it was a total embarrassment. and not the kind of attention i wanted. so i had a serious talk with my dermatologist about my treatment options. this time, she prescribed humira-adalimumab. humira helps to clear the surface of my skin by actually working inside my body. in clinical trials, most adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis saw 75% skin clearance. and the majority of people were clear or almost clear in just 4 months. 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. make the most of every moment. ask your dermatologist about humira, today. clearer skin is possible. excuse me? glacier point? follow me! ♪ follow me! keep up, keep up, keep up. ♪ look he's right there! follow me! ♪ wow! crystal falls? follow me! [ male announcer ] the nissan pathfinder. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪ with my united mileageplus explorer card.
i've saved $75 in checked bag fees. [ delavane ] priority boarding is really important to us. you can just get on the plane and relax. [ julian ] having a card that doesn't charge you foreign transaction fees saves me a ton of money. [ delavane ] we can go to any country and spend money the way we would in the u.s. when i spend money on this card, i can see brazil in my future. [ anthony ] i use the explorer card to earn miles in order to go visit my family, which means a lot to me. ♪ all right, dear viewer, what do you think the luckiest creature in the world is? according to a new book, bill clinton's got a novel answer to that question. and promise me, you definitely want to hear it. that's ahead. but first, i want to show you the three awesomest things on the internet today. just a few highlights, most of them pumpkin related, like the supreme gourds. all nine supreme court justices sculpted into an orange haze of
harmony. these law students with a lot of time on their hands, apparently. and true crimes like this one, woman busted by airport security by cocaine stuffed pumpkins. but our favorite halloween goof-up is this, journalist jillian york who participated in the tradition of changing her twitter handle to something seasonally appropriate and fooling the "new york times." as her twitter handle correctly noted, she's jillian c. york. the second awesomest thing on the internet from the new york subway system. a video of the new york city subway signs experiment. there are 476 stations in new york city, each one has a black and white striped board. conductors point at the board to prove that they're paying attention.
your carbon monoxide detector. and that is today's top story. >> the practice begun in world war i of extending daylight into the evening hours has been given a huge deserved smackdown. daylight savings time is america's greatest time, methodically explains how it's a big crock. daylight savings time does not save much money. in the old days it saved money on lights and fuel, daylight savings time screws up our sleep, bad for our health and reduces productivity and contrary to popular belief, most farmers oppose it. they can do their job just fine without it and so can the cows. moo. you can find all the links for tonight's click three on our website, allinchris.com. we'll be right back. it's estimated that 30% of the traffic in a city
is caused by people looking for parking. that's remarkable that so much energy is, is wasted. streetline has looked at the problem of parking, which has not been looked at for the last 30, 40 years, we wanted to rethink that whole industry, so we go and put out these sensors in each parking spot and then there's a mesh network that takes this information sends it over the internet so you can go find exactly where those open parking spots are. the collaboration with citi was important for providing us the necessary financing; allow this small start-up to go provide a service to municipalities. citi has been an incredible source of advice, how to engage with municipalities, how to structure deals, and as we think about internationally,
citi is there every step of the way. so the end result is you reduce congestion, you reduce pollution and you provide a service to merchants, and that certainly is huge. ♪ [ male announcer ] eeny, meeny, miny, go. ♪ ♪ more adventures await in the new seven-passenger lexus gx. lease the 2014 gx 460 for $499 a month for 27 months. see your lexus dealer.
for $499 a month for 27 months. 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. humans. even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely, other humans. which is why, at liberty mutual insurance, auto policies come with new car replacement
and accident forgiveness if you qualify. see what else comes standard at libertymutual.com. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? almost four years ago, they came out with "game change," a revealing and often dishy behind the scenes look at the 2008 presidential campaign. now john heilemann and mark haleprin are delivering a sequel called "double down." the book and the authors are being called by some supermarket tabloid trash, looking at you jon huntsman sr., while others are relishing the book's really amazing quotes. first up, revelation that president obama's top aides considered replacing vice president joe biden with hillary clinton, the democratic ticket of the fall in 2011 with mr. obama's low popularity making reelection uncertain.
aides reorganizing focus group sessions and polling. bill daly told the "new york times" that considing a campaign shake-up was simply due diligence. you have to remember at that point the president was in awful shape. so we were, like, holy christ, what do we do? but the lord stayed out of this one and biden remained on the ticket. today, the white house pushed back at the account. >> it's important to know that campaigns and pollsters of part of campaigns test a lot of things. what i can tell you without a doubt is that the president never considered that. and had anyone brought that idea to him, he would've laughed it out of the room. >> and there's the issue with the political force off the ticket. bill clinton, as the "new york times" reports, the book says obama could barely endorse spending much time with his predecessor. mr. obama rarely contacted the former president but changes tuned after the midterm losses. aides thought a golf outing would make the two men closer but they did not even finish 18
holes, obama telling an aide afterwards, i like him in doses. that was apparent following a fundraiser obama was unable to, quote, handle any more undiluted clinton. obama invited aides from both of their staffs to dinner and talk about their children rather than talking politics with clinton. as for clinton himself, he couldn't get over remarkably lucky mr. obama was as this excerpt published by politico, romney's ineptness staggered clinton. he remarked to a friend that while mitt was a decent man, he was in a wrong line of work, he shouldn't be speaking to people in public. as for obama, clinton said the same line again and again he's luckier than a doubly endowed dog. it's a family show, people. joining us political editor for "buzz feed," and host of "disrupt," she's former communications director. >> can we tell people you gave us the unedited version of that
quote? >> i did, i'm just a journalist. i'm just reporting. just to get that image out of everyone's head. so people -- people -- i read and enjoyed "game change," actually. and, you know, this kind of book will generate a lot of -- a lot of, you know, a lot of chatter in the next week. it's one of those books and it will. and so the first thing to me, how do you just as a consumer of news deal with the information presented to you? because it's not just this book this happens. the woodward books are another great example. these books that are behind the scenes, you are there books. you don't know who told you what. you have to read it decoding what is in the book but also what happened offset to make that appear in the book. and i want you to give me sense from reporter and spokesperson perspective and your perspective as a campaign reporter on how to do that right after we take this break. [ susan ] ...as though he had never left.
the end. lovely read susan. but isn't it time to turn the page on your cup of joe? gevalia, or a cup of johan, is like losing yourself in a great book. may i read something? yes, please. of course. a rich, never bitter taste cup after cup. net weight 340 grams. [ sighs ] [ chuckles ] [ announcer ] always rich, never bitter. gevalia.
[ announcer avo: thesales event never bitter"sis back. drive" 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
back with karen finney, and i was just asking you, how should the average reader, karen, who approaches this book, no sources, no notes, you don't know who told why something is in the book, how do you read it? how do you deal with all the conversation we're going to have over it. >> i would say about 50% entertainment fiction/50% maybe it happened like this. people in the book, you may be anonymous in one section and you're telling a story and then quoted on the record in another section and it just may be that off the record section makes you sound a lot better than you would otherwise. so you have to keep in mind the motivation of the people who are talking, they're trying to make themselves look the best they can, they're trying to make their adversaries the worst they can. and sometimes that's within the same camp. that's not necessarily -- >> no, absolutely. >> right, the way these are
written in journalism you call it debackground. you go to hundreds of sources and say, tell me everything, we're not going to use your name or even say -- you know say attributed to campaign aide or journalist, we're going to take what you tell us and put it in a book as an account. right? >> so the sources are protected from being exposed for talking out of turn? >> yeah, absolutely. and, you know, what readers should keep in mind when they're reading a book like this is every presidential campaign to some extent becomes kind of a competition. >> many people in the course of the campaign are thinking about their next gig. they're thinking, i'm going to get this guy elected and what am i going to do? how much can i charge? how good am i going to look coming out of this? how do i mitigate that coming out of this? and deep, deep background can't be -- got to be clear, can't be anywhere near me.
>> right. >> anywhere near me. >> right. >> but -- and i think, and part of it, i mean, i want to make this distinction too. because i think things can be true. if you have ever had a workplace conflict with two people at a workplace who hate each other, you would get very different versions of the story from those two sides even if the broad facts were agreed upon, right. and so the question of like whose side was telling you that. and part of the job here, i think one of the things that comes in the excerpts we've gotten was the chris christie camp and mitt romney camp do not like each other. the campaign concluding that romney's camp were a gaggle of clowns that couldn't complete a circ circus. and i think the conclusion rather than necessarily the substance of those things is they really didn't like each other. and all the stuff in the
conservative media particularly toward the end of the campaign of chris christie cost mitt romney an election, that went deeper than bloggers. the people in the romney camp. >> no, totally, you talk to a romney adviser still off the record they will 100% cite chris christie as one of the main reasons they lost 2012. and that totally comes through this book, at least the excerpts i've seen. the other thing you have to remember is we see a lot about the clinton, you know, clinton coming on possibly replacing biden. all of that is also being colored by how these democrats are positioning themselves for 2016. >> explain that more. that's an important point. that's true because there are a lot of machinations happening in the world of democratic politics that are around 2016 and a lot of positioning happening vis-a-vis that, as well. >> and that's the difference of doing a book where you're reporting during the campaign and doing the writing after the fact. what were the themes -- rather than when it's happening and the book comes out. with regard to chris christie, obviously, if they think that was their problem, that is
malpractice. that's what i'm talking about what people are saying, i've got to get hired again, put this on chris christie. it is interesting with hillary, my read of it was, okay, they think hillary's running and they want to do a book. they want to throw out that, like, you know, hillary was going to be the one. that seemed like a little bit of pandering to me. >> and basically, looks like daly thinks it was considered amongst a bunch of other options. i do think there is no way for the obama/clinton relationship not to fascinate us because these are the sort of most preeminent figures in democratic politics. people crying in bars fighting about it like every night for months of my life. and, no, seriously -- it was like -- >> did you cry, chris? >> i did not. and i don't think i made anyone cry, i hope. but there were tears, you know, shed. and what i do think comes through and i think i've heard this from other people is th that -- these are human beings. that's one of the things i liked about "game change."
it was a reminder, these are human beings under conditions of intense pressure and time constraint and limited knowledge. and things from the outside that look stupid why would any idiot do that? on the inside, you're trying to get through the day. >> sometimes i think the book doesn't give you enough of that. when you have not slept in days and you're exhausted and you're having a meeting and trying to make this decision and you're thinking why do i care that the guy said arugula in iowa. >> that's the best thing -- >> it sounds crazy to the outside. first world problems. but when you're in it, it's like -- >> you're saying in that meeting, you could scream out an expletive that then gets quoted in a context and makes you look like you hated the person on the other side of it when it's just like the raw stress of the conditions of producing that -- >> right. that first "game change" book had so many instances of hillary clinton losing it. flipping out at her aides and screaming. but you know, who knows. i would ventu