from washington "the ed show." we'll discuss the obstruction that is taking place in washington. the plans for 2012. and a whole lot more. that's coming up on thursday night. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, rachel. looking forward to seeing the vice president tonight. > thanks, ed. i'm glad to hear about the pelosi interview. congratulations. thanks to you at home for staying with us the next hour. we're coming to you from washington tonight because the interview tonight is with the vice president. the vice president. the vice president of the united states. that's coming up this hour. very excited to bring that to you. plus the attorney general of the united states is putting his dukes up. on an issue that has been scorched earth in the states all year long. red states changing their laws to make it harder to vote. there has been a big pushback on that tonight from the u.s. attorney general, from eric holder. that's all ahead over the course of this hour. we begin tonight with what's turning out to be a rather bumpy road to the republican

presidential nomination this year. today newt gingrich's new political director in the great state of iowa agreed to resign. he agreed to resign after word got out he had called mormonism a cult. mormonism, of course, is the faith of mitt romney. mr. gingrich's primary competitor for the party's nomination at this point as well as long-shot candidate jon huntsman, the former governor of utah. a gingrich campaign spokesman saying the mormonism was a cult comment was, quote, inconsistent with newt's 2012 pledge to run a positive and solutions orientated campaign. he does say orinetated. i'd say oriented. potato, potato. maybe he's british. he's been saying the key to the republicans beating president obama in the general election is the republican primary should be conducted in a positive fashion. no republican on republican fighting, mr. gingrich says. no negative ads. smiles, everyone. smiles. back in september, back when mr.

gingrich was polling in the single digits, he refused to answer a policy question at one debate. on the grounds that him answering that question might cause republicans on stage to fight with each other. he also called on his fellow candidates to do the same that night. >> i for one, i hope all of my friends up here, are going to repudiate every effort of the news media to get republicans to fight each other. >> newt gingrich is very proud of this don't say mean things idea he's got this year. right? his idea that all the republican candidates should stick together and get along and have a super friendly, no going negative type primary. last month in an interview with yahoo! news, mr. gingrich bragged about this as a strategy, saying, quote, watch the way in which i'm methodically not getting engaged in a fight with my friends. this past weekend in iowa, mr. gingrich again talked up this n negatives republican strategy. >> we'll not engage in negative ads. we're not going to engage in

tearing people down. we should have a positive campaign on the republican side. >> sadly, the newt gingrich happy republican plan started to unravel that very same night. during that night's republican debate when he let this little negativity slip his lips. >> let's be candid. the only reason you didn't become a career politician is because you lost to teddy kennedy in 1994. >> wait a second. wait a second. that's -- now, wait a second. >> i'm no expert, but i'd say that counts as negative. as, what do we say, tearing people down? it's nothing compared to what mr. gingrich unleashed against mitt romney yesterday. >> governor romney said this morning on fox news that you should return the money that you earned from fannie mae and freddie. >> i love the way he and his consultants think of these things. i would just say that if governor romney would like to give back all the money he's

earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at bain, that i would be glad to then listen to him. i bet you $10, not $10,000, he won't take the offer. >> i love that he starts with i love the way he and his consultants think of these things, as if mitt romney can't think of things like that himself. that was monday morning in new hampshire. monday night, newt gingrich was back to the nice guy plan. >> i'll release a letter to my staff, to any consultants, and to any surrogates we have indicating that our determination to run a positive campaign and also any super pac doing so in my name, attack any of my friends who are running, that i would publicly disown them and urge people not to donate to them because i think we do not need that kind of negative influence. all i can promise you is i will

do everything i can to keep this campaign positive. >> newt gingrich did release that letter he just described there, urging his campaign staff and his surrogates to be positive. what's unclear now is whether that letter made its way to one senior campaign aide in particular. there is this one newt gingrich campaign aide who's not only pretty harsh but has been pretty harsh for a long time. manchester new hampshire "union leader" quoted a senior aide in the gingrich campaign calling mitt romney a pro tax increase candidate. that's not very friendly. that senior aide to newt gingrich we learned this week was newt gingrich, himself. newt gingrich senior aide to newt gingrich. mr. gingrich's spokesman telling "the new york times" mr. gingrich did not want to be identified as himself to avoid the impression that he was getting into a fight with the romney camp. which, of course, he was. you wouldn't want to sound negative. at least not with your own name attached to it. better to lob the bomb

anonymously. the other reason for the collapse of the smiles everyone, smiles, idea, is the entry of mr. gingrich himself into the top tier of the presidential race is bringing out the best i negativity from all over the right wing. the newt gingrich pile-on is already a who's who of the republican establishment. "the new york times" conservative columnist david brooks calling gingrich out for narcissism, self-righteousness, intemperance. peggy noonan saying people who know newt gingrich, quote, are mostly not for him. karl rove writing of mr. gingrich, quote, when a man of his self-confidence begins to feel on top of the world, bad things often happen. former republican senator alan simpson, former republican senator john talent, john sununu coming out as not just for the other guy but explicitly against newt gingrich. as has current republican senator tom coburn who says newt gingrich is one of the last people he would ever vote for for president. it doesn't stop with the republican establishment.

the far right shock jock radio host michael savage is offering newt gingrich $1 million if he'll drop out of the race. glenn beck has said if newt gingrich is the nominee he might vote for ron paul as a third party candidate. whether or not ron paul's running as a third party candidate, i guess. this all comes amid mixed signals, frankly, about the sustainability of newtmetum in the polls. new data showing ron paul virtually tied with newt gingrich for the lead in iowa. here's a worrisome figure for republicans in today's nbc/"wall street journal" poll when asked if they would vote for enthusiasm, newt gingrich gets 14% of voters, mitt romney down at 12%. president obama still way ahead of both of them at 25%. so people aren't exactly excited to go and vote for newt gingrich.

but if it's not newt gingrich, they're left with mitt romney. who republicans really don't like. and this 2002 video clip that's going viral on the internet machine today, this is a good example of why republicans don't exactly have a lot of enthusiasm for a mitt romney candidacy. >> i think people recognize that i'm not a partisan republican. that i'm someone who is moderate and my views are progressive and that i'm going to go to work for our senior citizens, for people who've been left behind by urban schools that are not doing the right job. they're going to vote for me regardless of the party label. >> mitt romney pitching himself to massachusetts voters in 2002 as the not really republican republican. the moderate republican with progressive views. that's who republican voters are probably left with at this point if they do not choose newt gingrich. so. even as the newt gingrich pile-on grows, and the enthusiasm for newt gingrich seems sort of shallow, the big unanswered question is if it's not going to be newt gingrich, are republican voters really

going to go back to mitt romney again, if newt gingrich is just the new bubble guy, are they going to go back to romney? is this all there is? peggy lee? joining us now, eugene robinson, "washington post" columnist, msnbc political analyst. gene, is peggy lee the answer? >> i think peggy lee is the answer. we're all going to be singing that song at some point. >> it's amazing. >> it is. it is. you know, there's mitt romney. the constant one. i mean, nobody's excited about him. he stays at his 21%, 22%, 23% in the polls everywhere and doesn't go higher. he doesn't go lower. and now you've got newt gingrich who is hypocritical. gee, you know, that's a story that we can't tell often enough. but he is who he is. and he has a long, long history of being kind of intellectually promiscuous, saying the first thing that comes into his head. he's done it time and again.

he's going to do it, you know, tomorrow. he's going to do it the next day. that's who he is. >> the whole idea, though, of it being mitt versus not mitt, mitt romney versus whoever is the not mitt romney for the moment, is there's no enthusiasm for mitt romney. in order to come up with a contest, instead of it just being the inevitable guy who nobody was excited about, there would have to be somebody who enthused republicans or they got excited about. the enthusiasm number is being so low for newt gingrich in that nbc poll i think is sort of a take a big picture look at this. i'm not sure in newt gingrich is the answer to the we need a non-mitt romney yes. >> i'm not sure he is either. you know, this is one reason why i think you're going to see newt become less and less sunny and more and more mean. because mean seems to be what worked for him. the conservative base seemed to like it when he went after obama and they think here's a guy who's really going to punch the

president in the general election and not debate him in a civil manner as mitt romney might. but who's going to go after him. and so maybe mean works for him. maybe nice doesn't work for him. maybe we're going to see more of the bad newt. >> does mean against mitt romney work or only mean against barack obama work? that's the question, right? should it be the same tactic? >> that's a very good question. you know, i think mean in every context may work better than not mean in every context for newt gingrich. and in any event, he's bleeding a bit in the polls. so he's kind of got to do something to try to keep this momentum up. because if it starts to slide, i mean, we've kind of seen that movie. we know what happens when the non-mitts start to go down. they go down pretty hard and don't come back. then you are, i think, probably left with romney. >> do you think that part of the bleeding in those polls is the republican elite opinion and now some of the elite conservative media opinion turning against

gingrich is actually having an effect on republican voters? do you think it's an independent phenomenon? >> i think it's definitely having an effect on some republican voters. those who are susceptible to t establishment. the kind of tea party hardline wing that's just looking for red meat. maybe they don't listen to the establishment anymore. the fact that so many people who served in congress under newt gingrich are coming out and saying, you know, he's a bad guy, he's a terrible leader, i don't trust him, he's the last person i'd ever vote for, says tom coburn. that's pretty tough. and there are people in those states who listen to these officials, these former officials, and who trust their judgment. so that's got to hurt him. >> with that, i think that's powerful -- i think that's a powerful picture of where things are right now. and i think you're right about how much weight it has. do you think that means republicans end up picking mitt romney as their nominee? there has to be an end to this. no end seems plausible.

>> look, my theory has been these non-mitts would keep popping up and one would be lucky enough to pop up at the right time. >> yeah. >> when people actually started voting. and i thought that was newt. but maybe he was a little bit early. >> yeah. >> so if he starts to slide, i just don't know what happens. you know, soon they are going to be caucusing in iowa and we're going to have an actual result. and then the campaign is going to take its dynamic from that. and so what happens if ron paul wins the iowa caucuses? i think that's possible. >> then we'll both have the best jobs in america talking about it. >> yes, we will. >> gene robinson, thank you so much. good to see you. gene robinson a pulitzer prize winning columnist for "washington post." all right. as american troops are finally leaving iraq for good today, i had the chance today here in washington to sit down with an exclusive interview with the vice president of the united states, with joe biden. my exclusive conversation with him coming up next.

>> iraqi people who've been occupied in the past, looked and really wondered, do these guys really mean it? didn't they come for our oil?

my exclusive interview with vice president joe biden is coming up next.

all year long we have been reporting on the roll back of voting rights in america. new ways to make it harder to vote and harder to register to vote. the rolling back of early voting, making voter registration drives all but impossible, blocking you from voting unless you show some kind of new documentation that you never had to show before and

that hundreds of thousands of people in some states just don't have. all year long, we have been reporting on these new laws that have been pushed by newly elected republican governors and legislatures and state attorneys general. today for the first time we can report on action on this front from the attorney general. from u.s. attorney general eric holder pushing back tonight against those changes at the state level. pushing back in a speech at the lyndon baines johnson presidential library in austin, texas. citing the voting rights act of 1965. it says recent efforts to curtail voting rights in this country, quote, have the potential to reverse the progress that defines us. and has made this nation exceptional as well as an example for all the world. we must be true to the arc of america's history, which compels us to be more inclusive with regard to the franchise. franchise as in the vote. not as in, like, carl's jr.

the attorney general tonight pledging his support for an anti-dirty tricks bill that barack obama sponsored when he was in the united states senate. the attorney general also pledging a thorough, he says fair review, of new restrictive state laws on voting and voter registration. interestingly, also, the attorney general tonight calling on the general public to see the protection of the right to vote in america, quote, as a moral imperative. to speak out, in his words, and raise awareness about what's at stake for voting rights. effectively calling on the citizens of this country to not stand for having our voting rights rolled back. he praised the election results last month in maine where maine, the citizens of maine, recalled a new make it harder to vote law there. the roll back of voting rights in the states this year has been of historic proportions. this move tonight by the attorney general makes it seem like the administration thinks so, too. we'll have more on that ahead plus my interview with vice president biden.

i don't oppose war in all

i don't oppose war in all circumstances, and when i look out over this crowd today, i know there is no shortage of patriots or patriotism. what i do oppose is a dumb war. >> nine years ago in 2002, an illinois state senator named barack obama gave a speech against the iraq war, before that war began. nine years ago, in 2002, a senior u.s. senator from the great state of delaware, joe biden, along with some fellow ambitious democrats including

senator hillary clinton of new york voted to authorize the use of military force in iraq. two-thirds of house democrats voted against that authorization for the use of force, but it did pass easily. and in 2003, the united states invaded iraq. now, 8 1/2 years later, u.s. troops are finally all coming home. joe biden became a crusading opponent of the iraq war from his powerful position as chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. hillary clinton barely missed becoming the democratic nominee for president in 2008. her vote for the war did not help her in that race. she eventually would become secretary of state hillary clinton in the administration of president barack obama and vice president joe biden. the promise that they would bring the war in iraq to a responsible end. in a speech this past october, we learned from president obama what that ending would look like. >> over the next two months, our troops in iraq, tens of

thousands of them, will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home. the last american soldier will cross the border out of iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success and knowing that the american people stand united in our support for our troops. that is how america's military efforts in iraq will end. across america, our servicemen and women will be reunited with their families. today i can say that our troops in iraq will definitely be home for the holidays. >> since that statement in october, u.s. troops in iraq have been leaving iraq at a quick pace. lately they've been leaving at a rate of 500 a day. republicans have criticized the impending end of the iraq war, saying that we should stay there longer. vice president cheney saying he thinks the united states should have negotiated to keep 15,000 or 20,000 american troops in iraq.

the pro-war "washington post" editorial page lamenting today the administration didn't try very hard to leave thousands of american troops in iraq. john mccain has been calling bringing the troops home a failure. defending the war represents failure, what would success be? the administration sees ending the war as success. in their words, they see it as a promise kept. >> president obama and i came to office absolutely determined to bring this war to a responsible end and to keep the promise we made to the american people and the people of iraq that we would meet our commitments. we will keep our promise to remove our remaining troops from iraq, which when we came to office numbered 140,000 american forces. where i come from, where the president comes from, a promise made is a promise kept. and we are keeping our promise. >> vice president biden speaking in iraq earlier this month. vice president biden took time today to speak with me here in

washington. we are leaving iraq with no residual force left behind. everybody's coming home. >> correct. absolutely. >> had the iraqi government requested that 10,000 or 15,000 or 20,000 american troops stayed behind on an indefinite basis,

would you have supported that? was there any u.s. objective that would have been met by keeping more troops there for longer? >> no, not troops in that number at all. i don't think that would have ever -- i don't think we would have responded positively to that. had they come back and said we need some troops to help us train in country these troops or finish this, that we would have considered. but the idea of keeping 20,000 troops there, no. and i don't think would have had any impact. >> the -- >> any positive impact. particularly in -- look, one of the things about iraq is, we made a commitment we were going to leave. the iraqi people, who've been occupied in the past, looked and really wondered, do these guys really mean it? didn't they come for our oil? we didn't take their oil. as i said to the troops leaving, you're leaving in the tradition of american forces. the only thing you're leaving with is your honor and a job well done. and that has made a real impression on the iraqi people. >> there's more of this interview to come. i want to point out, the vice president there bluntly rebutting republicans criticizing the end of the war right now, including former vice

president dick cheney, senator mccain, presidential contender mitt romney and others. all of those republicans have said that the u.s. wanted to persuade the iraqi government to accept a large contingent of many thousands of american troops to stay on in iraq. they have alleged we failed to get iraq's permission for something that wecheney saying it should have been 20,000 troops not coming home. vice president biden flatly telling me today, no, even if iraq asked us for that many u.s. troops to stay, the administration would not have agreed. that is news. there's more news ahead from my exclusive interview today with vice president biden. >> i tell you, i feel like -- i feel like i did something that, or participated in something being done that i can be proud of the rest of my life. mr. vice president, thank

you for doing this. >> nice to be with you.

mr. vice president, thank you for doing this. >> nice to be with you. >> the iraq war, the end of the >> the iraq war, the end of the iraq war in particular, has really been your brief as vice president. the administration has been open

about the fact that the president really tasked this to you. >> yes. >> in terms of winding this down. your son served there. you've been involved as chairman of the senate foreign relations committee before being vice president. you were involved intimately in all of these decisions. do you -- do you feel -- do you feel emotional about the end of the war? >> i tell you, i feel like -- i feel like i did something that, or participated in something being done that i can be proud of the rest of my life. had i stayed as chairman of the foreign relations committee, no matter how engaged i was, i don't think i would have been in a position to be able to affect events on a day to day basis to bring us to this point. our troops brought us to this point.

our diplomats brought us to this point. to be able to -- i'll be blunt with you. after i made that speech in the palace with maliki and talibani, the president and prime minister to iraqi and american assembled troops, i left, got on the phone and called barack, the president and said, thank you, thank you for giving me the opportunity to do something that meant a great deal to me personally and to the country. to end this war in iraq. that makes everything worthwhile in this job for me. >> looking back nine years now, to the fall of 2002. you voted for the authorization of use of force to go to iraq. over the course of those nine years, how do you think the iraq war changed us as a country? is there a lesson learned about how we debate the use of force, how we debate whether or not to go to war? >> i hope to god there is. because, you know, when that

original debate took place, what is easy to forget -- i don't expect people to remember -- those of us like dick lugar and

myself and others who voted to authorize to use force were based on the president's commitment not to use force. he had no intention of using force. it was to demonstrate to the united nations and to the world that we were united in wanting to stop saddam hussein. that's what we were united in. we were united in him coming clean on what he had under his control. and it really, it really spiraled out of control pretty quickly. and so the fact is that i think one of the lessons we've learned is you can go -- america is so powerful, has such an incredible military capability that you can go into any dictatorship and you can try to impose, as was stated, democracy, but it's going to take you $1 trillion, a decade, and you're going to have to make a judgment whether or not you'd better spend your time and effort doing something else to make the world safer than that. i think it's really -- i would give libya as an example. it was clear that moammar gadhafi, who i personally knew, was really not a good guy at all. what did the president do? the president because of the confidence he had and the reestablished leadership in the world, people looked to him as a leader, look to america as a leader. what did he do? we spent several billion dollars, but we didn't lose one american life. we didn't put one boot on the ground. and we had a shared responsibility with the rest of >> when applying that sort of world view and thinking about that logic and the conflict in afghanistan that we are still involved in, i mean, right now the horizon on afghanistan is that that war does not end for

america this year or next year or the year after that, but at the end of the year after that. at the end of 2014 is the horizon that the president described for the end of the afghanistan war. is it possible -- that's also a war you did not start. started by the previous administration. but is it possible that that war could end sooner than the american people are expecting at this point? could that be wound down as well? >> it has the potential to be wound down. it's in direct proportion to how wound up the afghan military is, how good they are, how quickly they come online. and how much responsibility the afghan government, kabul, is able to exert politically within afghanistan. for example, the president said that we were going to withdraw the surge, 33,000 forces by the end of this summer. and he said we would continue to keep a pace, that pace. we're not going to slow this down.

this doesn't mean we're going to wait until the last minute to say the other 60-some thousand folks are going to come out at the end of 2014. so we are -- the president's plan, and he kept his commitment exactly as he stated it in iraq, and he'll keep it as it relates to afghanistan -- is we are going to continue to draw down forces on a continuous basis, continuing to turn over responsibility to the afghans. because at the end of the day, we cannot want stability and peace in afghanistan more than they want it. and so our objective is to as responsibly as we can withdraw american forces in the numbers we have from afghanistan. >> iran borders both afghanistan and iraq. >> yep.

>> bottom line, after the iraq war, is iran in a stronger position than it would have been without the iraq war? because for all of saddam hussein's faults, he was iran's sworn enemy, and now a new iraq is in some ways a de facto ally of iran. >> well, the argument was made early on that we remove two of iran's most greatest concerns sadam in afghanistan -- in iraq, and the taliban in afghanistan. the result now with regard to iran, in large part because of some very significant moves the president made, and some really outrageous moves that iran has made, it actually has lost power in the entire region. the fact of the matter is its only ally left in the region is about to be toppled.

that is in syria with al bashir assad. you have a circumstance, every international norm, from refusing to protect diplomats, violating international agreements relating to nuclear arms and nuclear weapons, attempt to get nuclear weapons, to attempting to assassinate on foreign soil a diplomat. they've been continually marginalized. the biggest thing that's happened, the president has been able to unite the world including russia and china. in continuing to ostracize and to isolate iran. so the truth is, and i really mean this, rachel, the talk about the projection, the capacity of iraq to project power in the gulf is actually diminished. they are less feared. they are less -- they have less influence than they have had any time, i would argue, in the last 20 years. and there will be a relationship between iraq and iran because they have a very long border. they will trade. they should have a normal relationship. but they are not allies. remember, these are the guys that, in fact, fought against iran. even the shia in iraq found

great difficulty with iran. you've seen a shia leader now who's the prime minister sharing power with other of his colleagues. moving against the forces of the militias that are supplied by and have been in part supplied by iran. so i would argue that i see no evidence, no evidence that iran's influence has produced a de facto alliance with iraq, nor has their influence grown in the last three years under the president's policies in the region. >> mr. vice president, thank you so much for your time today. it's a real honor. >> thanks. >> thank you, sir. >> great to be with you. >> thank you. vice president joe biden speaking exclusively, excuse me, with me here in washington,

d.c., today. at the end there talking about iran. the vice president was implicitly encountering some republican criticism that the obama administration should somehow be tougher with iran. among this year's republican presidential candidates, for example, even long-shot former utah governor jon huntsman, who sort of has the reputation as the cool, calm, collected guy in the republican room. even jon huntsman said he'd like to start a war with iran, a preemptive war. former vice president dick cheney said on cnn last night we should have dropped a bomb on iran last week. after one of our drones crashed there. personally, i have to say, it is striking to be in washington in this context. today having this face to face conversation with the democratic administration, this vice president, about his pride in ending the war, which you could see in the way he talked about it there. his pride and their satisfaction in finally extricating us from iraq after 8 1/2 years there. and then to have the parallel republican political conversation in the country be about how upsetting it is that the iraq war is ending. questioning how soon can we start another one next door in iran? ron paul is the only republican presidential candidate who dissents from that view, who doesn't say he wants to start another war and let's not end

the iraq one either. ron paul is the only one among the republican candidates which gives you a counterintuitive politically incorrect angle, why no one in the beltway takes him seriously, the latest ppp poll out today says ron paul is only one point out of the lead right now in iowa.

that's why i recommend crest pro-health clinical gum protection. it helps eliminate plaque at the gum line, helping prevent gingivitis. it's even clinically proven to help reverse it in just 4 weeks. crest pro-health clinical gum protection.

if you cast your first vote anytime after the advent of push-button telephones, by law you should never have encountered a poll tax. this is a receipt for a poll tax in florida. before 1964, it was still legal in this country to charge a tax, to charge money for the privilege of voting. the 24th amendment put an end to that. at least in federal elections. the next year in 1965, president lyndon johnson signed the voting rights act which made it illegal to tax people wanting to cast a ballot in a state election or local election as well. but before then, you could make people pay money as a condition of voting in this country. the voters most affected by the poll tax and other barriers to voting were the ones that entrenched officials most did not want votiny. and generally african-americans in the south. poll taxes were designed to keep the descendants of slaves away from the voting booth. this history is part of why the story of dorothy cooper was a big deal this year. 96 years old, female,

african-american. dorothy cooper managed to vote in nearly every election after 1960. she missed one because she moved. other than that, she voted in every election. this year tennessee republicans passed a law that said you could no longer vote in tennessee unless you had documentation you'd never had to show before and that many thousands of tennesseeans do not have. including dorothy cooper. the many documents miss cooper did have did not match tennessee's requirements for obtaining the new i.d. the state said she'd now need to vote. so tennessee told her she could not have one. which would mean she wouldn't be allowed to go down to the polls and vote. that happened in october. now meet ruth alfrank from wisconsin. she is 84 years old. so far as she can remember, she's voted in every election for the past 66 years. this year the new republican majority in wisconsin decided to pass a bill like the one republicans passed in tennessee. as in tennessee, the wisconsin bill says you can't vote in wisconsin anymore unless you have documentation you never had

to show before. in wisconsin they say you can apply for a special state-approved i.d. that will allow you to cast a vote. the special cards are free. they'd have to be otherwise they'd amount to an illegal unconstitutional poll tax, right? to get one of those free special state i.d. cards for voting you need to show a birth certificate. if for whatever reason you do not have your birth certificate, lots of people don't, close relatives of mine do not, it is something not everyone has even if you have one. if you don't have your birth certificate, getting one costs money. one of the reasons people don't have a birth certificate, particularly older people in the country is if they were born at home rather than a hospital. that's the case for ruth al frank. she was born at home, doesn't have a birth certificate. her mother wrote down the day and year of birth in the family bible. ruth has never had a birth certificate. at the age of 84, she has to pay the state of wisconsin before she can cast a ballot.

voting could actually cost ruth al frank much more than the usual 20 bucks for a birth certificate. her birth was recorded by the state register of deeds, but state register of deeds spelled her name wrong. way back then. it could cost $200, maybe more to get not just a birth certificate but one with the name spelled right. so she can get a state-approved special i.d. so she can vote. which she has been doing without a hitch for 66 years. >> i may never vote again. >> the state vital record division advised ruth al frank to buy the birth certificate with her name spelled wrong on it. they said she should see if the dmv in the state will say it's good enough to vote. quote, if she gets it, great. and if not, the further $200 or more. asked for comment, the republican county chairman where ruth lives says his party, quote, applauds the imp lem take of the law.

the aclu filed suit against the state of wisconsin in federal court with ruth al frank one of several named plaintiffs who say they're being charged in unconstitutional poll taxes in wisconsin. governor scott walker is among the named defendants. nationwide, after republicans took over so many state legislatures in last year's elections, they spent this year looking for ways to solidify those gains maybe. including making it harder to cast a ballot. whenever you cut the time for absentee voting or early voting, whenever you make it difficult to register to vote for block people from voting unless they show documentation they never had to show before and not everybody in the state has, the people most affected by rule changes like that tend to be the poor, elderly, students, minorities, the same people who tend to vote democratic. the same ones entrenched republican officials in these republican-controlled states would rather not see at the polls on election day. the new report from the naacp says a quarter of all african-americans and twice as many latinos as white voters do

not have state approved photo i.d.s the way dorothy cooper didn't in tennessee. this matters in mississippi, you'll be required to show i.d. at the polls. the cards for voting are free. the birth certificate you need to get an i.d. costs 15 bucks in one of the poorest states in the nation. 15 bucks to vote which is a de facto poll tax in the state of mississippi. in wisconsin, a bill was put in last week to make birth certificates free if you need one for voting. he has 20 co-sponsors, only one of them a republican. mostly wisconsin republicans say the same things republicans everywhere say about the new laws that make it harder to vote. they want to protect the integrity of elections for people like 84-year-old ruth al frank, even if they protect her right out of the process. ruth al frank was born paralyzed on one side of her body. with her age and disability, she could get an exception from the new law if she claims to be indefinitely confined. she could still vote for free.

she does not want to use the indefinitely confined exemption because she is able to shuffle off to meetings at the town hall where she serves on the town board. she gets around well enough. no way is miss ruth going to claim she's indefinitely confined. she says, quote, that would be lying. and lying would be wrong. so sleep better, wisconsin. your elections are safe from the likes of ruth al frank. citizen, village, leader and voter for 66 years. if only your elections were safe from the lawmakers who have worked so hard this year making it so hard for ruth al frank to vote. m@n@=@sñññ

so you know that conservative iowa group that really, really wants its name to be said on national television and is demanding all the

republican presidential candidates sign its iowa marriage vow? to refresh, this group's marriage vow is a 14-point pledge to among other things not cheat on your spouse. to not ruin anybody else's marriage. to keep the gays from getting married. there's also a bit about protecting members of the military from intrusively intimate co-mingling among attracteds. also a bit about rejecting sharia law. because marriage? so far michele bachmann, rick perry and rick santorum have signed this iowa marriage pledge. now, now that right wing iowa group that really, really wants its name said on national television has landed their current republican front-runner. newt gingrich. at least they've sort of landed him. newt gingrich has not actually signed the group's marriage vow. particularly the part about agreeing to not cheat on your spouse i suppose might have been awkward. he submitted his own statement now to this group affirming he agreed with their mission. he submitted this statement

laying out the actions he says h would take as president. actions against gay marriage, against abortion. also to maximize capital investment and job creation. again, because marriage? job creation for wedding planners maybe? or for the staff of gay bars for keeping all the gay people single? anyway, that group that i will not say, just to annoy them, is very excited to get what they call an affirmation of their marriage pledge from candidate newt gingrich, even if he won't actually sign it. i'm sure newt gingrich is happy to get them off his back. so there's that. that's today's news in political oaths. but the best new thing in the world today is an unrelated political oath that has been around for nearly 200 years. most of us did not know it existed before today. at least i will venture to guess most of us did not know. it's an antiquated part of the oath of office that elected officials are required to sign by the kentucky state constitution.

kentucky's governor, steve bashir, had to swear to this oath today as inaugurated in front of the state capitol. seeing him do that is how we all learned today that this exists. listen. this is amazing. >> solemnly swear the adoption of the present constitution, you being a citizen of this state have not fought or duelled with deadly weapons within this state nor out of it or sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons or ing a acted as is second in carrying this, thus offending, so help you god. >> in the fair of honor, so help me got. kentucky is the only state in the country to have an anti-dueling clause in its oaths of office. at least as far as i know. but i got to say, learning that today, and learning that unexpectedly today because that's the way steve bashir got sworn in, that is the best new