there's not one way to do something. no details too small. american express open forum. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. happy friday. thank you for joining us this hour. let's sphraeu spot the difference. a really big change has happened. see if you can spot what it is. this is what we were told yesterday. it was consistent across different parts of government. yesterday, this was the line. >> i don't know whether you want to call it a war or a sustained counter terrorism campaign. >> i believe what we were engaged in is not a full-fledged war like we were before. it's a heightened counter terrorism occupation. it will have its own pace, its own dynamic, but it's counter terrorism. >> okay.

that was yesterday. national security adviser, susan rice, and secretary of state, john kerry, both saying the same thing. this is counter terrorism. you can call it a war, 23 you want to, by it's not a war. it's counter terrorism. that was yesterday. now, spot the difference. this is today. >> make no mistake. we know we're at war with i-s-i-l in the same way that we continue to be at war with al qaeda and it's affiliates. >> yesterday, we are not at war. today, war has been declared in the literal sense of the world declared. today is when they started calling it war. that's when the press secretary said, for the first time, we are at war with i-s-i-hreufplt. was that a screw up?

did he really mean to say that? 12 minutes later, it became clear that that was not a slip of the tongue. it is official. it wasn't true yesterday, but, today, we are declaring, and by declaring, i mean saying that we are at war. >> the united states is at war with isil in the same way that we are at war with al-qaida. so in the same way that the united states is at war with al-qaida and its affiliates around the globe, the united states is at war with isil. in the same way that we are at war with al-qaida and its affiliates around the globe. we are at war with i-s-i-l. >> this is new today. but if the repetition means anything, they mean it. the pentagon rolling out that new identical line saying we are at war with this group, isis.

or isil which operates in syria and iraq. the secretary of state yesterday and the national security advisor, they said we were at war yesterday. they said no, call it a counter terror operation, instead. so do we have a disagreement about this? so the white house and the pentagon think one thing and the secretary of state and the national security advisor think another? they may have been disagreeing overnight, but now it's settled. as soon as they held their briefing today, they also made clear that they have updated their verbiage as well. now their line is very clear. this is war. >> we are at war with isil the same way we're at war with al qaeda and it's affiliates around the world. >> state department spokeswoman. so, as of this afternoon, it's war.

it has been described at their regularly scheduled press briefings on a friday afternoon. does that mean what they do is declare war now? >> i'll determine what the academic definition of war may be. >> i'll determine what the academic definition of war may be. >> whatever the definition of may be, something did change today pretty dramatically. the united states government shifted on a dime from talking about counter terrorism saying we are already at war against them. why did this traumatic change happen today? it wasn't true yesterday, it's true today. and i'm not sure we know yet why the government made this change today to say we are at war when they wouldn't say it before. if i had to guess, i might pause

it. that this is part of the reason why they have just made this sudden change. >> why is it that our allies in the middle east cannot take military action? why does it fall on us again? >> my argument is yes, it is. but let's not pretend there is one piece of smoking intelligence. this is a judgment issue and one which honorable members will have to make a judgment. >> not decision precede evidence. i do not rule out supporting the praopl. i want to make this point. i do not rule out supporting the prime minister. but i believe you have to make a better case than he did today on those questions.

>> it is very clear tonight that the world has not passed emotion. it is clear to me that the british parliament reflecting the views of the british people does not want to see british military action. i get that and the government will act accordingly. >> it was one year ago in the u.k. british prime minister david cameron was very confident he was going to win that vote. and he took measures to ensure that he would win that vote. that vote in the house of commons was taken as a three-line whip, which is less exciting than it sounds, but still kind of a big deal. when parties whip the vote, they're taking disciplinary measures and they're ensuring that their party votes the way they want them to. it could be a one-line, a two line or in very severe set of circumstances, or a three-line whip. that is a very, very serious mat ere. that is something, supposed to be the kind of offense for which you can lose your position in the party. you can get kicked out of the

party for that. well, the conservatives three-lined whipped that vote. on using military force against syria a year ago, and even so, with a three-line whip, they lost that vote. two dozen members voted now. many did not bother to show up for the vote. in the 48 hours after president obama gave his address to the nation about syria, in that 48 hour window, we have gone from basically a foregone political conclusion, that there was no way our congress was going to take a vote on this issue. to all of the sudden, a situation where it appears like they very well might. something has changed very quickly in the last 48 hours. it seems like, as a nation, that congress ought to step up and make a decision here.

this is the ed coral -- editorial in usa today. the squeamish should be forced to declare themselves now. in a democracy, the use of military time might require radification by the people's representatives. congress, this congress should vote on any and all military action obama takes against this new enemy. here's "the new york times" saying some lawmakers might be anyone to vote that they may not be able to face authorization saying they'd rather sit on the fence for a while to see whether they extend a military campaign saying it looks like a sex campaign or a debacle. never to be underestimated is outrageous. congress should weigh in. and soon.

the winds have shifted on this. really fast. the beginning of this weaken it seemed perfectly clear that there was no chance that congress would do its constitutional duty and vote on whether or not we ought the go to war. but now, the informal whip count with taking a vote, at the washington post, also reporting this, too. they describe now growing support on hmong lawmakers to debate the issue. they are wanting a up or down vote for the strategy is growing why support among lawmakers now.

further and surprising evidence came today in the news that congress is going to come back from their long weekend early next week. what? yes, they weren't planning on working on monday. they're coming back to d.c. a day early in part to make time to vote on part of president obama's plan for how he wants to fight isis. they want to vote specifically on whether they should provide more assistance to syrian rebel groups. they want to make time to start holding hearings on the other part of the president's proposal. i cannot believe these words are coming out of my mouth, but this does not seem like a par s partisan scheme on congress.

it seems like congress might really be coming back to washington. pretty close to election time in order to come back to washington and talk about a hard thing. it's a miracle. a small, political miracle. but kind of a miracle. and president obama is the one who appears to have brought it on with this prime time address to the nation on wednesday night in which he made the case on why the united states should fight isis and how he wants to fight isis. more than 70% of americans now say they want congress to vote on that. editorial boards across the country say they want congress to vote on that. members of congress who would not commit to vote on this before are acknowledging that maybe this is our job, we ought to be debating this and voting on it.

seems like they are going to vote on this. and the president accomplished that change in washington with this speech. i have to say it's not at all clear that he wanted to accomplish that with this speech but it appears to be what he got. and, so, as the white house is very cleanly aware, in part, because they saw it happened to their very good friend, david cameron, just last year, the white house is very keenly aware that if congress is really going to vote on this, in they're going to take it up, they're going to authorize military force. that means there's a chance that congress will vote no. and so as the winds have shifted in washington very suddenly to make it seem like yeah, maybe there will be a vote in congress, maybe even before the election. is that why the administration today made this equally sudden shift to describe us as already being at war with isis already. if we are already at war and congress votes no, then, from

the white house's perspective, they can say, okay, congress, that's good to know that you don't want to start doing anything new. but we weren't already at war isis before you even took that vote. so we're not going to change anything. but if we are already at war before congress takes the vote then the congress vote won't slow down what they are doing in the middle east. did the obama administration just declare we are already at war today? basically as an insurance policy in case congress votes that we shouldn't be at war? chuck todd, the moderator of "meet the press" helps me to climb down off this roof. that's next. pain... and a choice. take 4 advil in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. honey, you did it!

baby laughs! yeah! vo: don't just dream of being the hero. make it happen. i can't believe we're missing the game for this. we're not. i've got xlte. vo: it doubles our 4g lte bandwidth in cities nationwide, so be that guy with verizon xlte. now get 1gb of bonus data, and our best pricing ever on the more everything plan.

when folks think about wthey think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america.

this is not the iraq war of 2002. but make no mistake, we know we are at war with isil in the same way we're at war and continue to be at war with al-qaida and its affiliates. >> the united states is at war with isil in the same way we are at war with al qaeda. we are at war with isil in the same way we are at war with al qaeda. >> the pentagon, the white house and the state department today suddenly using the words "at war" as in the u.s. is at war with isil, all looking at papers

the same way while reading the same line. both of them said no, this isn't a war. but, today, this is new from the obama administration. a small word change with a potentially very big meaning. joins us now, chuck todd, moderator of "meet the press." thank you for being here. appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> is the white house explaining this shift in language suddenly saying with very specific notes, "we are at war" in a way they didn't say it before? >> they are not. this is basically a cave into not having a semantics argument with the republicans inside the beltway. you and i both know how quickly that could blow up into what would be a silly debate, but this has its roots and you know this well, a decade ago, when there was a lot of criticism, democrats specifically, obamaa

when he was a candidate, there was a lot of criticism lobbed at then-president bush for using the phrase "war on terror," and a lot of people said you can't be at war with a tactic that is not a war, what does that mean? and the president, he was very careful the other night, he said it was a campaign against isis to degrade, and so this is where it has its roots. this was their gut instinct and this is what they believe. i honestly think they caved simply not to have a silly debate on semantics that you know washington can get itself all in a fuss over. >> i have a theory on this that i want to give you lots of opportunity to shoot down. it seems to me that when there is a new sort of wind blowing in washington, it seems like it might be more possible congress might take a vote on this issue, not just on funding the rebels

or some side issue about it, but whether or not to authorize force. if congress voted no, wouldn't it be more convenient if they said they were already at war, but this war already existed before you voted? >> i think you are not wrong. that's not too cockamamie of a way to think, because don't forget the president is saying i don't need congress's authorization, i already have it, and he is using the same legal justification that president bush used with the initial war authorization, and that's what this white house believes. i am with you, i think there's a demand for a vote. i think the fact that the calendar is still an even number on it, we are still in 14 and election 52 days away, and there's really a mini panic in

the public over isis and the beheadings and it created anxiety, so you are not going to see harry reid or john boehner, one thing they will agree on is not to bring up a vote now. but i think after the election, i think you could see a vote. frankly, rachel, i don't understand -- it doesn't seem like congress didn't learn the lesson from the initial iraq war, why aren't you holding the administration's feet to the fire on exactly what the strategy is and how do you prevent a prevent this slippery slope from happening, and the fact that we are not having any of the hearings or debate or discussion makes me think a lot of guys didn't learn the lesson from the iraq war. >> the hearings will be starting next week. i thought it was a remarkable -- at least remarkably unexpected

development that the house said they would come back a day early next week, and not only coming back early but coming back when they really need to campaign in their districts and it seems like they are giving themselves some time on this, but if you feel they are going to vote, they are going to have a vote, they will do it in the lame duck. >> they will do it for the training in the moderate syrian opposition, whatever exists of it, and then i think you will see them say -- i think there is enough momentum now where they will have to at least verbally promise to do another vote, but they will postpone it until after the election. >> chuck todd, nbc news political director, and moderator of "meet the press," we will have much more on the newly declared war on isis. thank you very much. >> thank you. much more ahead on tonight's show, including the super weird

red state ballot surprises that could decide which party controls the united states senate for the last two years of the obama presidency. please stay with us for that. one more thing about the human side of the world events and this new declaration of war on isis. the folks over at "esquire" magazine have done a smart and excellent tribute to jim foley, the journalist executed last month by isis, and they have taken this framed exactly between the towers, it's one of the unforgettable images of the century thus far, and the piece gets recirculated widely particularly around the 9/11

anniversary. this year "esquire" decided to put it behind the pay wall. you can read the article without paying, but if you agree to give them 2.$99 to read that piece, it goes directly to a fund for foley. we'll be right back. ir dentures with toothpaste, and dentures are very different than real teeth. they're about ten times softer and have surface pores where bacteria can grow and multiply. polident is specifically designed to clean dentures daily. it's unique micro-clean formula kills 99.99% of odor-causing bacteria and helps dissolve stains, cleaning it a better way than brushing with toothpaste. that's why dentists recommend using polident. for a cleaner, fresher, brighter denture everyday.

while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can ease arthritis symptoms but if you have arthritis, this can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain, so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding

and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion. and now celebrex may be available for as little as $4 a month. terms and conditions apply. to learn more, go to celebrex.com.

last night, we gave you a sneak peek of this chart, possibly the weirdest ever presented on this program. tonight we will explain this totally functional political chart as a way to keep track of one of the weirdest political stories in the country right now. yes, you, too, lola, your time is at hand. stay with us. [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired. i hope he's saving. i hope he saved enough. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. whether you're just starting your 401(k) or you are ready for retirement, we'll help you get there. thlook what i got.p. oh my froot loops! [sniffs] let's do this?

get up! get up! get up! get up! loop me! bring back the awesome... yeah! yeah! yeah! with the great taste of kellogg's froot loops. follow your nose! ♪ ♪ ♪ woooooah. ♪ [ male announcer ] you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. zillow. do you have something for pain? i have bayer aspirin. i'm not having a heart attack, it's my back. i mean bayer back & body. it works great for pain. bayer back & body provides effective relief for your tough pain. better? yeah...thanks for the tip! i am so noh my gosh...now, it's not even funny. driver 1 you ready? yeah!

go! [sfx] roaring altima engine woah! ahhhha! we told people they were riding nissan's most advanced altima race car. we lied... about the race car part. altima, with 270 horsepower and active understeer control. how did you?...what! i don't even, i'm speechless. innovation that excites. it's time to bring it out in the open. it's time to drop your pants for underwareness, a cause to support the over 65 million people who may need depend underwear. show them they're not alone and show off a pair of depend. because wearing a different kind of underwear, is no big deal. join us. support the cause and get a free sample of depend at underwareness.com

there are three states in the country right now where, surprise, it turns out who is on the ballot in the election this year is not who is really running for office, rather the ballot is not going to reflect who is running or the ballot changed at the last minute so it's not going to be who people expect to see on the ballot. something like this happens somewhere in the elections every year, and for some reason it's happening in red states and in all the states in red states, it's because of bad news for the republican party. one of these is in alaska, which is a red state. when palin quit halfway through her career, parnell was elevated to the governorship in alaska and now he is running for re-election there. he was looking at a pretty easy

walk to re-election as alaska governor because he was running against a good democratic candidate and a good independent candidate running against him and they were splitting the vote, and so what happened in alaska, they decided they would stop splitting the vote against parnell and instead get together to try and beat him. they are now running as a fusion ticket against him. the independent is the candidate for governor and the democrat is his running mate, and surprise, parnell, that's not who you expected to be running against in november, and the ballot changed and parnell is in way more trouble than before in terms of re-election chances and that governorship is seen as an independent/democratic pickup. another surprise on the ballot

is in nebraska. everybody thought that like in alaska, his lieutenant governor would step up and run to replace him, and eight years as lieutenant governor and he announced back in 2011 that he would be running in 2014 to replace the governor when he stepped down this year. but then the omaha news herald put in a freedom of information act request for the phone records for the governor's state phone cell phone, and an investigation uncovered a secret life during the lieutenant governor travels around the state, including more than 3,000 phone calls to women other than his wife. one of the women told the paper about lots of details about what she called a years long affair

with the lieutenant governor. so the governor needed a new lieutenant governor. and then the lieutenant governor also resigned after another kind of domestic dispute, and it was involving the police. not to put too fine of a point on it, it stems from a violent turn it, they argued about land that is farmed by lavon and les, and it all happened at the mother of their mother, lola. the dispute between the

lieutenant governor and lois, lanie and less, that happened. the police report a tearful resignation, and now the -- you can look it up. i love it. but because this is a weird election year and there is weird stuff like this going on in red states all around the country, it appears that lavon would not be able to take his name off the ballot in nebraska. the scandal and the police report and the resigning from the lieutenant governorship, it all happened too late legally, and there is no provision for getting your name off the ballot if you want to do so. they decided to let it slide for him. and secretary of state says although the state deadline to remove a candidate was september

1st, the secretary of state says he has a duty to make sure the ballots of correct. nebraska is a red state. but the democratic governor there is a good and credible candidate. could that new scandal in nebraska and the nebraska trouble, the new scandal which is getting a lot of play in the local press affect the democratic chances of winning that governorship. there's a third state where the ballot itself is a shock this year, and the republicans could lose a seat they never thought they had to worry about before. and that is kansas. in kansas things have gone completely unexpectedly pair shaped for the republican party quickly this year. that story is unfolding fast and in the courts and it has national implications and we have that story for you coming

up next. stay with us. let's share the news tomorrow. today we failrly busy. tomorrow we're booked solid. we close on the house tomorrow. i want one of these opened up. because tomorow we go live... it's a day full of promise. and often, that day arrives by train. big day today? even bigger one tomorrow. when csx trains move forward, so does the rest of the economy. csx. how tomorrow moves. revolutionary by every standard. and that became our passion. to always build something better, airplanes that fly cleaner and farther on less fuel. that redefine comfort and connect the world like never before. after all, you can't turn dreams into airplanes unless your passion for innovation is nonstop. ♪ unless your passion for innovation is nonstop.

means keeping seven billion ctransactions flowing.g, and when weather hits, it's data mayhem. but airlines running hp end-to-end solutions are always calm during a storm. so if your business deals with the unexpected, hp big data and cloud solutions make sure you always know what's coming - and are ready for it. make it matter. for bfor a love this strong is a labor of love. there's new iams naturals, with no corn or chicken by-product meal, grain-free, and costs up to 25% less. iams naturals. just one of many iams formulas to keep love strong.

a gesture indicating uncertainty is what the affidavit says. let's say somebody asks you a question and you are uncertain about the answer but you do not want to say out loud you are uncertain about the answer you

want to gesture your uncertainty. what are your choices? there is the classic shrug. or the wobbly hand, like jazz hands, and the less commonly used shoulderless shrug. one of those gestures indicating uncertainty and it could determine the republican's chances of winning control of the united states senate this year. here is why. this is not just any random parallel gram, it's kansas. kansas is a very red state. very red. but look at this. this is the latest three polls for the governor's race in deep kansas this year. look at that. the republican governor of kansas in the red state looks like he may lose his effort to get re-elected in kansas. brownback is an unpopular one.

his democratic opponent, davis, says brownback turned kansas into a far right idealogical laboratory. even a lot of republicans seem to agree with the critique. some moderate republicans have publicly crossed over to say they are supporting the democrat, paul davis, against their own party governor. and the other high profile governor, and he is the nationality party poster boy. he may be the secretary of state in a small state, but he has used that perch to travel the country writing anti-immigrant legislation, and he has been the republican party's chief national marketer in all kinds of laws to make it harder to vote.

he is a very smart guy. he went to harvard and yale and oxford. he has used his position in kopbs ta make him saefl national figure on the far right and very aggressive edge of the republican party, conservative movement always had plans for co-bought's bright future. it looks like he could lose his re-election race to brownback. he is trailing his democratic opponent. not by a lot, but still trailing, in kansas. kansas! a state that picked mitt romney over obamaa by 21 points in the last election. kansas is a state that before world war ii they sent only republicans to the united states senate. and they are going back

generations to the 1930s. but now even maybe that could change as well. last week in kansas, the democrat running for senate against pat roberts, the democrat in that case said he no longer wanted to run for the u.s. senate, and that was a bombshell in that senate race that he wanted to drop out, because the race would then between the republican and the independent. without the democrat in the race, this well-funded and basically independent guy suddenly has a very good chance of winning the senate seat and turning that seat from red into not red. this is how pat roberts was sailing to re-election when there were two guys splitting the vote against him, and this is how one poll says he could lose his seat if one drops out.

kansas is not supposed to be a place where republicans have a hard time defending a u.s. senate seat. but if this democrat is not on the ballot, kansas is going to be a tough race for republicans. and the secretary of state, as he worries about his own skin and own re-election case in kansas, he is also working on a little something something that he has going on at his office that could save the skin of u.s. senator, pat roberts. and chad went down on the deadline day, and he spoke with the deputy, the state elections director who he says gave him instructions as to go about getting his name removed from the november ballot. taylor says he followed those explicit instructions and then asked the kansas elections

director if his name would indeed be removed from the ballot and according to mr. taylor, he was told yes. he left having heard a yes from the director of elections. yes, your name has been removed from the november ballot. the following day, the kansas secretary of state announced that actually, no, chad taylor would not be allowed to with draw his name because he did not file his paperwork correctly? really. and then we get to the shrug. so his office now release add sworn affidavit from the elections director, from the guy that chad taylor told him, yeah, you have done it right, you are off the ballot, the sworn affidavit says, yeah, chad taylor did ask if his name would be removed from the ballot, but according to the affidavit, nobody ever spoke any words in response to that question. instead, the elections director said he gestured that the answer

was uncertain. look at the affidavit. it's amazing. he is like a human magic 8 ball. he asked if his name would be removed from the ballot and i gestured that the answer was uncertain. i gestured by shrugging my shoulders as to indicate, we'll see. it was not this. it was not this. it was the classic shrug. they say nobody ever told him if his name would be removed or not. he sought official advice on how to do this properly before the deadline and the response from the kansas state governor was to shrug in his face. what? it's amazing. here is the kicker. in that same affidavit the director of elections, the shrugger, admits after he

shrugged his noncommittal response he did remove taylor's name from the candidate list, but then his boss called into the office and instructed him to put chad taylor's name back on. nice. the kansas supreme court will hear this case on tuesday and make a final decision about whether the republican candidate can force the democratic candidate to stay on the ballot, even though he made the deadline to which he had to make that decision, and the kpaerpl court will hear it on tuesday. they have to start printing their absentee ballots for this race a week from today. kansas has one week to figure this out before the all-important ballots may be printed who could determine who controls the u.s. senate in the country. and in the meantime, there is

suddenly a giant spotlight coming all the way from the beltway directed at this race. national republicans are all of a sudden fund-raising for pat roberts and campaigning for him and they have new guys flown in from washington, and recent imports, right? mitt romney personally jumped in to help. the kansas senate? that's supposed to be an easy one for republicans this fall. can washington republicans save this race for pat roberts? joining us now is the political reporter at the kansas city star who has been covering this insanely entertaining race closely. thank you for being here. >> great to be here. by the way, there are a lot of gestures going on in kansas, not all of them involving shoulders, as you might imagine. >> i love the idea that their defense to this is, yeah, he asked us a direct question and

our response, was, yeah. >> the supreme court will meet tuesday. six judges, four of them appointed by a democrat's name you might recognize, kathleen sebelius, and the general idea is that they erred and his name should come off the ballot. seufp >> from outside, it looks like if it's a one-on-one match between him and the well-financed independent, he may have a hard time holding on to the seat? >> pat roberts has never had a difficult race in kansas stretching back to 1980. he is a republican in what may be the most republican state in america, and yet in that latest poll he had 36% of the vote in

kansas, and one-third of the voters say they would now vote to re-elect roberts. we have to see what kind of campaign greg orman runs, but pat roberts has a lot of work to do and not a lot of time to do it. he was really hit pretty hard, rachel, as you know, during the primary by a tea party guy, wolfe, and pat roberts is being hit by the tea party on his right and by greg orman in the middle, and he has got seven weeks to figure that riddle out. >> we're watching pat roberts struggle, but what is fascinating to me, as you say, one of the most republican states in the country, maybe the most republican state, we see pat roberts in trouble and maybe secretary of state in potential

trouble. what is going on with the kansas elections this year? are all those individual problems or should we connect them? >> no, we should connect them. we will see how it plays out when voters goes to the polls. what you are seeing, rachel s. whether or not the rubber band is snapping back from the most right ward tilt of the party. you get the sense talking with republicans that they are concerned that whatever reason the pendulum has swung so far to the right that it needs to come back a little bit. brownback, you have talked about it on your show repeatedly, has problems on tax policy. roberts went far to the right because he feared a tea party challenge and now it's difficult for him to get back to the middle, particularly because greg orman is not a democrat. pat roberts expected a race against a democrat and there is a formula for that and democrats

don't do well in senate races in kansas, and they are saying i am not a republican or democrat, and that is really have theme finding out a way to push it to the left and make it easier. >> it's just fascinating to watch. thank you very much. great to have you here. the best new thing in the world is both sorely needed this week, and it's on the show next. please stay with us. (vo) get ready!

fancy feast broths. they're irresistabowl... completely unbelievabowl... totally delectabowl. real silky smooth or creamy broths. everything she's been waiting for. carefully crafted with real seafood, real veggies, and never any by-products or fillers. wow! being a cat just got more enjoyabowl. fancy feast broths. wow served daily. to fill your viagra prescription online? go to viagra.com to find out about viagra home delivery. millions of men have some degree of erectile dysfunction. talk to your doctor, if viagra is right for you,

you can fill your prescription at your pharmacy, or check out viagra home delivery and get started at viagra.com ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain, it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. viagra home delivery. a convenient way to have prescription viagra shipped straight to you. go to viagra.com to get started. so i can reach ally bank 24/7, but there are24/7branches? it's just i'm a little reluctant to try new things. what's wrong with trying new things? feel that in your muscles? yeah... i do... try a new way to bank, where no branches equals great rates.

>> best new thing in a world, yay! happy friday. while u.s. elections can be dramatic and occasionally hilarious, we do not tend to

vote in our elections. even in the 2008 presidential election which more people turned out to vote than any election in the previous four decades, the percent of eligible voters who actually voted in that blockbuster election was just 57%. more than 40% of the country's voting age population didn't show up even for that one. we americans love democracy. we do not always love the act of taking part in our democracy. but it is always sort of a punch to our collective civic gut every time we hear that somebody else somewhere else in the world is doing it better than us. it does happen. you have these really high voter turnout rates from other countries, right? in most cases when there's a really high voter turnout, there's usually a catch. 2002 when saddam was still in power in iraq. they held iraqi elections and iraqi officials announced there

were 11 million voters in that election. and wouldn't you know it, no kidding, every single one of them turned out and voted for saddam hussein. 100% voter turnout and the margin of victory is 100%. seven more years. dictatorships amazingly see high voter turnout elections all the time. but in modern democracies, one of the freedoms that we all have is the freedom to vote or not to vote. and in our little democracy here, lots of us choose not to vote, and that is the way it is in lots of western democracies. there is one modern western democracy right now, though, that is challenging that norm in a mind blowing way. scotland has been part of the united kingdom for over 300 years. while it has its own parliament, it still operates within the

state of the uk. they're now preparing for a referendum on independence. vote yes to secede, vote no. it just takes a simple majority to pass this thing. it's a binding vote. voting is open to anyone 16 year of age or older in scotland. and you don't have to vote in this referendum, it's not compulsory, but apparently everybody in scotland wants to vote. everyone. we learned today that voter registration for this upcoming voluntary referendum in scotland next week is approaching 100%. there are an estimated 4.4 million of registered voters of voting age, and almost 4.3 of them have registered to vote. scotland could basically have a 100% turnout for the vote next week. without a dictator to blame it on. 100% turnout where there's only one thing on the ballot, independence, yes or no. exercising your civic duty at a

rate of 100% of the country, obviously that is the best new thing in the world today. imagine if that happened here. who would be president? that does it for us tonight. we will see you again monday. weekend's with alex witt starts now. another football star in legal trouble. this morning running back adrian peterson turned himself into police over a charge involving one of his sons. the fight against isis. it's a diplomatic battle. can the congress convince key states to help. a stark picture from one side of the country to the other. not so fast, the wait to get an apple iphone gets bigger. good morning, everyone. welcome. here is what is happening. developing right now, ano