MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show" - Transcript: Interview with Sen. Angus King

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Joining us now is the independent senator from Maine, Senator Angus King.

Senator King, thank you so much for joining us tonight. I really appreciate you making time. I know it`s been a long day.

KING: Rachel, it`s great to be with you.

It`s even worse than you mentioned today. Today, was a procedural vote to begin debate on the voting rights bill, which got no Republican votes. It wasn`t a vote on the bill. They didn`t even want to talk about the bill. I think that really, really makes a difference.

And it was -- it was -- I guess you shouldn`t say shocking. It wasn`t really surprising. I didn`t expect to get those Republican votes. But to have them simply say, we just don`t want to have any part of voting rights, what a turnaround. I think it was 2006, the Voting Rights Act was reinvigorated, or re-voted by something like 96 to nothing. Well, that`s not going to happen today.

MADDOW: It was in March of this year, Senator, you wrote an op-ed for "The Post" that has its title, what happens to the filibuster depends on Republicans -- how Republicans play their hand, meaning depending if they allow for common sense voting rights bills to pass, if they work to find compromise on other issues, then there`s no reason -- there`d be no reason to get rid of the filibuster or carve it out on specific issues.

It`s seven months down the road now, how do you feel Republicans have played their hand?

KING: Well, we have had some bipartisan bills, but it wasn`t due to the leadership. It was a group -- sort of a rump group from both sides that negotiated that major infrastructure bill, for example, that got 69 votes. I mean, that was a major accomplishment.

But today is an indication, and what really bothers me, Rachel, is, quite often you have these votes, procedural votes, and then at negotiations. It happened on the CARES Act. The Democrats blocked the consideration of the CARES Act, but that was two, three weeks of negotiations, we ended up with a really good bill that passed unanimously.

What`s happening now, though, is there seems to be no forthcoming discussion from the Republicans. No interest in any part of the bill that we have voted on today, which as you point out was a compromise bill, worked out by Joe Manchin, a former secretary of state, a guy who really believes in voting rights. But they are not coming back with any further discussion.

The filibuster -- and Joe`s theory the filibuster is, it forces bipartisanship, and forces the parties to work together. That theory only works of both of the parties are willing to be at the table, if one of them uses a as pure unadulterated obstruction which is what happened today. Then, you know, that`s when, as you pointed, now I say, you know, democracy has to trump a rule. This is filibuster is not in the Constitution, we need to restore the Senate to what it was back when I worked there 40 years ago.

The filibuster was very rarely used. Now we have to have votes on deputy secretaries of defense, everything requires either a cloture vote for nominees, or 60 votes for anything substantive. That`s not what the framers intended. They didn`t intend a super majority in the Senate and here we are.

Let me give you one piece of math, Rachel, that I think you`ll find surprising. You can get 41 votes out of current Senate which is enough to block any legislation. If you think the states that those 41 senators represent, add up all the population together, you get 24 percent of the American people. So the situation when and now is that 24 percent of the American people have an effective veto, over anything that 76 percent of the American people think is important public policy. I don`t think that squares the democratic theory.

MADDOW: Senator King, when you talk with your colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, and I`m thinking about Senator Sinema, and Senator Manchin, others who have been reluctant to any other new change to the filibuster rule even issues like this. Are they open to persuasion on this issue?

I wanted to talk to you tonight because your credibility on this issue because you have not been somebody who`s willing to throw out this rule, who has wanted to change out the rules from day one, you were reluctant convert on this issue. And I just wonder if that helps you persuade your other colleagues who are coming from the same position as you, who haven`t come as far as you have.

KING: Well, I`ve have had some of those discussions, by the way being reluctant on this issue is not irrational. The reason for my reluctance is that -- you know, this is a double edged sword. What we view as that noxious obstruction, to use, four years, or six years from now when the shoes on the other friend the Republicans have the majority, we might view it as a precious shield to project -- to protect important environmental laws, or you name it, whatever it is, the ACA for example.

So, you know, this is a hard call because once it goes, it goes. I think that Joe and Kyrsten might be open to not abolishing the rule but changing it into such a way that it enforces debate, it allows debate. That`s the whole idea it is supposed to be a limited debate, not a tool of simple obstruction.

So I think we`ll be searching -- Jeff Merkley of Oregon has done a huge amount of work in studying the details how to do it. Norm Ornstein, for example, I think you know Norm, he has a suggested that say, instead of the proponents getting to 60, the opponents would have to muster 40 or 41, they would have to have other people on the floor. Right now, if you are against the bill, you don`t even have to show up because the pros have to get the 60.

So, there are lots of interesting opportunities, let`s get moving people go to the floor and hold the floor. Most people think has a filibuster you know, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, Jimmy Stewart is talking all night, and that kind of thing. That never happens. A filibuster now is too damned easy. You picked up the phone and call the majority leader and say, I filibuster this bill, that`s it. Sixty votes, you don`t have to hold the floor, you don`t have to do anything.

So I think there is space for changes in the rule that would allow some protection to the minority, but wouldn`t allow the minority to effectively have a veto over important legislation, particularly in this area. If this were a simple policy question on some issue or another, I`m not sure I`d be where I am.

But when it comes to democracy itself, and that`s at what at risk, Rachel, I`ve never been worried about the future of my country, because we are headed for a place where people don`t trust elections, where does that -- where does that leave us?

And we saw on January 6th, those people felt violence was their only option. And I don`t want to go there. And so, that`s why I think this is so important. So, we got to find -- if we do a carve out -- you know, Mitch McConnell will then say, well, we`re going to do a carve out in two years for the right to life or something we consider very important.

And, by the way, it`s possible that Mitch McConnell is licking his chops about this. He hopes the Democrats will get rid of the filibuster and then it`s Katy bar the door for him when he`s the majority at some point in the future. So, this is not an easy call. I want you to realize that there is a lot of really important issues that we are going to have to face in making this decision.

But the bottom line is we have to protect the country, we have to protect democracy. We can`t let this wave of voter suppression, and the changing of the rules that you mentioned happen. You know, this is fragile, and we are in a very dangerous moment. This is the most dangerous moment I think since 1860 in terms of the future of the country.

MADDOW: Senator Angus King, independent of Maine -- Senator King, thank you so much for your time tonight. I know it`s been a long day, a long couple of days already, thanks for being here tonight.

KING: Thank you, Rachel. Great to be with you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source