Good morning everyone! Happy Friday to you!

Joining today's Morning Joe show is Harold Ford Jr., Jeremy Peters, Mike Allen, Lynn Sweet, David Axelrod, Bianna Golodryga, Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum, Jeffrey Goldberg, Chuck Todd, Sara Eisen, Frances Stead Sellers, David Kertzer, Joel Peresman and more

Lindsey Lohan has been released from probation after 8 years. I am not sure if that is a real story or not, by Joe is excited about Bernie Sanders. I can't tell if Joe is being serious right now. 

Bernie Sanders 1972: Men fantasize about abusing women, women fantasize about being raped. In his defense, the odds that an avowed socialist writing in the early 1970s might have been high when formulating his opinions have to be north of 90 percent. According to various psychological surveys conducted over the past 40 years, somewhere between 31 and 57 percent of women confess to having rape fantasies, with the true number doubtless higher given the reluctance of some to admit that they’ve had thoughts like that. A survey published last year claimed that 29 percent of women had fantasized about being forced to have sex while 60 percent of men had fantasized about “dominating” someone sexually. Should any of that stop us from wringing every drop of political pain for Democrats from this?

No. No, it should not.

“A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy,” wrote Sanders. “A woman on her knees.  A woman tied up.  A woman abused.”

Sanders didn’t specify as to how he had gained such a  deep understanding of the male psyche.

In terms of his understanding of female sexual fantasies, Sanders provided similar insight.

“A woman enjoys intercourse with her man–as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously.”

Charles Cooke acknowledges that if any Republican in the race had written something like that, however long ago, not only would he be hounded by the media over it but so would every other Republican in the race and even prominent Republicans not in the race, purely for the war-on-women squirm factor involved. It would be a days-long lefty “rape culture” media jamboree. And yet, says Cooke, we should take the high road:

Bernie Sanders wrote these words in 1972. Maybe he was young and foolish. Maybe he was a different man back then? Maybe society was unrecognizable and he had bought into all sorts of faddish psychology. Who knows? And frankly, who cares? Sure, the Democratic party would crucify a Republican for the same offense. But they shouldn’t. A society in which people are drummed out of politics for words they wrote 43 years ago is an ugly society indeed. 

Sometimes the best way to address hypocrisy is to take the high road. This is America: land of second chances. This is a place of redemption and of reinvention and of continual learning. Nobody honestly believes that Bernie Sanders is a sexual pervert or that he is a misogynist or that he intends to do women any harm. Nobody suspects that he harbors a secret desire to pass intrusive legislation or to cut gang rapists a break. Really, there is only one reason that anyone would make hay of this story, and that is to damage the man politically. Perhaps I’m old-fashioned. Perhaps I’m hopelessly idealistic. But until I see any sign of actual wrongdoing I’d much prefer to slam Sanders for his dangerous and ridiculous politics than to delve back into his past and embarrass him with a long-forgotten opinion. I certainly hope that my fellow conservatives will feel the same way, even if they do not enjoy the same courtesy from their adversaries.

But it won’t damage him politically. That’s the Democratic advantage. This is a fart in the wind, something he might be asked about once in a check-the-box way by a reporter who’ll be only too happy to treat it as some sort of curio of youthful dunderheadedness. He’s positioned himself as the most ostentatiously left-wing member of the Senate; he’s running, kinda sorta, as a left-wing alternative to Hillary Clinton. Short of child porn turning up on his computer, there’s virtually nothing he could say or do sexually that the left won’t dismiss as irrelevant. In fact, follow the first link up top and you’ll see that his deep thoughts on rape were part of a piece about women being conditioned to crave subservience and degradation because of their traditional dependence on men.

Why, Bernie’s a gender warrior! Even so, why not make him and Hillary squirm by forcing them to comment? The only way you’ll convince liberals to take Cooke’s sober approach to decades-old thought crimes is to make them taste the injustice of it, even for a day instead of the two-week fiesta that would greet some analogous Republican comment. It’s the same impulse as demanding that Hillary be asked when she thinks life begins or how many genders she believes there are. It’s not that the election will turn on her answers, it’s that forcing the left and their friends in the media to experience the discomfort of a gotcha may lead them to be more circumspect in using that strategy against the right.
Anyway. Via Reason, here’s Remy paying tribute to another, even deeper deep thought from Senator Socialist.

Former U.S. House Speaker Hastert indicted on federal charges. Former U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert was indicted on Thursday on federal charges, including for lying to the FBI, relating to an alleged effort to hide $3.5 million in payments to a person to conceal past misconduct. 
The Illinois Republican, who left office in 2007, was charged with structuring the withdrawal of $952,000 in cash in order to evade the requirement that banks report cash transactions over $10,000, and lying to the FBI about his withdrawals, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago said.
Each count of the two-count indictment carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Hastert, 73, was not available for comment, according to his office at the Dickstein Shapiro law firm in Washington where he is listed as a senior adviser.

According to the indictment, the unspecified misconduct involved payments to an unnamed individual who had been a Yorkville, Illinois, resident and had known Hastert for most of the person's life.

Before his terms in Congress, Hastert served three terms as an Illinois state representative and was a teacher at Yorkville High School in suburban Chicago for 16 years, according to a biography from Wheaton College where he graduated in 1964. According to the indictment, Hastert met with the person several times around 2010 and discussed past misconduct by the former lawmaker. Eventually, Hastert agreed to pay the person $3.5 million in compensation to conceal the misconduct, the indictment said. Shortly afterward, Hastert began making cash payments to the individual, according to the indictment.

Hastert served as a congressman from suburban Chicago for more than 20 years before resigning from the House in November 2007, having lost the speaker's job when Democrats gained control of the House in the 2006 elections. Hastert joined Dickstein Shapiro in 2008 as a senior adviser. Hastert resigned from the board of the exchange operator CME Group Inc on Thursday, the company said. (Reporting by Eric Beech in Washington, Tom Polansek in Chicago and David Bailey in Minneapolis; Editing by Peter Cooney and Eric Beech).

One of the longest shots, Republican Pataki launches White House bid.
Former New York Governor George Pataki announced on Thursday he will run for the White House in 2016, becoming one of the longest shots in a growing pack of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination.

The three-term governor has not held office since 2006 and barely registers in opinion polls on more than a dozen Republican presidential hopefuls.

Pataki, 69, is a moderate voice in a Republican field heavy with conservatives likely to do well in such states as Iowa and South Carolina that hold the first nominating contests for the November 2016 election. He acknowledges he is starting the race from way back.

Lacking name recognition, Pataki might struggle to make it into the first Republican debate in August on Fox News, which will be limited to the top 10 Republicans in national opinion polls. Announcing his candidacy in the town of Exeter, New Hampshire, Pataki took a swipe at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for charging high speaking fees.

"She speaks for the middle class? They are the party of privilege; we are the party of the middle class," he said.

As governor of one of the most Democratic-leaning states, he supported abortion rights and signed tough gun control legislation. But on Thursday he said his "conservative policies" had slashed the number of people on welfare.

Pataki is the eighth Republican to formally enter the White House race and others like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush are waiting in the wings, leaving Pataki with only slim chances. "It will be a very stiff climb up a very steep mountain, but that hasn’t stopped me in the past,” Pataki told the New York Post this week.

He said on Thursday his time as governor during the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington had given him valuable insight into the fight against Islamic State.

Pataki favors deploying ground troops against Islamic State in a limited way. "And yes, if necessary, American forces will be used to actually defeat and destroy ISIS so they can pose no threat to us here," he said in Exeter, where the Republican Party was founded in 1853.

Pataki called for a simplification of the U.S. tax code and a ban on former members of Congress becoming lobbyists, and vowed to repeal President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.

The former governor has been carrying out low-key campaigning in recent months, especially in New Hampshire and Florida. (Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu and Emily Stephenson in Washington; Writing by Alistair Bell; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Howard Goller)

There Might Be Another: Rep. Peter King Might Launch White House Bid. Rep. Peter King is another Republican who has not ruled out a presidential bid. He said Thursday that he's "still looking at it" and that he'll make a decision in the next month.
The New York congressman noted on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports that he's been to New Hampshire "about nine" times.

King, who is the former head of the House Homeland Security Committee, prioritizes the issue of national security. He said Sen. Rand Paul, who is often at odds with his more hawkish party on the issue, "does not belong int he Republican Party when he carries that message."

"We can't allow the Republican party to fall into the hands of those who are anti-defense and who are weak on national security," King said.

Donald Trump to make 'major' announcement in NYC on June 16. Outspoken billionaire exec will then travel to NH; presidential run appears likely.
CloseUP Donald Trump looking at 2016 run very strongly

If you’re a Donald Trump fan, mark June 16 on your calendar. If you’re a Donald Trump fan in New Hampshire, mark June 17. Donald Trump, saying he is “very much inclined” to run for president, told about 300 Granite Staters at New England College on Monday afternoon that Hillary Clinton’s actions involving her family’s foundation are “criminal.” WMUR.com has learned that the business executive and reality television personality will make an announcement at the Trump Tower in Manhattan on June 16, and he plans to return to the first-primary state the following day.

A source close to Trump confirmed the dates and said a "major" announcement by Trump will be forthcoming, but stopped short of saying outright that Trump will announce his candidacy for president at that time.

All signs point to a Trump declaration of candidacy, however. He has been moving in that direction for many months with steps beyond those he took in his previous flirtations. And he told WMUR.com in April that he is “very much inclined” to become a candidate.

Trump has set up a pre-campaign organization, headed by conservative strategist Corey Lewandowski of Windham, and has hired staffers in New Hampshire and first-caucus state Iowa, as well as in South Carolina, where the first primary in the South will be held.

Last week, Trump unveiled a 17-member leadership team in New Hampshire.

In his blunt style, Trump has repeatedly pounded President Barack Obama as ineffective both domestically and on foreign policy, warning that Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran will result in “proliferation all over the place.”

He has blasted Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, saying her deletion of emails from her private account was “criminal.” He has railed against China “manipulating the markets” and he has promised that if he becomes president, he will not cut Social Security.

Trump has also insisted that his fellow Republicans who are either announced presidential candidates or considering running are unimpressive. And he has promised, as he did again this week, that if he becomes president, the United States will have “total victory” over Islamic state terrorists “at the least cost, and it will be a total and complete victory.”

Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch up for sale.

Neverland

Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch has gone up for sale with a price tag of $100m (£65m), reports the Wall Street Journal.
The Santa Barbara development was once home to a zoo, an amusement park and its own fire station. Much of this has gone but there is still a floral clock and a railway. Jackson bought the house in 1997 for $19.5m but struggled to pay for it, until an investment company stepped in to help him save it from auction. The property is now called Sycamore Valley Ranch and has undergone extensive redevelopment since Jackson's death in 2009.

The 2,800 acre (1,100 hectare) site is now being sold jointly by Sotheby's and Hilton & Hyland. The estate agents have warned off fans hoping to get a glimpse inside the piece of Jackson history, telling the Wall Street Journal anyone wanting to view the property would be subject to "extensive prequalification". "We're not going to be giving tours," said Suzanne Perkins of Sotheby's International Realty. Jackson bought Neverland in 1987 intending to create a fantasy land for children. It is named after an island in the story Peter Pan, where children never grow up. After he bought it, Jackson built a zoo and fairground but it was closed to the public in 2006 after he failed to pay his staff or maintain proper insurance.

Trevor Noah to start on 'Daily Show' in September.
Comedian Trevor Noah will succeed Jon Stewart as host of "The Daily Show" after Stewart steps down this year. The face of late-night TV has changed considerably in recent years as many longtime hosts have moved on to other things. Here's a look at the leading players.<br />

Trevor Noah will debut as the new host of "The Daily Show" on September 28, the show announced in a tweet.

"Late night will NEVER BE THE SAME. Or maybe it will. Watch to find out," the post added, with a video showing Noah testing out the set. More than a month after Jon Stewart's last episode on Aug. 6, Trevor Noah will take over the desk on Sept. 28. The network announced the news on Twitter Thursday morning, with the accompanying video. The clip finds the 31-year-old comedian getting comfortable in the anchor's desk when he gets interrupted by Stewart.

September also will see the arrival of former Comedy Central personality Stephen Colbert on another late-night staple: CBS' Late Show, which just saw David Letterman exit last week. Stewart has been the host of The Daily Show since 1999. And, except for several months of time off in summer 2013 to direct his feature debut, Rosewater, he's been at the helm without interruption.

The US Senate's Patriot Act Fail: The US Senate did something big last week. In a midnight session, the Senate clearly rejected a clean reauthorization of the NSA’s bulk phone records collection program, voting 45-54 against proceeding with S. 1357, a two-month reauthorization of Section 215 and two other expiring provisions of the Patriot Act.

Considering the fear-mongering and legislative quagmire NSA reformers have faced, that’s no small thing. We think it means that the voices of thousands of people who have contacted lawmakers are making a difference.

But the fight isn’t over. During the same session, the Senate also failed to come to an agreement to advance the USA Freedom Act (H.R. 2048), an NSA reform bill . The Senate’s inability to agree on a way forward is a good sign that Section 215 of the Patriot Act will expire on June 1—but at the behest of Senate Majority Leader and NSA defender Mitch McConnell, the Senate will meet again on May 31 for further votes.

It’s clear that Congress needs to get serious and—as we said Saturday after the failed votes—stop stalling and address the mass surveillance and secrecy abuses of our government.

The tl;dr on Saturday’s Votes: At 12:01 am Saturday, Sen. McConnell (who as Senate majority leader sets the voting calendar) moved to advance the USA Freedom Act and four short-term reauthorizations of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Sen. McConnell has known for years that these three provisions of the Patriot Act would expire unless reauthorized; however, instead of scheduling debate on them in mid-May, he waited until after the Senate spent almost two weeks on "Trade Promotion Authority" (aka fast track). The chamber failed on each vote and decided to meet again on the afternoon of Sunday May 31.

What the Senate's Inability to Agree Means: The stalemate means the program—according to a leaked Department of Justice memo—is beginning to be shut down. If the Senate fails to pass anything on Sunday, it will be the first time Americans' calling records aren't being collected in bulk since 2001.

The shutdown appears real: the Department of Justice did not file a reauthorization with the secretive FISA Court to renew the program. While some concern exists that the intelligence community will use an exception in the Patriot Act to continue the collection, we believe the calling records program will be stopped in light of the administration's own words and the Second Circuit's ruling.

The Midnight Vote: The Senate's midnight session was incredible. Originally Sen. Rand Paul planned to object to a vote until 1 am, the time at which Sen. McConnell could overcome the objection and formally begin a vote on NSA bills. Sen. Paul dropped his objection early, allowing Sen. McConnell to convene the Senate at 12:01 am. Instead of debating the bills, he immediately moved for a "cloture vote" (a vote requiring 60 Senators to agree to move forward on a bill whenever any one Senator objects) to advance towards a final vote on the USA Freedom Act. If 60 Senators voted yes to "invoke cloture," then the Senate would move to debate and vote on the actual bill and any amendments allowed by the Majority Leader

Just like last year, the USA Freedom Act failed to get 60 votes. Senator McConnell then called up his preferred path forward, S. 1357: a two-month reauthorization of Section 215 and two other expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. The Senate refused to advance the bill. In a last-ditch effort to maintain the NSA’s mass surveillance, a visibly flustered Sen. McConnell made a speaking motion to extend the sunset date of the expiring provisions to June 5. Since there was no formal bill, he needed the entire Senate to agree to move forward with such an extension. Unfortunately for Sen. McConnell, privacy stalwart Sen. Ron Wyden objected. Sen. McConnell then moved to extend the provisions to June 3. Sen. Martin Heinrich, another privacy stalwart, objected next. Finally, Sen. McConnell moved to extend the provisions to June 2. His fellow Senator from Kentucky, Sen. Rand Paul, objected to extending Patriot Act surveillance for even one more day.

And with that, Sen. McConnell's plan to reauthorize the program failed—at least temporarily. In a desperate last minute negotiation, he agreed with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to force the Senate to meet again on Sunday May 31.

What Will Happen Sunday?
It's unclear. The Obama Administration unsurprisingly left itself wiggle room to continue the calling records program. In the same DOJ memo noting the program's closure, the administration also said that if the House passed a Senate reauthorization on June 1—technically after the provisions expire—the White House would continue the provisions. While there are news reports of further compromise on the House's USA Freedom Act, lead cosponsor Rep. Jerry Nadler has ruled out any further weakening of the bill.

What we do know is that the Senate calendar says it may hold another vote on the USA Freedom Act in the afternoon. Sen. McConnell is vigorously campaigning to reauthorize Section 215 without any reform. Any vote scheduled in the afternoon of May 31—about 8 hours before the provisions formally expire—will surely be used to fear-monger for a short-term reauthorization. In response, the Senate must stand strong and vote down any short-term reauthorization. Be sure to tune in to @EFFLive for live updates on Sunday. In the meantime, you can use the next few days to let Congress know that it must not pass a short term reauthorization.

Public Continues to Back U.S. Drone Attacks
Afghanistan Update: Most Say U.S. Has Failed to Achieve Goals
Majority of Public Supports U.S. Drone Strikes
The public continues to support U.S. drone strikes targeting extremists in Pakistan and elsewhere, despite ongoing concerns that drone attacks endanger lives of innocent civilians.

Majority of Public Supports U.S. Drone StrikesThe national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that 58% approve of the U.S. conducting missile strikes from drones to target extremists in such countries as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. About a third (35%) disapprove of U.S. drone attacks.

Public opinion about U.S. drone strikes has changed only modestly since February 2013, when 56% approved and 26% disapproved of drone attacks. Support for drone strikes crosses party lines, though Republicans (74%) are more likely than independents (56%) or Democrats (52%) to favor the use of drones to target extremists.

While men approve of drone attacks by more than two-to-one (67% to 28%), the balance of opinion is much narrower among women. Half (50%) of women approve of the use of drones to target extremists, while 42% disapprove.
Nearly Half Are Very Concerned That U.S. Drone Attacks Endanger the Lives of Innocent Civilians
Nearly Half Are Very Concerned That U.S. Drone Attacks Endanger the Lives of Innocent CiviliansThe public’s concerns about possible consequences from drone attacks also are little changed from two years ago.  Overall, 48% say they are very concerned that U.S. drone strikes endanger the lives of innocent civilians, while another 32% say they are somewhat concerned about this. Earlier this year, two hostages, including one American, were killed by a U.S. drone strike targeting an al Qaeda compound along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
Most Say U.S. Has ‘Mostly Failed’ to Achieve Goals in Afghanistan
Most Say U.S. Has ‘Mostly Failed’ to Achieve Goals in AfghanistanThe public expresses less concern over other potential consequences of U.S. drone attacks. About three-in-ten or fewer say they are very concerned U.S. strikes could lead to retaliation from extremist groups (31%), that they are being conducted legally (29%) or that they could damage America’s reputation around the world (24%).
Support for Obama’s Plan to Delay Troop Pullout
Support for Obama’s Plan to Delay Troop PulloutThe survey finds continued public pessimism about the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan. A majority (56%) says the United States has mostly failed in achieving its goals in Afghanistan; 36% say the United States has mostly succeeded. These views are little changed from early last year.
Young People, Women, Minorities Less Supportive of U.S. Drone Strikes
A declining share of Americans sees prospects for long-term stability in Afghanistan. Just 29% say it is likely that Afghanistan will be able to maintain a stable government following the departure of U.S. forces from the country. More than twice as many (68%) say this outcome is unlikely.

These opinions have become more negative since 2011, when 38% saw some likelihood of Afghanistan maintaining a stable government after U.S. forces left the country.
Most Democrats ‘Very Concerned’ That Drone Attacks Endanger Civilians
Meanwhile, President Obama’s plan to delay the withdrawal of some 10,000 U.S. forces from Afghanistan, which he announced in March, draws bipartisan support. Overall, 58% approve of Obama’s decision to keep the troops in Afghanistan through the end of this year, while 39% disapprove. Majorities of Democrats (60%), independents (59%) and Republicans (58%) approve of Obama’s decision.
Gender Gap in Support for Drones, Potential Consequences of Strikes
Gender, Age, Race Differences in Views of U.S. Drone Strikes

There are significant differences in views of U.S. drone strikes across demographic groups, including differences by age, gender, race and ethnicity, and education. Young People, Women, Minorities Less Supportive of U.S. Drone Strikes

Young adults are among the least likely to approve of the drone attacks. Among those ages 18-29, about as many disapprove of the drone attacks (50%) as say they approve of them (48%). Among all older age cohorts, majorities express support for the attacks.
Modest Partisan Differences in Views of U.S. Success in Afghanistan
Across racial and ethnic groups, whites (66%) are far more likely to approve of the drone attacks than are blacks (46%) and Hispanics (39%).

About two-thirds of college graduates (66%) and those with some college experience (64%) say they approve of the U.S. conducting missile strikes from pilotless aircraft to target extremists. Among those with no college experience, 49% approve of the drone attacks, compared with 42% who say they disapprove.

Nearly three-quarters of Republicans (74%) approve of the drone attacks, compared with smaller majorities of independents (56%) and Democrats (52%). There is a divide within the Democratic Party on the U.S. use of drones: Conservative and moderate Democrats approve of the drone attacks by a 56%-36% margin. By contrast, liberal Democrats are about evenly divided (48% approve, 45% disapprove).

Partisan differences in overall views of U.S. drone strikes extend to concerns over whether they endanger the lives of innocent civilians. Most Democrats ‘Very Concerned’ That Drone Attacks Endanger Civilians

Democrats (55%) are 23 points more likely than Republicans (32%) to say they are very concerned about whether U.S. drone strikes endanger the lives of innocent civilians. Independents’ views are similar to those of Democrats: 51% say they are very concerned about the possibility of civilian casualties from drone attacks.

On other possible concerns such as damage to America’s reputation, retaliation from extremists, and whether the attacks are being conducted legally, partisan differences are more modest, as relatively few from either party say they are very concerned about these potential issues.

More Women Than Men Express Concerns About Drone Attacks

In addition to expressing lower levels of support for the U.S. drone strikes generally, women also are more likely than men to express a high level of concern over a range of possible concerns about the attacks.Gender Gap in Support for Drones, Potential Consequences of Strikes

Overall, 54% of women say they are very concerned about whether U.S. drone strikes endanger the lives of innocent civilians. Among men, 41% express this level of concern about the possibility of civilian casualties.

Women are 16 points more likely than men to say they are very concerned that the drone attacks could lead to retaliation from extremist groups: 39% of women say this compared with 23% of men.

When it comes to concerns about whether the U.S. drone strikes are being conducted legally and whether they damage America’s reputation around the world, women are about 10 points more likely than men to say they are very concerned about each of these issues.

Views of the Situation in Afghanistan

Overall, 56% say that the United States has mostly failed in achieving its goals in Afghanistan, compared with 36% who say it has mostly succeeded.

The current negative state of opinion stands in contrast to views measured in surveys conducted from 2009 to 2011. For example, in May 2011, shortly after U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden, 62% answered a forward-looking question by saying they thought the U.S. would definitely or probably succeed in achieving its goals.Modest Partisan Differences in Views of U.S. Success in Afghanistan

By January 2014, however, public sentiment had turned negative when asked to assess whether the U.S. had succeeded in achieving its goals in Afghanistan (52% mostly failed, 38% mostly succeeded).

The decline in assessments of U.S. achievements in Afghanistan has occurred across party lines. In June 2011, most Republicans (67%) and Democrats (61%) said they thought the U.S. would definitely or probably succeed in achieving its goals in Afghanistan. The current survey finds opinion is much more negative among both groups: fewer than half of Republicans (30%) and Democrats (43%) now say they think the U.S. has mostly succeeded in achieving its goals in Afghanistan.
Going Forward, Few See   Stability in Afghanistan
Doubts About Afghan Stability Once U.S. Troops Depart

Going Forward, Few See   Stability in AfghanistanPerceptions of the future stability of the government in Afghanistan have become more negative since last measured in June 2011. Four years ago, the public also had doubts about the ability of Afghanistan to maintain a stable government after the withdrawal of U.S. troops, but doubts outweighed optimism by a narrower margin (57% unlikely vs. 38% likely).

Fully 68% of Americans say it is either very unlikely (35%) or somewhat unlikely (33%) that Afghanistan will be able to maintain a stable government after U.S. forces leave the country. About a quarter (24%) say it is somewhat likely Afghanistan will be able to maintain a stable government and just 5% say this is very likely.


As is the case with views of U.S. success in Afghanistan, there are only modest partisan differences on the question of whether Afghanistan will be able to maintain a stable government once U.S. troops leave the country. Majorities of Republicans (74%), independents (69%) and Democrats (62%) say it is either very or somewhat unlikely that the Afghan government will be stable after the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Rick Santorum is running for president, so it's time to brush up on what he believes about abortion, gay people and more.
Rick Santorum
Former Republican senator and known right-wing extremist Rick Santorum is officially running for president again, and this time around he's trying to be a voice for America's "working families." That might sound downright wholesome to someone who doesn't know what he actually believes. Here are some of the White House hopeful's most revealing comments from over the years:

SIDEBAR
Santorum: 'No Such Thing as Global Warming' »
1. On same-sex marriage, 2004: "This is an issue just like 9/11. We didn't decide we wanted to fight the war on terrorism because we wanted to. It was brought to us. And if not now, when? When the supreme courts in all the other states have succumbed to the Massachusetts version of the law?"

2. On sex between gay people, 2003: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

3. On birth control and having sex for pleasure, 2011: "One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that's OK. Contraception's OK.'

It's not OK because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but. . .also procreative. That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. . .This is special, and it needs to be seen as special."

4. On how abortion is harming Social Security, 2011: "The social security system in my opinion is a flawed design, period. But, having said that, the design would work a lot better if we had stable demographic trends. . . .The reason social security is in big trouble is we don't have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion."


5. On Obamacare, 2011: "Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom. Average Americans, the very Americans that our government now, and this president, does not trust to make a decision on your health care plan. Those Americans risked everything so they could make that decision on their health care plan."

6. On Planned Parenthood, 2011: "I can't imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind. This is an organization that was founded on the eugenics movement, founded on racism. It's origins are horrific. You can say well, it's not that anymore. It's not far from where it was in my opinion in its activities and its motivations."

7. On public assistance, 2012: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families."

8. On Americans' right to privacy, 2003: "The undermining of the fabric of our society all comes from this right to privacy that doesn't exist in the U.S. Constitution. This right was created in Griswold — the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. Whether it's polygamy or sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a stable, traditional family. The idea of the ‘right to privacy' is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' passions. I disagree with that. There are consequences to letting people live out whatever passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."

9. On the existence of Palestinians, 2011: "If they want to negotiate with Israelis, and all the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.' This is Israeli land."

10. On pregnancies conceived through rape, 2011: "You know, the U.S. Supreme Court on a recent case said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, could not be subject to the death penalty, yet the child conceived as a result of that rape could be. That to me sounds like a country that doesn't have its morals correct."
Mika Brzezinski, Grow Your Value Signing!
Event Icon
Author Signing
Join us this morning for a book signing with bestselling author and Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski. She will be signing copies of her new book Grow Your Value.
Saturday May 30, 2015 11:00 AM

Palm Beach Gardens
11380 Legacy Ave, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, 561-625-3932

Grow Your Value by Mika Brzezinski: Book Cover


Store Image
Regardless of it all this incredibly long and intense week, Please Stay In Touch!