Skip to main content

tv   The Rachel Maddow Show  MSNBC  November 11, 2010 12:00am-1:00am EST

12:00 am
route and keep it quiet? that's the answer? >> no, i'm not a fan of anonymous donations, and that i think deepens the problem. at least we know about your donations. we department know about them in realtime, but pretty quickly, however. >> yeah, howard kurtz of thedale beast and "the nation" and greg, thanks. that's november 10th, eight days since republicans took control of the house. mr. boehner, where are the jobs? i'm keith olbermann, good night and good luck. and now to discuss about how sarah palin complained about government overreach based on a bogus story about a school board banning cookies, ladies and gentlemen, here to speak out on behalf of bake sales is rachel maddow. >> tonight's show brought to you by baking powder, of which i am a supporter, i confess. >> okay, good. thank you at home for staying with us for the next hour. this is one of those day where is the biggest political news in the country was not what happened, but how it happened. this is one of those days when the context of what you were reading about the news was as important as what you were
12:01 am
actually reading. the context is this, president obama is overseas right now. president obama is in a foreign country. everybody freak out! he's not foreign, he is in a foreign country. he is still american. but the president gave a big speech in indonesia last night. today he traveled to south korea, within the last hour. the president addressed u.s. troops, stationed in south korea on the occasion of veterans day. we'll have more on that later in the show. president obama is not just away, he's really, really, really far away. the president is away now and he will continue to be away for a long time. he is not due back from this trip abroad until sunday, and it is only wednesday now. so given that, why pick today to surprise everybody here at home with the first results of the president's big commission on everything in the whole entire government? >> what gives? should retirement age get moved back? should you get fewer health care benefits? it's got to come from somewhere.
12:02 am
tonight, the folks who were asked by the president to find where to cut are out with their answers. >> you may remember that a while back, republicans in congress proposed setting up a blue ribbon commission to work on the big picture financial issues facing our country. are we going broke? how do we keep ourselves from going broke? what do we need to do in the long run to get ourselves, to get the country back into financial health. republicans proposed a commission to try to get answers for those questions. then when president obama endorsed that idea, all of those republicans decided they were all of a sudden against it. >> this law failed by seven votes. when seven republicans, who had co-sponsored the bill, had co-sponsored the idea. suddenly walked away from their own proposal after i endorsed it. so they make a proposal, they sign on to the bill. i say, great, good idea. i turn around, they're gone.
12:03 am
what happened? >> what happened? after republicans abandoned that idea, their own idea, president obama decided to go ahead and form this commission himself. it is a bipartisan thing, it is headed up by respected elder statesmen from both parties. and it is supposed to look at the big picture of, honestly, everything that the government does. everything we do that spends money or takes in money and how we can get those things to even out. nobody knew the commission was going to release its preliminary findings today. it was big, red-banner breaking news everywhere when it happened. it was such as a huge deal, it was a surprise. oh, and by the way, the president is in freaking south korea right now. maybe this is not a coincidence. what you're seeing here is just scratching the surface of all of the politicians left, right, and center who responded to the commission's findings today by saying, and i paraphrase, oh, no, no, no, no no no. gimpb this is a presidential
12:04 am
commission, they have just done the president a huge favor by having him not here, not in the country when his findings came out. because as expected, the preliminary recommendations by this group are toxic. cut social security benefits, delay everybody's retirement, cut medicare, cut out a bunch of really popular tax ebreaks that lots of middle class people use, lower the tax rate for rich people and for corporations. there are individual things that are recommended here that individual slices of the electorate or individual groups, interest groups, might be able to get behind, but politically speaking, all in all, this is like a toxic burrito, double the toxic, with toxic sauce and a side of toxic. a fact that did not escape the folks who served it up today. >> we have harpooned every whale in the ocean, and some of the minnows, and no one has ever done that before. >> i feel like we ought to be in a witness protection program when this is over, so look us up. >> now, look, maybe some of what
12:05 am
they are suggesting will happen, it will get implemented. but if you were president of the united states and your commission just recommended this litany of stuff, you, too, would probably want to be 6,941 miles away from the white house when these findings came out. here's one thing, though, that before this year would have been considered just another of the political toxins in these recommendations. but this year, it's legitimately really interesting. in order to get the country's financial house in order, one of the things these elder statesmen recommend is that we cut the country's defense budget -- ah! defense? this is one of these things that's been so politically off-limits for so long in american politics that it's almost impossible to believe that they put it down on paper -- or powerpoint, or whatever. here's defense spending under ronald reagan, up, up, up. here's defense spending under the first president bush, up a bit, down a bit, and then back up again. and during the clinton administration, defense spending
12:06 am
went down a teeny bit, and then under george bush, up, up, up, and way up, and continued under president obama. more than half of this country's discretionary spending is this. more than half the discretionary spending, more than half of the things we are not stattorically required to spend but we get to decide about each year, more than half, a majority of what we spent. this is it, we as a country spent as much on defense as the rest of the world spends on defense combined. and yes, that includes china. but the republican secretary of all of that money, bob gates, who president obama held over from george bush's second term, he keeps giving speeches about how the pentagon cannot keep having budgets this big. last month 57 members of the house and senate wrote to this commission of elder statesmen thing, saying, if you guys are going to be talking about how to get our financial house in order, then you really have to consider defense. everybody billed that as a
12:07 am
bipartisan letter, but honestly, you want to know who the republicans were who signed on to it? there was republican congressman ron paul of texas and ron paul. also, ron paul. and ron paul. yeah, that's it. but they did get ron paul. but this is the hard part. even as defense spending has completely busted the budget for decades now, republican attacks on anyone who would propose even flattening defense spending, even slowing the rate of increase, let alone cutting it, is such a finely honed attack now, through years and years and years of repetition. >> john kerry and the liberals in congress voted to slash america's intelligence operation, cuts so deep they would have weakened america's defenses. >> leaders of the democrat minority voted consistently to cut intelligence spending throughout the 1990s, as they voted to slash defense spending. and that anti-defense, anti-intelligence philosophy lives on in one of the
12:08 am
democratic alternatives that we have before us today. >> when senator kerry first entered the senate, he sought to cancel the very weapons systems that are critical to winning the war on terrorism and maintaining our military strength. >> if democrats gain control, you can count on them to slash defense spending to pay for wasteful washington spending. >> today, a senior congressional democrat proposed cutting defense spending by a quarter. slashing defense while our troops are at war. the democrats' answer to the challenges we face is to lower our defenses and raise our taxes. >> regardless of the utility of any particular part of defense spending each year, for essentially my entire life, republicans have reflexively attacked anybody who doesn't support big increases in defense funding every year, to infinity and beyond, there's no ceiling. what's different this year, what might be the one interesting and potentially constructive thing that results from the
12:09 am
conservative movement's partial takeover of the republican party this year is that it might not be just ron paul whose willing to talk about this now. there is now a split in the republican party between those who say defense spending is untouchable and those who at least say they're willing to look at maybe cutting it. this is new. they say nothing in politics sfr new. this is new. this is something new under the sun. at least in my lifetime. republicans as a unified block have always attacked democrats for any proposals to cut defense. they have attacked democrats for wanting to cut defense, even when democrats haven't proposed cutting defense, because they've just liked the sound of that attack so much. but this year for the first time, republicans are not unified on that anymore. there is something new under the sun. senator-elect rand paul, the son of ron paul. senator-elect mark kirk of illinois. senator-elect pat toomey of pennsylvania. senator tom coburn of oklahoma. senator johnny isakson, congressman paul ryan. all of these republicans have suggested in varying degrees in
12:10 am
recent weeks that cuts in defense can be on the table. of course, lots of other republicans are still taking the same old line. >> would you cut defense across the board as well as domestic? >> no, you do not cut defense. >> just so i understand what you were trying to tell chris, do you believe that defense spending is discretionary spending? >> no, i believe you have to find the efforts of the military, and we all know that. >> we don't even get a choice about it. i don't even acknowledge that it's discretionary. she says we all know that. can't cut defense. can want do it. but maybe not anymore. you know, the idea that defense could actually come down in terms of what we spend on it every year, that has been derided by the right as a dirty hippie pipe dream for most of my lifetime. is it possible that that might change this year wm that this year it might actually happen? joining us now is bernie sanders of vermont.
12:11 am
thanks very much for your time. >> good to be with you. >> senator, before i ask you specifically about the proposed defense cuts, let me get your reaction, overall, to what we heard from this commission today. >> well, it was the commission, it was the chairman and the co-chairman, and i think it's basically a disaster. rachel, at a time when the top 1% have seen a huge increase in the amount of money they make, and that's more than the bottom 50%, i think you got to take a hard look at the tax breaks that these people and large corporations have gotten. every single year, we're losing about $100 billion in revenue because of money being stashed away in tax havens in the cayman islands, in bermuda. in the year 2005, one quarter of america's large corporations didn't pay a nickel in taxes after earning $1 trillion in profits. last year, exxonmobil made $19 billion in profits. not only did they not pay any taxes, they got a refund from
12:12 am
the irs for $156 million. so you've got to look within the context of the american society, huge loopholes in tax breaks for the richest people at a time when they are becoming much wealthier, while the middle class is in steep decline. so i think when you talk about moving toward a balanced budget, clearly, you don't punish working families and the middle class who are already hurting, you got to go to those people who have made out like bandits in recent years. the last 25 years, 80% of all new income went to the top 1%. those are guys that i think you've got to look at in order to bring new revenue into the system, not working families, which is why i think the bowles and simpson report today was very, very weak and unfair. >> on the issue of defense, specifically, senator, do you think that we could actually see defense cuts this year for the first time in such a long time? is it possible you'll have some new allies among this new crop of self-proclaimed fiscal
12:13 am
conservatives? >> rachel, i do. and i think the point being made is some of these very, very conservative guys understand that when we spend $700 billion a year on defense, that's the elephant in the room. and you can't have any credibility at all if you're not looking at defense spending. and i think there are -- is an enormous opportunity in there. let me give you just some examples. my office took a look at spare parts that the military is purchasing and not using. they're putting in warehouses, something like $25 billion every year in unused spare parts. there is weapons systems out there -- you know, when the military budget was substantially increased, we were fighting a major world power called the soviet union. we are still spending tens of billions of dollars a year on weapons systems, fighting the soviet union, except the soviet union no longer exists. our military posture should be fighting international terrorism
12:14 am
and al qaeda. we need to make major changes in the way we do business. also, there is massive fraud, massive fraud within the defense industry. we issued a report, which will soon be up on the internet, talking about how major military contractors are ripping off the government. they've been fined billions of dollars, because of just cheating the government. these guys go out, in addition to that, they go out for contracts. they say, yeah, we'll build these weapons systems for $5 billion, turns out they end up building it for $15 billion. so i think any honest person understands when you're looking at a $700 billion budget, there are enormous savings that we can bring about without lessening our military strength. >> and let the record show that we discussed on this program tonight potential policy overlaps between senator sanders of vermont and senator coburn of oklahoma, and in that, i believe anything is possible. senator bernie sanders of vermont, sir, it is always a real pleasure to have you here. thank you.
12:15 am
>> thank you, rachel. okay. still to come, cookies. cookies used as a political weapon in pennsylvania. a weapon wielded by former alaska governor, sarah palin. she welded cookies and she wielded them lonely. and we'll set the stage for my interview with the"the daily show"'s jon stewart. that's all coming up.
12:16 am
12:17 am
so today is november 10th, which means tomorrow is november 11th, which means tomorrow is veterans day. veterans day is a celebratory day. it is not the same as memorial day, when we remember those who gave their lives for this country. veterans day is the day we celebrate everyone who served this country in wartime. it is a hip hip hooray and a thank you. one way to hip hip hooray and say thanks is check out, a website of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. they've got a new facebook app and an online march to commit to supporting veterans who are back from our current wars.
12:18 am
full disclosure, iava is a nonpartisan organization and i'm a financial supporter of theirs. i have been since i have had any finances to speak of. if there are other veteran service organizations active in your community who could use some support or a va medical center in your area that's looking for volunteers or if there are veterans among your friends and neighbors and families who could stand a shout-out from you, tomorrow is veterans day. and we're doing this tonight on purpose, because tonight is the night to talk with your family or your friends or your facebook friends about what you are going to do to mark veterans day. happy veterans day. [ male announcer ] this is the way most people choose a toothbrush. with so many it's hard to see the difference. but this is the way most dentists choose. fact is, more dentists use an oral-b toothbrush than any other brush. trust the brush more dentists use. oral-b.
12:19 am
to stay fit, you might also want to try lifting one of these. a unique sea salt added to over 40 campbell's condensed soups. helps us reduce sodium, but not flavor. so do a few lifts. campbell's.® it's amazing what soup can do.™ for all of the differences
12:20 am
that many americans have with george w. bush and his policies as president, one thing that is, i think it's fair to say, almost entirely uncontroversial about his legacy is the way he spoke about muslims and about islam as a religion less than one week after 9/11 occurred. >> the face of terror is not the true face of islam. that's not what islam is all about. islam is peace. these terrorists don't represent peace. they represent evil and war. when they think of islam, we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. americans count millions of muslims among our citizens. and muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. muslims are doctors, lawyers,
12:21 am
law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads, and they need to be treated with respect. and our anger and emotion, our fellow americans must treat each other with respect. >> nine years later when anti-muslim sentiment soared this year, fueled in large part by the conservative media hyping stories like the mosque in lower manhattan, no strong voice on the right emerged to caution tolerance. would mr. bush take on that kind of role again? i asked his former communications director, nicole wallace. a lot of people, i think even on the left, thought george w. bush might be the adult to do that. because even someone who served through the most politicized times, he was a person who was a sort of voice of reason against islamophobia on the right and the left and the center and he
12:22 am
didn't do it. and there isn't anybody else who rose up to do that. do you have any insight as to why he's not? >> look, i think that would have been a great place to hear his voice for the first time since leaving the presidency, and i think we'll get to see -- you know, his book comes out soon and i hope he's asked about that, because he was an incredible voice. >> mr. bush was asked about it on his book tour this morning on the "today" show and he pointedly and with what struck me as a strange tone of anger and dismissiveness in his voice, pointedly declined to step up, declined to step up and be a voice of reason on this issue again, like he had in the past. i found this jaw-dropping. please watch. >> you wanted to be a uniter. along came 9/11 and you did something that a lot of people thought was a real effort to unite. you reached out to the muslim world. >> right. >> and you visited a mosque. and you said the following, "the face of terror is not the true face of islam."
12:23 am
and you said, "in our anger and emotion, our fellow americans must treat each other with respect." you know there is a major controversy brewing here in new york city downtown where there's a proposed islamic community center sited for just two blocks from ground zero. if i look at your words there, it makes it seem to me as if the rights of muslims should not be denied for the sake of the sorrow of others. is that fair? >> if i listen to what you're trying to rope me into, you're trying to get me to talk about this mosque issue. >> which is fair. >> again -- >> i know, i tried the other day too, didn't i? why wouldn't you speak out? you could calm a lot of rhetoric. >> because there's a lot of events and a lot of opportunities for me to speak out over the next years, and i have chosen not to. and the reason i've chosen not to is i don't want to intrude on my successor's ability to get the job done. inevitably, if you get me to answer this question, they would then compare that answer to what president obama or what other
12:24 am
presidents would say on the issue. >> without saying whether they should build the community center or not, are you disappointed in the increase of anti-muslim rhetoric in this country that we've seen. >> i think most americans welcome freedom of religion and honor religions, i truly do. and the problem with the arena today is a few loud voices can dominate the discussion, and i don't intend to be one of the voices in the discussion. >> one man bearing the brunt of there not being a prominent voice from the right, for dialing it back, for respect, for tolerance joins us next. [in hindi]
12:25 am
and it's like, girlfriend... if you're gonna go with sanjay, what's the problem? i'm okay with it. [in hindi] [crowd cheering] if you're really serious about entertainment... conan, you're on. [whispering] conan. every detail counts. [crowd cheering] we want to prove it. take the natural instincts challenge. get healthier color in 10 minutes. guaranteed. or, we'll buy you 2 boxes of your old color. for details, go to i won't. ♪ [ female announcer ] clear some snow. ♪ or spread a little warmth. maxwell house gives you a rich full flavored cup of coffee
12:26 am
so you can be good to the last drop.
12:27 am
12:28 am
do you know what the name was of the anti-sharia law constitutional amendment in oklahoma? this was on the ballot in oklahoma, it passed with 70% of the vote. it changes the constitution of the state to ban oklahoma courts from considering sharia law in making their rulings. you know, just in case. the name of that constitutional amendment, i kid you not, the "save our state" amendment, as in, save our state, save oklahoma from the muslims. as we reported last night, the implementation of oklahoma's new "save us from the muslims" amendment has been stayed by a federal court judge in oklahoma city in light of a lawsuit challenging the measure on first amendment grounds. that lawsuit was brought by the head of the council on american islamic relations in oklahoma. care sent us a dossier of e-mails they say they have received in conjunction with this case, most received in the
12:29 am
last week alone. most of them, i cannot get anywhere near reading to you on television, including overt threats against president obama and the desecration of muslim grades and a lot of bad spelling and all-cap screaming. some of the milder ones, "this is america and the voters spoke -- get the message, we want you all to go home." "go back to your own islamic country, stop invading ours." "shut the heck up. you people are neither citizens oklahoma or the united states. take your islamic law and shove them up your -- yeah -- and go back to where you came from." "siloam has spoken in regard to your fabricen messed up so-called religious whatever. now back the "f" off. americans will never get or accept your fabricen beliefs so basically give up and go back to where you can be the freaks that you are." "we will work in this country, jews and gentiles to destroy those mosques built here and cover them with blood of swine,
12:30 am
because you're -- spelled wrong -- religion." care also tell us their offices have been vandalized recently. some of the threats and vandalism they've been subject to, they've been advised by law enforcement to not describe in more detail for their own safety. joining us now is the executive director of the council on american islamic relations in oklahoma, his name is muneer awad, he filed the lawsuit against the bizarre constitutional amendment. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you for having me. >> can you tell me what the climate has been like in oklahoma for you surrounding this whole anti-sharia law constitutional amendment? >> initially, it's been somewhat atense, as you can imagine, bringing about the lawsuit in defense of the constitution and in defensef muslim citizens of
12:31 am
oklahoma, we've been challenged by a lot of the supporters who supported this amendment, ever since it was mentioned as a state ballot, but recently since the law, since the judge made an order to stay the certification, we have seen an outpour of oklahomans who have come to our support, who have mentioned the need for rationale and understanding of the violation of our first amendment rights. and they've spoken out with us and they've said, it's unfortunate that we've allowed politicians to basically rewrite our constitution, solely for political gain. and they're supporting us with our cause and hopefully it will be a successful one. >> i know that the basis of your lawsuit is a claim that it violates your freedom of religion, it violates your first amendment rights. why do you think that this passed so overwhelmingly? it passed with 70% of the vote. >> right. well, i mean, this was a well-planned and well-funded campaign of misinformation. we've basically got politicians stump speeching, telling oklahomans to fear the looming
12:32 am
threat of islam, that islam was coming to take over our court ifs we didn't act immediately. unfortunately, it resonated with a lot of voters who don't know much about islam, who've never met a muslim, who know nothing other than what these politicians were telling them. and if we know -- i mean, we already have an amendment that makes sure sharia law will never take over our courts. it also makes sure no religious law will take over our courts and it's called the first amendment. if we know that it's impossible for a foreign law or a religious law to ever conflict with and replace the laws of our courts, we need to ask these politicians, why were you deliberately misinforming oklahomans into voting for this? >> if you think that the overwhelming vote for was born of ignorance, and i have to tell you, i share your belief that it was, do you think it would have made a difference to have prominent voices, particularly on the right, speaking out about religious freedom and respect for muslims and respect for islam and what the meaning of the first amendment is? would it have made a difference to essentially have people try to tamp the down the ignorance in this case?
12:33 am
>> absolutely, i think so, absolutely. if we have people that come from the same side, where these political campaigns came, that were telling oklahomans to fear muslims, to be afraid of muslims, to disrespect muslims, if we would have voices out of that side come out and say, you know, this is wrong, there's nothing to fear about muslims. muslims are our neighbors. they've lived here just as long as we have. they are engaged and active members in our community, had we had voices from the side of the political campaigns that were pushing this say that, i think it would have really -- it could have cut the edge off of the violent rhetoric and the hate rhetoric that has come out, but, of course, if you have voices that say we shouldn't be hateful, we shouldn't be violent, we shouldn't be fearful, that would undermine a campaign that's based on hate, violence, and fear. so that's obviously why no one from the political campaigns on that side came out with those sentiments.
12:34 am
>> muneer awad, bearing a lot of grief and getting a lot of abuse right now for his position there and for having launched this lawsuit defending religious freedom, thanks for your work, thanks for being here, and good luck to you. >> thank you for having me. >> thanks. ahead on "the last word," lawrence o'donnell talks to lawrence wilkerson, former chief of staff to colin powell, they'll be talking about mr. bush's book tour, which is as close as i'm going to get to an interview with him. next on this show, sarah palin's cookie offenses. it's crumb-y. sorry. it's your fault. naturally, blame the mucus. [ mucus ] what you need is new advil congestion relief. it reduces swelling due to nasal inflammation. so i can breathe. [ mucus ] new advil congestion relief. so i've come up with some mnemonic devices to help me learn your names. hello, a "penny" saved is a "penny" earned. oh, that's 'cause fedex ground helps you save money.
12:35 am
that's right, penny. do you know ours? heavens to betsy. dwayne the bathtub. magic wanda. yeah! what's mine? uh, you're a dan fool. oh. it's just a device, dan. you can't take it personally. yeah, i suppose. [ male announcer ] we understand. you need a partner who helps you save. fedex ground.
12:36 am
12:37 am
have you heard about the nanny state's latest plan to control our lives, right down to the food we eat? it is happening. it is happening to kids in pennsylvania, of all places, hope of hershey, pennsylvania, where the streets are paved with chocolate and the lampposts are sugar cane, and even that democratic governor guy claims that each year there should be real gumdrops on the roofs of houses. but now the nanny wants to take the cupcakes out of your kids' lunch boxes.
12:38 am
this could be very bad news for freedom and for the girth of future defensive linemen of pennsylvania. but take heart, pennsylvania, you've got a warrior for freedom, and she's got a bear and a twitter machine and a boat load of sugar cookies. that's one version of the story of sarah palin and the great nanny accusation dessert fail of 2010. the other version, the real version, began on monday when a conservative pittsburgh newspaper reported that state education officials were taking the sugar out of public school celebrations. "parent organizers would have to pick just one sweet per party, and will be encouraged to encourage anything else from a menu of healthy snacks." on tuesday, as sarah palin was due to give a speech at a private christian school in the state, she took to the twitter machine. "2 pa school speech. i'll introkids 2 beauty of laissez-faire, via serving them cookies amidst school cookie ban debate, nanny state run amok."
12:39 am
then she showed up at the christian school with 200 cookies and told all assembled who ought to be boss. >> i heard there was a debate going on in pennsylvania over whether public schools are going to ban sweets. i wanted these kids to bring home the idea to their parents for discussion, who should be making the decisions, what you eat, and school choice and everything? should it be government or should it be the parents? >> or should it be the lady who brought the cookies to her $75,000 speech? it should be noted that the conservative pittsburgh newspaper that ran the original story about the cookie police retracted the story and posted a correction, saying there was no mandate about sweets, only a plan to encourage schools to serve something healthy to eat. no word on whether governor palin will now try to retract the cookies, now that the basis of using them in her publicity stunt has been debunked. even though i want her to take back her big lie against pennsylvania, i don't think i
12:40 am
want her to try to retract the cookies. more debunkery about what you should and should not believe from today's headlines when we come back. i was living on welfare and supporting a family of four. after i got the job at walmart, things started changing immediately. then i wrote a letter to the food stamp office. "thank you very much, i don't need your help any more." you know now, i can actually say i bought my home. i knew that the more i dedicated... the harder i worked, the more it was going to benefit my family. this my son, mario and he now works at walmart. i believe mario is following in my footsteps. my name is noemi, and i work at walmart. ♪ had a tree that bore the most rare and magical fruit, which provided for their every financial need. [ thunder rumbling ] [ thunder crashing ] and then, in one blinding blink of an eye, their tree had given its last. but with their raymond james financial advisor, they had prepared for even the unthinkable. ♪ and they danced.
12:41 am
see what a raymond james advisor can do for you. it'll cost a fortune to insure you. nationwide insurance, we need a freeze-frame here. let's give parents a break, right ? let the discounts they've earned be passed down to their teens. save mom and dad up to 25% versus the competition. we'll call it the nationwide family plan. here you go, and there you go. unfreeze ! keys ! savings ! ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ road trip !
12:42 am
12:43 am
debunktion junction, what's my headline? true or false? number one, the republican who was just elected governor of the great state of florida paid his campaign staffers not with money, but with american express gift cards for some reason. is that true or false? that is, ding, true. a young man named mark givens who said he found a job through the rick scott for governor campaign on craigslist has told local station he did not find out until he had already worked for rick scott's campaign that rick scott campaign's would not pay him in, you know, money.
12:44 am
>> they go, we can't give you a check, we're going to give you gift cards. i'm like, gift cards? well, yeah, that's all we can do right now. we're going to give you gift cards for your hours worked. obviously, you can't pay bills with gift cards. i mean, after all the hassle, i was kind of angry about it. i was there for a solid month. waiting two weeks for pay. waiting, waiting, waiting. finally, before halloween -- >> how do you feel about the governor--elect now? >> going democrat. >> the rick scott campaign admits to paying this young man and other campaign staffers in gift cards instead of in money. the campaign now says they will cut mr. givens a check if he wants one, even though they wouldn't before. but we still have no explanation as to why rick scott's campaign operated this way, and how many people they compensated with the present your less creative family members give you around the holidays. doubly sad is that rick scott's campaign slogan was, "let's get to work."
12:45 am
not work for pay, of course, but still work. so far, our efforts to get an explanation out of the rick scott campaign have been unsuccessful. if that changes, we'll let you know. in actual words. story number two, true or false. gm after the bailout, after its near-death experience, gm not only survived, but is thriving, and is now back in excellent financial health. is that true or is that false? true. today gm posted a big profit. its biggest quarterly profit in 11 years. two quarters ago, the companies made a profit of $865 million. another $1.2 billion in the next quarter. and today they announced $2 billion in quarterly profits. of course, if you are against that bailout, you think the whole company and all the companies that depend on gm and all of gm's jobs and all the jobs of all the companies that depend on gm should have died. third story, true or false? whatever you think of the obama administration's policies, the real problem they've got is they are sending the deficit skyrocketing, through the roof, over the moon, all sorts of
12:46 am
metaphors an going up, right, up, up, up, up. is that true or is that false? false. today the new budget year begins with the deficit, quote, that fell 20% from a year ago. here it is, here it is from the associated press. blame the ap, not blame me. the treasury department says that the federal government begins this new fiscal year with a deficit that is 20% lower. these are the facts in black and white. do not blame me. did you hear this one today? the information minister in indonesia for religious reasons avoids shaking hands with women, like jews, some male conservative muslims, observe that as their religious custom. as local -- after local press noticed that despite generally hewing to that custom, the information minister did shake hands with michelle obama, the minister took to his twitter
12:47 am
page to defend himself. according to "the new york times'" translation, this translated to, i tried to prevent being touched, but michelle held her hands too far towards me, so we touched. did michelle obama strong arm the minister into breaking her customs? true or false? false and we have tape. as you can see, the obamas making their way down the receiving line, shaking hands with everyone? far from forcing herself on the information minister, there seems to be some mutual -- ah! meeting of the hands. let's take another look at that in slo-mo. hands -- oh! hands go out. it is most certainly mutual, if not outright started by him. there is hand shaking. even today, the glenn
12:48 am
beck-derived tea party project want there is to be "don't tread on me" government license plates. they want the government to advertise, down with the government. this is so ridiculous. is this true or false? actually true. debunction junction, they're actually doing that. we're going to do this until we find it boring. so far, we find it really, really not boring. we'll be right back. boss: and now i'll turn it over to the gecko.
12:49 am
gecko: ah, thank you, sir. as we all know, geico has been saving people money on rv, camper and trailer insurance... well as motorcycle insurance... gecko: oh...sorry, technical difficulties. boss: uh...what about this? gecko: what's this one do? gecko: um...maybe that one. ♪ dance music boss: ok, let's keep rolling. we're on motorcycle insurance. vo: take fifteen minutes to see how much you can save on motorcycle, rv, and camper insurance.
12:50 am
[ slap! slap! slap! slap! slap! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium rich tums goes to work in seconds. nothing works faster. ♪ tum ta tum tum tums [ female announcer ] if you get caught by surprise, always leakguard protection adjusts to sudden changes in flow. no other ultra absorbs faster. so relax, we got you covered.
12:51 am
have a happy period. always. [ male announcer ] what does it take to excel in today's business world? our professors know. because they've been there. and they work closely with business leaders to develop curriculum to meet the needs of top businesses. which means when our graduates walk in the room, they're not only prepared... they're prepared to lead. devry university's keller graduate school of management. learn how to grow the business of you at i won't. ♪ [ female announcer ] clear some snow. ♪ or spread a little warmth. maxwell house gives you a rich full flavored cup of coffee so you can be good to the last drop.
12:52 am
please welcome to the program, rachel maddow! [ cheers and applause ] >> did you ever see the munsters? >> oh, yeah. >> here's what i think when i watch msnbc. you're marilyn. >> thank you. >> everyone else over there is [ bleep ] nuts. by the way, while we're on it, what's with the complex even tempered even lady. who's she supposed to be matched up against on fox? no, no, there's my girl. >> i really like bombastic rhetoric. i like people going over the top and using hyperbole. i think it's exciting i'm in cable. >> it's our food.
12:53 am
>> it's what we look for. i find it enjoyable. don't lie or expect to get called out when you lie. and don't threaten to shoot people or encourage the shooting of people. let's just agree to that. >> if i saw that engraved on a plaque somewhere, i would think, this is a reasonable place of business. >> you know, overmathdow is right. right after the earthquake in haiti. i thought i gave a gentle nudge to rachel maddow concerning the relative merits of president bush and obama re disaster relief. >> putting someone as incapable of hillary clinton in charge of the state department central to what the obama administration wants to do differently than what bush and cheney did. >> not the right time. or to put what happened in
12:54 am
blog-spleranto. stewart rips maddow. that wasn't a rip, that was a rib. a rib, not a rip. but, of course, have you to respond to a ripping. >> listen, i love me some jon stewart and the daily show, but no apologies for reporting on which agency is the lead in our nation's efforts to respond to haiti. >> when i saw what she said right there, i thought it was completely fair. when i read what she said. maddow retaliates against unlikely foe jon stew art. oh, we're foes [ bleep ]? you don't retaliate at me. there's rachel maddow she's leaning forward, apparently having dropped something. hey, maddow you like apples? round one, how do you like them apples. >> i have two things to say
12:55 am
about jon stewart's speech, one bravo. number two bravo. that you go, i go, you go, i go principle, i believe it, and i'm happy in my country over 200,000 people turned out to cheer that. no joke. >> have a good weekend. i slept, i spent a lot of it dressed as a boxer. it will make sense. watching some of the reaction to our rally to restore sanity. and good thing i was distressed that way. >> all of us here at "countdown" had one major well defined problem with the rally to restore fear. sticking up for the powerless is not the moral equivalent of sticking up for the powerful. >> whoa! i don't think we were equating the two.
12:56 am
we don't ever -- we spent a lot of our time. >> i know everybody likes to say, oh, that's cable news, it's all the same. let this incident lay to rest forever. the fassel never true anyway of fox news and what the rest us do for a living. >> goodness, my teeth came out. >> so i'm a huge "daily show" fan. it's not like he talks about us all the time. but when he talks about us, it's cool, hey, i'm on "the daily show." it's nervewracking because when he nails people, he totally nails people. >> it's fun watching him nail other people, but not fun watching him nail you before. >> i've never interviewed jon
12:57 am
stewart before. he's interviewed me twice. i've always wanted to interview him. it just feels like a big deal. >> i think we ought to promote this like the event it is. it's ali/frazier. he's funny, she knows lots of stuff. thursday night they collide in a cable tv battle for the ages. maddow, stewart, the brawl for it all.
12:58 am
>> no. no. no, no, no, no. >> too much? >> by infinity, not even. seriously, bob? >> no, it's a good note. let me take another run at it. i think i can tone it down for you. >> okay. >> rachel maddow really likes jon stewart. jon stewart doesn't appear to think that rachel maddow is a total jerk. thursday night, maddow, stewart, something's got to give. >> no. no. no, no, no. are you kidding? not only can we not do that? i -- no, i can't do that. no. >> understood. will you just indulge me? >> all right. ♪ >> she makes a genuine effort to
12:59 am
make sense and use facts to support her point of view. he's really funny and good at pointing out the absurdity in the media. maddow, stewart, i got your sanity right here, bub. >> bill, i am speechless and also totally alienated from you and the whole concept of this. >> this is basic cable. this is basic cable promotion. >> good-bye. let's just. we'll figure something out. oh, my god, what are we going to do. >> they really haven't had any crosswords. there's very little chance that they'll brawl on tv. rachel maddow, interested in what jon stewart thinks about politics and the news media, because she thinks he's smart and funny. jon stewart, gracious enough to come on rachel maddow's show to answer whatever questions rachel has. maddow, stewart, he's going to be a