tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC September 26, 2013 4:00am-5:00am EDT
>> well, massachusetts had fewer when romney was governor, it is an unusual state. great to have you both here. that is "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts now. >> good evening, chris, thank you for joining us this hour. happy hump day. william jefferson clinton, bill clinton, was elected in 1992, look at how young they were. he did not win a huge proportion of the vote in 1992, because there was a third candidate, ross perot was running, and bill clinton won enough to unseat the incumbent president at the time, he ran to unseat papi bush. he ushered in not just his own presidency, but unified democratic control of
washington, democrats controlled the house, the senate and the white house. and of course, that kind of thing cannot last. and it did not last. because in the first mid-term election that took place after bill clinton got elected president, the democrats just got shallacked, bill clinton won the presidency in 1992, it was 1994 when republicans took more than 50 seats from the democrats in the house. and in so doing, the republican party got control of the house for the first time since 1954. it was a huge loss for the democrats and a huge wins for the republicans. and because it had been so long, it really was a huge sea change in washington, it had been 40 years since they had seen republicans in power in congress. what did they want to do with their new found power? now that they were in control in more than 40 years, turns out what they really wanted to do was shut down the government.
>> good morning, the u.s. government is officially broke this morning and preparing to shut down. a late-night meeting at the white house has failed to resolve the budget impasse that has left the country without the spending authority. >> at midnight, the authority that pumps money into the federal government stops, caught in a battle prevent president clinton and congress. >> the u.s. government locks the doors to museums and parks. >> after being out of power in congress in 40 years, within just a few months of them taking over the house, the republicans decided they wanted to shut down the house. that was under newt gingrich, the longest government shutdown in u.s. history. they had two of them. they had a shorter one, and right after that they had a longer one, the shutdown being the longest one in history. it was largely unpopular. now they know who they blamed in washington, the person they hated so much.
the country blames newt gingrich and republicans. and then the following year after the shutdown, that was when bill clinton had to run for re-election. and technically, bill clinton was running for re-election against republican senator bob dole. but really, it kind of felt like clinton was running against congress, against newt gingrich and his republican congress and the shutdown of the congress. bill clinton was reelected in a landslide. now it is a decade and a half later, now we have arrived again in 2008, and a new democratic president. this time the new democratic president was elected by a pretty good margin. and again, his election not only put him in charge at the white house, it brought on a period of full democratic control in washington. democrats controlling the white house and the house and the senate after the 2008 elections. and of course, that is a situation that just doesn't last very long.
again, just like it happened last time, this time, president obama in the first mid-term election after he took office, the democratic party got shallaked again, once again, democrats took dozens of seats in the house, once again, the republicans thereby took control of the house. that was the 2010 mid-terms. all the new house, john boehner got sworn in, got his gavel in 2011. and then once again, americans got to see what the new republicans wanted to do with their new found power in congress. deja vu all over again, turns out what they want to do again is shut down the government. >> around the country, the clock ticks down to a u.s. shutdown of the u.s. government. >> that was only three months after the new republican majority and john boehner got sworn in.
only three months into it, they were already pushing the country right to the brink of the shutdown. but that was only for them, the first shutdown, three months later, ah, let's do it again. >> what the white house describes as a potential financial catastrophe looms tonight. >> so for the first time since they took power within years, they had the country on the brink of a shutdown within three months, then, on the brink in six months, that was number one and two, and then after that? number three, let's do it again. >> even though the campaign rages again, another bipartisan spending here, to avert a government shutdown friday. >> that was number three. number three in less than a year. the country going through three government shutdown or debt limit deadline disasters within
the first nine months of republicans taking power in the house. that is what they do with power when they get it. that is what they did when they got control of congress in 1994, and what they did when they got control of congress back in 2010. and so that is how we spent 2011 racing down a winding road with kind of a go-cart and no steering and we're on the edge every few minutes. it was a harrowing 2011. 2012 was less harrowing, republicans were still in control. and there was therefore, still a lot of talk about whether we might go to the brink. but in 2012, we did have fewer trips to the brink, because everybody knows during an election year that is something not popular to do right before a vote in november. so we had a little bit of a respite. but now it is an odd-numbered year and we were back again.
as you know, texas senator ted cruz talked for 21 hours overnight. then he stopped talking. the senator was not filibustering anything, he was not delaying anything happening in congress. there was nothing in the legislative procedures, due to the fact that he was talking. there was supposed to be a vote today, and then after all the talk there was still a vote in the senate at mid-day today. and in that vote, the senate, even ted cruz, voted unanimously with everybody. he voted with everybody after his 21-hour long stand saying he wouldn't, they all voted the same way. so ted cruz' talking pageant had no material effect on what happened. now, the vote on what happened after ted cruz talked today, may avoid a shutdown, we can tell later.
but i think it is likely that a government shutdown will be avoided in the next few days. because remember, even before any of this got to the senate, republicans in the house voted to shut down the government. yeah, ted cruz may be the one who is just talking about that without consequence in the senate, and then voting to go ahead anyway. right? but the house republicans, they actually voted to do it. republicans voted 228 to 1 in the house that the federal government should be shut down. and so yeah, it looks like we are heading into a government shutdown. turning out to be fascinating, what is turning out to be fascinating in this process goes back to 1995 and the last time they did this. remember, republicans were blamed and hated for bringing about that shutdown as a way of trying to get their way back in 1995. the polls, frankly, look the same today. poll says government shutdown threat unacceptable.
no matter what else you think about the government, or the parties or even what you think about health reform specifically, nobody wants this shutdown that the republicans are forcing. quote, while partisan divides may exist on a number of issues, the majority of democrats and republicans and independents all agree that shutdown of of the government is not the way to negotiate. quote, republicans and democrats and independents and tea party supporters alike object to the threat of a shutdown. this is not a subtle thing. the political history from the 1995-6 shutdown is not a forgotten history. there has been an effort in talk radioland to do a revision of the history saying actually, america loved the shutdown, they loved newt gingrich, they didn't pay a price at all. and that revision is history for somebody else who was also elected president who was not named bill clinton, that who has not gotten around to rewriting the chapter yet.
there is a conservative attempt to rewrite the history, but the history is too dramatic and recent for people's real memories of what actually happened to be replaced with fake ones that are more ideologically convenient, the message is clear, if you shut down the government you will pay a price. history knows it and everybody knows it. it is a clear thing, so because of that we have this fascinating dynamic going on right now in the right. where we are heading toward a government shutdown. republicans are voting to shut down the government. but they are trying to avoid being blamed for it. and the genius strategy this time to avoid the fate of the republican party in the '90s is to say this time that the blame for any government shutdown rests not on the republican party as a whole, even though republicans are voting for it and making it happen. the blame does not rest with the republican party as a whole.
rather, the blame all rests on one dude. the blame all rests on that guy. and it is kind of a brilliant idea, because that guy sort of wants to be blamed. he wants to be the bad guy. he eats that for breakfast. he wants to be the tea party hero, broken but unbowed. oh, they all hate me, i must be noble. he is a brand-new fresh republican senator from texas who doesn't have to run for re-election until 2018 a. and between now and then he will raise money hand over fist due to his martyrdom and the extreme conservative base. he thinks he can hold onto the seat forever and can raise money now until forever that he was martyred for the cause. he doesn't care, he will take all the blame. so this is the plan, if it works and you can put all the blame on the texas guy who loves being blamed for it, then you can still shut down the government. you can still vote for it, member of congress, but maybe this time you wouldn't have to
pay any price for it. and so you have this weird situation, you have guys like republican congressman tom cole, saying things like this. >> shutting down the government to you know, get your way over an un-related piece of legislation is the political equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum. it is not helpful. >> and then there is also republican congressman pete king making the same case. >> we can't be going off on these false missions that people like ted cruz wants to go on. the issues are too important and serious to require real conservative solutions. not keep the headline hunting schemes -- hopefully it will be a major step to let people know that ted cruz is a fraud and they will no longer have interest in the republican party. >> sure, blame it on ted cruz, the fraud, shutdown is a terrible idea.
you know what, peter king? tom cole, if you guys think it is such a bad idea to shut down the government, why did you both vote for it? why did you vote to shut down the government when you got a chance to vote for it last week. the republicans vote for a shutdown was 228-1, and neither of you guys was the one. you guys are voting for it and trying to put the back lash on somebody else. they are trying to get the shutdown that their republican politics demands while taking none of the blame for it. because they know what happened in 1995. they know how badly it hurt them the last time the republicans did it and they know it will happen again. government shutdown, set to begin in six days and there sits history just waiting to repeat itself. joining us now is frank palone, the democratic congressman of new jersey. he was there the last time the government was shut down in 1995. and now he is watching it close to happening again. thank you for joining us. >> thank you.
>> when republicans did this in 1995 in the clinton era, it was pretty disastrous for them politically both in the polls at the time and in the next election. did you and your fellow democrats at the time know how it would turn out when it was happening? >> no, definitely not, i mean, they were clearly ideologically driven as they are now. but i don't think anyone necessarily knew that they were going to be blamed for it. but i don't think there is any doubt that that will happen again. i just hope it doesn't happen because of the damage it does to the government and economy. >> in terms of the lessons learned from that time, obviously having gone from the longest government shutdown in history, we've seen the practical effect. as you say, the real harm done for shutting the government down that long, and the start-up costs of getting it back option again. is there anything politically that democrats learned from them? lessons that you might expect democrats to draw on this time around as we sort of experience the same thing again?
>> well, i think it is our obligation to continue to say that we don't want this to happen. and to constantly say look, we're reaching out to the republicans. we would like to sit down with them and negotiate with them. and that certainly this should not be linked in any way to the health care reform, to obama care. i mean, it makes no sense. i know you didn't mention it. but that is what they're all saying, this right wing ideology, such as i want my way and i don't want obama care and it should be de-funded. i mean, it makes no sense. so many people are anticipating being able to sign up for health insurance. and so i think we just have to continue to make the point. we don't want this to happen. we want to sit down with them. but you know, so far they're not offering to negotiate or sit down with us at all. and as you know, they're in charge with the house. if they don't make the offer there is not much to do other than to say this is not a good thing. >> congressman, one of the things that has been discussed
with more and more frequency, is because people are going to like this option, they're going to like the program. that it will be popular in the long run and it will almost structurally improve democrat's chances, and republicans just can't let something like that get locked in the way the new deal got locked in and social security got locked in, and medicare got locked in, and was democrats' benefit for years to come. what do you think of that? >> i think it is true, you know, ideologically, a lot of republicans are opposed to obama care, partly because they do realize it could be successful. and this is the last opportunity in their mind to derail it.
but it wouldn't be derailed. what they forget is the president won the election. and during the election, romney was saying he would repeal obama care if he became president. people voted for obama rather than romney. we have a democratic majority in the senate. so they're trying to redo the election and that is not going to happen. so you know, i think the best thing is look, let's try to see if there is some way to convince the republicans between now and monday that this is not wise. that this is not going to happen in terms of de-funding obama care. that for the good of the country, they need to sit down with us and come up with a budget that we can agree on. >> congressman frank pallone, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> and we have somebody we wanted to talk to for a very, very long time. that is straight ahead. stay with us.
>> richard dean, a 49-year-old vietnam veteran who worked for the social security administration for 22 years now. last year, he was hard at work in the federal building in oklahoma city when the last killed 169 people and brought the rubble down all around him. had he re-entered that building four times. he saved the lives of three women. but richard dean's story doesn't end there. this last november, he was forced out of his office when the government shut down. and the second time the government shut down, he continued helping social security recipients, but he was working without pay. on behalf of richard dean and his family, and all the or other people who are out there working every day, doing a good job for the american people, i challenge all of you in this chamber, let's never, ever shut the federal government down again.
for those nights when it's more than a bad dream, be ready. for the times you need to double-check the temperature on the thermometer, be ready. for high fever, nothing works faster or lasts longer. be ready with children's motrin. or lasts longer. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.
so there is a new version of american gladiators that was on tv over the last couple of years. and in the new version of "gladiators," everybody is very fit and competes in obstacle courses and they're very good at it. and it makes everybody look like super heroes, bam, boom, i'm very fit. but when i was a kid, that was basically a show about failure and how impossible everything is, and no way you could compete at this stuff because it was designed the make you fail and it will make you fail. yes, there is a way to run up
that backward treadmill, or giant dogs, but really, you are going down, get humble, america. and it is this old failure guaranteed version of "american gladiators" that i think most resembles what we have to go through. what happened today, regardless of ted cruz' speech, regardless of what happened today started us into this obstacle course that can be navigated. but the problem is it offers a possibility for a shutdown, any wrong term, splat, you're off the platform. it only offers one basically narrow unlikely pass to not having a shutdown. so today was the first hurdle.
the senate voted, today that was the vote at mid-day. it passed. had that vote failed we would have had a government shutdown. next, the senate will vote again on a bill to keep the government funded and leave health reform as it is. that will have to happen by this weekend. if that vote passes, we'll move on to the next okay stackle. if that vote fails, we will have a government shutdown. if the bill doesn't fail, it does actually move on, we have not been splated off the platform as american gladiators, what will happen next is the bill goes back to the house which of course is controlled by republicans who just voted 28-1 for a government shutdown. if the house decides to vote on it and votes it down, hey, we got a government shutdown. the only way we don't have a government shutdown is if the senate passes, then the house, if any one of those steps
doesn't happen or even if they all do happen or it all doesn't happen before monday then we have a government shutdown. we're going to have a government shutdown. a government shutdown is going to happen within the next few days, unless this very, very specific series of things happens in record time. it is an obstacle course that is much easier to fail at than it is to succeed. and all the while, tick tock, this is a time limited process. watch this space.
let's say you have just started a really high profile job as a top tier government official, and as part of being a top tier government official, you have to go to congress and answer questions about the thing you do for the government. and even though you know the questions are probably going to be contentious, and there will be show-boating and grand-standing, as members who voted against your confirmation and don't want you to have your job, still, you know what? you go do it. it is probably your job, honestly, though, you probably dreaded. and you will be nervous every time you do it, but you go. and you get to this hearing and get your place at the table. and you turn around to see who else is there in the room with you and this is what you see. what you see staring back at you is a whole bunch of people in the audience in this congressional hearing who have wrapped their heads in aluminum foil.
that is your audience, what do you do in this scenario? that is next. [ male announcer ] when you have sinus pressure and pain, you feel...squeezed. congested. beat down. crushed. as if the weight of the world is resting on your face. but sudafed gives you maximum strength sinus pressure and pain relief. so you feel free. liberated. released. decongested. open for business. [ inhales, exhales ] [ male announcer ] powerful sinus relief from the #1 pharmacist recommended brand. sudafed. open up.
if you fish, if you're a person who enjoys fishing, as i do, you might be familiar with this tiny little guy. this is a fat head minnow, say you're fishing and going to the bait shop, you are probably getting this guy or somebody who he is related to. and yes, it is sad for him. but yet i somehow tell myself that he does not know he is bait. i know i am fooling myself. fat heads are used as bait a lot, people stock them for bigger fish that they want to fish for in the lakes and ponds. but fat head minnows are also used to determine if the water is toxic. in this area, they grow the fat head minnows, we're minnow ranchers, you guys, the fda uses them for testing to determine if there is toxic elements in the air and water, the effects can be on the endocrine system, they
have been doing this for a long time, and have training videos that teach their employees how to do it. >> the flood head minnow is used in toxicity tests, this method has been developed over the last twenty years in duluth, minnesota. >> you know, 2009 doesn't sound like it was all that long ago until you see a training video main in 2009, and it feels like, where is the delorean? anyway, this fat head minnow work has not really been the subject of headlines, until recently. with the government shutdown becoming more and more likely with each passing hour, the administration is looking at which parts of their elements they will keep doing.
it may seem like the largest shutdown, but people who work for the agencies stay home and all the discretionary funding for everything shuts off like a tap, what happens to the minnows? those in duluth may not be happy about political arguments and shutting them down. if the government shuts down, the minnows still have to eat. turns out they will be spared. the epa has found somebody to stay on the job in duluth to not let all the fish die even if the government shuts down. the rest of the epa, though, will have to close.automaticall agency, troops don't necessarily get recalled from their
forward-operating bases or anything. but the parts of the budget that are are discretionary, like say the epa, they get hit the hardest. the epa, like many other agencies is not going to be able to pay its employees. in the case of the epa, that is about 17,000 people. the vast majority of those people will be sent home while their work doesn't get done. if you believe the epa ought to exist, you probably think there is never a good time to shut it down, even if you don't see good thoughts about the epa, maybe you think it is a particularly bad time for the agency to shut down. >> more spills emerging from an oil patch. >> we have learned there are three additional oil spills today, bringing the gallons to 34,000. the state is tracking 11 quote unquote notable spills. >> state officials say the spill is coming from notable releases
from the south platte river. in 2012, about a third have opened. >> massive flooding that ravaged parts of the state of colorado last week happened to hit that part of the state that experienced an oil and gas boom in the last few years. there are 20,000 active oil and gas wells in that part of colorado that were hardest hit by the floods. now, one of the many challenges facing lawmakers and residents there as they try to rebuild is to make sure their drinking water is safe, how to make sure the notable oil spills leaking into the flood waters are not going to make people sick. and not just now, but the epa is one agency in colorado trying to figure it out. a local environmentalal activist says "we have serious concerns because the state has so few regulators." we need epa to step in and make sure the environment and public
are protected. we need the epa to step in and make sure the public is protected. that is just one environmental disaster in one state that makes you feel like maybe it is a bad time for the epa to pull down the shutters and go home indefinitely. but even with the threat of shutdown getting closer and closer, even with the threat of the live minnows in duluth, and to the flood waters in colorado, even with that bearing down on us in general, and the epa in particular, that agency is also in the middle of making some of the highest high profile decisions in the past few years. just last week, the epa made a decision for people who have been waiting for science for a long time. president obama addressed the idea that he would act alone on climate change, even if the epa would not act. they just announced the first-ever regulation that limited how much carbon
pollution that can be belched into the air. the new rules only apply to plants that don't exist. plants that are not built yet. the 6500 power plants that are already operating in the united states right now are not affected by the new rule at all. so how much of a difference is this new rule going to make anyway? when president obama gave his big climate speech back in june this year he vowed that his administration would enforce tough new standards on all power plants, and on new and existing power plants. he said the old ones wouldn't just be grandfathered in, since after all, they pollute the most. the rules for plants that do not exist are rules out now. the rules for the thousands of plants that do exist, for those we're supposed to wait another year at least. why do we have to wait? if president obama and the epa are able to do this without
needing to seek the approval of the denial change and caucus, why not just do it now? joining us now is our administrator of the environmental protection agency, thank you for joining us. >> great to be here, rachel, thanks. >> so why the decision to make the rule for only new power plants now? why do we have to wait until next year for any new rules about existing ones. >> well, actually rachel, we announced existing ones, we announced rules that we'll take public comments on those. at the same time, we announced rules for us to lay out the proposals next june for existing power plants. so we're doing both, we're doing them in sequence, we know all we need to know about new plants and how to keep the plants functioning into the future. using new technologies, reducing carbon, hopefully, we're taking our first big step in the president's climb plan to
address climate change, which is really our most pressing public health threat. >> power plants put out about 30 or 40% of the greenhouse gases that we have right now. obviously, those are from existing plants. and those are regulations we have to wait for, do we have to wait another year because those are harder to figure out scientifically? >> we're not waiting, we have to have conversations with the states. the way in which the existing power plants need to be regulated is we have to work hand and hand with the states, the epa sets guidance, but the states actually give us the plans in ways they can reduce that exist for those plants. we are pretty exciting, we need to do it in a way that is smart, with common sense, and a way that allows states to tailor their plans in a way to build infrastructure and growth for those states. >> and have many leaned on it -- >> many, many, we have many states that have renewable fuel
standards with energy efficiency standards. you have ten states in the atlantic and new england that already have the carbon trading reduction plant. you have the state of california already way out in front. states have been doing it for years. cities are doing it for years. mayors know that the climates are changing. there are things that they can do that are important for them to keep their communities safe. they also know that the thing you need to do for climate, it is tremendously important for the economic bottom line for both families and cities. you can do things that make sense economically. you can drive a clean energy agenda. and you can address climate change in a very serious common sense appropriate economically viable way. >> if -- staying on that issue of the existing 6,000 or whatever power plants that we have got, if that is a process that is regionally tailored,
that is looking for best cases, not just looking for best cases and applying them nationally, but also letting states and even localities finding their way, are we looking at a future where to be blunt, states with more conservative politicians have dirtier air, and have more asthma because they're allowed to -- they don't believe in climate science and don't believe that global warming is real. they don't want to eliminate carbon emissions, and those places end up not just because economically poor but environmentally poor. >> i think there are two things we need to do, first, look at the environmental standards, every power plant will last for dozens of years. in fact, up to 70 years. and so we wanted to send a signal that there -- the future is carbon constrained. the present needs to be carbon constrained. you have to use the newest technologies before you go forward with the divergence, that is the first thing you need
to do with communities. the second thing is we'll set the guidance, set it as aggressively as we can. but that is a performance standard. we're just going to allow states to look at the most meaningful way to approach the standard so that it is cost effective for them, and they have growth opportunities and they can do it in the way that reduces carbons. rachel, dealing with carbon change is not going to be resolved with these moves. we need to get moving and need to act now. that is what the president said. this is part of the overall effort. if we do it in a way that shows people they don't have to be afraid of a carbon constrained world, they can move forward. it can benefit consumers and benefit states. it can make us more efficient, that is what we need to start moving on. >> you have a reputation as a pragmatic person, you have
worked with the republicans in congress, and before, there were a bunch of people sitting in the audience wearing the foil hats, to symbolize the climate change element, to put forth many conservatives think that climate change is not happening. how do they get over it? is the debate getting any less denialist over time? and how do you see the issue resolving? >> i think it is, i think it changed dramatically, i think the president having the courage to stand up and do what he did in his speech is to talk about how the climate surface is certain. humans are causing the climate change, they're fuelling it. that is the message that needs to be taken. >> you think they're seeing it? >> i do, i think people's attitudes are changing. i went to iowa the week after i
was confirmed. i went there to talk to the agriculture community, there was not a farmer there that was denying that the climate has already changed. they need help. we have over a thousand mayors, bipartisan, that have been dealing with climate issues and are committed to dealing with it. they can't afford not to. they can't be climate deniers. look at poor boulder, colorado, are they denying climate? are they looking at epa? the sole federal agency whose mission is to protect the environment? a discretionary agency? right now we're not discretionary, we have to tell them to pass the legislation. >> i was really looking forward to have the chance for you to be here tonight. thank you so much for coming. all right, new news for virginia coming up. because it is political news
about the governor's race, naturally, it is not safer work. tuck the kids in bed. we'll be right back. ♪ honey, we need to talk. we do? i took the trash out. i know. and thank you so much for that. i think we should get a medicare supplement insurance plan. right now? [ male announcer ] whether you're new to medicare or not, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. it's up to you to pay the difference. so think about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. i did a little research. with a medicare supplement plan, you'll be able to stay with your doctor. oh, you know, i love that guy. mm-hmm. [ male announcer ] these types of plans let you visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. and there are no networks. is this a one-size-fits-all kind of thing?
no. there are lots of plan options. it all depends on what we need and how much we want to spend. [ male announcer ] call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find an aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. what happens when we travel? the plans go with us. anywhere in the country. i like that. you know what else? unitedhealthcare insurance company has years and years of experience. what do you say? ♪ i'm in. [ male announcer ] join the millions already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. remember, all medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay and could really save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose your own doctor or hospital as long as they accept medicare patients. and with these plans, there could be low or no copays. you do your push-ups today? prepare to be amazed. [ male announcer ] don't wait.
when you get to this point in the campaign and the subsection of your website "the truth about you" in this case "the truth about ken" that section of your website has the following subsections -- okay, there is divorce. and yeah, that says sodomy. the truth about ken, sodomy. this is your own website. yes. this is not the website of someone who is sailing into the governorship. this is what is going on right now in the biggest political contest in the country. turns out things are still going downhill and going downhill in the weirdest way possible in virginia and that story is next.
once upon a time, an insurance clerk stumbled upon a cottage. [knock] no one was at home, but on the kitchen table sat three insurance policies. the first had lots of coverage. the second, only a little. but the third was... just right! bear: hi! yeah, we love visitors. that's why we moved to a secluded house in the middle of the wilderness. just the right coverage at just the right price. coverage checker from progressive.
seems like a close race. purple, virginia, neck in neck. could go either way. now a trend is emerging in this race as the it heads into its final weeks. cuccinelli is losing. in an nbc/marist poll. ken cuccinelli losing in "the washington post" poll by eight points. 47% to 39%. losing especially among women in virginia. we talked how in the race there was a remarkable 1-point gender gap, women preferring mcauliffe over cuccinelli by 18 points. earlier this month. look at this. among women, cuccinelli its losing women by 24 points. there is now a 24-point gender gap in this race. virginia women do not like ken cuccinelli.
given the distance that cuccinelli needs to make up with women virginia, seems like it might be a weird time for the pro-cuccinelli side to launch adds. that's what is happening in virginia, virginia principals fund is running this ad, running it a lot. a huge ad buy, hoping this will help cuccinelli. it is more likely to make virginia favor him more than they do. the virginia public access project reports that the generic sounding pac running this ad is actually funded by one guy. a hedge fund guy in new york who gave hundreds of thousand of dollars to this pac running the abortion ad. hedge fund guy, robert mercer not only the virginia principal fund's biggest donor he is their only donor.
he has given them a whopping $600,000 which is all the money they have got. and of course, nobody is a loud to donate $600,000 to ken cuccinelli's campaign doing it this way the same thing with a tidy way around the law. back in 2010, do you remember the art robinson election? art robinson was the republican who was running in oregon trying to unseat a 12-term democratic congressman, peter defazio. he said global warming was a plot to make people into slaves. we should sprinkle nuclear waste in the oceans and around the school yards. art robinson was hard to talk to. >> one of the things that happens in satellite interviews, a 1 1/2 second delay between me asking a question and you hearing it. so you can interpret that as -- as it is just the way the medium works. i'm sorry it has been so awkward for you. >> your interruption was not caused by the delay. that's the speed of light.
madam, it is much faster than that. >> my head still kind of hurts from that not just from the banging on the desk. art robinson, republican congressional candidate in oregon who truly believed in the many health benefits of exposure to radioactivity. so much so we should sprinkle in our vegetable patches and schooling yards for our health, the guy that believes global warming is a conspiracy to enslave america and aids is a myth or government conspiracy too. art robinson was amazing. some secret donor spent a couple hundred thousand dollars on pro art robinson ads. a little district in oregon where that money doesn't usually get spent. in 2010 it was because of the secret donor. that one secret donor in the art robinson race in 2010 turned out to be, robert mercer. same dude. same guy doing the ken cuccinelli ads right now.
robert mercer one of two big time donors who tried to deliver a congressional seat to art eat your radioactive vegetables robinson. now trying to do the same with ken cuccinelli. as voting gets under way, and the cuccinelli is returning to his roots. a state senator he posted a campaign ad in which he solicited donations used a stuffed elephant, ron, ron wants you to give ken money. the 2013 version of the ad rooks like this, a 30 minute infomercial in which she speaks directly to many cameras, switching so frequently between them it looks like he is watching a tennis match from 3 inches away. then the amazing fact check page on his website with the quick link to truth about ken. subsection, sodomy, and homeland security, circa 2007, ken cuccinelli's sodomy looks like threat level orange.