Tuesday, November 30, 2010

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Tuesday, November 30th, 2010
video podcast

Video via MSNBC: Twitter Report, Oddball, Worst Persons
Video via YouTube: Michele Bachmann on a desert island, Keith lights the tree
The toss: Switch (and bonus: Thanks)

Guests: Howard Fineman, Rep. Xavier Becerra, Dan Savage, Anna Tovar, Clarence Page



KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST (voice-over): Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself. The meeting with the GOP about more tax cuts for the rich.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We agreed that there must be some sensible common ground.


OLBERMANN: Thus enabling the GOP talking point.


REP. ERIC CANTOR (R), VIRGINIA: I was encouraged by the president's remarks regarding his, perhaps, not having reached out enough.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), OHIO: He hadn't spent as much time with us reaching out.

CANTOR: - in the last session.


OLBERMANN: If he reached out any further, his arm would come off at the shoulder.

Another vote on tax cuts just for the middle class this week. The Democrats will lose.

"Don't ask, don't tell" - don't care. The military report is out. Seventy percent of service personnel see no problem with their fellow soldiers being out.

Jan Brewer defends her Arizona death panels, argues for everything she said she was against.


GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: Bottom line is, is that the state only has so much money. And we can only provide so many optional kinds of care. And those are one of the options that we have taken liberty to discard, to dismiss.


OLBERMANN: That is the rationing of health care.

Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday, treasonous secession that started the Civil War and was the direct result of slavery, happy birthday to you.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The South peacefully seceded, just like our Founding Fathers did in 1776 with England.


OLBERMANN: And which liberal would she choose to be stranded with on a desert island?


REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: I think probably Keith Olbermann.


BACHMANN: I would. Yes, because I think - I think it would be so interesting to have a discussion with him and I think that he would be willing to have a discussion. I do.


OLBERMANN: All right. Just relax. She also picked her favorite food of all-time: celery.

All the news and commentary - now on Countdown.


BACHMANN: I will personally consume the entire stalk of celery.




OLBERMANN: Good evening from New York. This is Tuesday, November 30th, 707 days until the 2012 presidential election.

And now that Republican leaders Boehner and McConnell had met with the president at the White House, the president is talking about finding sensible common ground.

But in our fifth story, with sensible out the window and common an illusion created by the Democrats on the verge of capitulation, that just leaves ground which Republicans have done a pretty good job of running the Democrats into.

This morning's so-called summit between GOP and Democratic leaders was perhaps notable for the restrained tenor of the statements that followed it. So, let's get the obvious out of the way.


BOEHNER: There's a reason why we have Democrats and Republicans.

OBAMA: We have two parties for a reason.

BOEHNER: But having said that, the more time that we do spend together, we can find the common ground.

OBAMA: Having said that, we agreed that there must be some sensible common ground.


OLBERMANN: Both sides agreed to press forward on negotiations over the Bush tax cuts through their respected designees. From the White House:

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Jack Lew. From congressional Republicans: Senator Jon Kyl and Representative Dave Camp of Michigan. From congressional Democrats: Senator Max Baucus and Representative Chris Van Hollen.

But beneath the repeated bromides about two parties working together, there were key distinctions in how each side characterized the meeting. The president pointed out that Republicans still want a permanent extension of tax cuts that includes the wealthiest Americans.


OBAMA: I continue to believe that it would be unwise and unfair, particularly at a time when we're contemplating deep budget cuts that require broad sacrifice. Having said that, we agreed that there must be some sensible common ground.


OLBERMANN: And the president said that he wanted the parties to, quote, "breakthrough this log jam." But from House Speaker-elect John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader McConnell, this:


BOEHNER: So, we're looking forward to the conversation with the White House over extending all of the current rates and I remain optimistic.

REP. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MINORITY LEADER: We did have an opportunity to reiterate it is the view of 100 percent of Senate Republicans and a number of Senate Democrats as well, that the tax break should not be bifurcated; in other words, that we ought to treat all taxpayers the same.


OLBERMANN: Especially the rich ones. And if sounds like the Republicans do not see the tax cut negotiations as a log jam, but something rather closer to a fait accompli, there were other subtle but alarming differences. From the president, this:


OBAMA: I thought that people came to it with a spirit of trying to work together and I think it's a good start as we move forward. I think that there was a sincere effort on the part of everybody involved to actually commit to work together, to try to deal with these problems.


OLBERMANN: From incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Mr.

Boehner, this:


CANTOR: I was encouraged by the president's remarks regarding his, perhaps, not having reached out enough to us in the last session. And that this meeting was the beginning of a series in which he hoped that we could work together in a different fashion.

BOEHNER: The president did make an important point that Eric mentioned that they hadn't spent as much time with us reaching out and talking to us and committed to do so.


OLBERMANN: As for the pesky matter of unemployment benefits which will begin to expire for 2.5 million Americans tomorrow -


OBAMA: And we discussed unemployment insurance which expires today. I've asked that Congress act to extend this emergency relief without delay to folks who are facing tough times by no fault of their own.


OLBERMANN: And one final note about those Bush tax cuts, there is word today that House Democrats still plan to vote on extending the Bush tax cuts just for the middle class, those would be the Obama cuts. Congressman Van Hollen presumably mentioned as part of the tax negotiations working group has said the House vote may come as early as Thursday of this week.

Let's turn now to Congressman Xavier Becerra of California's 31st district. Also, he's serving on the House Budget and Ways & Means Committees.

Congressman, thanks for your time tonight.


OLBERMANN: The House will - it was according to Mr. Van Hollen - finally hold the vote, an extension of tax cuts only for the middle class but supposedly, this going to take place under suspension, requiring two-thirds support. Is that the case to your knowledge? And can it pass under those conditions?

BECERRA: Well, we're hoping the Republicans will join us and not try to hold up or hold us hostage the tax cuts for the middle class. But we'll see. We're hoping to move this through. If we can get their support, we can get this to the Senate, and hopefully get it done quickly.

OLBERMANN: But all the Republicans ever do, Congressman, is hold Democrats in hostage even when they're in vast majorities. Why is there any reason for somebody watching this, who is in this extraordinary situation of prolonged unemployment, to think they have a hope, a snowball's chance in hell before Christmas?

BECERRA: In the House, all we can do is try. We sent over some good bills to the Senate and they die in the Senate.

But we're going to make every effort to try to make sure that we not only give tax cuts to the middle class, but we're actually including, and this I think is a great compromising good ground, we're going to include the wealthiest Americans, millionaires and billionaires in that $250,000 in income that can counted towards those tax cuts. So, every single American from the poorest to the wealthiest will have an opportunity to participate in these tax cuts.

OLBERMANN: Given that your colleague, Congressman John Larson said, and I'll read the quote, "an extension of all the tax cuts in the House is pretty much a nonstarter."

If the Senate passed tax cuts for $1 million and down, or $2 million and down, or for everybody, what happens in the negotiations between the House and the Senate in committee?

BECERRA: Well, I hope not only do we find common ground, but I hope the president will hold his ground and continue to advocate for what's fair. And that is to try to make sure that everyone up to their first $250,000 of income can benefit from these tax cuts. But beyond that, unless we want to continue borrowing money from China to pay for these tax cuts for the very, very wealthy, who, by the way, for the last decade, were the ones that benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts, then we have to figure out a different way.

And so, I really think that for 10 years, when the wealthy were getting $100,000 per year in these tax cuts while the average American family was getting $500 total, that this - it's time for folks who partied for a decade to help clean up the mess. And so, it's fair enough to say $250,000 of your income, Warren Buffett or any other millionaire, you're going to get to get a tax write-off up to the first $250,000 of your income, just like the rest of America will up to, if they're lucky, to get $250,000. But beyond that, I think common ground can be reached by holding our ground and saying $250,000 and no more.

OLBERMANN: You mentioned the president holding his ground. It seems to me that he's nearly broken his arm reaching out to the Republicans over the last two years. In that context, what exactly is happening at the White House if Boehner and Cantor and McConnell could walk out of there today and say, we're happy the president has now admitted that he didn't reach out more to us and now he's promised he's going to reach out more to us?

BECERRA: I suspect the president's words were not that he admitted that he had reached out. I suspect, in fact, if he had to come out on camera and say - he'd say he not only reached out on many occasions, but reached out only directly to House Republicans on more than one occasion and only Senate Republicans on another occasion, where Democrats weren't even included. So, this president has reached out far more than I ever recalled George Bush reaching out to the other party.

Again, it's part of the political tactic that's played on the Hill. I hope that we finally come together, stop holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage and get this done before Christmas comes.

OLBERMANN: Congressman Xavier Becerra of California - great thanks for your time tonight, sir.

BECERRA: Thank you.

OLBERMANN: Let's turn to the senior political editor of "The Huffington Post," MSNBC political analyst, Howard Fineman.

Howard, good evening.


OLBERMANN: All right. Let's start with some news you have, how some of the Senate Democrats are prepared to vote on the Bush tax cuts and the implications and I suppose viewers should sit down for this.

FINEMAN: Well in checking with Democrats on the Senate side today to try to get the numbers here, they're saying that there are anywhere from five to 10 Democrats who - in the Senate, who are willing to vote for some form of an extension of tax cuts for all Americans, including the wealthiest. Now, it's a little unclear about permanent or two or three years, but that's the reason why the Senate is such a big problem and why Harry Reid is so hamstrung here and why the president is, too, because there's no way, given the operation of the Senate, to get to 60 votes, to the cloture vote in either formulation, and that's why they're stuck.

OLBERMANN: Why does the president keep negotiating against himself? And is he in dangerous of negotiating himself into a position where he is not making these decisions on behalf of his constituency anymore?

FINEMAN: Well, it seems in a way by setting up this working group - at least this is the view of the people I talk to on the Hill on both sides of the aisle. And to some degree, by sitting up this working group with the senators and Tim Geithner and et cetera, he's distancing himself from the decision. He's asking them to make a decision for him and then hand it back to him as a fait accompli.

Everybody in the city knows that the president has essentially agreed to accept a two or three-year extension of tax cuts for all Americans, including the wealthiest. It seems that this group is designed to come to the conclusion that they know they're already supposed to come to and then give it back to the president.

The Republicans are going to make a big show of being reasonable by reluctantly giving up on their desire to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest into infinity, and they're going to be the reasonable ones here. So, they're going to claim by just agreeing to two or three years, and president is going to accept it.

OLBERMANN: And, of course, the Republicans will forget the fact that there's a two-year maximum or three-year maximum on this.


OLBERMANN: As they refused to believe that the 10-year maximum on the Bush tax cuts still applied.

FINEMAN: Exactly.

OLBERMANN: But yet the president seems to think everybody's going to forget where he stood on this or where he didn't stand or how he hid behind this working group. Is that - is there still an expectation in the White House that what is done now will not be remembered in the next two years?

FINEMAN: Well, I suppose you could say there's the hope. There's the hope that the economy recovers, that things go well, and that's what he's looking at as his savior in this long and difficult situation that he's in.

But the problem that he's got here is that if they wait until next year to deal with this, if they somehow push it over into the new Congress, then John Boehner is going to be even more in control than he already is because he's going to be speaker in a Republican House and the House will originate another tax bill and that will be even worse from the White House's point of view than this one. If the Democrats say, no way, we're not voting for anything, then all the tax cuts expire December 31st, including those for the middle class and everybody else, and that's something that the White House doesn't want either.

So, in fairness to them, they're in a difficult situation. But it's one that the president put himself in, in successive retreats over the last year, year and a half. And it's one that they gave up, I think, several weeks ago in a story that I talked about with you with David Axelrod, the president's top adviser, pretty clearly signaled to us at the "Huffington Post" that the president has given up on this. That it wasn't worth making the points he wanted to make to risk shutting down all the tax cuts for everyone.

OLBERMANN: Well, then, the question becomes the number of his supporters who will give up on the president.

Howard Fineman of the "Huffington Post" and MSNBC - as always, thanks for your time, Howard.

FINEMAN: Thank you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: "Don't ask, don't tell," or do? It doesn't matter to 70 percent of military personnel or the Pentagon which they formally announced DADT has outlived whatever usefulness it once had. Dan Savage joins us next.


OLBERMANN: The military review of DADT for which he said we must wait is now back and it shows almost nobody in the military gives a crap. So, now, he wants another review.

She now defends her death panel by explaining transplants for poor people are, quote, "one of the options we had taken liberty to discard, to dismiss."

Desert island, only two people there, one conservative, one liberal.

Guess who she picked as the liberal?

And it's tree lighting night around these parts and you know what that means here - ignition.


OLBERMANN: For months, the cry was: wait for the Pentagon report. Today comes, the Pentagon report, and guess what? The answer for seven out of 10 members of the military about "don't ask, don't tell" is: don't care.

So, tonight, our fourth story - now, the Pentagon's message to Senate Republicans is this: repeal "don't ask, don't tell" by year's end yourselves, or let those bogeymen of your imagination, the activist judges, do it for you.

Seventy percent of service members believe the repeal will not affect the military's ability to get the job done. And 69 percent of those surveyed believe they've already served with somebody who is gay. And 30 percent predict negative effects of a repeal. The report, though, concludes that any fallout could be mitigated through effective leadership.

Defense Secretary Gates and the chairman of the joints chief, Admiral Mullen, holding a joint news conference earlier to discuss the findings.


ADM. MIKE MULLEN , CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: And my perspective is, as what I would call my - certainly was my personal opinion, is now my professional view, that this is a policy change that we can make, and we can do it in a relatively low-risk fashion.


OLBERMANN: Both men also stressing the importance of having the repeal passed by Congress. Their argument about that legislative action would guarantee stability and allow the military time to implement the repeal in some sort of orderly way - if it's left up to the courts: chaos.


ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: It is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray, with the very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat - by far, the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine and one of the most hazardous to military morale, readiness and battlefield performance. Given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts.


OLBERMANN: And despite the Pentagon's call for repeal by year's end, the man who shouted "You lie" at the commander-in-chief during a joint session of Congress, Joe Wilson, believes voting on the repeal during a lame duck session would be, quote, "highly irresponsible."

But the House has already passed repeal. In a statement this afternoon, Mr. Obama is targeting the Senate, urging it "to act as soon as possible so I can sign this repeal into law this year."

Meanwhile, one of the policy's biggest proponents is currently in the process of carefully reviewing the Pentagon's report. Senator McCain, who was originally for the repeal in 2006, if military leaders were for it - but once the military leaders were for it, McCain wanted to wait for the study, and before the findings of this study were out, he asked for a do-over.


SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Once we get this study, we need to have hearings and we need to examine it and we need to look at whether it's the kind of study we wanted. It isn't in my view, because I wanted a study to determine the effects of repeal on battle effectiveness and morale.


OLBERMANN: His most recent position: the policy is working, P.S. get off my lawn.


MCCAIN: It's called "don't ask, don't tell," OK? If you don't ask them, if we don't ask somebody and they don't tell - and it's an all-volunteer force. OK? I understand your point of view, and I understand the point of view by the majority of the media.

But the fact is, this was a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for presidency of the United States. The military is at its highest point in recruitment and retention and professionalism and capability. So, to somehow allege that this policy has been damaged in the military is simply false. So, the fact is that this system is working.


OLBERMANN: As long as you're a homophobe.

Time now to call in the editorial director for the "Stranger," syndicated columnist, co-founder of the It Gets Better Project, Dan Savage.

Dan, good evening.


OLBERMANN: This study is more than just, as Senator McCain implies, some sort of anecdotal evidence done by amateurs and outsiders. It's data directly from the people who are in the military. Why is that not enough for this Senator McCain?

SAVAGE: Because not to put too fine a point of it, McCain is a bigot. There's really no other explanation for his back flips and hypocrisy than just irrational animus, which is the definition of bigotry. You know, the most important stat to come out of this study is of the 70 percent of soldiers and marines and airmen who served alongside people that they knew to be gay or lesbian, 92 percent of those people who've already served with a gay or lesbian person in the armed forces are supportive of repeal and say they have no problem working alongside and serving alongside openly gay and lesbian soldiers.

And for McCain now to wring his hands and want to say, oh, we need more studies, more time - who's left to interview, the Spartans? Who's left to interview about this process? It's time to repeal this thing.

OLBERMANN: The idea behind Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen saying frame this as control versus chaos, legislative versus judicial, is that going to perhaps give cover to those Republicans who have been opposing repeal and let them - and get out of this with some sort of climb-down?

SAVAGE: Perhaps. Perhaps, a few Republicans will grab that fig leaf that Secretary Gates held out. And let's hope they do.

But we've already seen what happens when a federal judge ordered the immediate suspension of DADT and there was, I think, a week there where there were no suspensions and no enforcements of DADT and chaos did not break out.

What's chaotic is really the implementation of DADT. And what's dangerous is DADT. We have a policy right now that requires people to lie about their sexual orientation and makes them potential blackmail targets. And gay and lesbian people are serving in silence and serving secrecy at all levels of the military. And each and every one of them is potentially blackmail-able under DADT right now, which is another reason.

For national security reasons, we need to repeals this thing immediately.

OLBERMANN: I heard something extraordinary said on this network today by a guest who was opposed to gays, I guess, serving in the military outright. And she said there will be zero tolerance for people who are objecting to the repeal and that that would mean that perhaps thousands of loyal, patriotic, courageous American service members would be expelled for no good reason from military service.

Does that construction sound at all familiar to you?

SAVAGE: Yes, it does. The same thing was said when it came to integrating the military racially. And exact same thing was said more recently in the United Kingdom when they were deciding whether or not to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. And people predicted chaos. People also predicted mass resignations and more difficulties in retaining soldiers and none of that came to pass.

The U.K. military's leadership described implementing the end of their own "don't ask, don't tell" as the biggest nonissue ever that the military confronted. That's just demagoguery and fearmongering, and really an insult to the professionalism of soldiers who are currently serving. What that person is saying that they can't follow orders and that they'll let their personal biases and hatreds get them in trouble and get them carried away.

You know, you don't have to like everybody that you serve with in the military, approve of them or approve of their faith or their sexual orientation or anything else. But you do have to follow orders and serve alongside them and get along to get along. And our military can do that and our soldiers can do that.

OLBERMANN: Syndicated columnist Dan Savage - Dan, great thanks tonight.

SAVAGE: Thanks so much, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Treason, as something to be saluted and the North to be blamed and slavery had nothing to do with it. The 150th anniversary celebrations - celebrations of Southern secession.

And the Republican governor of Arizona defending her very own death panel. Ahead.


OLBERMANN: Governor Brewer of Arizona defends her death panels - next.

First, the sanity break, and the tweet of the day. And it's Ali Berger (ph). "Shortstop Troy Tulowitzki on verge of 10-year contract extension with Rockies. Derek Jeter's agent now demands century-long deal from Yanks." Thanks, Keith. Great tweet.

Let's play "Oddball."


OLBERMANN: We begin in Kamakura, Japan, with a novel way to help with extra electric costs the holiday greets. Two words: electric eels. Using a collection pad in an eel tank, this aquarium is able to illuminate almost an entire tree, kind of. Well, the future is here.

But, there's more. The aquarium also installed an electric pad on floor to harness the energy of the human visitors. They said they want the guests to stop and dance on the pad to give the eel a chance to relax. Take five. Someone has finally discovered a reason to do the electric slide.

On Internets, the exciting finish of the Karting World Championship. And boom goes the dynamite. The driver begins to celebrate his glorious victory a little too early there, victory making him to forget to keep his hands at 10 and two. Quickly discovers the agony of defeat represented here by the wall. Both drivers escaped the crash unarmed, though it is easy to spot where things went wrong, grown men were racing go carts.

And staying in the automotive world, we travel to the desert where someone has finally found a way to stop his car from overheating. Pick it up and put it on the back of your camel. Oh, look, a hybrid.

Of course, you can't really ride in it, but walking next to it is just good. Small price to play for fuel efficiency, but the engine does have a tendency to sputter and spit. Time marches on!

It is the worst manufactured fear of the Betsy McCaugheys and Sarah Palins come true. Quote, "The state only has so much money and we can only preside so many optional kinds of care, and those who are one of the options that we had taken liberty to discard, to dismiss."

It is, in fact, a death panel that is run by Republicans. So, I guess for Ms. Palin and the Tea Party, I guess that makes it an OK death panel. To Arizona, next.


OLBERMANN: First man to be denied an organ transplant by the Arizona Republican death panel died on Sunday. The death of Mark Price, a father, not yet 40, caused by complications related to his leukemia and chemotherapy - chemotherapy which had to succeed before his bone marrow transplant could take place. The death panel, therefore, not responsible in the case for Price's death.

But in our third story tonight: the head of the death panel, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, reacted to Mr. Price's passing, to his crusade against the state's decision stripping coverage for these transplants, defended her death panel and explained that Arizona's death panel considers life-saving organ transplants optional.

Don't take my interpretation for it. Listen to Governor Brewer, herself, less than 24 hours after Mr. Price passed away, giving the death panel rationale for rationing care because organ transplants are, quote, "optional."


BREWER: The state only has so much money. And we can only provide so many optional kinds of care. And those were one of the options that we had taken liberty to discard, to dismiss.


OLBERMANN: We have reported on this news hour about Arizona families abandoned by the governor's death panel. Fathers Francisco Felix and Randy Shepherd stripped of their state Medicaid coverage of the organ transplants they need, liver and heart.

They are hardly the only ones. An estimated 95 other people in Arizona right now are waiting for life-saving organs. Ninety-five people who will be denied them because life - because Arizona's Republican legislature and Republican governor decided earlier this year to remove those transplants from state Medicaid coverage. That decision based on false information provided by two companies, one of them owned by United Health Care, including claims that many of the transplants do not work - transplants including bone marrow.

Even though some Republican legislators acknowledge the lie beneath their vote and are calling for a re-vote on the issue, Governor Brewer has rejected bipartisan calls for a special session of the legislature to fix her mess, at a cost of about $5 million. Claiming that she cannot use any of the more than $30 million in stimulus funds she has because those funds she says have already been allocated elsewhere - allocated, not spent.

Allocated how? She refuses to say. So far not complying with requests for public records by public newspapers and others.

Allocated by Brewer as recently as two days before she yanked the transplant money to instead spend it on things like a $2 million center to study algae as an alternative fuel.

Responding to Price's death and his family's crusade for the state to cover more people, Governor Brewer called for a different kind of response, a special election to cut more people from state Medicaid - 300,000 to be left without any insurance whatsoever.

Let's turn to Arizona State Representative Anna Tovar, a Democrat who opposed these cuts.

Thanks for your time tonight.


OLBERMANN: The coverage that was taken away from Mr. Price, bone marrow transplant to treat his leukemia, Republicans cut it based on the state commission study that says it doesn't work. Can you explain why you in particular could have told them differently about this?

TOVAR: Well, definitely, I am living proof that transplants work. I've had two transplants, stem cell and a bone marrow actually by the same doctor, by Mark Price, the same facility. So, I am - I am living proof that transplants do work.

OLBERMANN: Governor Brewer is literally choosing not to spend money, millions that she has on hand to pay for these transplants and actions like this. What to your knowledge is she using it for instead?

TOVAR: Well, we did find out that she's used over $2.2 million on algae research and also another $1.5 million on restoring a roof to the Veterans Coliseum. But yet she's yet to answer any of our requests on what she spent the $30 million that she has available.

OLBERMANN: Do you suppose, if you could have a ribbon cutting ceremony at every transplant, that she would suddenly be in favor of the transplants for the state Medicaid?

TOVAR: Well, definitely. I mean, there needs to be something done and the governor needs to spend her money wisely. These are taxpayers' money that she is spending. So, you know, taxpayers of Arizona - they have every right to question what she's spending her money on and it would be, you know, a disgrace not to be able to save hundreds of lives here in Arizona by spending a little bit of that, you know, funds that she does have.

OLBERMANN: And this latest report that the governor wants to cut more than 300,000 Arizonans entirely from Medicaid. What will happen to them?

TOVAR: Well, they would be without health care. That means they would flood our emergency rooms. There would be kids without immunizations, without their primary health care. I mean, this would absolutely be ridiculous in Arizona not have to people getting basic primary health care.

OLBERMANN: Representative Tovar, is there any acknowledgement among Arizona's Republicans in public or in private that they have, in fact, created in Arizona the very death panel that they fantasized about during the debate over the federal health care reform project?

TOVAR: Well, the chairman of the appropriations who's a Republican has come out and said that they've made a mistake, there was an error in the information that they had received. But as to date, the governor or the Republicans have yet to do, to have any action to bring this forward and, you know, to create a solution, because people's lives are at stake and there's easy solutions that could come about that can solve, you know, this crisis and save people's lives and giving them a second chance at life, like I did.

OLBERMANN: The governor believed that there were bodies with heads cut off in the Arizona desert. She believed that, you know, that even though it said it on front of her in the script that the opening remarks at her debate were not the opening remarks, and now she believes that transplants don't work.

Is she just gullible? Does she just believe whatever somebody has told her provided she believes who the person is? Is this some sort of - does she see things? What is wrong with the governor of your state?

TOVAR: You know, I don't know what is wrong with her because she's gotten the correct information. It was actually my bone marrow doctor that has come about to bring factual information not only to her but to other, you know, senators and - here in the state of Arizona.

So, she has the correct information about, you know, over 42 percent who do get a transplant do make it and do survive. So, I'm not sure, you know, what she's reading into it or what she's not reading into it. But the facts are clear, is that people do survive and they can be productive members of society.

I mean, if you look at me, I'm living proof that, you know, one - even though, yes, I was deathly ill, I got a life-saving transplant. And now, you know, I consider myself very productive member of society and trying to help out as best I can in serving the public.

OLBERMANN: Arizona State Representative Anna Tovar - continued improved health to you and great thanks for your time tonight.

TOVAR: Thank you.

OLBERMANN: And about your continuing generosity on this. The National Transplant Assistance Funds informs us that since we first reported on this story and the death panel decision against the Felix and Shepherd families, it has received $95,000 in donations towards their transplants. They've only been able to update the number from last Wednesday.

Francisco Felix's transplant would cost upwards of $200,000. Randy Shepherd's, $1 million. Those who care to donate can do so at NTAFund - that's one word - NTAFund.org.

So, televangelist Glenn Beck is now stealing material from Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. Does he know who Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov is?

And you've got it all wrong. The South seceded peacefully, it was the North that started the Civil War and dragged this slavery stuff into it.

And when Rachel joins you at the top of the hour, as this idea of bipartisanship continues to look more and more like a complete fantasy, she'll be joined by Senator Bernie Sanders.


OLBERMANN: It's a limited list, but of the liberals on it the one she said she'd most be willing to be deserted on an island with -

And as part of the continuing historical revisionism that tries to claim the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, the secession celebrations have begun. Yay, treason, yay.


OLBERMANN: The South thinks it will rise again.

First, before you get out your pitchforks and torches, I'm not often stumped. But I have to admit she stumped me. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in an online interview for the Right Network was asked this weird question.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're on a deserted island and can only spend it with Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow. What would you choose out of those three?

BACHMANN: I think probably Keith Olbermann.


BACHMANN: I would. Yes, because I think - I think it would be so interesting to have a discussion with him, and I think that he would be willing to have a discussion. I do.


OLBERMANN: Oh, I think I know what this is all about. Ms. Bachmann said her favorite song was "Taking Care of Business" by Bachman Turner Overdrive. Her favorite composer was Johann Sebastian Bach. He favorite snack was celery - Miss Celery - and her island choice, that's Olbermann with two Ns as in Bachmann with two Ns.

Having said all that in the spirit of something, I'm game if you are for the conversation, anyway. We have today invited Congressman Bachmann on Countdown at her leisure. Oh, bring the sand.

Now, time for today's nominees for the "Worst Persons in the World."

The bronze to Dell's Maraschino Cherries Company in Red Hook, in Brooklyn, New York. Well, they're not really the worst, but it is their fault. You heard of killer bees? How about red bees? Brooklyn beekeeper, Cerise Mayo, was mystified her bees had turned red, their honey was the color of cough syrup, another plague that would soon doom mankind.

Well, not exactly. The bees had been lunching at the runoff from the Maraschino Cherries Company. The red coloring, the red honey, Red Dye no. 40. Apparently, they like the taste.

Our runner up: Congressman Steve King of Iowa, the king of crazy is right on the line. He's now pushing the latest racial meme over the Pigford court decision that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had discriminated against black farmers and owed them a total of $1 billion. The ruling came in 1999. But that fact does not slow down King's racial paranoia one jot.


REP. STEVE KING (R), IOWA: Figure this out, Madame Speaker. We have a very, very urban senator, Barack Obama, who has decided he's going to run for president and what does he do? He introduces legislation to create a whole new Pigford claim.


OLBERMANN: Very, very urban. This is another white euphemism for black folks.

Mr. King, you are very close to jumping the racism shark. Beware.

But our winner, Glenn Beck, communist. You heard me.


GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS HOST: Federal employees should not be allowed to ever make more than this. Ever. Members of Congress should never make more than the people who die on our battlefields.


OLBERMANN: A figure he circled there, 50,462 bucks, the average wage of a U.S. citizen. No member of Congress should make more than the average citizen?

Well, listen to this: "As if to emphasize its character is a truly democratic, proletarian government, the commune decreed that the salaries of all administrative and government officials irrespective of rank should not exceed the normal wages of a worker."

The commune was the Paris Commune of 1871. And you know what kind of people they got in communes, comrades? Communists. And you know who wrote that fond reminiscent about no government official making more than a citizen? Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, the communist. And communist Glenn Beck is stealing his act.

Glenn as Lenin Beck today's (INAUDIBLE) worst in the world.


OLBERMANN: We'll start our number one story with a caveat that we may interrupt it at any time, because as constant viewers recall, it's my job to turn the juice on for the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree.

There's a dual celebration this year. A South Carolina group called the Sons of Confederate Veterans is throwing a secession ball, the 150th anniversary of, you know, treason and defensive servitude and murder and genocide, build us a joyous night of music, dancing food and drink. Don't forget the silent slave auction.

According to today's "New York Times," Confederate groups across the South are planning festivities to mark the period that began the Civil War. Montgomery, Alabama, is planning a parade, along with a mock swearing in of Jefferson Davis as president of the Confederacy. The first time wasn't mock enough for you.

South Carolina's secession ball will be replicated on a smaller scale in other cities. The main event will be held December 20 in the former slave port of Charleston at the Gaillard Auditorium, just a brief ferry ride away from Ft. Sumter where the Confederates first attacked the Union Army in April 1861, and a brisk walk from the Old Slave Mart Museum, the historical Charleston edifice where slaves were auctioned until the Union Army prevailed.

The ball's organizer Jeff Antley tells "The New York Times" this event will be a celebration of the men who signed the document seceding from the Union, quote, "We're celebrating that those 170 people risked their lives and fortunes to stand for what they believed in, which is self-government."

Oh, I'm very sorry. The correct answer was: slavery. You gave the politically correct, whitewash bullcrap answer.

Here's the home version of the American history game. The president of South Carolina's NAACP telling "The Times" that this is a glamorization and sanitization of events. In fact, South Carolina's December 1860 declaration of secession had 18 references to slavery in it and it complained that the election of Abraham Lincoln meant slavery in the U.S. was doomed, and that's why they split.

"The Times" says other groups are preparing TV ads to commemorate the anniversary. Georgia's chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans posted this whitewash of history in September.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This was a war which Southerners fought to defend their homes and families against an ingressive invasion by federal troops. The South peacefully seceded, just like our Founding Fathers did in 1776 with England. And all we wanted was to be left alone to govern ourselves.

Don't let others do your thinking for you. Don't allow them to rob you of your heritage while they celebrate their own. Be proud of your Southern history and heritage.


OLBERMANN: Joining me now, Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, editorial broad member of "The Chicago Tribune," Clarence Page.

Clarence, good evening. I apologize in advance for when I interrupt you for the tree-lighting. But -

CLARENCE PAGE, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: I can't wait for the moment.

OLBERMANN: To the point - 150 years later, slavery has become a footnote to the Civil War. Did the rest of us not get the memo?

PAGE: Well, you could say in a way half the country didn't. You know, this shows you how different culture and education, history is taught in the South compared to the rest of the country. I was rather surprised having grown up in Ohio and Illinois at how alive the Confederacy and memories of it, the legacy of it are in the South.

I was down in Virginia and I said to a fellow, you know, I thought the Civil War ended in 1865. And he said, that wasn't the end, that was just halftime. That is kind of a very common attitude.

I've been covering this issue a lot with the Confederate flag - you remember down in South Carolina -


PAGE: - as well as Virginia, more recent Confederate History Month deal. This goes on and on.

OLBERMANN: And to make clear, we're not - we're not mocking people who want to salute the heroism of the soldiers who fought. Most of them didn't have slaves and didn't have a hand in that outcome of the fight. But to - but to sort of dismiss these who are trying to memorialize and make a big deal and something to celebrate as, you know, ragtag sore losers, there is a real movement to rewrite the history here and this Sons of Confederate Veterans, they seem to be in the lead on this effort.

Do we know anything about this group?

PAGE: Oh, yes. Well, I talked to the Virginia head of the Sons when that controversy was going on there with Governor McDonnell. And, you know, one thing he and I both agreed on is that all of us need to know more about Civil War history, and we had an intelligent discussion I'm happy to say. Once he got past his presumption that I didn't know the role slavery played in the war.

In fact, "The New York Times" piece has a historian who's put it rather well, that slavery did not bring the North into the war, but it did cause the South to secede and it's really dishonest intellectually and otherwise for Southerners to try to say that slavery had nothing to do with it.

OLBERMANN: Well. But also, if they were somehow right about that, there's also this issue of treason. I mean, how do you rationalize the attempt to violently overthrow the proverbially lawfully elected government of the United States?

PAGE: Well, in fact, Abraham Lincoln and President Johnson after him both signed amnesties for the South. So, they wouldn't be prosecuted, including General Robert E. Lee and others.

But, you know, again, you're right. The fact of a treasonous uprising against the central government was a real fact and we can argue forever about whether or not it was justified or what they did, whether it was legal under the Constitution, but we can also point out that it's well documented in Confederate literature in the official documents and speeches that protecting slavery was a part of the war.

OLBERMANN: There's also the dress code here listed on the secession ball Web site. For men, it's modern black tie, or pre-war militia, no Confederate gray.

It's the lone concession here, no Confederate gray at the ball - oh, got to interrupt you, Clarence, we got to light this candle, I think.

Is that correct? We're getting the word now? Are you ready? Ready down there? How much time do you want?

All right. Just go on. I can't do this all day as ShamWow Boy says.

Come on. What do we have? Thirty seconds, 45?

And, you know, we have to coordinate this with the network. Fifteen, something like that?

All right, how many. What do you got 10? Two, one. Oh, it didn't take. There we go. It's an old piece of equipment.

All right. We're never going to do that again.

Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, Clarence Page, who was good enough to discuss with us this nonsense from the South. Just in 10 seconds. No Confederate gray?

PAGE: Well, I think - well, I remember when Andy Young when he was a mayor of Atlanta showed up at a Confederate ball and - a ball wearing Confederate gray, being a black mayor to show good faith with the Southern spirit and the station of his office. So, we can look upon this and say that at least they're not trying to be so visibly Confederate.

OLBERMANN: Clarence Page, great thanks for your time tonight.

PAGE: Thank you.

OLBERMANN: That's November 30th, 28 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 why the Democrats aren't getting the message about Republicans, they're just not that into you - ladies and gentlemen, here is Rachel Maddow.

Good evening, Rachel.


Monday, November 29, 2010

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Monday, November 29th, 2010
video podcast

Video via MSNBC: Twitter Report, Oddball, Worst Persons
Video via YouTube: Tribute to Leslie Nielsen
The toss: Shirley

Guests: Ezra Klein, Heather McGhee, Lawrence Wilkerson, Lawrence Korb



KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST (voice-over): Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

Feed the rich, starve the poor. The Republican mantra today courtesy of its newest mouthpiece, Senator Kirk of Illinois.


SEN. MARK KIRK (R), ILLINOIS: We should extend the Bush tax cuts and make sure that we don't have a double dip recession.


OLBERMANN: However -


KIRK: These proposals to extend unemployment insurance by just adding it to the deficit are misguided.


OLBERMANN: While adding to the deficit is just dandy for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Amid all this, Chuck Schumer is pushing to compromise tax cuts for the wealthy, but only for millionaires not multimillionaires.

The cat food commission - Alan Simpson's deficit reduction plan to postpone retirement and gut Social Security. Heather McGhee of Demos has a better idea.

A whole lot of nothing, WikiLeaks headline? Most countries in the Middle East want us to bomb Iran for them. And the rest of it is - Wiki gossip, like how Muammar Khadafy won't travel without his, quote, "voluptuous Ukrainian nurse."


HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: I can tell you that in my conservations, at least one of my counterparts said to me, well, don't worry about it. You should see what we say about you.


OLBERMANN: Still stopping START. "I won't listen to this president," says Senator Collins, "but if two presidents named Bush tell me to vote for, I'll vote for it." And she's a moderate.

"Worsts": A public service announcement for abstinence - starring Bristol Palin.

And in memory of Leslie Nielsen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you leave this vale of tears, as they say -


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: - NBC News and they say Leslie Nielsen has moved into the great beyond and they run a clip from "Naked Gun" - is that going to be OK with you?

LESLIE NIELSEN, ACTOR: A clip from "Naked Gun"? I think that the epithet should be: let him rip.



OLBERMANN: All the news and commentary - now on Countdown.


NIELSEN: I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.




OLBERMANN: Good evening from New York. This is Monday, November 29th, 708 days until the 2012 presidential election.

Tomorrow, the president will negotiate with Republican leaders Boehner and McConnell at the White House, Republican leaders who will not extend unemployment benefits unless they are paid for, but who want to tax cuts for the rich, without paying for them, and who want to neuter what's left to neuter at the White House.

In our fifth story: As unemployment benefits for 2.5 million out-of-work Americans will begin expiring within 48 hours, President Obama today proposed a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers. That freeze would not apply to the armed services. As for the patriots that President Obama said the freeze would affect -


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice, and that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government. And today, I'm proposing a two-year pay freeze for all civilian federal workers.


OLBERMANN: A Republican call in June for a similar pay freeze had been met by derision by many Democrats, with even Senator Max Baucus of Montana, calling the prior Republican proposal arbitrary and restrictive.

Democrats' frustration now extending to the continued lack of cohesion on the Bush tax cuts. Some Senate Democrats hoping to recapture the message, by adopting the proposal of Senator Schumer of New York. Quoting Senator Schumer, "There's a strong view in the caucus that if we make the dividing line $1 million, it becomes a very simple argument: we are forgiving the middle class of tax break, they're for tax cuts for millionaires."

But the assistant majority leader, Senator Dick Durbin, has suggested that a compromise with Republicans should be broadened to include the extension of jobless benefits.


SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: We do have unemployment running out by Christmas. Two million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits because they expire. We should not be worried about the discomfort of the wealthy, but the fact that there are many people struggling to survive every day now because they have no job.


OLBERMANN: A man who just got a job has become the newest spokesman for the Republican policy on this, the "I'm in the life boat permit me to hit you over the head with the oar" policy, Senator Kirk of Illinois.


KIRK: We should extend the Bush tax cuts and make sure that we don't have a double dip recession. And I have the honor to be the first of 95 new Republicans coming to the Congress, fiscal conservatives, to help right our ship of state.


OLBERMANN: But by Senator Kirk's reasoning, the multitrillion dollar Bush tax cut should be extended while unemployment benefits should not be extended unless the unemployment benefits are paid for.


KIRK: You could extend it if you found a way to pay for it. And I voted for that in the past. But these proposals to extend unemployment insurance by just adding it to the deficit are misguided.


OLBERMANN: And as a progressive group places a TV ad against the Bush tax cuts, it must still mystify Democrats that they can't come up with a unified message on this, when only 1/3 of Americans favor a tax cut extension for the wealthy. That according to a latest CNN poll.

And when budget gurus like President Ronald Reagan's former budget director, David Stockman, are now calling for a return to sanity on this issue of tax cuts.


DAVID STOCKMAN, FORMER REAGAN BUDGET DIRECTOR: To get the economy back to health, we're going to have to reset some basic parameters of our economy, and one of them in this environment would be a higher tax burden on the upper income than a conservative like myself who would ordinarily advocate.


OLBERMANN: Only took him 28 years to figure that out.

Let's bring in staff writer for "The Washington Post," "Newsweek" magazine columnist, MSNBC contributor Ezra Klein.

Ezra, good evening.


OLBERMANN: Why are they bothering to have McConnell and Boehner come in and negotiate with the president tomorrow? Because it would seem if left alone by themselves, Democrats would happily negotiate away all their own positions anyway. I mean, it would seem Republicans are absolutely superfluous to the equation now.

KLEIN: At times, it does seem that way. You do have a lot of - I remember a couple months ago, John Boehner came out and said, look, I would love to get the tax cuts for the rich extended, but if I can't, of course, I'll do the middle class. And a lot of observers of this debate look at it and said, well, that's over. It's done.

And then within a couple weeks, Democrats were arguing among themselves about what position they would bring into the tax cut debate. There's a fascinating thing that happens with Democrats where they do not appear to understand when they have the leverage. In the tax cut debate, they have the leverage. They have the more popular position and they are the only ones really with the power to pass a cut extension. But they don't use it.

OLBERMANN: Can't accept win for an answer.

The unemployment for people who have been out of work for at least six months begin to expire tomorrow. As "Think Progress" notes, Congress never in the last 40 years allowed the extended unemployment benefits to expire when the rate - when the unemployment rate was above 7.2. And the latest poll shows the public in favor of extending these benefits.

So, why are the Democrats tying it into the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy in order to get it done? Couldn't it get done on its own?

KLEIN: Because the unemployed aren't politically powerful. It is the sad answer of that.

But the other piece of this, and man, it's one of those days when I wish I brought a graph.


KLEIN: It's really important people understand the tax cuts for the rich, when you put everything together, that's about $4 trillion over 10 years. The unemployment benefits are a couple tens of billions. The difference on what we're putting on the deficit is enormous. When you run a graph of these two things, you can't see the unemployment benefits on it, the line is so small.

The idea that there are people walking around this town saying I'm a fiscal conservative and I can do one of these, the tax cuts for everyone, but not the other, is unbelievable. And it's even more unbelievable given that if anybody who really needs some help right now, it's people who are unemployed and with 10 percent unemployment. Not people who are making $500,000 and it's one of the deeper downturns we have of the nation's history.

OLBERMANN: What about people who work for the federal government and the president's proposal for a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers which he threw out before tomorrow's meeting? Did he gain something that nobody else can see in that, in terms of the negotiations with Boehner and McConnell?

KLEIN: The White House intends to do unilateral bipartisanship.


KLEIN: They compromise with themselves and they say they made a compromise. But Republicans who didn't buy into it don't give them any credit.

You can make the argument that maybe preventing something worse - a two-year pay freeze is better than a three-year pay freeze and better than a pay cut. On the other hand, though, you legitimize an argument that federal workers should be paid less than they currently are. And while the Obama administration has big regulatory policies coming out, health care reform, financial regulation, and they need good regulatory talent - they are making a very high-profile claim that is not a great time to become a federal worker. So, that should worry people who worry about the success of these initiatives that are passed - that have been passed in the last two years.

OLBERMANN: I mean, we're going to start paying less for the government and the people in it, we're going to wind up with - well, I guess more of the people we elected in November. But is there anything positive out of the Schumer idea, on the tax cut threshold to make it $1 dollars? As we mentioned before, he has mentioned before, is it a nonstarter or do they think that's a great idea? Or where does that stand?

KLEIN: It's better than nothing and still bad. What I say about Schumer is simply this, that in the campaign, Barack Obama tied his hands behind his back by saying we will never raise taxes on people making less than $250,000. That's very low - that was very high given the size of our deficit.

To then raise that up to $1 million, you're creating such a small class of people in this country that can be taxed when we need to begin changing the way the tax code works to get the deficit under control, that you're really constraining your options. It is not a great idea to say only people making seven figures can have tax increases.

We have historically low taxes right now, a historically high deficit. We may need to make hard choices in the coming years. These are not good principles to enshrine into our rhetoric.

OLBERMANN: Meanwhile, freeze the salaries of people who have jobs and would conceivably - now can't spend the raises they don't get.

"The Washington Post's" Ezra Klein - always a pleasure, Ezra. Thank you.

KLEIN: Thank you.

OLBERMANN: Wholly connected to the tax cut insanity is the deficit commission inanity. The president's deficit commission is due to finish its work this week, but not before its co-chair whines about his critics.

Former Senator Alan Simpson noting the nasty e-mails he has received and complaining about the media. Quoting, "You don't want to listen to the right and the left - the extremes. You don't want to listen to Keith Olbermann and Rush Babe and Rachel Minnow or whatever that is, and Glenn Beck. They're entertainers. They couldn't govern their way out of a paper sack from the right or left."

Aside from the false equivalency contained therein, there is the fact that some of Simpson's harshest critics are not media people, but rather other policymakers who simply and strongly disagree with how best to achieve deficit reduction. Also the fact is that he is one of those gentlemen who while in office put us in the paper sack.

Also, to that end, two progressive groups are releasing alternative plans that would achieve reduction without draconian cuts to Social Security and with higher taxes on the healthy, that are well-within the range that existed prior to the Bush era. One of those groups, Demos, unveiled its blue print today.

And joining me now, the director of the Washington official, a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy organization, Heather McGhee.

Thanks again for your time tonight.

HEATHER MCGHEE, DEMOS: Thank you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Before we get to your plan, we have a pretty good idea now of what Simpson-Erskine Bowles is going to look like. What part of that do you like the least?

MCGHEE: Well, honestly, I think the whole approach that basically says that this entire exercise is about sort of a math problem, and not about what we at Demos and the Century Foundation, the Economic Policy Institute together did when we sat down to make our fiscal blueprint which we released today. We asked, when we looked at all the different ways that we could bring down the deficit, make the debt more sustainable over the long term - we asked one question which is: what is this going to do for the most urgent problem facing our economy, which is the decline of the middle class, and broad economic security facing working and middle class Americans?

It doesn't seem like the chair's proposal even thought about that question. On the issue of retirement security, for example, it says that young workers today who are middle class should actually get a third less in Social Security benefits. Out here in the real world, we know that 401(k)s are actually going to be entirely inadequate compared to the pensions that our grandparents had, and we're going to need more actually, not less from Social Security in the future.

OLBERMANN: Why is it that tax increases for the wealthy get so little traction? I think I know the answer to that one. But what is - in your plan, how would that be addressed in terms this broad sacrifice that seems to be sacrificed by the largest number of people, not the people with the most amount of money?

MCGHEE: Our plan really starts from, again, a real world analysis, saying that we are actually trying to run the government right now on a steam engine and we're trying to sort of create a high-speed rail economy. We have the lowest share of federal revenues being collected as a share of our economy that we've had since 1950. That was before Medicare and Medicaid and federal expending on education.

So, what we say is that it has to be looking at modernizing and expanding our revenue base. So, you know, obviously, we start - it's a no-brainer to do the millionaires tax cuts and those under the Bush tax cuts. But we also look at equalizing the taxes on wealth and work, making sure that, you know, secretaries are paying a lower rate than their CEO bosses are on their stock dividends.

We also looked at a financial speculation tax, because there's a way to actually achieve a more stable financial sector by taxing really economically unproductive speculation that actually brought our economy to its knees.

OLBERMANN: So, Heather, when the president proposes something like he did today, this civilian federal worker pay freeze over the next two years, is any savings in that so small as to be meaningless certainly when juxtaposed against what it would mean for taking money out of the spending economy? Or is it in some way acceptable? Is it a - is it a necessary sacrifice if it is to be coupled in some way with something equivalent from the upper class?

MCGHEE: This is just another example of people not paying attention to what we really believe is the core question, which is how are working and middle class families fairing? Government workers are for the vast majority of them, middle class workers.

You know, the Republican and sort of conservative ideology around demonizing federal workers is really cynical. It's trying to split one section of working in middle class families against another. I mean, we're talking about nurses for veterans who make $28,000 a year or border patrol agent who makes $35,000 a year. These are not the people who caused the great recession, they're not the people who caused the deficit problems and they're not the people who should be asked to sacrifice before millionaires and billionaires and hedge fund managers.

OLBERMANN: Government fat cats - that's the phrase. And it gets applied to the wrong people. I mean, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois on day one is a bigger fat cat than the most slough-like career civil servant could ever be.

Heather McGhee, the director the D.C. office of Demos, great thanks and good luck with the plan.

MCGHEE: Thank you.

OLBERMANN: The Chinese are about to bail out on North Korea? Much of the Middle East would love us to go blow up Iran for them? And Muammar Khadafy has a hot Ukrainian nurse? The secrets of WikiLeaks also known as "Wiki-TMZ." Next.


OLBERMANN: The headline in one British paper, "WikiLeaks cable revealed China ready to abandon North Korea." And they didn't even mention Muammar Khadafy's voluptuous Ukrainian nurse.

Supposedly, one of the few remaining sane Republicans, yet she won't vote for the START Treaty with the Russians until two presidents named Bush tell her it's OK. At least two presidents named Bush.

And he had already played at least six serious doctors, including two different ones on the unbearably serious series "Ben Casey." But it was when Dr. Rumack came along that our world turned. We will remember Leslie Nielsen - ahead on Countdown.


OLBERMANN: You may have noticed that the big headline about WikiLeaks big dump of one quarter million State Department from early cables from embassies abroad is that it happened.

But in our fourth story tonight: what these cables reveal is that most of what you think about America's foremost bogeymen, North Korea and Iran, is wrong.

For years, we have assumed, with some reason, that North Korea did not stand alone as a rogue state, and now, a nuclear rogue state, that China had Kim Jong-il's back. It turns China seems to have had it up to here with North Korea's bellicose ways, calling it a spoiled child after North Korea's missile testing in April of last year.

Far more stunning, word from a South Korean officials of the U.S. that two Chinese officials, quote, "were ready to face the new reality that North Korea now had little value to China as a buffer state," a view that have reportedly gained traction among senior Chinese officials.

According to the cable, China, quote, "would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchor to the U.S. in a benign alliance, as long as Korea was not hostile towards China."

Here's the kicker, the reason a U.S. ally taking over one of its border neighbors would be OK with communist China. Quote, "Tremendous trade and labor export opportunities for Chinese companies," the South Korean official said, "would also help solve Chinese concerns about a reunified Korea."

The cables also revealed the U.S. believed that South Korea supplied Iran with 19 BM25 missiles - missiles with 2,000 miles, meaning Moscow, Berlin and much of Western Europe.

But China's seeming alliance with the U.S. toward North Korea is at least rivaled by confirmation that the biggest cheerleaders for war with Iran are other Arab leaders. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt calling the Iranians, quote, "big fat liars." King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia telling the U.S. to attack Iran, to end its nuclear program, calling for the U.S. to, quote, "cut off the head of the snake." These despite the cables lacking any evidence that Iran is using its civilian nuclear program to build military nuclear missiles.

Bahrain's King Hamad telling General Petraeus last November the U.S. should terminate Iran's nuclear program by any means necessary.

Israel, not surprisingly, in full agreement. Defense Minister Ehud Barak putting it (ph) last summer that the world only had six to 18 months, quote, "in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable." After that, he said, any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage.

But the cables also reveal a reason other than the obvious for Israel's opposition to Iranian nukes. A 2007 cable to then-Secretary of State Rice to a U.S. ambassador revealing, quote, "Thoughtful Israeli analysts point out that even if a nuclear-armed Iran did not immediately launch a strike on the Israeli heartland, the very fact that Iran possesses nuclear weapons would completely transform the Middle East strategic environment, in ways that would make Israel's long term survival as a democratic Jewish state increasingly problem. That concern is most intensively reflected in the open talk by those who say they do not want their children and grandchildren growing up in an Israel threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran."

Meaning, because surveys find one third of Israelis would leave if Iran gets the bomb, and Palestinian Israelis already make up 20 percent of the population, if Iran did get the bomb and Palestinian citizens became a majority, Israel would have to figure out how it could remain both Jewish and democratic at the same time.

Let's bring in Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff of State Department under then-Secretary Colin Powell, now at the College of William & Mary.

Great thanks for your time tonight, sir.


OLBERMANN: How does this change or should it, in fact, change our approach to the Iranian nuclear issue, knowing that part of Israel's anxiety is demographic?

WILKERSON: I think anyone who studied the situation and I will admit that that's probably you, unfortunately, knew that already. And Israel's problem is much more profound, I think, than you just stated it, though that's an aspect of it. The profoundness of it is that Israel is going to be - find it increasingly difficult to be democratic and Jewish, even with the current demographic situation, no outside forces even impacting.

Israel will be an apartheid state, probably within a couple decades, if it tries to maintain the current policies, vis-a-vis the Palestinian's growing population, and that's not very good for the future. South Africa proved that.

So, Israel has got a problem in that regard, and I think those who are concerned with the situation understand. That's why we need a two-state solution, that's why the United States advocates such a solution. And it needs to be two states that are viable, economically, politically, security-wise and so forth.

OLBERMANN: The leaders among Iran's neighbors - and I sort of described them as other Arab countries. That's how - we're talking about other Middle Eastern countries would like to see the U.S. go to war against Iran on behalf of the neighbors, but obviously, they're not saying that publicly. Explain the dynamic there, though.

WILKERSON: Well, remember - I used to read these cables all the time. And I think this is quite lamentable that we've gotten to the point where we're trying to share information so widely, the sipper-net for example. These cables should have never been on the sipper-net, most of them. So, it's lamentable that these things leaked.

But I don't think there's been any major damage done partly because of the circumspection of "The New York Times," "Der Spiegel," (INAUDIBLE) and other entities, like "The Guardian," to which the information was turned over. They've been rather circumspect and rather lies (ph) in the way they redacted and treated the information, so far at least.

But I think we have to look at, what are these things intended for? Remember, the information that's being reported back to Washington and these cables is not necessarily the truth.


WILKERSON: In fact, often times, it is designed to go through our diplomatic corps to get to Washington if at all possible to the highest leadership and to obfuscate and to lie and to twist and to turn and make people believe things that aren't necessarily the case. So, when you're interpreting these cables, you have to remember that they are anything in most cases but the complete truth. And even if they are, the truth as seen by the observer, the observer is often fooled.

OLBERMANN: Well, to the point of not necessarily the truth, what about this North Korea/China disconnect? Do you believe it?

WILKERSON: I don't believe it in the way that it seems to come across. I haven't seen all the traffic.

I think there is a problem right now, and that problem is between the power centers in Beijing, to include the PLA, the PLN, the military in general, the people in the Politburo, the ministry of foreign affairs and others who see North Korea as an increasing liability and don't know quite what to do about it. Because, as you pointed out in your excellent commentary before we started this question and answer period, there is something to be said for 70 million Koreans unified with the capital Seoul working right next to China and still embedded in a signatory treaty with the United States.

I'd be a little uncomfortable in Beijing probably with that prospect and business possibilities notwithstanding, I'd still be uncomfortable. So, I think there's a lot of angst in Beijing, but I do think there's growing frustration with what appears to be an increasingly nuttier and nuttier leadership in Pyongyang.

OLBERMANN: Is anything in there a reason to breathe more easily about North Korea? Or is there a flip side to this, that if the Chinese stuff is true, now suddenly, the Chinese are saying, well, the North Koreans have no clones either, and North Korea could get even more unreliable?

WILKERSON: You put your finger on it. With the George Washington battle group, what, 160 miles of Yeonpyeong Island right now, the island where the casualties occurred earlier, and the proximity of forces there, and the North Koreans doing things that are clearly not on the agenda, and no one anticipates - this is a dangerous situation. I think we're probably as close as we were in 1994 to an outbreak of hostilities that might have some surprises for people, escalation, for example. And this is not a place to have that happen.


WILKERSON: So, I do think cooler heads need to prevail here.

OBLERMANN: Well, first, we have to check and see if they're still attached to their shoulders in one part of that equation.

WILKERSON: Absolutely.

OLBERMANN: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff at the State Department under General Powell - great thanks for your time tonight. Extraordinarily helpful.

WILKERSON: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Incidentally, in an interview just released by "Forbes" but conducted earlier this month, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks says his next dissemination will be secret documents that pertain to a major bank. With this he says, only one similar example, it's like the Enron e-mails.

Senator Collins of Maine holding out her support on the START missile treaty until the last two Republican presidents say it's OK. Two Bushes in the hand before she'll stop giving nuclear security the bird?


OLBERMANN: The word of the State Department and the administration is not enough for a supposedly moderate senator. But if the Presidents Bush tell her to vote for it, she's voting for it. First, the sanity break and the Tweet of the day from Will Landstrom. "Fox alert, Fox News has been nominated for fake news comedy of the year, along with "The Daily Show" and the "Colbert Report." Now, you're really insulting Jon and Stephen there, but I get the point.

Let's play Oddball.

We begin in Gurgayon (ph), India. And if you thought your commute was rough, say hello to a government-sanctioned subway beat down. New Delhi's rail service reserves one car on each train for ladies only. But men have been riding in female only rail cars and the women have had enough. So accompanied by police, they took back their railcars with slaps of fury. Unleash the beast.

This is for ladies only. So is this, ma'am. But every once in a while, I have to run al little traffic through it. So we learned two things from this video: there is a woman's subway car in India, and in contrast to it, my subway ride is quick dance in the spring rain.

And then to Edmonton. Just when you thought it was safe to go back to a hockey game, the Edmonton Oilers preparing to face off against the San Jose Sharks. Announcer Scott Oaks and Kevin Weeks are handicapping the game for the fans at home when suddenly, look out behind you, the red thing. Without missing a beat, Weeks just barely avoids the incoming rabid zamboni attack. No one was hurt, this time. If the zamboni acts like that when they play the Sharks, I wonder what happens when the Oilers play the Hurricanes.

Time - marches on.

The Republicans have trotted out some lame rationalizations for playing politics with nuclear safety and the Start Treaty. But Senator Collins of Maine has just trotted out the lamest, next.


OLBERMANN: Senator Jon Kyl continues to stall on the Start Treaty, even as the list of Republican statesmen urging its passage grows, Scowcroft, Kissinger, Powell, Duberstein, Schultz, Howard Baker, James Baker. But in our third story, as the White House looks to GOP moderates to ratify a treaty that would keep loose nukes out of the hands of terrorists, Senator Susan Collins still needs convincing, needs convincing from a guy who can't pronounce nuclear.

The new Start - Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - would reduce both reduce both American and Russian nuclear arsenals, signed by both President Obama and Russian President Medvedev back in April. It has yet to go into effect due to the efforts of Senate Minority Whip Kyl, who has delayed ratification for months. Mr. Kyl placing blame on Majority Leader Reid.


SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: My issue is that you can't do everything. I was stating it as a matter of reality, not a matter of policy. How can Harry Reid do all of the things we talked about, deal with the expiring tax provisions and, in addition to that, deal with the Start treaty, which by itself could probably take at least two weeks?


OLBERMANN: The last Start Treaty was passed through Congress in five days. Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri speaking about what's really going on.


SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: There's some game playing going

on with the Start Treaty. It's all about politics and it's all about

trying to damage the president of the United States. We have now gone

months without any verification of loose nukes. Look at Dick Lugar, who I

think instead of playing politics and hiding behind the skirts of Jon Kyl -

I hope the Republicans look at Richard Lugar, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who has said, unequivocally, we need to do the Start Treaty.


OLBERMANN: To that point, Senator Lugar has asked his Republican colleagues to do your duty for your country, and vote for ratification. And that comment and his perceived moderate voting record catches the eye of Tea Party groups. They have vowed to primary Mr. Lugar in 2012.

Former Republican Senator Danforth of Missouri telling the "New York Times," "if Dick Lugar, having served five terms in the U.S. Senate, being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption."

Pretty good assessment. That brings us back to Senator Collins. Unconvinced by Lugar's appeal to patriotism, Ms. Collins instead telling the "Washington Post" that she could be persuaded to vote for the treaty if the former Presidents Bush would tell her what they think of it. "It would be wonderful if President George H.W. Bush would come out for the treaty. That would be so powerful and definitely help."

Once again, for help on this topic, we turn to former assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan, now senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, Lawrence Korb. And again, our thanks for some of your time tonight, sir.


OLBERMANN: It's not just Senator Collins or Senator Lugar about Senator Collins, and all these other Republicans kind of blowing back. In the "Washington Post," Robert Kagan, not exactly a liberal, wrote that if Start is defeated that will, as he put it, simply strengthen Vladimir Putin. Is he right? If he's right, why are Republicans willing to risk that.

KORB: Yeah, Bob is certainly right, and Bob's an expert on Russia. He's lived in Russia. He understands that in Russian now you have a struggle for the future of the country and its foreign policy between Putin and Medvedev. If this treaty is turned down, Putin can say, see, I told you; you can't trust these guys, they're trying to encircle us.

So there is a real danger. And I tell you what Obama needs to do is get out there and make sure that people know if we upset our relations with Russia, it's going to hurt those men and women in Afghanistan, because they're allowing all the supplies to go across Russia to that theater.

OLBERMANN: Is this something that he can deal, the president, that is, directly with Mr. Kyl about? Because the administration already made a concession set to Senator Kyl on the nuclear program. Is there something he wants? So how does he justify obstructing something that is obviously something that this country wants and needs, and the Russians agreed to, and if it falls apart, going to make us look bad and the Russians look good?

KORB: Well, the problem right now is the American people are not focused on it. With the end of the Cold War, they have sort of put this aside. You can't - basically, they bribed Kyl already. They put 20 percent more into modernizing the nuclear complex than President Bush had done. And even that has not done it.

And in that interview with David Gregory, he did not come across with a single substantive argument against it. He basically was talking procedure, because he knows any substantive argument will be shot down by the eldest of the Republican party, people like Baker and Kissinger and Schlesinger and Scowcroft. So he's just delaying because if it goes to the next Congress, you have to start all over. We need hearings. We have to get it out of committee. By that time, he can say, well, we're getting into a presidential election, so let's wait some more, and he accomplishes his objective without ever having to, you know, take on the arguments.

OLBERMANN: What is his objective? Why does he not want this thing passed?

KORB: Well, I think he wants to be the rising star among the neo-conservatives or the Tea Party people, whatever you want to call them, to take that away from Lugar. And by doing this, he can get that accolade. The other is they want to defeat Obama. If this happens, this will be a victory for Obama. They don't want to let him get any victories. So he accomplishes two things, his own star rises and he undermines Obama.

OLBERMANN: Senator Collins and her comment about Presidents Bush; is there the germ of a good idea in there? Should both former Presidents Bush come out in favor of this and right now?

KORB: Well, I think former presidents don't usually get involved in politics. The reason she's doing that - don't forget, the Bushes have the home up in Kennebunkport. She knows because her voting record in most cases is moderate, she could be challenged from the right. They could provide her political cover, particularly if she can get the second President Bush.

I would urge them, you know, right now, given where this is, maybe to go against what normally happens when presidents stay out of issues after they lead office, because both of them had arms reduction treaties with the Soviets and then the Russians. And they know the problems this is going to cause if it doesn't go through.

OLBERMANN: Lawrence Korb, the former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, again great thanks.

KORB: Thanks for having me.

OLBERMANN: Yes, this is the worst acting in a public service announcement ever. And since it's about abstinence, it would also be the worst casting.

And what he did will always be funny, but it will be funnier still if

you take a few minutes and review with me what he did with me in the first

half of his career. >

And when Rachel joins you at the top of the hour, why Smoky Joe Barton thinks he's General Patton in the right's fight against the Obama administration. General Patton? He's not Patton Oswald.


OLBERMANN: In memory of Leslie Nielsen next.

First, get out your pitchforks and torches, time for today's nominees for the Worst Persons in the World.

The bronze to an unnamed 64 year old do-it-yourselfer in the town of Gimfurda (ph), in Eastern Germany. On Friday, he decided to finish up the big project, sealing up the entrance to his cellar. Police found him three days later trying to drill through the wall into his neighbor's cellar. He had managed to successfully wall over the entrance to his cellar with bricks and mortar, all right, him inside it.

He sealed himself in. No word as to whether when they rescued him, police asked him he had ever read the C"The Cask of Amontillado" by Edgar Allen Poe. "For the love of God, Motresaur (ph)."

The runner up, Roger Ailes again. The headline on the Fox Nation part of his crack Fox News website, "Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000 Word E-Mail." "Having admittedly reached the end of his rope, President Barack Obama sent a rambling 75,000 word e-mail to the entire nation Wednesday, revealing deep frustrations with America's political culture, his presidency, U.S. citizens and himself. The e-mail, which was titled a couple things, addressed countless topics in a dense stream of consciousness, ranted off and went on for hundreds of words without any punctuation or paragraph breaks."

The story was from "The Onion," a satirical website. Fox News did not note that the piece was a spoof until much later. It accepted comments from its readers, one of whom wrote "this should be enough to have him removed from office immediately. He's now the highest security risk to this nation."

Another named Betty Bonny said she didn't receive the e-mail, but a friend of hers did. "She forwarded it to me. It was pitiful. My friend thinks he is losing it. I told he I knew this a long time ago."

Proving once again people who believe Fox will believe anything. For its part, Fox says the editor responsible for posting the story without acknowledging it was satire will be promoted - sorry, punished, punished, not promoted.

But our winner, Bristol Palin. She has done a public service announcement with this The Situation guy from TV's "Jersey Shore." It's about abstinence and safe sex. Sadly, it is not a spoof done by "The Onion."


MIKE SORRENTINO, "JERSEY SHORE": B-Palin, are you seriously - you're not going to hook up like before you're married, for real?


SORRENTINO: For real for real?

PALIN: For real for real for real?


OLBERMANN: She's the candy's spokesperson for abstinence? She and her son? Because it's got to work this time? This is like saying George Bush kept us safe, except for that 9/11 thing which doesn't count. Bristol Palin, abstinence role model, this time, today's Worst Person in the World.


OLBERMANN: If tomorrow Gary Sinise or an actor like Gary Sinise suddenly showed up in the most hilarious, most corn ball, most cliche skewering comedy movie of the decade, and was so successful in it that he basically never did a serious role again in his life, and moreover so successful that nobody would even remember all his serious roles for the rest of his life, he would be Leslie Nielsen.

Our number one story on the Countdown, the late Leslie Nielsen. He died last night of complications from pneumonia after a staff infection in Florida, at the age of 84. And his success in the 30 years since the movie can be fully appreciated only if you appreciate what he did and the dead earnest seriousness with which he did it for the 30 years that preceded him, up until July 2nd, 1980, when the movie "Airplane" premiered.

Before that date, Leslie Nielsen was everything he later detonated with perfect pitch satire that he would later explain he had kept hidden for the first half of his career.


LESLIE NIELSEN, ACTOR: Nothing human would ever enter your mind. It so happens that I'm in command of 18 competitively selected super perfect physical specimens, with an average age of 24.6, who have been locked up in hyper space for 378 days.

Well, this is no Garden of Eden, Tammy. When they found this case, they didn't know about soil conservation and crop location. The land's all washed out.

You see in all this trouble, I did never did take Mr. Purdy off the case. I just forgot to.

Martha and Walter Tate, thou hast been found guilty of being servants of Satan. I sentence you to be burned at the stake at the rise of the sun.


OLBERMANN: The man starred in a dead serious TV series about a movie mogul called "Bracken's World." He was Bracken. He was in "Forbidden Planet," as you saw. He was Commander J.J. Adams, for heaven's sake. Even when it was revealed his leading man persona was to be associated with this bizarre "Airplane" movie 30 years ago, the film cognizanti (ph) thought the real story would be watching such greater actors as Robert Stack and Lloyd Bridges and Peter Graves tackle comedy.

Surely, they couldn't have been more wrong.


NIELSEN: You better tell the captain we've got to land as soon as we can. This woman has got to be gotten to a hospital.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A hospital, what is it?

NIELSEN: It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.

Captain, how soon can you land?


NIELSEN: You can tell me, I'm a doctor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I mean, I'm just not sure.

NIELSEN: Can't you take a guess?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, not for another two hours.

NIELSEN: You can't take a guess for another two hours?


NIELSEN: Can you fly this plane and land it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Surely you can't be serious?

NIELSEN: I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.


OLBERMANN: Leslie Nielsen stole that film from his first scene to the last time somebody finished playing the movie ten minutes ago. But his genius as a dead pan fall guy was in his ability to do it more than once. That was shown in the "Police Squad" TV series two years later.


NIELSEN: There'd been a recent wave of gorgeous fashion models found naked and unconscious in Laundromats on the West Side. Unfortunately, I was assigned to investigate holdups at neighborhood credit unions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're right on time, Lamikans (ph). Make yourself a drink, baby.

NIELSEN: No thanks, Hitch.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who are you, and how did you get here?

NIELSEN: I'm a locksmith and I'm a locksmith.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Poor Ralph, do you know what it's like to be married to a wonderful man for 14 years?

NIELSEN: No, I can't say that I do. I did live with a guy once.

That was just for a couple years.

Usual slurs, rumors, innuendoes. People didn't understand. Ran him out of town like a common pigmy.


OLBERMANN: And even when TV chickened out on a cornucopia of satire because it didn't have a laugh track, even the movie studios recognized the golden goose when it pooped on them. And they gave us "The Naked Gun."


NIELSEN: The feeling is mutual.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nice to meet you, too.


NIELSEN: No, Dutch Irish. My father was from Wales.

Where's Nordberg?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's right here.

NIELSEN: Right. Nordberg, it's me, Frank, your buddy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drebin, I don't want any more trouble like you had last year on the south side, understand? That's my policy.

NIELSEN: Yes, well, when I see five weirdoes dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of a park in full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards. That's my policy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was a Shakespeare in the park production of "Julius Caesar," you moron.

NIELSEN: For the ramparts we watched - da-da-da-da-da-da.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't believe we just met yesterday.

NIELSEN: You really mean that, Jane? You're not just saying it because we exchanged bodily fluids?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I really mean it. You're very special. Can I interest you in a nightcap?

NIELSEN: No, thank you, I don't wear them?


OLBERMANN: How funny was Leslie Nielsen? Funny enough that in his films, O.J. Simpson still seems funny. The movies are often dismissed as low-brow. The word play, the insight, the performances suggest anything but. On the other hand, the whoopi cushion, that was low brow and he was never without it.

My friend, his "Airplane" co-star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar blogged about it today. "He would often engage the casualty acquaintance in what seemed to be a serious conversation, while he manipulated a Whoopi cushion, causing that person to look around and try to figure what exactly was going on."

How casual an acquaintance? That takes us back to Nielsen's reputation before "Airplane." The serious, handsome leading man with no comedy credits broke out the Whoopi cushion on the greatest star in basketball the day they met at the start of films of "Airplane."


NIELSEN: I don't want to grow up, I'm going to grow down.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're not going to do that business any more, are you?

NIELSEN: Which business?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know, that you would -

OLBERMANN: No, I won't do it any more.

That's the other thing about the humans, you have to pay attention to it.

There are so many young people growing up, 10, 11, 12 - they're getting this picture for the first time. So I have to -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you leave this veil of tears as they say, and maybe -

NIELSEN: Oh, my god.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: - and they say, Leslie Nielsen has moved into the great beyond and they run a clip from "Naked Gun," is that going to be OK with you?

NIELSEN: A clip from "Naked Gun"? I think the epithet should be, let him rip. Thank you.


OLBERMANN: That's November 29th, 27 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 why the right in the House is comparing itself to Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton in its version of the Second World Obama, ladies and gentlemen, here's Rachel Maddow. Good to see you, Rachel.