>> the more combative tone. >> what he should have done three years ago. >> the faith we saw in the summer is over. >> that phase is behind us. >> democrats seem to have his back. >> the president is on the right side here. >> it's not class warfare to fight for the middle class. >> what the president has done is very shrewd. >> he's a progressive. >> is his show of strong leadership too little, too late? >> a fighting chance. >> bright lines that divide republicans and democrats. >> america has never been more divided than today. >> raises taxes on the wealthiest, taxes on millionaires and billionaires. >> 22,000 millionaires paying less than 15%. >> it really sets up a big fight. >> another fight. >> circle the wagons quickly. >> the big story today is gridlock. >> we don't think it's right to raise taxes on middle class americans. >> 46 million americans are living below the poverty line. >> out of touch with how really people, ordinary people --

>> the battle is over. and the middle classes have lost. >> let the campaign begin. we're in a battle for the hearts and minds of america. so said president obama to supporters at a fund-raising event last night in new york city. the president told democratic donors that, quote, the stakes are enormous. and he finally acknowledged what his base has known since john boehner was sworn in as speaker of the house in january. "we have not had a willing partner over the last nine months. what we've seen is some inreconcilable differences. let's put it that way. a fundamentally different vision about where america needs to go and the speech that i gave at the joint session described a vision that is fundamentally different from the one that's offered by the other side."

the president's appearance at the fund-raiser came at the end of a day that began with his appearance in the rose garden. announcing his long term deficit reduction plan that includes tax revenue increases on the highest income earners and closing corporate tax loopholes. the president obviously found the republicans' response to his speech earlier in the day so weak and empty that the president thought he could repeat it to his audience last night. the president said, "you're already hearing the moans and groans from the other side about how we are engaging in class warfare and we're being too populist and this and that and the other, all the usual scripts." if you think you're seeing something different now, a new tone from president obama, a new confrontational strategy in dealing with congressional republicans, you are not wrong. today's "new york times" quotes white house communications director dan fifer saying "it's fair to say we entered a new phase.

the popular narrative is we sought compromise in a quixotic quest. we sought out compromise because a failure to get funding of the government last spring and then an extension of the debt. we were in a position of legislative compromise by necessity. that phase is behind us." the mythical class warfare that republicans imagine has broken out simply because the president has suggested that millionaires should pay a higher tax rate, higher tax rate than their assistants has a new defector. the rich already lost their superhero, warren buffett, to the other side. in indeed, the president named his tax notion the buffett rule after he revealed he paid a lower tax rate than many of his middle class employees. a billionaire wrote on his blog while some people might find it distasteful to pay taxes, i

don't. i find it patriotic. i'm not saying the government's use of tax money is the most efficient use of our hard-earned capital. it obviously is not. in a perfect world there would be a better option. we don't live in a perfect world. we don't live in a perfect time. we live in a time where the government plays a big role in an effort to help lead us out of this great recession. that's reality. today republicans shifted their rhetoric from class warfare to trying to portray the president as a quitter at the game of government. boehner's spokesman said "divided government is difficult and at times ugly but with 9.1% unemployment and more than a year until the next election i don't think americans are going to approve of the president taking his ball and going home." joining me now is congressman

jan schakowsky of illinois who served on the commission of fiscal responsibility and reform. thanks for joining me tonight. >> thank you, lawrence. >> has the president taken his ball and gone home? is that a fair characterization? >> no, it's just amazing they would say that after being obstructionists, of saying no, no, no, to absolutely everything that he has done. every time that he's reached out to them. they're smart, however, really i think to drop this idea of class warfare because actually what the president is trying to do is stop the war on the middle class that has been waged for decades now. and has benefited their constituents. that is the republican-favored constituents. the wealthiest. but, of course, the president has not taken the ball and gone home. in fact, what he's saying to them is now if you want to really do something, these are

some of the terms that i have laid out. and i'll tell you, lawrence, my constituents are thrilled. >> yeah. eric cantor walking out on the president was not characterized as taking his ball and going home, but here they are doing this. it seems to me that there's not yet any specificity on how the buffett rule would be written into law. how you could write it so that a situation wouldn't occur again where warren buffett, a billionaire, would be paying a lower income tax rate than middle class employees who work for him. how would you write that into law? >> well, first of all the president has said that those tax cuts for the wealthiest americans absolutely are not going to be renewed, but i certainly introduced my own proposal proposal, the fairness and taxation act, that would raise the rates for the highest earners starting at $1 million and ratcheting up to $1 billion. i hope the supercommittee, at least the democrats, will put that actually into legislative terms on how we can make sure that no millionaire pays a lower rate than a plumber or a schoolteacher or his secretary,

or as warren buffett has said, the woman that cleans his house. >> yeah, i personally don't see any other way to write this other than just a set of new tax brackets that address the buffett level of income. you certainly couldn't write a law that somehow, your tax return is dependent on what your employees' tax returns are. it has to be some higher bracket in the billionaire range as you've written and in the multimillionaire range. >> getting rid of the carried interest which allows hedge fund managers like john paulson who made $5 billion last year, and paid mostly at a 15% rate, that's got to be out the door. that's unacceptable. i think there are a number of different ways that we can address this, but most americans absolutely agree with this notion, and for the republicans to say, well, we shouldn't go

after these wealthy people and calling it class warfare, just doesn't sell. >> how does it feel to be watching the argument come your way? here you were proposing new higher brackets when everybody thought, oh, listen, you can't do that, don't even think about it, don't even dream about trying to get something other than the top bracket at around $250,000. when you first proposed this i remember having you on the show, and you were a very lonely voice. >> well, i think what the president looked at and hopefully most legislators including the republicans look at is what the american people were saying. i saw a poll and it simply said that 81% of americans think that the best way to reduce our debt and our deficit is to tax millionaires and billionaires more. the american people have spoken out on these questions. if we just have the courage to

follow what they're saying, i think that we're going to develop some very good policies. we're going to have some iconic battles right now. whether or not we're really going to focus on the president's jobs proposals, whether we're going to protect social security and medicare, whether we're going to wind down these wars and whether we're going to have fair taxes in this country. these really are about the heart and soul of our nation. >> congresswoman schakowsky, the president is saying he has irreconcilable differences, just fundamental differences in world view with the republicans in the house of representatives. at the same time, he's saying we cannot wait until after the next election next year to do something about jobs in america. he at the same moment is saying we have to pass the jobs bill. how can you pass the jobs bill with irreconcilable differences with republicans in the house? >> well, the republicans have in the past stated their irreconcilable differences and demanded that democrats move their way. they made these threats over the debt ceiling and made demands that, you know, they were not about to back up on. i think now that the president

is saying, look, these are the terms, it's supported by americans, we need to get this job done now. hopefully -- because i think if the republicans don't move, it's at their peril in the next election. and the president, i think, is absolutely sincere in wanting to deal with it before next november. >> representative jan schakowsky, thank you very much for joining me tonight. >> thank you. joining me now is sam stein, political reporter for "the huffington post." thanks for joining me tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> this is a new tone. this is -- you've been covering the white house. everyone recognized right away yesterday we haven't seen this before. >> yeah. and i think, dan pheiffer's quote gets at the dynamic in the white house. they felt very captive. imprisoned by the debt ceiling debate. the president's advisers told them between the 2010 elections

and 2012 elections that was the one thing that could really trip them up. they obviously didn't want the treasury to default on its loans. now that that's behind them, they don't feel quite so imprisoned anymore. they feel like they could navigate the budget battles on the assertive. you see that when the president instead of sort of preemptively compromising or conceding points on whether it's social security or medicare eligibility age. he's actually saying to the speaker, you have to come to me if you want to get those reforms. have we got to lose? we have approached them in a compromising way in the past. we've tried to design proposals that would have some attracting points to republicans at the outset. we've gotten nowhere with that. it's never worked. what's the alternative? one of the alternatives is actually putting out the plan that you really would like to pass.

>> sure. and let's not kid ourselves, they're not going to pass this plan. they're going to move off of it. this is a starting point of the negotiations. go back to august when it was just the president and house speaker boehner. you got the sense that obama desperately wanted the house speaker to take that grand bargain which included raising eligibility age of medicare, which included reforming payment structure of social security in part because we needed a vehicle to get the debt ceiling raised. nowadays when you're looking at the supercommittee and its legislations there's a different tone to this. it's obama saying to boehner, if you want to get the things i dangled in front of you, you have to give me something. he knows boehner can't go back to the caucus and say, let's let massive defense cuts happen. he knows boehner is in a bind here. the expectation is the caucus is going to have to reach them on revenues. >> so the thing that's at their backs that is going to force them into some kind of conversation is that very harsh trigger that's already built into law? >> yeah. that is a very harsh trigger for

both sides. obviously it includes a ton of defense cuts that the defense industry warned against and the defense secretary warned against. it includes hundreds of billions of dollars in medicare cuts and additional spending cuts that neither side really wants to see pulled. now, there are some chatter on the hill as to whether the charter for the supercommittee can be amended. triggers are meant to not be pulled. you also remember, you have a year until they're actually pulled. the supercommittee is supposed to report out and have a report by the end of december. the triggers aren't pulled until the turn of 2013. there's a way to get around it. the expectation from everyone i talk to inside the administration and outside of it as well as on the hill is this is going to compel the sides to two go to the table. obama said he would veto a plan the supercommittee proposed that had medicare cuts but didn't have revenues. he set a marker, there has to be revenues to seriously tackle entitlement reforms. it's going to be critical to see how long he'll stick to the veto threat.

>> you say the veto threat was actually targeted at the supercommittee? >> yes. keep many mind there was two days before speaker boehner gave his speech where he insisted revenues couldn't be on the table. this was a direct response to that and said to the supercommittee members, listen, there's two people in the dance. you can listen to the house speaker, but if you send me something that doesn't have these, i'll send it back. this isn't just a congressional exercise. this is an executive branch exercise as well. >> it also raises the possibility of would the supercommittee be willing to put out a plan that would be in essence steering toward a veto, basically challenging the president, you know, will you actually veto this? the supercommittee's work product, if it gut gets out is procedurally protective. it can -- >> there's a general consensus the supercommittee wants their product to move fast, not linger out there during a year. we think we're having a lobbying battle with the supercommittee.

if it hangs out there for a while, the lobbying is going to intensify. keep in mind, it's not entirely certain that it would pass the senate if it didn't have revenue increases. i know democrats are prone to capitulation in that chamber. however, harry reid has insisted that revenue has to be part of the component and he does still have more than 50 votes. so that is another consideration they have to take. >> sam stein of "the huffington post." thank you very much for joining me tonight. >> thanks, lawrence. coming up, it took less than a week for massachusetts voters to get to know senate candidate elizabeth warren. she is now ahead of scott brown in a new poll. a look at that race is coming up. also, a "last word" exclusive. emmy host and "glee" star jane lynch talks about the similarities between sue sylvester and michele bachmann. ralph nader won't be the

challenger, but he wants someone to primary president barack obama. ralph nader joins me live in an exclusive interview.

coming up, elizabeth warren declared she was running for scott brown's senate seat last wednesday. she's now beating him in a head to head poll. and jane lynch is going to join me for an exclusive interview about how sue sylvester is channeling michele bachmann. and bill o'reilly last night talked himself back into the "rewrite." tonight's "rewrite.

newly announced u.s. senate candidate elizabeth warren is off to a strong start in her campaign to unseat republican scott brown in massachusetts. a new poll finds voters now put warren ahead of brown 46% to 44% in a survey done this weekend, just days after she entered the race. it represents a dramatic shift from three months ago when warren ran 15 points behind brown in the same poll. joining me now, msnbc political analyst howard fineman, senior political editor of "the huffington post." thanks for joining me tonight, howard. >> hey, lawrence. >> howard, this is big news out of my home state of massachusetts. an incumbent is not supposed to poll like that. it's within a statistical tie. and because we're matching the same survey of three months ago, you're seeing movement in that same polling methodology, very, very much in elizabeth warren's favor.

this is a very fast start for her. >> i don't think there's any doubt about it. in talking to republicans today, they didn't really dispute the poll. they said, you know, she's had a lot of attention, a lot of publicity. and i think democrats are very, very pleased with the launch, with the fact that she did a listening tour first. that she made her announcement in a good way. that she worked very hard going to tea stops early in the morning and working her way through the day with media appearances and so on. she's more of a natural at it than i think people thought she might have been. >> you know, when we saw ted kennedy's seat go to a republican, scott brown, many of us thought this was a very bad oman for the democrats in the midterm election coming up. it turned out to be exactly that. it turned out to be the message that said, it's going to go very badly for the democrats. if elizabeth warren can make this kind of gain, this kind of yardage this quickly, and if she continues to poll strongly, is there going to be a lesson read from massachusetts for democrats nationally?

>> well, it could be, because what the president has to worry and what the democrats generally have to worry about, lawrence, is their base won't be excited, that the base of the party won't turn out, that there's something missing in the rhetoric of the president and democratic leaders about jobs, about the plight of the middle class and so on. if elizabeth warren can make that sale up in massachusetts then i think that will be a guide post. now, keep in mind, the primary is still a year away, lawrence. there's a lot to happen here. the fact that scott brown is really in such a weak position, in what after all is primarily a democratic state, shows that the democrats have a shot. now -- at surviving. now, look, the democrats heading into the senate races next year, you know, are facing the very real prospect of losing the senate. however, the one place where they have a really, really good shot at a take away, taking a way a republican seat is in massachusetts. this gives them hope they'll be

able to do that. >> the warren surge, if he can call it that and if it continues, if we get to watch this, seems to have lessons in it. what is elizabeth warren known for? she is known for government regulation. she is the pro-regulation candidate. republicans are saying everything, you know, that's wrong in our economy is about regulation. it seems to me that if she is going to run strong in that state, which is capable of voting for a republican, it's shown that it is, then there is a kind of policy lesson for where democrats should go which coincides with many president obama is going in his recent messages about, you know, in effect not trying to do some sort of compromise business with the house of representatives, the republicans, but going straight where he thinks he should go.

>> well, lawrence, if she makes the election about regulation, per se, she'll lose, but if she does what the president is now finally trying to do, which is to connect up his vision of government with the idea of producing jobs for the middle class and fairness in the economic system overall, then she has a chance. now, scott brown thinks he protected himself in the senate by voting in favor of the wall street reform bill. the bill that was co-authored by congressman barney frank of boston. but i don't think that's going to be any real protection for scott brown, and scott brown is going to be in an odd situation of trying to cite the praise of barack obama who did praise scott brown after that vote in order to try to survive up there. so if elizabeth warren can draw on her roots, which by the way, go back to sort of middle class, lower middle class, childhood in oklahoma city, a woman who worked her way up the ladder. she wasn't born at harvard as she said the other day, she wasn't born a harvard law professor.

if she could connect to the middle class in boston, connect to what we used to call reagan democrats on the notion that the democrats really have their interests at heart, in terms of jobs, in terms of dealing with wall street, the big banks, the big economic forces, raid against the interest of the middle class, then she'll not only have a chance to win but she'll be able to articulate, help articulate a message for the democratic party as a whole. >> howard, you know, my point about regulation was that she's identified with regulation -- i'm not suggesting that she would run on "i will be the regulator," but it's not hurting her. this thing is supposed to tie her up in knots according to republican theory. it's not hurting her at all, as she goes forward in this race. >> well, i think that's because she started out right away saying, it's not about, you know, the processes of government. it's about trying to create a level playing field and fairness in the economic marketplace and jobs for average people. i mean, if she can drive that message then she has a chance to win that race and be instructive.

as massachusetts often is, as you know well know, lawrence, for the rest of the democratic party. >> looks like democrats have a new star. msnbc political analyst, howard fineman. thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you, lawrence. coming up, a "last word" exclusive. emmy award winning actress jane lynch is here to talk politics and "glee." bill o'reilly says president obama just might get him to quit fox news. that's in the "rewrite."

still to come tonight, two exclusive interviews. two very different interviews. first up, ralph nader and why he thinks a primary challenge to president obama would be a good thing. i soliciteds we for ralph nader on twitter today and i have never gotten such a negative response for one of our guests. and on twitter today i've never seen such a positive response to one of our guests. jane lynch who will join me later. coffee doesn't have vitamins... unless you want it to.

new splenda® essentials™ no calorie sweetener with b vitamins, the first and only one to help support a healthy metabolism. three smart new ways to sweeten. same great taste. new splenda® essentials™.

while i took refuge from the pollen that made me sneeze. but with 24-hour zyrtec®, i get prescription strength relief from my worst allergy symptoms. so lily and i are back on the road again. with zyrtec®, i can love the air®. in tonight's spotlight, ralph nader and other liberal leaders are looking for a slate of six democrats to challenge president obama in a primary. in a letter to elected

officials, civic leaders and academics in the progressive community, nader and the other signatories argue a democratic primary challenge, "would allow for robust and exciting discussion and debate during the primary season while posing little risk to the president other than to encourage him to take more progressive stands. certainly president obama will not be pleased to face a list of primary challengers, but the comfort of the incumbent is far less important than the vitality and strength of his party's progressive ideas and ideals. president obama should emerge from the primary a stronger candidate as a result." in reaction to nader's new idea, former democratic senator russ feingold said, "i strongly disagree with ralph nader as i've said many times before. i believe that re-electing president obama is an absolute imperative for our economy, our judicial system. for progressives and for our country."

joining me now, five time presidential candidate and consumer advocate ralph nader. thank you very much for joining me tonight, ralph. >> thank you. >> ralph, why aren't you running, yourself, and why do you want a slate of six challengers to the president? >> well, first, it's a two-party dictatorship. third parties really don't have much of a chance to get blacked out from the presidential debates. blocked out by the media. i ran three times officially and have documented in many ways with litigation and articles and books by others that we have to have electoral form, have a more competitive democracy and give more choice to the voters. as far as a slate's concerned, a slate by definition is not a challenge to his nomination. it's a challenge to his conscience. a challenge to his backbone. it's a challenge to have the democratic primaries be other than a series of air force trips around the country where president obama's responding to the crazed republicans and their juvenile monetized minds.

it's an attempt to basically broaden the issues in the election for all the millions of workers who are stuck in a stagnant minimum wage. for the millions of workers who want to form trade unions against globalization. and they're not allowed to. for cracking down on corporate crime in the corporate crime wave with adequate budget. for stopping illegal wars overseas, for having single payer health insurance, another majoritarian position. there are all kinds of environmental issues, public reforms, civil rights. all kinds of issues which are never going to be discussed. they'll be completely off the table, blacked out in a one-man primary. and if something is not discussed, as patrick moynihan, our common friend once said, if you don't discuss something, you can't ever expect it to be advanced.

in other words, the entire liberal progressive agenda will be off the table. they won't be on c-span. they won't be on the media. they won't be interacting with people at the grassroots. for what reason? for what reason? the liberals intellegencia, they're pretty comfortable, have good jobs, good health insurance, they don't speak for tens of millions of americans who want gripping issues of the corporate domination of our country, corporate domination of the government, the state, that franklin delano roosevelt called fascism in a formal address to the congress in 1938. they want to discuss whether the people are going to be in charge or whether the corporations are going to continue to run this country into the ground and ship its jobs and industries to fascist and communist dictatorships overseas who know how to keep their 80 cents an hour workers in their place. >> ralph, your letter is quite long. i've read it in its entirety. your list of signatories is also long.

it includes cornell west, former senators and many others. and in the letter in the details of it, it's very clear that you are not trying to unseat president obama. there are many passages in there that assure that, of course, he will be renominated. but i want to read to you some of the questions we got today from twitter where people are asking me to ask you these questions. here's one from talking toaster 2. he said, ask nader when he will stop helping get republicans elected. ralph, that's what people think you're doing. >> they ought to think a little deeper. nobody has criticized more profoundly in detail across 50 states the republican party's indentured status to corporatism, it's repudiation of

some of the best conservative instincts going back many years which now we would call progressive positions in some areas. and supporting progressive candidates around the country. you see, twitter by definition means you don't think beyond 140 some characters. we have to start getting serious in this country. we have to start having fundamental elections on fundamental issues of power. we have to talk about a speculation tax on wall street which can raise $300 billion. speculation instead of burdening working folks with the taxes. we have to talk about a carbon tax. we have to talk about climate change. we have to talk about reorganizing the labor force so it has a collective voice instead of being split and abandoned by corporations born in the usa, profited on the backs of american workers, going to washington and bailed out by american taxpayers, saved by the u.s. marines when they get in trouble overseas. what's their response to the american worker? is it gratitude? no.

it's, we're getting the hell out of here with your jobs and industries to these communist and fascist regimes. we want the issue of shift of power of democratic resurgence, small "d" before the people of this country and break up that tee bait commission which is nothing but a corporate created by two parties to make sure other voices are not heard. i don't understand why it's even controversial. it's just fundamental free speech in action. and we have to push this very hard, lawrence, because otherwise all next year you will never hear all the major issues that liberals and progressives believe in. many of them are majoritarian issues i mentioned. you will never get anything on c-span but the republican line with obama being defensively responding to them as he has been for three years. in other words, they with their

corporate masters pull obama to their side and who's going to pull obama to the majority of the american people? the working family side. >> ralph, we have to go. we are going to hear about those issues on this program in the next year. we're going to have you back to talk about them some more. i want you to take a look tonight if you get a chance, if someone can show them to you, some questions that came in on twitter. some of them are good for the 140 character limit. >> i wish people would log into singlepayeraction.org and read the full letter then feedback to the e-mail. >> okay. ralph, thank you very, very much for joining me tonight. >> thank you so much, lawrence. last night bill o'reilly revealed how president obama can get him to quick fox news. that's next in the "rewrite." later, jane lynch joins me to talk "glee," politics and the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. [ male announcer ] you never know

when a moment might turn into something more. and when it does men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment's right. ♪ [ man ] tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. [ man ] do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com.

bill o'reilly is back "in

the rewrite" tonight. he told a silly law about how president obama could tax the o'reilly factor out of existence. it's not going to be that easy to get rid of o'reilly. pxpñpñ

time for tonight's "rewrite." bill o'reilly may have figured out a way to get rid of bill o'reilly o'reilly.

oh, looks like we showed you ralph nader instead of bill o'reilly. here's what o'reilly said last night on his program. "if barack obama begins taxing me more than 50%, which is very possible, i don't know how much longer i'm going to do this." okay. first of all, barack obama doesn't tax anyone. the power to tax resides exclusively with the congress. o'reilly is lying, of course, when he says tax rates are up to barack obama. now, it's true that the president would like to see o'reilly pay more taxes. the president would like the top tax bracket, o'reilly bracket increased from 35% to 39.6%. what o'reilly should have said if the congress including the republican house of representatives decides to raise my tax bracket to 39.6%, i don't know how much longer i'm going to do this. but o'reilly has to lie about everything in that statement in order to make it credible to his audience whose gullibility he has precisely calculated in the lies he's loaded into that sentence. he knows, o'reilly knows his audience doesn't know that tax rates are not up to the presidents and he knows his audience doesn't know that no one is proposing an income tax rate of 50% and he knows his audience doesn't know that bill

o'reilly very happily started doing the "o'reilly factor" and became a multimillionaire when the top tax bracket was 39.6%. the bracket he is so fearful of now. so o'reilly has actually already proven what he would do if the top tax bracket goes back up to where it was under president clinton, 39.6%. o'reilly would do the "o'reilly factor" every night and get richer and richer and richer. beleaguered taxpayer bill o'reilly now makes at least $10 million a year from fox news. he makes millions more in book royalties, speaking fees and selling mugs on his website. so o'reilly's accountants are probably trying to keep track of much, much more than $10 million a year. i don't know. $20 million a year. $30 million. i don't know. it's huge. o'reilly's claim that "factor" could be taxed out of existence

is based on the republican article of faith that o'reilly announce a announceuated this way. >> if you tax achievement, some achievers are going to pack it in. >> this is of course not true and has never been true. when our top tax rate was over 90%, the rich got richer and none of the achievers packed it in. and in the clinton years when the top tax bracket was 4.5 percentage points higher than it is now, the rich got much richer including bill o'reilly. and none of the achievers including bill o'reilly packed it in. what o'reilly was trying to tell his audience last night was that if the federal government allows him to take home only $6.1 million from his fox news paycheck instead of $6.5 million from his fox news paycheck, he might just walk and hand the "factor" over to bernie goldberg or dick morris.

he's telling his audience that $6 million in take home pay might not be enough for him to go to work. now, in fact, o'reilly doesn't actually pay 35% of his income in federal taxes. no one does. everyone in that bracket, the top tax bracket, has deductions that bring their effective rates to something lower than 35%. so the numbers i'm using here to estimate o'reilly's take home pay are very, very conservative. remember, i'm only talking about his fox news income which might be only half of his income. bill o'reilly is the highest paid player in cable news and no matter how much he complains about how unbearable his life would be if his fox news take home pay ever dropped closer to the unthinkably low $6 million, i'm afraid you're never going to get rid of bill o'reilly with a tax increase. [ hayden ] what's the best way to hide your breakouts?

a dab of concealer here... a flurry of powder there. what if there was a makeup that didn't just hide your breakouts... but actually made them go away. neutrogena skin clearing makeup. it has our proven blemish fighting formula blended with silky gorgeous makeup. so it gives you a beautiful flawless look while undercover it works to clear breakouts. does your makeup do that? neutrogena® cosmetics. when i got my medicare card, i realized i needed an aarp... medicare supplement insurance card, too. medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. in fact, it only pays up to 80% of your part b expenses. if you're already on or eligible for medicare, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses...

not paid by medicare part b. that can save you up to thousands of dollars. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans... exclusively endorsed by aarp. when you call now, you'll get this free information kit... and guide to understanding medicare, i can keep my own doctor and choose my own hospital. and i don't need a referral to see a specialist. as with all medicare supplement plans, and help pay for what medicare doesn't. call this toll-free number now...

>> can you get us some coffee? >> hilarious. i'm not a secretary. i'm the host of the emmys. >> emmys. what you should be doing is learning to type and fire the man who gave you that man's haircut. >> a lot has changed since 1965. in fact, women can marry other women. hey, becky. >> oh, hi. >> women with other women? men must hate that. >> does that mean women don't

have to sleep with men anymore to make it to the top? >> no, you still have to do that. >> that was emmy awards host jane lynch sunday. she won an emmy last year for her performance as coach sue sylvester in "glee" and was nominated for the same role this year. here's a look at what sue sylvester will be up to in "glee's" third season. >> starting today i will no longer be going after the glee club. frankly, i have bigger fish to fry. i'm running for the united states house of representatives. >> sorry, what did you say? >> in the last year of her life jean faced ballooning health care loss and cuts to her disability payments. the sue party thinks that's a load of fooey. >> joining me, the emmy award winning emmy host jane lynch. thanks very much for coming in. >> happy. >> happy accidents. you've had more happy accidents than anyone -- since we first met years ago in that bar in west hollywood.

>> right. >> it was actually at a party, one of those sunday night elward screening parties. you have had more happy accidents than anyone i know. >> actually we met when you were doing the "west wing." i had a tiny, tiny, tiny part. i would forgive you if you didn't remember meeting me. >> i accept your forgiveness. >> yes, a lot has happened. it's been a full four, five years. it's been crazy. >> it's -- now, sue sylvester's candidacy for the house of representatives -- >> yes. >> i'm getting echos here. you insist it's not a tea party character. she's doing something else. she's going her own way? >> i really don't -- whatever serves sue sylvester is what the sue sylvester american liberty party will be. where we stand now, we're shooting episode 4, i'm anti-arts and preparing the country as i should for our chinese overlords. >> it's kind of a self-centered -- >> always.

>> -- party. sell selfish. >> narcissistic one might even say. >> i want to take a look, she -- sue sylvester does some local tv bits that don't necessarily appear in the show. but are available online. i want to take a look at a recent one. >> okay. i got a bee in my bonnet, western ohio. you know what i've had it up to here with? sneaky gays. gone are the days of oscar wilde, liberace. homosexuals so flaming they can be seen from space. they're everywhere, at the church, the mall, picking up the children from daycare. why you could be sitting next to a sneaky gay right now and you'd never even know it. that just don't sit right with one sue sylvester. i got nothing against gays. ask my sassy intern, tyler. he has to live in my tool shed because i deny him health care as i consider gayness a pre-existing condition. >> okay. now, you guys are -- what you're doing there is it's what you think michele bachmann wants --

>> would say. >> what she wants to say and her handlers are going, no, michele, no. >> ed rowlands is gone now. she might have a michele corner not unlike that. yes. >> this campaign she's running, i mean, you probably don't yet know whether it's a successful campaign. >> no. i don't know yet. >> the writers are in charge of that. >> i don't think they know. >> you show up, do the lines. >> absolutely. >> but it is a comment on where we are politically right now. the distance between what she just said and reality of what you're watching. >> yeah. >> in republican presidential primary and tea party politics. it isn't that big a gap. >> there really isn't. it makes it less funny because it's very, very real. there are people that think that. ryan murphy and ian brennan want to kind of put it out there in the light of day and say, this is what some people think. >> by the way, speaking of this sneaky gay concepts, sue's no

more as of today in the military. >> it's a great day. i would have loved for it to happen a long time ago. it happened today. i'm thrilled. >> your life has spanned all those references that sue made there. from liberace to -- >> not oscar wilde. >> the elimination of don't ask, don't tell. first of all, the imposition of don't ask, don't tell by bill clinton. what became a hated law, don't ask, don't tell, was thought to be a semiliberal compromise on guys in the military. >> right. it was. i remember when clinton was elected. he said the next day with the stroke of a presidential pen i will get rid of the no gays in the military and he didn't. he instituted this instead. and it ended up being pretty -- i mean, it made things worse. there were witch hunts out there for some of these guys and girls. >> i asked for viewers to give me some help with questions today on twitter. i think actually one just came in. there's this one from billy, it's a really interesting question.

she has a 7-year-old grandson who says that when the grandson hears your voice, just hears your voice on the radio, says, that's sue sylvester. did you ever think that sue sylvester's voice would become a household sound? a 7-year-old would know. >> absolutely not. and i love how kids love sue sylvester. she's very, very, very, very mean. they are tickled and delighted with her. i couldn't be more flattered. >> i think they know that down deep somewhere in sue sylvester -- >> she's fight for them. she'll protect them. >> if she's on your side -- >> you don't want her against you. she's your worst enemy. when she's for you you have a no better advocate. >> we have to sell books "happy accidents." thank you very, very, very much for finding time for us on emmy week of all times to get in here. >> for you, nothing. >> thank you very much. >> yeah, thank you. >> jane lynch gets "the last word." rachel maddow show is up next.