and the republicans' point man on the negotiations indicated this afternoon that the bill will get substantial gop support. our fifth story on the "countdown," after the health care fight, could this really be this easy? a senior democratic aide told reuters that senate democratic leaders plan to move thursday on the financial reform bill that came out of chairman dodd's banking committee. since democrats have 59 votes in the senate, they will need at least one republican vote to proceed. once that happens, democrats are aiming for a final vote on monday. senator richard shelby of alabama, who is representing the republicans in talking with senator dodd, told reporters that an agreement is close at hand and that a substantial number of republicans will go along with it. elsewhere in the senate, the agriculture committee, led by chairwoman blanche lincoln, approved its own portion of the bill, which would limit derivatives trading and make it more transparent.

it received just one republican vote in committee, but an important one. chuck grassley of iowa. those rules on derivatives will get folded into the banking bill. in an interview with cnbc's john harwood, president obama said stronger financial regulations would be good for everyone, including, especially for wall street itself. >> we have gotten into one of those places where we need to update those rules of the road. and if we do so, not only is that good for the economy, not only does it protect consumers and investors, it's also good for the financial sector. because it will rebuild trust, and people will have confidence that when they're dealing with banks, when they're dealing with these institutions, that they, in fact, are playing it straight, above board, and they're competing on the basis of who's proviing the best services and the best products as opposed to who's got the most creative accounting rules or who's able to concoct the

wildest derivatives that may serve no economic function whatsoever. >> wall street firms have been hiring big guns to lobby on capitol hill. goldman sachs just brought on former white house counsel greg craig to help fight those civil fraud charges. and the former democratic leader in the house dick gephardt is now a lobbyist for goldman sachs. right here on msnbc, andrea mitchell asked chris dodd of the banking committee if lawmakers-turned-lobbyists were cause for concern. >> i think have you a two-year ban before you can actually come back and lobby the congress on these matters. if you've been a former member of congress. so it's better than it was in the past. but clearly there may be steps that will be taken to improve it, the situation, so you don't have the opportunity to have an insider kind of access and ability to influence the outcome of legislation. in the end, though, it depends upon the members here. if you're so silly as to just

succumb because a colleague of yours asks you to do so, you shouldn't be here in the first place. >> other democrats in the senate have announced a new bill that would prevent mega banks from being too big to fail and would ensure they have the resources to cover their own losses. it's called the safe banking act of 2010. one of its sponsors, sherrod brown of ohio, joins us now. senator brown, does the very existence of your safe banking act indicate, as i think it might, that you think the banking committee bill that chris dodd has does not do enough, or is not tough enough in some way? >> well, of course it can be improved. i want to see a more freestanding consumer protection agency. i think senator dodd's bill is generally very good, but there are always opportunities to strengthen it. i am very concerned about the too big to fail, that we've got to make sure that banks -- if they're too big to fail, they're too big, period.

and we've got to make sure that those banks are simply not so big that they threaten the whole viability of the financial system in this country. one real quick statistic, 15 years ago, six banks in this country had, as their assets totalled 17% of gdp. today the six largest banks' assets total 63% of gdp. so clearly we can't let them continue to get bigger and bigger and bigger, because when they engage in far too risky behavior, it begs the question of what's going to happen to our economy. the last time we did real reform, real reform in this country, was in the 1930s and it protected the financial part of this country for really, six decades. we've got to look long term and do it right. keeping banks from getting too big is one way to do that? >> this sounds like a tough legislative needle to thread. how do you calculate how big a bank should be allowed to be, and if you're putting some kind

of limitations on them, might that make them more vulnerable to collapse? this sounds like there could be many unintended consequences to trying to define -- the government trying to define the size of banks. >> we listen to people. for instance, we listen to a lot of people who are experts on this, mainstream economists who have worked for the fed, some still do, and got their views. and all kinds of people who really understand this industry say that it does threaten us if they're too big. we do things like the leverage ratios instead of 30-1 should be 16, no more than 16-1. we've limited banks in this legislation that -- no more than -- the deposits should be no more than 10% of the deposits for all banks in the country. that's still very big, but it does put some limits around how big these banks can be, and the risks they can pose to the system.

we're -- i think that when you look at this, we've got to make sure that these banks don't continue to threaten the economic system and the financial system, and if they get too big, they can. it's pretty simple. >> as the bill moves to the floor, do you expect it to move more in your direction, or possibly now more in a republican direction, if republicans are coming on board with the bill? >> well, no, i think they continue to move and improving this bill, improving it for consumers, for investors. i had a dozen manufacturers, small company manufacturers in ohio visit me today. they're concerned about this banking system, and they want to see more credit flowing, and they know we need to change the way wall street does business. and that tells me, when i saw senator grassley, who's up for election in 2010, vote for our stronger derivative bill, derivatives bill, regulation bill on the agriculture committee today, that says if we do this right, republicans will

vote for it. this isn't the bipartisanship that some argue we should have done in health care. bipartisanship in health care was let the republicans have the insurance companies help write the bill, we'll call it bipartisan. no. this is strong consumer bills and republicans are going to go along because they don't want to be on the wrong side of this. this is only a choice between main street and wall street and they don't want to go home and argue that -- being charged with supporting wall street over main street. >> senator, how did bipartisanship suddenly become so easy with the republicans? you mentioned senator grassley voting in the agriculture committee today. he doesn't represent just one republican vote, he's a leader of republican -- the republican leader of the finance committee. you've got to figure if the grassley vote is there, there have to be at least ten other republicans, maybe 15 or more. how did this become suddenly so easy with these guys? >> it became -- it's not easy, but it became easier, lawrence, because democrats, our caucus

understands, finally -- it took some of my colleagues six months to get there. but understand, the question is not liberal, conservative, centrist, middle of the road, move to the center. the question is whose side are you on? whether it's on health care or whether it's on this bill, or whether it's something down the road, it's whose side are you on? are you going to be on main street or wall street? that's a pretty easy call for a whole lot of republicans, too, that they don't want to be tagged as being on the side of wall street. so once we get that issue across, and message across, and we talk that way, we act that way, and we legislate that way, you're going to see a lot more republicans, i think, voting with us. >> senator sherrod brown, democratic of ohio and the banking committee, thank you for finding the time to join us tonight. >> glad to. thank you, lawrence. for more on the politics, let's turn to chris hayes. washington editor of "the nation." our wall street reform bill that looks likely to have substantial republican support, that's richard shelby talking, we have

chuck grassley getting on board today. i'm a little disoriented, chris. how did this happen? how do we go from the party of no on health care reform to let's make a deal? >> well, i think that the answer is the answer that senator brown pointed to, which is that politics of this are pretty clear cut. i think basically there's a few things. one is that it really in this short of strange way has helped that this has sprung on to public consciousness so quickly and so close to fully formed so that it didn't get dragged into the process minutia that happened to health care. basically this was going along a parallel track. suddenly it's in the public's imagination and it has been defined quite crisply. suddenly it's the choice between wall street and main street. i hate the main street thing because i grew up in the bronx and we don't have a main street, but that's another story. i think the politics really are pretty powerful. i mean, we did have the biggest financial crisis we've had since

the great depression. the banks are not very popular, and being associated with them is politically problematic. i don't think it's a whole lot more complicated than that. >> was there a breaking point for republicans somewhere along the line in this story? for example, was it them feeling too much heat about this controversy of what kind of meeting did mcconnell and john cornyn have with the wall street interests, and were they looking suddenly at risk of being obvious sellouts? was there something that broke it for republicans? >> i don't know if there's anything that broke it. s there are a few things. there were some obvious defections. it's clear that corker was unwilling to toe the party line. grassley is up for re-election. so there are political calculations. i also think there's an interesting inversion of the political strategy if you compare this to health care. in health care, the white house started out very conciliatory and what they got back was aggression from republicans. in this case, the white house started aggressive. they went after the republicans

from day one for standing with the banks, and what they've gotten in return is a lot more conciliatory behavior. i think there's a lesson there about how you kind of forge compromise or consill yation from the other side. it's not sort of reach out a hand, it's to actually imperil them politically. >> what might it mean for the democrats' legislative agenda going forward after financial reform? >> well, that's a really interesting question. in some senses financial reform is generous because the banks blowing up the financial crisis, it is so much kind of its own thing. and the banks are such villains in the public imagination, that it has a special kind of political resonance that maybe other issues such as clean energy don't. i do wonder if this is going to muddy the waters a little bit for the message the republicans are going to try to run on the midterms, which is that the president -- everything the president touches is horrible and he's a foreign socialist who's going to take away your guns. if they're voting with him on

this bill, they're presumably going to be at the signing ceremony. that's going to complicate the political message they want to drive home in the midterms. >> senator dodd addressed this issue of lobbying and democrat heavyweights lining up on the sides of goldman sachs, dick gephardt, greg craig. how awkward is this for democrats and what does it mean for the chul our of washington you can so quickly and easily move from one side to the other and it's just this constant churning back and forth? >> it means the culture of washington is totally and completely corrupt and that the country is ruled, and i know this sounds radical, but true, by a very intense financial oligarchy that basically has purchase on both parties. i don't want to downplay the import of the derivatives bill that passed out of committee and financial regulation, some of which are quite strong and because of this public anger. the fact of the matter is

drawing who's on one side of wall street every day and having them whisper in their years. and raising money from them and having them whisper in their ear. over the years we have seen finance metastasize so that it's 40% to 50% of corporate profits and funneling that money back to elected represents in a way that brought us to this crisis point, so we can make technical fixes to regulation, what we have to do is break that political economic power of the banks. that i don't see on the horizon. >> chris, were i ever to moderate a candidate's debate on running for the senate or the house, i guess my first question would now be, will you become a lobbyist after you leave office? it is just crazy out of hand. chris hayes of "the nation" thanks for joining us tonight. >> thanks a lot, lawrence. still ahead, the supreme court nomination battle, should the white house court republican support? and the republican front-runner to defeat harry reid in nevada, her plan to reduce health care costs to chicken feed.

grasse, france is known for making perfume. but food executives come here for something else, to work in cargill's flavor facility to create better tasting foods. this is how cargill works with customers because with national, i roll past the counter... and choose any car in the aisle. choosing your own car? now that's a good call. go national. go like a pro.

president obama's supreme court nominee is not just a liberal but a radical. a socialist. or will be when the republicans get through with him or her. does that mean the president is free to nominate someone who actually is a liberal? and you've heard of republican chicken hawks. meet the chicken doc. she thinks her health care plan is finger licking good. that will make sense later. tlus the tea party ads just got the geico announcer fired. that's all ahead on "countdown." 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 for you and your partner. tell your doctor about your medical condition

and all medications and ask if you're 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. don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed back ache 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. ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com.

president obama is on track to make his second nomination to the supreme court, and in our fourth story on the "countdown," the latest white house buzz is that he is free to nominate exactly who he wants, regardless of ideology since the gop will give the president a fight no matter who he chooses. president obama and vice president joe biden today met with senate leaders from both parties, including members of the senate judiciary committee. and the president laid out his timeline. >> last time the nomination went up at the end of may, we are certainly going to meet that deadline and we hope maybe we can accelerate it a little bit so that we have some additional time. but my hope is is that we're going to be able to get a supreme court nominee confirmed in time for the next session. >> the president was asked the perennial question about the issue of abortion rights and how

that related to his nomination. >> i will say the same thing that every president has said since this issue came up, which is i don't have litmus tests around any of these issues, but i will say that i want somebody who is going to be interpreting our constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights and that includes women's rights. i think part of what our core constitution, constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity and women are not exempt from that. >> the president also said he expects the same civil process that he says accompanied the nomination of his last supreme court pick, justice sonia sotomayor. but an unnamed administration official says, quote, it doesn't matter who he chooses, there is

going to be a big old fight over it, so he doesn't have to get side tracked by those sorts of concerns. that realization is liberating for the president. meantime, a federal judge from chicago, judge ann claire williams has been added to the president's working list of about ten candidates. she was the first african-american woman to serve as a district judge in the seventh circuit. after being appointed by president ronald reagan in 1985. that appointment was made on the recommendation of congressman henry hyde, a republican. williams was and is considered to be tough on crime. she was elevated to the appellate court under president clinton. let's bring in the founder and publisher of "the daily kos." good evening, marcos. do you see the president sees it, that republicans are going to battle here no matter who he putts up, so he might as well choose someone he really wants on the court? >> well, lawrence, i really want

to believe those reports, and i hope they're not getting their hopes up by hinting that they're going in that direction. because clearly it doesn't matter who he puts up, republicans are going to make a big stink about t so he might as well do something to solidify his legacy, placate the base, make us happy into this upcoming election, and putt a jurist on the supreme court who will be a force for positive, progressive change in this country. >> do you think there's a chance that today's move by republicans on financial reform might tempt the president to lean more in their direction on the supreme court nominee? >> i hope not. i don't think you can argue that republicans are coming aboard on the financial reform stuff because obama's reaching out and watering down the legislation. i think as you and chris were talking earlier, democrats came out with fairly strong legislation, not perfect, but

stronger than i think i would have expected. and dared the republicans to oppose it. suddenly they're not so confident anymore and they're sort of falling in line. so i think in this case, supreme court justice battles are fairly contentious events and i don't think we can expect the same kind of falling in line we're seeing from republicans on financial reform. >> and in an election year with the conservative group judicial watch now coming out and saying that all of the names on the president's short list are unacceptable, isn't that as clear a signal as the white house could ask for, that republican senators are not going to be allowed, especially republican senators running for election, they're not going to be allowed to get on board an obama nominee for supreme court? >> i think obama could nominate zombie ronald reagan and these guys would still oppose that kind of nomination. the fact is they make a lot of money, they do a lot of fundraising and make money off these supreme court battles. it's a way to motivate the base, rally the base, and it's actually fairly low cost

politically way to do it. because, you know, by and large the american people in general don't really pay attention to these sort of nomination battles the way they might to health care reform or financial reform. >> there's a new poll that says a majority of americans trust the president to make this kind of choice. when republicans look at a poll like that, does that give them second thoughts about some of the filibuster threats that have been leaking out of the senate? >> no, i don't think they care about things like that. you know what the republicans are good at, they're good at changing the reality of a situation. it didn't matter that polls showed that the public option was popular during the health care debate, they were able to convince a large enough segment of the population that obama wanted to kill their grandmother. in this case, like i said, it doesn't matter who they put out. it could be zombie ronald reagan and republicans will make it sound like obama is putting a unrekrublgted communist on the court

and they'll do it as a way to rally the base, raise some money and sort of rally the troops leading into november's election. >> quickly before we go, who are the people on the short list that you think the president should really fight for? >> well, i mean, diane wood is one name obviously good, i think is good for progressives. there is a pam carlin, who's a professor at -- law professor at stanford who would be fantastic. i think it's important to look beyond voting record. are they going to vote good. it is nice if somebody votes the right why on key issues. i think progressives want people that will be passionate and vocal advocate for progressive legal principles. conservatives have that in a sam alito. we do not have that right now. >> markos moulitsas, thanks for joining us tonight. >> thank you very much. the republican running to defeat harry reid has a message for sick people. go pluck yourselves. and jon stewart has a new musical message for fox news

that rhymes with go pluck yourselves. with expedia, i've got of a perfect girls' weekend. it all starts with having more hotels to choose from. so i can find someplace familiar... or somewhere more unique. nice. then expedia lets me compare dates to find out when i can save the most cash. done and done. we should do this more often. where you book matters. expedia.

oh! just come snuggle with mama. [ male announcer ] missing something? like 2 pairs of bifocals for $149.99 at sears optical, with progressive lenses for just $25 more per pair. hurry in to sears optical today and don't miss a thing.

ahead on "countdown," forget co-pays, are chickens the answer to solving the soaring cost of health care? the candidate whose actually beating harry reid in the polls thinks so. and later, a man wondered in a voicemail if the creator of the tea party had a strategy ready for if one of those members killed someone. now that man, the geico announcer, is out of a job. (ann) we believe in giving every investor a lot more for a lot less.

tdd# 1-800-345-2550 that's why, at schwab, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 every online equity trade is now $8.95 tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no matter your account balance, how often you trade tdd# 1-800-345-2550 or how many shares... tdd# 1-800-345-2550 you pay what they pay what everyone pays: $8.95. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and you still get all the help tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and support you expect from schwab tdd# 1-800-345-2550 millions of investors. one price. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab... tdd# 1-800-345-2550 investors rule. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 are you ready to rule?

i was just in town for a few days and i was wondering if i could say hi to the doctor. - is he in? - he's in copenhagen. - oh, well, that's nice. - but you can still see him. - you just said he was in-- - copenhagen. - come on. - that's pretty far. - doc, look who's in town. - ellen! - copenhagen? - cool, right? vacation. - but still seeing patients. ( whispers ) workaholic. - i heard that. - she said it. - i-- cisco-- introducing healthpresence. somewhere in america... there's a home by the sea

powered by the wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life. and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, more than sixty thousand people spend every day answering them. siemens. answers.

the year before the great depression, republican campaign ads for herbert hoover boasted falsely that republicans had put a chicken in every pot. now as the country begins to emerge from a near depression, republicans are campaigning on chickens again. our number three story, i'm not making this up, we have the video, the republican front-runner against senate majority leader harry reid of nevada is advancing a health care system in which you would pay for your check ups, x-rays, mammograms, your kid's stitches, with chickens. did i mention i'm not making this up? her name is sue lowden and she has been beating reid handily in the polls. so far on monday, the wealthy former tv news anchor and current gambling executive appeared on local television and outlined her vision of health care reform.

the interview aired following remarks she made last week in which she suggested using the barter system to pay for health care and reasonable minds suspected she meant to say patients should haggle with their doctors. nope. as she confirmed in this interview, she meant barter. >> people walk into a doctor's office and the first thing they ask you for is your insurance card. >> yes, they do, and as soon as you say you don't have one, i can speak to the doctor, can i speak to someone who's -- >> they want to card. >> they're used to doing that. but let's change the system and talk about what the possibilities are. i'm telling you that this works. you know, before we all started having health care in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor. they would say i'll paint your house. they would do -- that's the old days of what people would do to get health care with their doctors. doctors are very sympathetic people. i'm not backing down from that system.

>> not backing down. lowden is an executive at the arshean corporation, a gambling concern. no word on whether she's been able to convince her employer to accept chickens for gambling debts. democrats ridiculing lowden launching a website called checkups for chickens, the reid campaign sent out a press release asking if lowden lost her mind. she stands by her plan and today sent a link to a letter to the editor from a nevada doctor supporting her plan. a nevada doctor who just happens to have been a republican opponent of harry reid. let's bring in msnbc political analyst eugene robinson, also associate editor and pulitzer prize-winning columnist for "the washington post." what are you laughing about, gene? this is serious american politics.

>> i would suspect you having made this up if i hadn't gone and checked it out myself and, yes indeed, what you just said did, in fact, happen. >> now, should we take a moment to perhaps praise candidate lowden for actually coming clean in a sense, for letting us know that republicans or at least this republican running for senate, has no idea, no useful idea at all, about what to do about health care costs, about how to help people afford an absolute necessity like this when they can't afford it? >> first we should praise her for showing monty python how it should be done. i mean, you can imagine them sitting around tossing around ideas for sketches and saying, i've got it. a bloke comes in and tries to pay his doctor bill with a chicken and the other saying, no, no, no, that's a little too far out. let's go with a dead parrot in the pet store instead. it's just breathtaking. but i guess she's done a favor to the voters of nevada who now know her health care plan, which

is poultry for physicians. >> she makes no apologies for this. she doesn't try to back off. she's at least tripling down on it in the number of opportunities she's had to back off. and you know, as we laugh about it, my second reaction after that was thinking about the world of harry reid. we watched harry reid for a year pursue something that was unpopular in nevada politics, as this candidacy clearly shows. she's in the lead in nevada. harry reid pushed health care reform. what does it say about the political climate in harry reid's home state that someone can get up and say something like this about health care reform and actually be ahead of harry reid in the polls? >> you know, i cannot imagine, lawrence. i mean, obviously harry reid has political problems in nevada, and the health care reform bill was not popular there. we knew all that. we suspected perhaps a candidate would come out and say what other republicans are saying, let's take an incremental

approach, we should have started from scratch, and this and that. i don't think anyone believed that this would be the idea coming out of the mouth of a candidate who in a recent poll was ten points ahead of harry reid. you know, you feel that he's in a world of hurt right now, and you've got to feel sorry for the guy, if this is the idea that's going to defeat him. >> i want to test your memory here, gene, if you can think of something i can't, and that is the -- i've never seen a senator carry a bill like this, that he knew was unpopular in his state. leaving content aside, either party, i've never seen a senator, a leader in the senate carry a bill that he knew was so politically risky for him in the senate. what harry reid did for me, from where i was sitting, was the most extraordinary profile in courage i have seen a senator do

in a chamber that is not known for political courage. >> lawrence, i was thinking about that earlier, and i can't come up with a counterexample either. if he knew, and he must have known the way the political wind was blowing in his state that it was this deeply unpopular that, you know, this sort of barnyard solution to health care reform would gain traction, it is extraordinary. and you have to look back at the health care fight and say that was indeed a courageous thing to do. but you also have to wonder, what is to become of this great nation of ours, lawrence, if someone who actually believes this is an idea for health care could possibly be elected to the u.s. senate. >> well, this comment may be the thing that gets harry reid back in the race. if nevadans listen to this and realize what an idiotic thing this candidate is pushing, harry reid may still have a chance.

eugene robinson, pulitzer prize winning columnist for "the washington post," thanks so much for joining us on this very peculiar story. >> great to be here, lawrence. coming up, the announcer voice for geico commercials has been fired after going after the tea party in a voicemail message. did the tea party go too far in going after a man you've never even seen? and jon stewart versus fox news. he told fox to go "f" themselves last week. now he is repeating the message only this time in song. and when rachel joins you she exposes a group that pretends to be for wall street reform. they're so convincing they duped an economist from mit. [ speaking native language ]

[ speaking native language ] [ moans ] [ speaking native language ] ♪ [ speaking native language ] [ male announcer ] doctors have been saying it forever. let's take a look. [ male announcer ] but they've never actually been able to do it like this. let's take a look. [ male announcer ] v-scan from ge healthcare. a pocket sized imaging device that will help change the way doctors see patients. that's better health for more people. ♪

because with national, i roll past the counter... and choose any car in the aisle. choosing your own car? now that's a good call. go national. go like a pro. i buy plants, i bring them home, and then...i water too little... too much... or i just forget. but look. this is doing fine. why? it's planted in miracle-gro moisture control potting mix. it holds 33% more water... than ordinary potting soil, releasing it as plants need it, not when i get around to it. and there's miracle-gro plant food mixed in. so you get miracle-gro results... i like that. [ female announcer ] new and improved miracle-gro moisture control potting mix. success starts with the soil. coming up, fox news try to finally beat jon stewart but instead they only get beaten down again.

and this time in song. and the announcer for the geico commercials had had it with the tea party, so he leaves them a nasty voicemail. now the tea party big wigs have made sure he's out of a job. next on "countdown." now back to the sauce. add a little bit of seasoning, just a little bit of seasoning. rachel.

( door slams ) well, today's lesson-- the importance of durable kohler cast iron sinks. and honesty is the best policy. members of the tea party say they're upset about the unemployment rate but they've just added to the problem. in our number two story, the voice of geico insurance now finds himself out of a job over a voicemail he left for tea

partiers. voice over actor lance baxter also known as dc douglas says he's been fired because of a voicemail he left for members of freedomworks, the tea party organization run by dick armey. for those keeping score at home mr. baxter isn't the voice of the gecko, he is the real service, real savings guy. here's his message to the tea partiers. >> hi, there. i'm doing a paper about freedomworks and i was wondering if somebody could give me a call back. i'm wrapping up and i just have one more piece of information i need to get from you guys. i just need to know what the percentage is of people that are mentally retarded who work for the organization, and are members of it. and oh, one final thing, wondering what your plans are, how to spin it when one of your members does actually kill somebody, wondering how, if you've got an actual pr spinning

routine planned for that or are you just going to take it when it happens. just curious, so give me a call when you get a chance. thanks so much. >> hey, that is a really good voice. mr. baxter writing about the message on his blog. yeah, i know. stupid. and certainly not constructive. unfortunately, in my haste, i used the phrase mentally retarded, which ultimately drags me down to their level. mr. baxter also gave his phone number on the voicemail, which got posted on the conservative website biggovernment.com. freedomworks president matt kiby elevating the rhetoric writing an accompanying post, feel free to contact lance. he was so kind to provide his number in the voicemail. call his employer, too. let them know that you, in fact, are not a mentally retarded killer. in a press release, mr. baxter says he made the phone call because he was upset about tea

partiers using gay and racial slurs against members of congress. he also believes that his connection to geico is the primary reason he was targeted. geico pulled its ads from glenn beck's show after mr. beck made racially-charged comments about president obama. mr. baxter says he was calling as a private citizen but doesn't blame geico for, quote, protecting themselves. they have a business to run and can't waste time getting caught up in the freedomworks circus. hey, geico. why are you guys firing this guy? he exercised his first amendment right of free speech, then had the class to instantly apologize for the bad choice of words. what's wrong with that? now, i understand why marilyn chambers could not continue being the face of ivory snow laundry detergent after doing a five way in "behind the green

door, but this guy isn't the face of anything. he's just a voice. firing him is like firing a ghost. no one will know you changed the voiceover guy in the commercials. of the people who do know surely some of them might prefer doing business with a company that respects the first amendment. coming up, fox news tries to one-up jon stewart after he tells them to go "f" themselves. not only did fox fall flat. we'll show how stewart found new ways to embarrass them. next. it can happen anytime, when you least expect it... a regular moment can become romantic. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis.

with two clinically proven dosing options, you can choose the moment that's right for you and your partner. 36-hour cialis and cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment's right. >> tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications and ask if you're 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. >> don't 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. >> 36-hour cialis or cialis for daily use. ask your doctor if cialis is right for you. you can be ready for your moment with cialis.

just about every night on comedy central, "the daily show" writers find new, hilarious ways to expose bias and hypocrisy in the media. if none of that works, jon

stewart has his own gospel choir to back him up, as he tells you off. the bottom line? don't pick a fight with jon stewart. do not do it. you cannot win. in our number one story, bernard goldberg of fox news found that out the hard way. the stewart/goldberg tussle began with a bit on "the daily show" last thursday. stewart played sound bites of outraged fox newsers who were upset about the lefts generally liesing regarding racism in the tea party. some of that outrage came from former cbs newsman turned fair and balanced analyst bernard goldberg. jon stewart agreed that generalizing is bad all the time. then he said fox news and bernard goldberg only dislike it some of the time. >> by the way, the anti-generalizers at fox want you to know generalizing is the least of the liberals' problems. >> the left in this country is invested in american defeat in iraq.

>> the left always paints christians as hate mongers. >> the far left does not want the usa to defeat terrorism. >> liberals do not have five kids. one of them has down syndrome. liberals don't allow that to happen. >> i've said it before and i've said it again. go [ bleep ] yourselves. >> goldberg, faced with proof of his own double standard, admitted his guilt on monday's "o'reilly factor." he then turned to confront mr. stewart directly. >> if you just want to be a funny man, who talks to an audience that will laugh at anything you say, that's okay with me, no problem. but if clearly you want to be a social commentator, more than just a comedian, and if you want to be a good one, you better find some guts. because even though you criticize liberals as well as conservatives, congratulations on that, when you had frank rich

on your show, who generalizes all the time about conservatives and republicans being bigots, you didn't ask him a single tough question. you gave him a lap dance. here is my final word, jon. you can do whatever you want. but if you don't do that, guess what? you're not nearly as edgy as you think you are. >> last night on "the daily show," jon stewart thoughtfully replied. we'll direct you to their website to watch the entire 11-minute segment, but here's the part you absolutely must watch right now. >> look. i'm sorry i told you to go [ bleep ] yourself that week and that other time like six months ago i told you to go [ bleep ] yourself. i know i criticize you and fox news a lot but only because you ire truly a terrible cynical disingenuous news organization. you know what? that's the wrong approach. that's the wrong approach. that's not -- i'm not going to do. this i'm not going to be confrontational. i'm going to take a minute to talk directly to bernie goldberg.

♪ baby, i don't want to fight, baby. and i know you've been hurt before by them liberal elites. ♪ they done you wrong, bernie >> don't let that close your heart, brother. i don't hate you. i mean, you're not dick morris. ♪ yeah. what is wrong with that guy ♪ >> yeah, seriously. ♪ he's starting to look like the guy from "men in black" ♪ >> question one? >> the one that came down and started walking around in other people's skin? >> the vincent guy? >> that's the one. >> okay. you see, i've learned people are complicated, bernie, and hard to categorize. i've got some conservative views. ♪ he's a pro-military [ bleep ]

peace to the troops. >> i've got libertarian views. legalize it. >> gay rights. >> uh-huh. >> gay, pot marriage. >> and i can be tolerant. >> lactose intolerant, don't let this man eat any blizzards. >> and we should have a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. >> communist. >> and i believe power should be passed down to the first born son of the reigning king. >> monarchy. >> and i believe in ghosts. >> boo. >> but i will tell you this, bernie goldberg. i will tell you this. i will tell you this. i will tell you this. ♪ i'm telling you, bernie, i'm telling you bernie ♪ ♪ i'm telling you, bernie. ♪ you can criticize my interviews. ♪ incoherent

>> that's the editing. >> not funny. >> i try to be funny. >> why don't you watch the movies? >> i don't have time to watch all the guests' movies. my point is this. ♪ i'm telling you, bernie. he's got a point now, he's ♪ got a point now ♪ >> i don't need to satisfy your version of what fair satire is or should be. i'm not fair. i'm not balanced. ♪ he's unstable >> that's not what i meant. ♪ he's coco loco >> thank you. >> you're criticizing me for not living up to your tag line. and you dismiss any criticism of how the rest of the media persecute you. you like to pretend bernie goldberg and fox news that the fox news is he equivalent, oh, the equivalent of the disorganized liberal influence you find on nbc, abc and cbs.

♪ he's got a point now >> but fox news you may be able to detect a liberal pathogen in their blood stream. however faint. but fox news is a crazy overreaction to that perceived threat. you're like an autoimmune disorder. i'm not saying the virus doesn't exist in some small quantity. but you're producing way too many anti-bodies. fox news, you're the lupus of news. so i guess what i'm saying is this. ♪ go ♪ as long as fair and balanced is how you sell yourselves -- ♪ [ bleep ] >> i guess what i'm saying is this. ♪ yourself yourselves

♪ go [ bleep ] yourselves >> "countdown" is out of time. "the rachel maddow show" show is next. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, lawrence. i could listen to the chorus all night. i don't feel we need to be in any rush. >> i don't feel i have a right to be in the same tv box as jon stewart. that is genius. >> at some point you and i will do a dance number that involves a bleeped gospel choir. it will happen, lawrence. >> i'm ready. >> all right, thanks, lawrence. appreciate it. thanks to you for staying with us for the next hour. do you remember how in the health reform fight we covered a bunch of groups that tried to look like citizen power, grassroots organic outrage but they were secretly funded and organized by corporations who didn't want health reform? looks like that same thing is going on now with wall street reform. meet the old fake boss, same as the new fake boss. that story is ahead. the interview tonight is richard clark. the man who's right in his warnings about al qaeda before

9/11 and wears as a badge of honor the fact that dick cheney tried to blame him for that attack after the fact. plus the senate candidate who wants to pay doctors in chickens, and the supreme court of the united states, spectacularly uninformed and depicted by finger puppets. all ahead this hour. but first, about a week ago "the new york times" published a poll of tea party participants across the country. we do not spend a lot of time talking about polls on this show, especially polls that don't have membership and loosely defined. but one thing was written up in that poll that has stuck with me that i can't really get out of my head. this from the end of the "new york times" synopsis of their findings. nearly three quarters said they would prefer government if spending on domestic government would be cut. in follow up interviews, i cannot get this out of my head.