we have the logistics. we'll see you tomorrow night. which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? hold everything, the junior senator from south carolina puts a personal block on all legislation raising a personal middle finger to everybody. but president's epiphany, the day he realized the republicans would not cooperate at all. the stimulus meeting, january 27th, 2009, so why has he been trying to get them to cooperate ever since? pelosi and hoyer, will they cooperate? complete agreement on middle class tax cuts says the majority leader, except that little detail on whether or not to hold a vote. the governor's creed --

>> blatantly trying to manipulate the will of the people and the public good. >> arnold schwarzenegger in defense of the california climate change laws under attack by big oil. the latest secret sharron angle does not want you to know. >> i'm not going to have any more babies, but i get to pay for it on my insurance. >> actually, you and i pay for sharron angle's insurance. and the great religious quiz. 45% of american catholics don't know what the whole wafer thing is about. 53% of american protestants don't know who started the protest. who better to ask about this than the star of the new series the increasingly poor decisions of todd margaret. >> that's the great thing about -- i'm running around! >> it's david cross. all the news and commentary now on "countdown." >> and scene.

good evening from new york, 35 days before the midterm elections and two days before the likely recess of the senate, it is no longer one lawmaker giving the finger to the majority party, it is now that same lawmaker giving one finger to each party. our first story, jim demint threatening to hold up noncontroversial supported legislation unless it is cleared first by him. and in so doing, giving us a glimpse of an even more obstructionist republican party, one fully under the command of its tea party extremist masters. the south carolina senator's warning and demand was sent to all 99 of his colleagues that he would place a hold on all legislation that had not been hot lined by the close of business today. hotlining is a routine practice. it's used by the leaders of both parties for legislation has virtually unanimous support. for example, as of this past

august, 372 bills had passed the house, many of them unanimously according to think progress. but none of those bills have passed in the senate. the senate's hotlining alleviates some of the unnecessary backlog. telling politico.com his staff has reviewed 40 to 50 bills both parties want to clear by unanimous consent before it adjourns this week. senator demint claims he's looking for bills that have price tags and are not paid for. a spokesman for harry reid responded "i wonder what minority leader mcconnell thinks about minority leader demint's declaration. one thing i know for sure if their conference continues to follow the lead from the junior senator from south carolina, then the only title that precedes his name will be minority leader." meantime, senate democrats picked their final battle and lost from inside their own party. the creating american jobs and end offshoring act. failed today.

53 senators supported, but that was still seven votes short of getting passed the now customary filibuster. the bill was designed to reward companies that move jobs to the united states and diminish a particularly ugly brand of outsourcing as described by senator shar sherrod brown of ohio. >> they'll build factories in another country and sell the products back to the u.s. never have large number of businesses and industries done that, to my knowledge before and went from 1 million manufacturing jobs ten years ago, and then during the bush years, it slunk to 600,000 manufacturing jobs in this country. >> joining me now the executive director for democracy for america. good evening. good to see you in person. >> good evening, keith. thank you. >> is this what it looks like? is senator demint busting a tea party on backs of both parties? >> the tea party's been working to take over the republican party.

so it's clearly a maneuver that allows us to see what the tea party wants. and honestly, keith, it's not so different. jim demint said right here that he is the party of no. that the tea party, the republican party doesn't matter. he doesn't want anything passed. what this move effectively does is slows down all legislation in the senate. >> but any senator has the right to do this, including senator demint. why is this so extraordinary? and why have we not seen somebody do this before in these polarized times? >> they call it a senatorial courtesy. but what jim has done here, senator demint is anything but a courtesy. it's been an extraordinarily discourteous maneuver, a tactic for the american people. the reason this is different is that while we do this sometimes, our senators do this sometimes whether it's to pass -- whether it's to expedite legislation or occasionally make a fuss about well, i want this particular piece of pork in my district or i have an ideological problem with this. what this is a categorical blanket slowdown of all legislation in the senate. >> is there a point to it other

than to show he can do it? >> well, senator demint revealed early on in the health care -- in the health care fight what his agenda is. he called the health care fight obama's waterloo. all he wants to do and all the tea party republican folks want to do is slow down any effective legislation. basically prove that democrats can't do anything. >> is that -- is this some sort of preview for after november 2nd? the democrats may retain the senate, but there will be republican candidates. nobody's predicting otherwise for that. that's not in doubt. assess this in terms of that. is it, in fact, some warm-up action? is there a preview what life will look like under a smaller democratic majority or a republican majority in the senate? >> well, so here's the thing i would look for after november 2nd. i want to look for exactly who is winning these races. we're going to lose a few democratic seats, that's what everyone is saying. it is true we don't want to lose everything. but i'm going to look at people who are progressive. whether those progressives have won. i think there's still an opportunity for progressives to make the agenda here. or if we don't have clear and

contrasting, you know, democrats versus republicans really good elections, really good races, then we're essentially seating this to the republicans. >> the democrats are left to do what then? if a demint can just stand on his hind legs and say all business stops because i say so. under these circumstances, what is the answer in terms of even dropping the left/right equation out of this. what is the answer in terms of government because of one guy? >> i think the answer is that democrats ought to draw a clear contrast. right now to the election as to what the republican agenda is, jim demint has done us a favor in this regard and what democrats can do. take a look at people like russ feingold who have drawn a line in the sand as to what he stands for. jobs and economy that works for everyone. middle class tax cuts. when he indicated he was in a little bit of trouble, he was able through democracy for america and a number of other progressive organizations was able to get $100,000 of

contributions within 24 hours. there is enthusiasm on the democratic side. but what we need to do to make sure this happens is to draw a clear contrast between democrats, progressives, and the republican party with the tea party. >> they're one in the same. arshad, thanks for coming in. >> thank you. there is this extraordinary "rolling stone" interview. january 7th, 2009, only a week after his inauguration, the president was on his way to a meeting with republicans to present and gather ideas on the stimulus bill. quoting him. "and on the way over, the caucus, that is the republican caucus essentially released a statement that said we're not -- we're going to vote know as a caucus. and this was before we had the conversation. at that point we learned we weren't going to get the cooperation we anticipated. the strategy is one of sitting on the sidelines trying to gum up the works based on the assumption that given the scope and size of the recovery the economy probably wouldn't be very good in 2010 and they were

better off being able to assign the blame to us than work with us to try to solve the problem." as for the communications and off time fund raising arm of the gop, fox news, the president seemed to be under no illusion about its effect. it is part of the tradition that has a clear, undenial point of view. it's a point of view i disagree with. it's a point of view i think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country. the president also said that the tea party was a mixed bag of different strains in american politics, including libertarians and social conservatives. but he was clear that moneyed interests underpinned much of the movement. quoting again, there's no doubt that the infrastructure and the financing of the tea party come from some very traditional, very powerful special interest lobbies. i don't think this is a secret, president obama said. they're financed by very conservative industries and forces, forces the president added that are against environmental laws and clean energy policy as well as regulations to protect workers

and rein in the financial industry. let's turn to the washington bureau chief, columnist for politics daily.com. >> good evening, keith. >> i need to preface something i'm going to say about whether or not the president feels appreciated. let me quote mr. burton directly. what the president is doing is making sure that people know whether or not you're on the left or the right that we've done a lot, we've got a lot more to do. and if you're on the left, someone like keith olbermann or rachel maddow, someone who helps keep our government honest, then he thinks those folks provide an invaluable service. i want to thank mr. burton for his kind words and the president for his. and i want to sort of rise to this bar, i hope, by asking this. if on the eighth day of the administration, if the president knew the gop has been anti-everything, why has he been negotiating with them as if he could get a yes from them? >> because the president doesn't

watch zombie movies. and you can't negotiate with zombies, you can't trust zombies and you -- you know, he continued after that point. i read the "rolling stone" interview today, and that was a striking acknowledgment on his part. after getting that big no from them on stimulus spending, he ran into it again and again on the energy front, on health care, on wall street reform, and each time he was, you know, he spent a lot of effort and a lot of political capital trying to work with the zombie party. and he kept hitting his head against the same wall. maybe if he'd come to that conclusion earlier, things would look a little different today. >> these zombies, though, don't eat brains, clearly. you know this. this president more than any and probably we've seen in a long

time really take seriously the idea that he's a president of people who didn't vote for him. so he can understand that pressure working against whatever his instincts might have been on january 7th, 2009. but all those things you brought up, public option, integration, even more jobs bills, things that didn't happen. they can now be seen in the rubric of the certain political calculations. is it supposed to make it more bearable? >> i don't think the problem is that the president compromised. sometimes that is necessary down here in washington to get something through. i think the problem was the way he went about doing it. you can compromise and still win and define your own narrative. that's a very popular word here amongst pundits, narrative. by which the stimulus was a good example. we all know now that it probably should have been twice as big as it was. that probably wouldn't have passed through the senate with all our republican willstake what they give me. but i tell you, it's not going to be good enough. and that way when unemployment,

de, which is i told yowewe needed to do more and the republicans prevented us from doing that. but instead at the time, he did all the compromising, he won over three or four republicans, whatever the number was, and he said this bill is great. and that put him in a jam because unemployment went up to 9.6 and he gave the republicans the opportunity to say, see, we spent all that money and unemployment still is high. so he lost the story part of this and it sounds kind of trite and immature, but if you're going to be a leader, you have to lead not just in passing and governance, but in telling people what's going on and keeping your side together and activated and winning over independents to your arguments. >> which raises an interesting question as to what he does if there is a zombie party house in the months to come. but there's -- last point, we have to address this. the president did not go so far as to address the issue of fox news the way we do by calling them fox pack. but he does seem to know or it's evident, he's admitting to the

fact he knows what he's up against with that outfit. >> yeah, he took that stab at fox. remember a year ago the white house started a campaign against fox and then dropped it. i think that -- i think the way they should regard fox news is -- is with strategic derision. i don't think they should go out there every day and say worst person in the world because you do that pretty well yourself. >> thank you. >> i think you have to undercut it, undermine it and say, oh, yeah, that's fox being fox, let the keith olbermanns of the world do the trench warfare and the president is bigger than fox news. he's bigger than cable. i hate to say that on cable. he shouldn't be shooting down -- he's not going to change them. that's a rarefied bizarre alternative world that fox serves. and i think the best way to deal with it is try to laugh at it to a certain degree and not take it all that seriously because it's not a serious network. >> i hope he -- in fact, i hope the smallest president we've ever had is bigger than cable.

many thanks. it isn't zombie republican obstructionism that nancy pelosi has to worry about, it's the democratic kind. steny hoyer says the party is immovable in favor of tax cuts for the middle class. what about voting for tax cuts for the middle class? maybe, maybe not. and the best speech given by an american governor in years and it's arnold schwarzenegger on tape. about the coke brothers. hey nick. how's it going with the website?

going great, babs. made it really easy for customers to manage their car insurance policy online. well, you know that's why we have 24/7 support, so customers can call us anytime. [ in a robotic voice ] does not compute. error. [ all ] error. error. error. malfunction, babs. beep. boop. boop. ha ha. very funny. powering down. [ new guy ] we're not really robots. [ thomas ] i thought we were. [ male announcer ] want a great deal on car insurance? go to esurance.

the house majority leader insists he and the speaker are united on tax cuts for the middle class except that detail on whether or not to hold a vote on them. the governor of california calls out big oil and the rich by name including the coke brothers by name for their willingness to destroy the planet so they can get richer. the dirty little secret that could cost her her chance at the senate in nevada. one word, insurance. and add to his litany of character names, the new one, todd margaret.

david cross will also react to the news that 45% of catholics don't know what that whole eating the wafer in the big pointy building is ahead on "countdown."

98% of americans get reassurance there's still some democrats willing to stand up for them. and in our fourth story, even better hoyer now says he and speaker pelosi are in agreement on middle class tax cuts, except one detail, whether or not to hold a vote on them. well, they would if the senate would, but nothing's definite. they definitely might vote on it, but no, probably not.

hoyer telling reporters today that democrats are still considering a vote on middle class tax cuts before the house adjourns friday. just don't hold your breath. that's not saying that we're not going to do it, it's saying i doubt we're going to do it. it's an ever so slight departure from what hoyer said over the weekend calling a potential house vote a specious act. after nancy pelosi told reporters that the house dems we retain the right to choose. a tax vote will be done before the end of the year. after reporters pressed him on the logic of waiting for a lame duck session, mr. hoyer blamed the senate. is there any confusion in this room where the democrats are? we may well act anyway. if the house does act, it will do so under suspension process which requires a 2/3 vote. meanwhile, ceo director as the "washington post" reports, extending the tax cuts will probably reduce income relative to what would otherwise occur in 2020.

conceding that tax cuts would temporarily stimulate the economy and not by much and create more debt. this is as a "new york times" editorial slams the democrats for their inaction in the tax cut debate. this particular failure the times wrote to act was not about republican obstructionism of which there's been plenty, this was about democrats failing to seize an opportunity to do the right thing and at the same time draw a sharp distinction between themselves and the republicans. in an effort to do the right thing, 46 house dems led by the co-chair of the republican caucus sending a letter to speaker pelosi asking for a vote to extend the current tax cuts on everyone by the top earners. extending the bush tax cuts will result in an $830 billion give away, the nation's wealthiest americans. increasing debt. this astronomical sum could be used to close our budget deficit. joining me now congressman. thank you for your time tonight.

>> it's good to be here, keith. >> where do things stand right now? are you and your fellow progressives confident there'll be a vote before the recess? >> i think there's going to be a vote before the recess. and i think that democrats believe in total that we're going to lower taxes for people at $250,000 and below. that's for everyone for the first $250,000 of income. the question you pose about whether it's before the election or after the election. obviously i prefer before the election. i think that's what we're going to do. but there's no uncertainty about whether or not we're going to act. in fact, there's only one party that has done tax cuts over the last two years for the middle class. we did it in the stimulus. almost 40% of the stimulus was a reduction in payroll taxes for people under $250,000. every republican voted against it except for three in the senate. and so if you're looking for which party will vote to reduce taxes on people below $250,000 and exclude that top 2% for

their extra income, it's already been demonstrated, and we're going to probably see another demonstration of it this week. >> on the premise of the -- as the old phrase goes. you can't build your reputation on what you're going to do. how can any democrat say that voting for tax cuts for the middle class before the election would not be a good thing? isn't the polling pretty clear on that? and what is this interplay with the senate? why does whether or not the senate votes on this before the midterms really matter to anybody in the house or why should it matter? >> well, you may have noticed that a few democrats are getting beat up for voting for an energy bill that the other side calls cap and something or other. and the senate didn't act on it. we have hundreds of bills, over 400 bills passed by the house that are over in the senate and have not been acted on. so can our member be harmed by casting a vote that they have to take the hit for, right? without the -- concluding the matter with at least a public

policy that they can stand behind. but if the question, again, is tax cuts for people $250,000 and under, we enacted that in the stimulus. voted for tax cuts for people $250,000 and under, and every single republican in the house voted no on it. so if you're looking for a vote to demonstrate that it happened, i think you're going to see another vote this week on the matter. that's what i'm pushing for, and i think that both leader hoyer and speaker pelosi are clear that we think that for your income up to $250,000, there should be a continued reduction in taxes, but we should not make the same mistake that was made almost ten years ago enacting the bush tax cuts, which have driven the economy in part in the hole and has raised the deficit and the debt level of the country. >> the question about what mr. elmdorf testified to, that it would impede income growth in the long-term. is there not an argument to be

made that let all of the tax cuts expire because there is not any long-term plan to pay for them? >> absolutely. in fact, if you let all of them expire, you could almost balance the federal budget. the problem is we're still in recovery that needs to take hold of our economy. so additional revenues to people who will spend them, that is people below $250,000 will have a stimulating effect on our economy that the economy needs at this time. so that every economist will tell you that when you're trying to develop this recovery that we have to be very careful that we don't pull back too soon. so, yes, as an empirical matter, we know what the bush tax cuts will do because they've done it already. that is, we've seen their action over ten years. that is you will get a temporary fix, a sugar fix almost and then it will run the economy into the hole. we don't want that. we at least don't want to have

it skewed to the top 2% of earners the way it was done -- we're talking about an average tax cut of $100,000 for people who are in making millions of dollars. there's no reason for it. our economy and our debt and deficit picture can't withstand it. >> congressman chaka fattah of pennsylvania, thank you, sir, always a pleasure. >> thank you for having me. governor arnold schwarzenegger in a speech. you will stand up and applaud and want to download "terminator" and, and "kindergarten cop."

does anybody believe, asks the governor of california that these companies out of the goodness out of their black oil hearts are spending millions and millions of dollars to protect jobs? wow. first the sanity break and the tweet of the day from shiner man in new jersey. how many minutes of your show will be on the sarah palin "dancing with the stars" faux controversy tonight? actually, we weren't going to mention it, but since you tweeted me. what controversy? they booed the crap out of her, it happens, a lot. 15 seconds. let's play "oddball." we'll begin in singapore where singer and hello kit ty fanatic mariah carey is performing her song "make it happy." hoisted back on to her feet by her backup dancers, she soldiers and sells -- she sells seashells

by the seashore through the remainder of the song but not before calling not one, but two assistants to remove her $10,000 pair of stilettos. and down goes -- wait, nobody's falling. the track was 80 meters long and the events -- why don't we just watch. okay. finished the relay in one minute and four seconds. also set a record here for time and blisters. oh, that's the end of the tape? all right. down under to luna park, the highly anticipated finale of australia's "next top model." sarah murdoch then has a surprise for the contestants.

>> oh, my god. i don't know what to say right now. this was not -- this was a complete accident, i'm sorry. it's amanda, i'm so sorry. it was read to me wrong. >> i want to say thank you. >> i still think that sophie should've won. if only someone had turned around and noticed the large poster that announced that amanda ware was the winner. time marches on. guess who also didn't win? arnold schwarzenegger. his startling speech calling out the rich and big oil in its class war against america. but is that class war itself already lost next?

governor arnold schwarzenegger charged full bore into the national debate over big business shaping our politics and class warfare. and in our third story tonight, he spoke the plain truth behind their motives. greed, just greed. it turns out most of america does not even know how rich the rich had gotten. the new study based on polling from 2005 finds that americans think the richest 20% of the country own about 59% of the wealth. at the time of the poll, the richest 20% owned 84% of the wealth. and that was before the

recession. new census data out today showing that median household incomes fell again last year to $50,000 while those making at least $180,000 saw their incomes rise. the income gap between rich and poor never larger since the nation began to track it. the 20% that earned more than $100,000 a year took home 49% of all income last year. those living in poverty made just 3.4% of all income, making the richest to poorest ratio 14 to 1. without even factoring how much tax loopholes, dividends, and capital gains further enrich the rich. and we have new information on how the rich are using that money while individual voters have given money to democratic campaign committees, the associated press reports that the citizens united ruling on unleashing private groups to pour millions of dollars has benefitted republicans by a ratio of 6 to 1, the outpouring of money leading to last night's extraordinary outpouring to the republican governor of california talking about a political campaign there to in essence take over the state in

cash. to reduce carbon emissions there by 30% by the year 2020. the ads, claiming his new law will kill jobs. >> does anyone really believe that these companies out of the goodness of their black oil hearts are spending millions and millions of dollars to protect jobs? >> in the rest of his speech, audio of which was provided to "countdown," governor schwarzenegger did not hesitate to name which companies, including the coke brothers, founders of the tea party movement. here's how he started. >> i want to talk about the corruption of the democratic process, and about forces willing to sabotage this country's economic future for private gain. i want to talk about texas oil interests that have descended up on california to overturn a californian environmental law. and then assume that they've done the dirty work thanks to millions of dollars of scare

tactic advertising. in the words of their own spokesperson to fold up their tents and go home. ladies and gentlemen, there's a great drama, there is a great struggle playing out here in california right now that the rest of the world doesn't pay much attention to and knows very little about. and that's why i'm here today to put the spotlight on this very important issue. and let me just say that the entire oil industry is not involved in this deception that i will explain here today. no, there's some oil companies trying to do the right thing. but others are not. oil companies like valero and desoro and frontier are blatantly trying to manipulate the will of the people and the good. >> they put an initiative to halt until unemployment drops to 5.5%. comparing them to the 20th

century that killed off public transportation rail systems. >> today valero and tesoro and others involved are involved in the conspiracy, but not in a criminal conspiracy, but clearly in a cynical one. they are not seeking to buy rail systems, but to buy votes this time. yet the motivation is the same which is self-serving greed. 2/3 of californians approve our state law to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. do you know who the two most prominent opponents are? valero and tesoro, also two of the state's top polluters. they're behind an initiative on the november ballot called proposition 23, which would suspend our law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. but in reality, because of the fine print when it comes to unemployment, they really don't want to just suspend it, they

want to kill this initiative, they want to kill our laws. and while they're not creating a shale company, they are creating a shell argument that this is about saving jobs. does anyone really believe that these companies that out of the goodness of their black oil hearts are spending millions and millions of dollars to protect jobs? this is like eva braun writing a kosher cookbook. it's not about jobs at all, ladies and gentlemen, it's about their ability to pollute and thus protect their profits. >> defer for a moment your reaction to the last analogy. the cost we will pay for big oil's profits if they get their way. the governor again. >> those who seek to overturn our carbon reduction law say that the green-tech future is too costly. another excuse, great, great excuse, huh? but here's what they don't want to tell you. the cost calculations doesn't

include the increased of cost doing business their way, the old way, they don't include the cost of rising oil prices as the developing world demands more and more oil. they don't include the costs of job losses that is rising oil prices will force. they don't include the costs of hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks that have gotten and continued to get. they don't include the costs of pollution that are already causing -- the cost, for instance, to hundreds of thousands of americans who die every year from smog-related diseases. they don't include also the cost of 6.5 million hospital visits a year for smog-related illnesses. they don't include the cost of the next war over oil. and believe me, eventually it will come as we become more and more dependent on oil. i mean, i think that we have had enough wars in the middle east because of oil. don't you think so?

that is why george schults, ronald reagan's secretary of state is firmly against proposition 23 and is firmly against valero and tesoro are doing. >> but when arnold schwarzenegger and george schultz think big business has gone too far to enrich themselves even more, there is no class warfare in america, it would seem to be over and they would seem to have won. fortunately, we still have david cross. his new series, his reaction to this amazing goofy survey suggesting half of the religious in this country don't know much about their own religions. not dissimilar to sharron angle's latest whopper. she wants to dismantle those social insurance programs. does that not include the one she benefits from? and rachel at the top of the hour will take a closer look at the issues democrats should be running on instead of running from. rachel's invaluable, you heard it from the white house today.

in this time of the republican tea party, it is a capital offense, accepting socialized insurance, madame? and one of these men started protestantism, the other has two tv series and is my guest tonight. and only 45% of protestants appear to know which is which ahead on "countdown."

david cross, his new series on fox, a survey that shows that 53% of protestants don't know the guy who started protestantism. that's next, but time for

tonight's "worst persons in the world." after they knocked off little debbie snack cakes delivery truck. it was jacked from outside a store at 4:00 in the morning. the truck has been found partially submerged in a canal with a trail of empty boxes and cookie wrappers leading back to the woods from the highway. be on the lookout for hansel and gret l. mumbles that although the experts have determined the recession ended in june of 2009, "almost no stimulus money had gone out the door so the recession ended more or less on its own." $93 billion. the council of economic advisers reported by the end of june 2009 $93 billion of stimulus money had gone out the back of the door for tax relief for small businesses and individuals. in fact, the chief economist at moody's told the "new york times" that stimulus spending was at the maximum.

almost none? $93 billion. he just makes this stuff up. perfect for fox pack. and people still call him a journalist. but our winner sharron angle, candidate for senate in republican nevada. you heard about her plans to phase out social security and medicare. and how states have to pay for kids with air quote autism end air quote. they were her air quotes. and you heard her talk about how harry reid is a socialist or anarchist or whatever he is, turns out that shor sharron angle gets social health care. he gets the same employee health care insurance he got while he worked there and it covers his wife sharron as does his pension, paid for by contributions made by current civil service employees. it's the civil service, government equivalent of social security. so the next time she whines about ending this or relieving nevada of the burden of that,

let's see her start by cutting off that socialist insurance she gets. her insurance that you and i pay for. sharron angle, hypocrite, today's "worst person in the world." ♪

>>according to the u.s. religious knowledge survey released today, on average, people who don't believe in god are more than those who do believe in a god. the story, a christian, a jew, and atheist walk into a church. now that atheist is here. comedian and actor david cross

joins me. the polling was conducted in may. adults asked 32 basic religious questions. atheists and agnostics answered an average of 20.9 questions correctly edging out jewish. catholics were six points back and the wiccans missed the cut. mormons know their religion the best answering eight out of two 12 questions relating to christianity correctly. the book of mormon tells the story of jesus appearing in america. 27% know that the dominant religion in indonesia is islam. a question on the eucharist -- 45% doesn't know that the communion bread and wine aren't just symbols of the body of christ and become the body of christ. and protestants did not know who

the first protestant was. who was the person who inspired the protestant reformation. john wesley, thomas akauai nas, and brad lidge. only 40% picked martin luther. martin luther had a problem with the poor decisions of the roman catholic church. david cross stars in a show called "the increasingly important decisions of todd margaret." how's that for a segue. >> i got an amazing job offer to go to london and head up this office here. so here's the thing, i have to leave tomorrow. this isn't breaking up. >> todd. >> please, let me do this. >> todd. >> it's too good to pass up. >> tw weeks ago, i made the mistake of sleeping with you. that mistake doesn't make me your girl friend. oh, come on, you've got to go out the win doe, my date's here, i don't want him to see you.

>> what about my cat. >> oh, mother -- >> joining me is comedian, atheist, awesomist on the independent film channel beginning the first of this month, david cross. >> hello, keith. >> this is one of the weirdest polls i've mean? a while, the religion poll? why would atheist know more about religion than -- >> it makes sense. i literally heard about this today. >> that's when it came out. you heard about it before, you would have been psychic. . >> i was listening to the radio when i heard about it. in one aspect, the more you know about how religion came to be and survived and just the human part of, you know, illiterate people writing down stories for other illiterate people that were then edited over time and,

all based on fantastic, you know, word of mouth -- >> mm-hmm. >> decades and decades sometimes hundreds of years after the event took place, the more you realize that maybe it's not so legit and then you start questioning things and then it's a domino effect. so that doesn't surprise me. >> does the rest of this -- were there nonreligious questions in here too, 59% could name joe biden as vice president. it's not just a knowledge abreligion problem, it's a people not paying attention problem, isn't it? >> yeah, i'm sure that people couldn't answer who the vice president was but could tell you who won "american idol" five years ago. i would guess. -- >> i don't have any idea. >> i don't, but let's not be, you know. one of the things i was most interesting was the thing you showed up there -- put up there

about mormons knew the most about their religion which makes more about their religion, it's brand new relatively. protestants and then catholics. and those go in descending order of when they were created which i think is kind of interesting. >> there's a certain -- an element of keeping the story straight among everybody for a while. >> there's less opportunity to discover the -- although, let's be honest, mormonism that probably occurred the day joseph smith showed up. >> a good time to talk about the show, i think. >> sounds like somebody is scared. >> no. no. i just want to make sure we have enough juice going here. speaking of juice. you go to england to sell energy -- your energy drink and bizarre fun ensues? >> yeah. my character is a temp at a office in -- an office in

portland. and is mistaken by this blustering boss who has just taken over this -- represents people who took over the company as being this hard-assed salesman. tough as nails guy. my character does nothing to dissuade him of that. he goes to england 48 hours later selling energy drinks. he's in way, way over his head. he keeps lying to make things better. and every episode takes place the very last day of the last episode. it all starts compounding and there's no like relief -- yes. >> i noticed in the first -- in the full clip that we showed, you're falling out a window. you're falling -- you do a lot of falling. why is this? why do you fall all the time, by choice, i might add too. >> every character i've ever played has severe vertigo and it's just coincidence. >> all it is.

>> all it is. >> no typecasting or you like to fall? >> i do -- i do like doing physical comedy. it's not all physical comedy, but there's -- there's moments in each episode -- i enjoy it. it's fun. >> you're doing this and the thing on fox and running and will arnett is in both of them. is that a lot of punishment, or is that like falling out of a window? >> i don't know what you're implying. but, hey, it's not -- it's not so bad on the eyes, is he. that voice. like syrup and butter. no, i -- i wrote the part that will plays in "todd margaret" for will. and thankfully he was able to do it. and then the same situation after him, running wild which he wrote and he created from arrested development. they have a part oh, we wan you to do this. works