>> i do believe there are certain legalities here. and there needs to be some federal and state wide investigation go on here and find on out what is going on. because i'm being told that none of our tax dollars are going to any of these fire departments. and i find that relatively hard to believe. >> i understand that completely. we're looking into that right now. again, todd, thanks for your time. >> thank you so much. >> that's october 7th. i'm keith olbermann. goodnight and good luck. now great excitement in rachel land tonight. a republican has refused to follow introductions and will be her guest tonight. here is rachel. >> we are, in fact, very excited at the show tonight. >> marshmallows and popcorn and stuff. >> people fainting in the newsroom. it was very exciting. >> i see that every day. >> we are very excited for the

show tonight. because as keith said, a real live republican candidate for office is going to be a guest on this show. this is something that used to happen for us, not too rarely. then it got rare. recently it has been utterly impossible for us to get anyone from any newsworthiness from the republican side to sit and chat on this show. tonight on the interview, we break our recent republican-free streak. we are excited. please stay tuned for that. we begin with this question. how long does it take for belt way media narratives to get rewritten? because we're 26 days from the elections. and the big belt way narrative about how democrats need to run this year seems wrong. with each passing day, we are getting new examples of democrats rejecting the belt way common wisdom that democrats need to play defense only. it's a republican landscape this year. republicans get to run on what they stand for. and democrats ought to stay

quiet about what they stand for. democrats ought to stay out of the lime light. democrats should try to seem as much as possible like maybe they're republicans too. with each passing day, that advice -- this year's political common wisdom is getting less common. more and more democrats seem to be rejecting that advice and instead getting on offense. and it appears that in many cases they are scoring. you can tell they're scoring by watching the effect that democrats being on offense is having on those democrats' republican opponents. it is an effect best described as stop, squirm and run. we are seeing it play out in races in which democrats are favored and races in which republicans are favored. we are seeing it in some of the highest-profile races in the country from which the common wisdom is supposedly drawn. if that's the case, the common wisdom needs updating. here is a case in point. linda mcmahon, the former world wreszing entertainment ceo, and nominee from connecticut.

>> do you think there should be a minimum wage? >> minimum wage now you in our country, i think we've set that. so there are a lot of people who have benefited from it. i think we need to review how much it ought to be. we've got minimum wages in state and the government. i think we ought to look at all of those issues in terms of what mandates are being placed on businesses and can we afford them. >> the republican nominee for senate in connecticut said we ought to look at reducing the minimum wage. here's her opponent using that admission to go on office. >> she took home $46 million and now she's talking about lowering the minimum wage. >> she is all in it for her. >> linda mcmahon, profits before people. >> a democrat goes offense. the republican responds by sort of losing it. despite the tape of her comments, ms. mcmahon is trying

to convince cnn she didn't mean what she said. telling cnn that she misspoke because she did not the question and what was going on. quote, can i thought i was answering a question i had heard that was about increasing the minimum wage. would i consider that? i never said anything with lowering the minimum wage. that was last week. stop, squirm and run from previous position. stop, squirm and run on more display in kentucky where democrat jack conway is running against republican rand paul. here's what jack conway playing offense in that race looks like. >> and the real answer to medicare would be a $2,000 deductible. >> with medicare, i think one of the answers is we will have to pay more. >> you don't want low deductibles, you want high deductibles.

>> now watch stage one of the rand paul stop, squirm and run operation. this is the initial version of a response ad, an ad that rand paul released in response to that attack from jack conway. >> rand paul has never supported high deductibles for seniors. jack conway lies to hide his support for obama-care. >> jack conway is a higher and so is the youtube. stop. that was their first attempt at a response. phase two, squirm. they took down that ad. they took down their own ad, denying rand paul had said that thing he said a million times on camera. we were able to get it from the folks at the barefoot and progressive blog because they

were quick-witd enough to save it before it was pulled down off the internet. then the rand paul campaign replaceded the ad denying the thing that was true with a new ad. >> rand paul doesn't support higher medicare deductibles for seniors. conway distracts with negative ads to hide his support for obama-care. >> they changed the ad from saying paul never supported higher medicare deductibles to saying rand paul doesn't today support that thing he's on tape a million times saying. instead of saying jack conway's a liar about this provably thing on tape, they now say jack conway is distracting. distracting with nailing us for our totally indefensible positions we will flip-flop on as soon as we are challenged on them. so distracting when democrats campaign to win.

we thought democrats weren't going to do that this year. the amazing ken buck of colorado, another great new example of stop, squirm and run. here's what ken buck of colorado said late last year. again, on camera about taxes. >> i don't think the income tax is a good idea. i think a national sales tax, assumption tax, fair tax is a better idea. >> a national sales tax, a assumption tax, enter senator michael bennett, the democrat who ken buck is trying to unseat. >> buck wants a new 23% national sales tax on everything you buy. on groceries, on medicine, on gas. ken duck, extremely wrong for colorado. >> mea culpa. i have to give you a mea culpa. i gave chris van holland from the democrat campaign committee the business, a hard time for democrats running ads against republicans who talked about the

national sales tax. i told chris i didn't think it was going to work. i officially admit to having been proven wrong about that. i can show you right now it totally working against ken buck in colorado. watch ken buck run from himself and try to divide himself into two different people so they can sprint apart from one another as fast as they can. one of those ken bucks says, in the primary season, i was asked about the national sales tax over and over. >> actually, you were asked about the income tax. i think it has to be recognizd as an alternative. i just said i favored it but i didn't really. i hate that ken buck guy. i'm a totally new ken buck guy. now to florida where the republican candidate for senate, mark arubeio is being chaseded away from the democrat kendrick meek and independent former

republican charlie crist. last week following a negative ad from mr. meek, rubeio sprinted away from his position on privatizing social security. you will recall our exclusive footage saying he wanted to privatize social security and also he wanted to raise the retirement age. >> i do think that the retirement age issue will have to be confronted at some point as part of a measure to reform social security. >> we're going to have to confront it and not to lower it. that's for sure. kendrick meek went on offense against rubio on wanting to to privatize social security. now charlie crist recognizing a soft target is going on offense against mr. rubio on the raising the retirement age thing. >> working longer, get by on less. that's the rubio retirement plan. he wants to it raise the social security retirement age. >> that's aus. witness the marco rubio campaign in full response.

calling crist's ad false, even though it's not. and denying that rubio ever said what he plainly said on this issue on tape. mr. rubio has apparently changed his mind on the subject. marco rubio didn't say that or maybe he didn't but definitely didn't mean it. but in any case, charlie crist is terrible and lying. the common wisdom is that democrats need to lay low and republicans get to set the agenda. democrats will have to hope if they're very, very quiet people may think of them as republicans too. when you hold politically indefensible positions like privatizing social security, the government forcing rape victims to bear the rapist's child, cutting the minimum wage, wacky giant tax ideas from the steve forbes for president laugh-in, when you have totally politically indefensible ideas like those, you are a soft target. it's not rocket science. hitting candidates on positions like that hurts them.

coast to coast in every race. underdogs and overdogs. liberal district, conservative districts. this is what it looks like when democrats go on offense. this is what it looks like when it works. joining us is washington post columnist ej. dionne. thanks very much for being here. >> good to be with you always. >> is the common wisdom about democrats needing to lay low in peril? could it actually change? >> i think it's wrong. i think that democrats believe in government, not unlimited government, not inefficient government but believe government has a role to play in many parts of life to make things better. they've gotten afraid of just saying it. i think by highlighting issues like social security, like the minimum wage, they're saying do you want this part of government to go away ore that part, senator fritz hollings when he ran for president -- i wish i could do an accent but you

wouldn't understand me. he talked about the man who fought for our country in world war ii and went to college on the gi bill and bout a house with an fha loan and kids went to college on loans and parents happily retired on social security and medicare november man said he was voting for ronald reagan to get the government off his back. i think that contradiction has to be driven all the time. bill cohen, the former republican senator, when the valjet crashed, cohen said government is the enemy until you need a friend. i think a lot of americans instinctively know that. when they see some of these ideas, they say, that's not what i think. >> i think that the case that you just made is a case that democrats have been told to be afraid of making.

the belt way common wisdom still tells democrats they should be afraid of making that case. what i feel like is happening right now is that actually democratic political activity is out in front of the way team in washington and the way people in the mainstream press are talking about it. i think democrats are getting less afraid of attacking anti-radical positions that they're seeing in their republican opponents. >> no. i think you're seeing some are coming out and defending the health care bill. they're not saying i'm for the health care bill. that thing has been so demonizeded that it's the distraction republicans are trying to put out there. a lot of specific things in the health care bill like you can't throw my kid off health insurance if my kid has a pre-existing condition or the government will stop insurance companies from cutting you off when you get sick. russ feingold has run on it, steve israel, tom perriello.

it's refreshing. nobody likes a wimp. nobody likes somebody who says, i'm afraid of what i believe. president obama is being strong about what he believes again. i don't think people like it when you're so into compromise you start looking like you'll give away the store. >> even in conservative districts. i think that's exactly right. let me ask you in terms of people thinking about democrati strategy for these elections. when you're looking at politically indefensible elections, does the question of what makes a soft target for a republican candidate -- does what makes a soft target vary from race to race or district to district? are there some things you can run against republicans on no matter where you are? >> if the republicans nominated mike castle in delaware, he

would have a much you harder candidate to get at than christine o'donnell. if republicans want to run a campaign saying we're against regulation. which ones? the ones that keep our drugs safe, our food safe, our minds safe or workplaces safe? which ones are those. talk on taxes. we have a big debate going on do you really think that the best way to spend $700 billion over 10 years is for tax cuts for wealthy people. i think there are themes that work cross districts. obviously some of the folks are much more right wing than others. >> e.j. dionne, doing great work explaining this side of the strategic when very few people in washington are. thank you very much. do you remember the movie "the producers?" gene wilder raising tons of

money for a broadway show so bad they were sure it would flop because they wanted to keep all the money they raised afterwards. is politics this year turning into the same game? there is something a little mel brooksian going on here. and later on, we want to hear from conservatives on the show. it is very difficult for us to book them to come on the show. it today, jackpot. a real life conservative republican agreeing to sit down with me on this show. stay with us. when i was 16, i was hired as a cashier

at the walmart in marinette, wisconsin. that first job launched my career. since i've been with the company, i've been promoted ten times over the span of 11 years. today, i'm a divisional learning and development manager. we can actually help people develop in their own careers. my job allows me to make a difference in the lives of almost 100,000 associates in the northeast. if you think about it, that's almost 8 times the size of my hometown. my name is nick and i work at walmart. ♪

there's one issue in american politics that is an always every time proven kick butt winner for progressive and democratic politicians. every time it comes up democrats win on it, republicans lose on it. unless republicans adopt the democrats' position or bamboozle people into thinking that. it never gets any national discussion. but it always works in

democrats' favor, every time. hugely. it is a magic decoder ring for democratic electoral success and has nothing to do with marijuana. it is the subject of our closing comment on tonight's show ahead. i'm coming to take over the world, of lick racing, starting with you, dsrl. stufy, make the call. ♪ [ dialing ] [ beeping ] [ beeping ] [ beeping ] [ eli ] it's go time. ♪

♪ when sarah palin quit her job as governor of the state of alaska last year, she said she was leaving political office in order to focus on politics. >> i think a problem in our country today is apathy. it would be apathetic to hunker down and go with the flow. we know only dead fish go with the flow. i choose for my state and for my

family more freedom to progress all the way around so that alaska may progress. i will not seek re-election as governor. >> since quitting being a politician in order to focus on politics, governor palin has made a ton of loot. book deals, $100,000 per speech. quitting the stupid public servant stuff but staying vaguely in politics has been very lucrative for ms. palin. quitting politics made her a lot of money. some candidates figured out how running for office itself can make you a lot of money itself. "the new york times" reported that carl "i'm mad" paladino from new york state may be doing horrendously in the polls but it is turning out pretty good for his business interests. of the $3.8 million he spent as of september 27th, nearly $2 million has gone to companies he owns or controls. his campaign houses out of town

guests in a budget hotel he owns, leases cars from a rental agency he owns and uses the services of an accountant whose other job is at his real estate development company. when he can't put money back in his own pocket, he steers it to people he does business with. his campaign treasury is in a bank that pays him rent. the better to be able to pay carl that rent. vaguely the same deal in delaware with the surreal republican candidate for senate there, christine o'donnell. the first allegations that running for office was a for-profit racket came during the primary from her own former campaign manager. >> this is kristin murray. in 2008, i was the campaign manager for senate candidate christine o'donnell.

this is her third senate race in five years. as her manager, i found out she was living on campaign donations. using them for rent and personal expenses while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debts. she wasn't concerned about conservative causes. o'donnell just wanted to make a buck. that's why i left. >> that campaign manager said that o'donnell used the campaign debit card, funded by political donations, to pay her own personal living expenses. ms. o'donnell defended using political donations to pay the rent on her town house where she lives. mr. paladino at last count down by 18 point. o'donnell down by 17 points. they are running such nutty, cuckoo for cocoa puffs campaigns. this could be a nice way to pay

your rent or make money off your special interests. running for office has become a racket.

when "the new york times" asked christine o'donnell who in the senate she most admires, the answer she gave was surprising. the first senator was jim demint. nothing unusual there.

the south carolina republican endorsed her campaign for senate and is probably as far right in his conservative beliefs as she is herself. so that wasn't the surprise. that made sense. the surprise was what o'donnell told reporter mark leibovich a few seconds later. quoting from the article. after a few more seconds, she mentioned hillary rodham clinton, who left the senate almost two years ago. quoting ms. o'donnell, she is a woman in a man's world holding her own. as one woman also taking some flack, i deeply admire that. okay. but you know hillary clinton's not in the senate anymore, right? what was odd in the "new york times'" write-up was it wasn't clear that christine o'donnell realized that secretary is clinton hasn't been a senator for two years now. the reporter asked her who in the senate. whether or not christine o'donnell doesn't understand who hillary clinton is now was left vague or strange.

then this happened. taking questions at the delaware republicans last night, she was asked to twitch a wharves on the top of your head response to the phrase "health care reform bill." this is what her answer was -- on the top of her head when asked about health reform. >> if both the house and the senate pass legislation to repeal the health care bill and then barack obama thumbs his nose to the will of the people and vetoes that bill right before his re-election, i've already seen some hillary clinton ads. there are a lot of democrats who don't want this. if he has the audacity to ignore a very clear message from the people, he's making his re-election very uncertain. >> i have already seen some hillary clinton ads. i don't know about you, but i have. what on god's tiny blue earth is she talking about?

it got even weirder when she said almost the exact same thing this afternoon on cnn. >> if barack obama vetoes that, the year before his re-election, he's setting himself up to be very vulnerable. i'm seen many hillary for president ads running. if she chooses to thumb his nose at the will of the american people and ram this unrealistic, unconstitutional bill down america's throats, there will be consequences politically for obama. >> this is now so weird i don't trust my own ears. play it again. >> he's setting himself up to be very vulnerable. i've seen many hillary for president ads running. >> the ads that hillary clinton is running right now for president that christine o'donnell has seen? i think i can speak for everyone else in the country, we haven't seen those ads. perhaps they were screened at the fake intelligence briefing

about china invading or in hillary clinton's current fake senate office that she maintains to fake everyone out that she's not really secretary of state. ads that only christine o'donnell has been briefed on. officially making christine o'donnell's briefing on the chinese coming to get us the second craziest thing in the week. i love the med-terms. i never thought i'd love the mid-terms as much as i do. ♪ where'd you learn to do that so well. ♪ the new cadillac srx. the cadillac of crossovers. cadillac. the new standard of the world.

in southwest oregon, the fourth district, the congressional race this year is between democrat defazio and republican challenging art robin southern. and someone spending a ton of money on this raise. nobody knows who they are. they are spending a ton of money on paper, and have internet $150,000 already running an ad against the democratic incumbent in this race. >> nancy pelosi and peter defazio made a xhesz of our economy.

it's time for change. art robinson is a research scientist, not a politician. >> and so on. more than $150,000 running that ad. to promote the republican campaign of art robinson. art robinson, the beneficent of this political intervention says he has no idea who this mysterious rich group is but is very happy to have their help. joining us in the interview is republican congressional candidate art robinson. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you for yours. >> am i correct in saying you have no idea who's funding this $150,000 ad that promotes your candidacy? >> that's correct. >> it would be illegal for somebody to try to give you $150,000 campaign contribution, to write you hand it of a check. isn't this essentially an in-kind donation of that size? >> what's legal is the donations

i've received from 3,500 people to support my campaign. i'm happy to have this help because my challenger -- my opponent, mr. defazio, is spending more than $1 million on the campaign. and he has had more money for me than television and radio. i'm delighted these people have helped to level the playing field. >> does the thakt these donations are anonymous bother you at all? if you get elected in part from the spending and find out it's from criminals or foreign interests or communists or something, wouldn't that bother you? >> doesn't it bother you that mr. defazio gets half a million dollars for his campaign from special interests that he's done favors for in washington? the american people don't know where his money comes from. and your representation that this money could come from criminals is simply a way of trying to smear them and smear me by association. >> well, who are they though? >> this campaign is about mr.

defazio's votes for big government, high taxes and higher things which impinge on our lives from washington. it's about his failure to protect the fisheries and forests of our district for use by our businesses. it's about his vote against medical -- >> wait. hold on. >> his vote on medicare -- for the medical care bill when he promised not to do it. it's about all kinds of things. you want to look into finance sfz pete defazio ships his personal money to a tax nachb new zealand. you're not interested in anything except this issue which will divert the campaign from the main issues that the american voters want to hear. >> what i'm interested in is what's new about this year in american politics. that a group does not disclose its funders at all -- we have no idea where the money came from -- dumped $150,000 into your race on your behalf.

i find it hard to believe as a civic-minded guy, a guy who's been so publicly engaged as you have been, you're not disturbed by the fact that all those dollars are anonymous. it doesn't bother you at all? >> if you have been informing the voters about the millions of dollars he's spending came from and the million i will spend from individual don't knowars, 3,500, the fact that his money is special interest money and mine is all from individual people -- >> except for the $150,000 anonymous dollars that you won't talk to me about. >> then i would be concerned perhaps that you couldn't find out where this smaller amount of money comes from. >> the 150 grand -- may i just ask you yes or no -- >> everything about the issues in this campaign. what you want to do is throw mud at me. i want to tell you something. the mud is sticking to you. >> i want to know an answer to this question. ready? >> yes.

>> do you care -- >> well, we'll see. >> wait. i haven't asked the question yet. >> do i care about what? >> that the -- >> it works very well -- standard form of -- you don't care about the -- wait. let me tissue. >> getting the issues to the voters. this program of yours is simply a way of diverting the campaign from those issues. and of course from mr. defazio. >> i'm going to take that as a no. >> so moveon.org will raise money for him. >> i'm going to take it as a no you don't care about the anonymity about the people who gave money to your campaign. let's talk about your beliefs. >> let's do that. >> do you not want to talk about your beliefs? >> go ahead. >> you're well known for your belief that global warming is made up. that's the extent of your national reputation.

>> that's not a belief. it's a conclusion i reached as a scientist. i have a degree from cal it tech. many others who have degrees from cal tech have agreed with me on this. there are thousands of physical scientists in this country who on the basis of science alone have rejected global warming. you which to portray each of those people as a nut. i'll tell you, madam, there are thousands and thousands, far more than at the u.n., pushing this bogus issue about global warming. >> do you mind if i ask you about this? your scientifically proven fact that it's not true, may i ask you about your absolutely true beliefs that anybody who questions is attacking you about? okay. you have advocated that radio -- >> you can go right ahead. you've already put a put statement before it. >> you have advocated that

radioactive waste should be dispersed in the oceans. we should dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over on america after hermecis is better understand? is that correct? >> the statements you have just made are untrue. >> i was quoting you. >> you take tiny excerpts from a vast amount of writing i have done on this scientific subject. i have not advocated any of this. >> did you not say this? >> are you saying that your own -- >> if you'd like to tell the truth, that's fine. >> i'm quoting from your own newsletter. >> this is a complicated scientific subject which you are misrepresenting to to your viewers. >> did you not write this? >> it's a very complicated scientific subject.

giving me 30 seconds to answer. that can't be done. you go ahead and misrepresent the truth. >> did you write this? all we need to do with nuclear waste -- i'm quoting from your newsletter. all we need to do with nuclear waste is dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over the ocean or even over america after -- >> you have picked a few words and twisted them into an untruth. >> okay. let me ask you about some other words about your own -- >> you're throwing mud. >> i'm trying to learn about you so i read your newsletter. >> what you're trying to do is smear me. >> i'm trying to get to know by asking you about stuff you've written i don't understand. >> everyone knows exactly what you're trying to do. that's your stock and trade. it's not mine. i'm a scientist and a very good one. >> can i ask you about something unless your newsletter? >> you're running the camera. >> in your newsletter, you wrote approvingly of the idea that aids is a myth?

>> about what, wait a minute? i didn't hear you. >> i'm quoting you here. the arguments presented against the hiv hypothesis are sound. you wrote this. median age for homosexual men dying of aids is 31 years. the value for heterosexual married men is 39. this is evidence that aids may be little more than exposure to homosexual behavior. >> would you like to produce the date on that? >> this is from 1995. do you no longer believe that? >> 1995, 15 years ago. there was still a debate over the cause of aids. i was writing about that. i wrote about all the other hi potting sees too. 15 years ago, the scientific debate was different than it was today. >> no, it wasn't sir. >> i wrote aprovingly on many of the hypothesises.

i wrote a lot about this issue. trying to make it look bad 15 years later. >> i want to know if you still believe this. only government reclassification of more and more disease types as aids cases has kept the numbers of victims at politically necessary levels. you were a conspirist that aids was a government conspiracy in 1995 at a time that a lot of americans were dying of aids. you were advocating it was made up you for political purposes. have you changed your mind or still believe it? >> nope. you strung several lies together in a row. >> i'm quoting from your own newsletter, sir. >> you strung several lies together in a row because you infused vast amounts of editorial comments. you're reading out of context quotes from 15 years ago.

>> do you no longer believe -- >> i'm not interested in what was thought about 15 years ago. why don't you get to the facts? why don't you stop being so sarcastic and ask a reasonable question. >> if you think this is sarcasm, you misunderstood the term. >> you know what you're doing. i know what you're doing. >> is this still your belief? >> pete defazio voted for higher taxes. pete defazio voted for more regulation of oregonians. pete defazio has cut off oregonians from the use of their forests and fisheries and voted for the medical care bill. >> sir, you would like to replace him in office. i would love to ask you about your stated views. >> he was shipping his own personal assets abroad. you don't want to talk about any of that. >> i have interviewed pete defazio in the past.

now i'm trying to interview you about your stated beliefs. >> get something you can talk about 15 years later. >> wait. here's the thing. i've already interviewed pete defazio. >> why don't you talk about the political issues in this campaign? >> i'm trying to get to know you. you would like to unseat pete defazio. >> it's fun to argue with you on your own show, but you ought to talk about one substantive issue in this campaign. >> i'm trying to get to know you as a candidate. i've interviewed mr. defazio already. >> you're trying to smear me. >> i'm asking you about things that you've written in the public eye. any of the things i've quoted from you, do you no longer believe these things? >> this is 15 years ago. i don't know that i have the documents presents to check what you've said. you're representing i said something i wrote 15 years ago and i don't have the documents in front of me. this is a smear campaign. >> it's not a smear campaign.

>> stop smearing me and talk about a single issue in this campaign. you're afraid because your candidate is wrong on every one of the issues. >> if it were possible to smear a person by quoting to him things he has published in his own newsletter that he edits, i don't know how you define a smear campaign in normal human interaction. >> i've written thousands and thousands of pages. i wrote a lot on that subject 15 years ago. >> a lot of which i'd love to ask you about. >> instead of the issues in this campaign. >> let me ask you about hermecis. >> your viewers knows exactly what you are. instead of discussing the issues, you're going over the thousands of pages this guy has written. >> to figure out who you are. >> you're quoting it to him where he can't check the quotes. >> let's talk about hormesis.

>> it's complicated. i don't think you're capable of understanding it. >> that's patronizing and charming but i'd love to get you to understand it. >> it's that low-level radiation is good for us. i realize you're an ad vacate for expanded nuclear testing in the united states. is it because you think it would be beneficial -- >> let's throw in a few more prejorative comments. >> there was an article written on you in 2001 -- >> that's an outright question. >> is it true? let me ask you a question. >> would you like me to ask you on hormesis? >> for stupid people like me who

don't understand your complicated ideas, is it the idea that background radiation levels at some levels are helpful for human health? is that the idea? the basic idea? >> i've got about half the sentence out before you started on the sarcasm again. hormesis is the study of the effects of low-level radiation on human health. >> isn't the basic idea that that's good for you? >> i can't get out a sentence. here we go again. you ask me to explain something and interrupt with more sarcasm. >> i am quite literally asking you a question. >> you are. you interrupted me in the second sentence. i don't see any reason -- i've taught thousands of students at the university. but i'll tell you, i don't think i could teach you because you interrupt the first sentence the instruct orp gets out of his mouth. >> have you ever done a satellite interview before? >> have i ever done what? >> a satellite interview before? a tv satellite interview?

>> i guess i actually think i have, yes. but not very often. i don't often do these things. i'm running for political office for the first time. i'm not a politician, i'm a scientist. i'm sure you checked it out and found that to be true. >> one of the things that happens in satellite is there's about a 1 1/2-second delay between me asking a question and you hearing it. so you can interpret that as sarcasm and interruption, but it's just the way the medium works. i'm sorry that's been so awkward for you. >> no, no. that's not the delay. it's the speed of light. it's much less on that. >> you asked one of me. >> if every time i try to clarify what i'm asking or what you're saying you're going to call me sarcastic, then no. let me try to get an answer to

an earlier question. >> ask a question and i'll answer it. >> do you get the speed of light thing? not happening here. there was no editor, you weren't taken out of context that aids was a government conspiracy, that it wasn't real that the government wuss misclassifying -- >> i never, ever in my life made a statement like that. you are lying. i never made a statement like that. i know it. the statement you made is an outright lie. >> quoting from mr. robinson's newsletter. >> look, look, it's on the screen. only government reclassification of more and more disease types as aids cases has kept the number of victims at politically necessary levels. you wrote it, i'm quoting it. do you no longer believe it? >> no, you --

>> madam, i'm not going to discuss -- what happened to hermeses. 15 years ago in a large discussion of many thing, you go right ahead. i can't even check your quotes and i don't trust trust you. >> they're your own quotes, but if you want me to send you your own newsletter back issues, i will. >> ma'am, no, no. why don't you read everything that was written about it. >> oh, my god, i read so much of your stuff i can't even tell you. there's a reason i look glazed over today. it's reading your conspiracy theorys. sads a government conspiracy, radiation at low levels is good for you and public education should be abolished. i have enjoyed learning about you. i've learned a lot about your temperament and also some interesting theories about the speed of light.

a man who denies that his own words are his own and then accuses me of lying about them, republican congressional candidate art robinson, thank you for joining us tonight. i thoroughly enjoyed it. we'll be right back. stufy, can i get a refill? i wanted skim. come on, get your head in the game, stufy! thanks, stufy. man, i love that cookie.

host: could switching to geico realis a bird in the handre on worth 2 in the bush? appraiser: well you rarely see them in this good of shape. appraiser: for example the fingers are perfect. appraiser: the bird is in mint condition. appraiser: and i would say if this were to go to auction today, appraiser: conservatively it would be worth 2 in the bush. woman: really? appraiser: it's just beautiful, thank you so much for bringing it in. woman: unbelievable anncr: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more.

>> so yeah, we have a problem getting republicans to agree to come on this show. they were never eager to, but frankly after the rand paul interview, it totally dried up. can't get them at all. we were so excited when art robinson, republican congressional candidate, professal global warming denial guy. we were so excited when he agreed to break the dry spell. hey, dry spell, nice to have you back, i'm thinking. damn it! but i'm sure you know, the show that begins right after mine is called "the last word." it's a great show, getting great rating, all of us here at msnbc are very proud of it already.

but here's the thing, his secret weapon is booking. his guest list has been spectacular. they have only been on the air eight nights and their guest list has already included the vice president, joe biden, chairman of the republican party, michael steele, levi johnston, michael bloomberg, charlie crist, they have a great guest list. but tonight, the day the giant investigative piece comes out on lou dobbs, lou dobbs, american hypocrite about lou dobbs making his career on railing against illegal immigrants, while he reportedly himself employed illegal immigrants on the day that piece comes out, lawrence and his show have managed to book lou dobbs to give his response. they have also booked the writer for the nation who wrote the piece. so good. we are so psyched. we are not the kind of network that have talking points for the network where they tell us to promote what the other shows are doing. i am doing it be