updated 10/12/2011 10:32:49 AM ET 2011-10-12T14:32:49

Guests: John Stanton, Bill Maher

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Good evenings, Lawrence. Thank you.

And thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour.

We are covering the big Senate vote on President Obama`s jobs bill
tonight.

We have today`s actual news story about zombies coming up - "Best New
Thing in the World."

And the one and only Bill Maher is going to be here for the interview
tonight.

But, first, THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW has recently had an international
banking problem. But like all truly useful problems in the world, having
this problem -- not even solving this problem, just having this problem has
helped us at this show gain some valuable insight. In this case, into the
today`s -- into the most important story in today`s news.

You may remember a story that we did recently about an awesome anti-
Nazi t-shirt in Germany. A few months ago, we covered this story of a
white power rock concert taking place in Eastern Germany and a genius anti-
Nazi, anti-racism group decided to hand out these t-shirts at the rock
show.

The first 250 racist skin heads to enter that concert received these
t-shirts which aren`t particularly overtly racist or anything but they can
kind of look nationalist-ish. They have the right kind of skin heady
iconography.

The genius move here was that the anti-Nazi people developed some
crazy t-shirt technology where, where once neo Nazis proudly wore this t-
shirt and laundered them -- when this t-shirt came out of the laundry, the
shirt would no longer look vaguely and pleasingly racist, but instead,
post-washing machine, it would look like this. Reading in German, quote,
"what your t-shirt can do, you also can do. We will help you free yourself
from right wing extremism."

We covered this story back in August. We`ve since been trying to get
actual physical genius t-shirts from the anti-Nazi group that was
distributing them.

And in so doing, we have been developing an international banking
problem. We have been waiting through what it takes to wire money
internationally. It turns out in order to purchase 70 bucks worth of t-
shirts, it`s going to cost us $35, half that much money just to move that
money to Germany. That is typically what it costs to do an international
money transfer between bank accounts, 30 or 40 bucks.

And so, today, when this happened, when there was a massive show of
national security fire power in D.C., a suddenly convened press conference
to announce a high profile arrest in a case that reads like freaking
"Syriana," a spy movie plot to end all spy movie plots, because we on this
show are in the middle of trying to work out our own stupid international
banking $35 fee snafu, one specific part of this super complicated
fascinating thing made way more sense than it ought to have.

On August 1st of this year, a 56-year-old Iranian American with
awesome hair who said he was acting as an intermediary for Iran`s
government specifically for his cousin in the Iranian military, another
high-ranking government official, this guy allegedly arranged for this odd
amount of money to be wired to a secret bank account, $49,960. About a
week later, on August 9th, same deal, same dude arranged for this specific
amount of money again to be wired to that same secret bank account.

Now, part of the reason the spy movie criminal complaint today was
filed in a New York City court is because these bank transfers even though
they were starting presumably in Iran and going to a secret bank account
somewhere else, these bank transfers went through Manhattan. They went
through a New York City bank, because almost all banking in the world
despite our financial catastrophe here still pretty much goes through New
York City.

So, the fact that that money stopped over in New York City in spitting
distance of the occupy Wall Street protesters, that is why this criminal
case was brought today in New York.

And while this is not a central part of the case, it is worth noting
that Wall Street is also the reason why the amount of money this Iranian
guy allegedly wired twice was such a weird amount, $49,960? What?

We know from what were apparently tape recorded conversations in this
plot what the Iranian guy was supposed to be sending was 100 grand,
$100,000. Clearly, he chose to send that money in two installments but
each time, Wall Street takes a pop. This is an international money
transfer so they scam 40 bucks every time you make a wire transfer like
this. So, $49,960. Minus that 40 bucks twice, that $100,000 did move.

Leading to today`s stranger-than-fiction, bombshell national security
announcement in D.C.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The disruption of this alleged
plot marks a significant achievement by our law enforcement and
intelligence agencies.

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: And though it reads like the pages of a
Hollywood script, the impact would have been very real and many lives would
have been lost.

PREET BHARARA, U.S. ATTORNEY: Today`s charges should make crystal
clear that we will not let other countries use our soil as their
battleground.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

MADDOW: Not let other countries use our soil as battleground. I
wonder if Yemen feels the same way about us, or Pakistan? Never mind.

But here`s the stranger-than-fiction, action movie plot that U.S.
officials are alleging. On May 24th of this year, this American citizen --
he`s a dual citizen of both Iran and the United States -- he traveled from
Texas where he lives to Mexico, to go meet with someone from a Mexican drug
cartel.

It`s not described in the complaint explicitly as being the Zetas
cartel but other people writing about this today, report that the cartel
this guy thought he was meeting with was the Zetas. He gets to Mexico and
this Iranian guy asks his contact in the drug cartel if the drug cartel guy
is any good with explosives. The guy from the cartel replies, yes, he is.
He is, in fact, great with C-4 in particular. The Iranian guy then says
he`s interested among other things in attacking an embassy of Saudi Arabia.

What the Iranian guy does not know at this point is that guy who he`s
meeting with from the drug cartel is an informant for the U.S. government.
He`s a person who was previously, quote, "charged in connection with a
narcotics offense by authorities of a certain U.S. state. In exchange for
his cooperation and various narcotics investigations, the state charges
were dismissed." And he is now paid by law enforcement officials to be a
rat. That`s not the term they used but that`s what he is. He`s a paid
informer inside the Mexican drug cartel.

We have those apparently in American law enforcement. So, the Iranian
guy is meeting with a DEA informant in this Mexican drug gang. The
informant then reports back to his handlers at the DEA that an Iranian guy
has approached him about attacking a Saudi Arabian embassy, at which point
the DEA calls in the FBI.

The informant and Iranian guy continue to meet through June and July,
during which time the Iranian guy clarifies he doesn`t just want the
embassy attacked, he wants the ambassador killed. He wants the Saudi
ambassador to the U.S. murdered, assassinated, while the ambassador is in
the U.S.

And at a meeting between the Iranian guy and the informant in July,
the informant, just like in the movies, he wears a wire. At that meeting,
the Iranian guy says in English that the money he`s going to use to pay the
drug cartel to kill the ambassador, that, quote, "money," is in Iran. The
Iranian guy then explains that it`s his cousin in the Iranian army who`s
asked him to find somebody to mount this assassination. He describes his
cousin as a big general in the army who was, quote, "wanted in America" and
had, in his words, "been on the CNN."

At a follow-up meeting a few days later, the informant says in English
on tape, quote, "I don`t know exactly what your cousin wants me to." The
Iranian guy replies, quote, "He wants you to kill the guy," talking about
the ambassador. To which the informant says, "There`s going to be like
American people there in the restaurant where he`s planning the
assassination. You want me to do it outside or in the restaurant?"
Iranian guy answers, "Doesn`t matter how you do it."

According to the complaint on numerous occasions during that meeting,
the Iranian made it clear the assassination need to go forward even if
doing so would cause mass casualties. The informant quotes him as saying,
quote, "They want that guy done" -- meaning they want the ambassador
killed. Quote, "If the 100 go with him, F `em."

And then the complaint alleges that the Iranian makes clear that the
money to finance this operation is not some freelance thing, not some
independent terrorist group. Talking about his cousin in the army again,
he says, quote, "He`s got the government behind him. He`s not paying from
his pocket" -- meaning the Iranian government.

At that point, as far as he`s concerned, the plan goes into motion.
This Iranian guy believes he`s now contracted with a Mexican drug cartel to
kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States in the United States
probably in a restaurant in Washington, D.C., using a bomb. He makes
$100,000 down payment, minus two wire transfer fees of 40 bucks, makes that
payment on the eventual $1.5 million cost of the job. He makes plans to
finish the deal and skedaddle, to get out of town to go back to Iran.

And with that guy on tape in English making the arrangements for the
killing, making the arrangements for the payment, tying it all to the
government of Iran and having now completed the wire transfer, the FBI and
the DEA sew him up, announcing today the arrest of this American citizen at
JFK Airport in New York as he was trying to get back to Iran.

He allegedly confessed to U.S. authorities after being read his
Miranda rights. He will now be tried in the southern district of New York.

The Iranian government already denouncing these charges laid out today
as America trying to distract from its own problems. But from the Obama
administration`s perspective, this is not being treated as an average run-
of-the-mill bubbling true believer terrorist plot, not being treated as
just a criminal complaint, although it is that, too.

The Obama administration is treating this as a major international
incident which is what it seems like it is becoming and quickly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOLDER: In addition to holding these individual conspirators
accountable for their alleged role in this plot, the United States is
committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: It remains to be seen exactly what the United States is going
to do and how this ends, but looming over this whole story, over this whole
dramatic press conference and the bombshell complaint today and the
international incident this has now become is the fact that the reason this
came down this way is apparently because the DEA had a well placed
informant inside what appears to be the Zetas drug cartel.

And they did not keep this information to themselves once approached
by this Iranian guy. The dots were connected. The arrest was made. The
suspect confessed. The trial will be held.

In a world where plots like this are not pot boiler or fiction, from a
law enforcement and counterterrorism perspective, this is the way this is
supposed to go.

Want another one? Here`s the former Soviet Union. Really big.
Right?

Here`s a tiny little part of the former Soviet Union that is now known
as Moldova. One thing relevant to American security from the former Soviet
Union is the uranium and plutonium left behind by the Soviet`s giant
nuclear program when the Soviet Union fell apart.

One of the things that U.S. officials do, U.S. government personnel do
in the spy versus spy world that we live in is that they try to track down
all the old Soviet uranium and plutonium so it doesn`t get sold in the
black market to terrorists groups, terrorist groups looking for a nuclear
weapon or enough uranium or plutonium to make one on their own or just for
enough highly radioactive material to explode a dirty bomb, which is
essentially radioactive shrapnel and conventional explosives.

In Moldova in June, local police who have been trained by American
authorities identified a ring of people who were trying to sell 20 pounds
of highly-enriched uranium and some unknown quantity of plutonium. That
much uranium could get you well on your way toward making your own
homegrown nuclear bomb.

"The Associated Press" reporting that the asking price was about $30
million. The arranged buyer of at least a sample of the uranium was a
North African man who has not yet been found. Nor has one kilogram of
highly-enriched uranium that these authorities still think is out there and
in criminal hands and for sale, because there is a functioning black market
on which terrorist groups are shopping for uranium and plutonium.

But thanks to the U.S. doing this work, prioritizing this, having a
presence in somewhere as random as Moldova, this uranium has been tracked
to its source. This uranium and plutonium ring has started to be shut
down. There have been arrests.

This is -- this is the way it`s supposed to work. This is why the
U.S. government does this kind of work.

How about one more? Tonight, we on the show can exclusively report
that the United States government has completed a top secret mission to
secure and dispose of more than 70 pounds of highly-enriched uranium in the
nation of Kazakhstan. That`s enough highly enriched uranium to build an
improvised nuclear bomb.

As we have discussed on this show before, we have an agency in the
federal government, the National Nuclear Security Administration whose job
it is to find and lock down loose nuclear material all over the world, to
make sure that material stays out of the hands of terrorists and off the
black market. What you`re looking at right now are exclusive images nobody
else has from the NNSA`s latest mission to Kazakhstan.

NNSA officials, U.S. government officials, along side the Kazaks, they
spent the last seven weeks working in secret to secure and transport about
72 pounds of weapons grade uranium, the most valuable substance on earth if
you ask your local rich terrorist group. In a mission plan over the course
of two years, this highly radioactive nuclear material was packed up and
moved more than 750 miles across that country, where we can now report it
has finished being down-blended. It`s been down-blended into low enriched
uranium, which means it can no longer be used to make a nuclear weapon.

This is what the NNSA does every single day. This is what your
government is doing. In the last year and a half alone, the NNSA has down-
blended more than 55,000 kilograms of nuclear material, enough to build
over 2,000 nuclear weapons.

They are the ones who are keeping this material off the nuclear black
market for the world and for America. They are the ones keeping this stuff
out of the hands of terrorists who are actively trying to get it and have
millions of dollars to spend to do it. That is the way it`s supposed to
work.

Next time you hear somebody talking smack about the government, about
the whole idea of government doing something useful, you have your
rejoinder. These are your tax dollars at work. Thank God.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: Today, some of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters took a
walking tour of the New York City homes of billionaires. The protesters
noted that New York has a special 2 percent millionaire`s tax that`s due to
expire at the end of this year. In other words, that tax is in place now.
It`s due to be phased out.

Thus, proving by their billionaires homes walking tour, that even with
that special New York millionaire`s tax, a whole bunch of millionaires and
billionaires still live in New York. They survived the tax and they`re
still zillionaires. They did not flee. They weren`t reduced to payee
(ph).

When a place like New York taxes really rich people, New York does
better and really rich people still do OK. They do really OK. They do
really, really, really OK.

We`ll have more ahead on this with Bill Maher who is our guest tonight
for the interview. That`s coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: "Occupy Boston" protesters tried and failed yesterday to
march on to the Charlestown Bridge. Here`s what that looked like on local
TV in Boston.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: And you`re looking live again from Sky 5 at the Charlestown
Bridge. There`s a bit of a standoff with police not allowing anybody on
the bridge. And part of the reason why they wanted to go to that bridge is
that many of the union protesters who are joining them at this hour believe
if we repaired bridges like that one, there would be more jobs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: "The Boston Globe" reporting that protesters had hoped to
hang a banner on the bridge that said, "Fix this bridge, create jobs now."

If you look again at the local news footage from the standoff at the
bridge, you can actually see the big "fix this bridge" banner. But that
banner and that big group of protesters holding it never made it on to the
bridge.

According to "The Boston Herald," that`s because police told the
protesters the aging structure that is the bridge would buckle if they all
walked on to it. So, you can`t take your "fix this bridge" sign on to the
bridge because the bridge is so decrepit it might not support your weight.

That`s one implicit prayer for America`s infrastructure, from a Boston
bridge too run down to speak for itself.

There`s another argument for infrastructure spending today coming from
big business. President Obama met with his council on jobs and
competitiveness today, a group made up almost entirely of business and
corporate bigwigs, including both G.E. and Comcast CEOs. Hello bosses who
I don`t know.

This council is charged with giving the president advice on the
economy in which they did today in the form of this 50-page report.

Now, remember, this jobs council is a corporate America thing. These
are the businesspeople who the Republicans call the job creators, right?
You might have noticed corporate America is not really creating jobs now.

With unemployment stuck at over 9 percent, corporations are -- as "The
Wall Street Journal" put it recently -- deciding to horde cash instead of
hiring anyone. Quote, "Corporations have a higher share of cash on their
balance sheets than at any time in nearly half a century, as businesses
build up buffers rather than invest in new plants or hiring."

Corporations in other words have tons of money right now. But they
are sitting on it as cash. They are not using it to hire American workers.
It`s not because they don`t have any money or because they need to pay
lower taxes, G.E., taxes, ha!

No, corporate America is not hiring because the economy sucks.
There`s no market here for anything that they`re selling. So, they`re not
hiring here.

So if jobs aren`t going to come as a gift to the nation from corporate
America, what do the supposed big business corporate America job creators
say needs to happen in order to get jobs back? Their number one
recommendation in their big report to the president today was
infrastructure.

Quote, "The council wants to add its voice to appoint every thoughtful
group that`s looked at the matter, shout it from the rooftops, repairing
and modernizing our tunnels, railways, ports, dams, schools, airports,
transit, electric grids, water and waste water systems, and expanding our
broadband networks are classic twofers. They create jobs in the near term
at a time when more than a million construction workers are out of work.
And they promote long-term competitiveness by building a more productive
economy. If Washington can agree on anything, it should be this and should
be now," so says corporate America.

And so, for the record says the Chamber of Commerce, and so says
labor, and so says the great majority of the public, and so says the great
majority of all economists both bearish and even though bullish.

And so, tonight in the United States Senate, there was a test vote on
the Senate`s version of President Obama`s jobs bill. For the $175 billion
and that everybody agrees on it, infrastructure investment.

Not a single Republican senator voted for the bill. Not one.

Charlestown Bridge, how you doing, Scott Brown? Almost every single
Democrat and therefore a majority of the Senate voted to move this bill
forward, but the Republicans filibustered it. They are unanimously
opposed.

Joining us now is John Stanton, reporter for "The Roll Call"
newspaper.

John, thanks very much for your time tonight. It`s nice to have you
here.

JOHN STANTON, THE ROLL CALL: Goods to be here.

MADDOW: Let`s start with the exceptions to the rule. Which Democrats
did not vote for this version of the jobs bill tonight?

STANTON: Jim Webb and Ben Nelson from Nebraska did not vote for the
bill.

MADDOW: OK. And David Axelrod has been arguing in a memo to
Democrats really, to everybody today, that the policies in the jobs act are
really popular, the bill, itself, is really popular and getting more so.
He was saying Democrats who don`t back it are making a political mistake.

Why didn`t that argument -- why doesn`t the polling on this appeal to
guys like Jim Webb?

STANTON: Well, I think partly it`s because Webb is fairly
conservative in sort of his fiscal policies. But, you know, with say
Nelson and other Democrats that opposed it, they`re really looking at what
happened in the election two years ago and they`re seeing this sort of an
echo effect. They see that the Tea Party, sort of the calls for deficit
reduction, fiscal restraint, that kind of thing as sort of the order of the
day.

And so, they sort of begin to triangulate toward the right and are
voting with Republicans on things like this. Particularly for folks like
Ben Nelson, who`s facing a very tough re-election next year, you can expect
him to vote Republican down the line on anything like this.

MADDOW: That said, even with Webb and Nelson defecting from the
Democratic line, it shouldn`t overshadow the fact Democrats actually did
get almost all Democratic votes here and they did in fact get a raw
majority for the bill. If the Republicans hadn`t filibustered it, it would
have passed.

Do you have any inkling in the Senate that Harry Reid and the
Democrats might be thinking about that filibuster rule so they can pass
things with the majority again?

STANTON: No, I don`t. I think, you know, there`s been a lot of
calls, obviously, and a lot of people on the progressive side of the world
would definitely like to see that.

But there were Democrats that voted for this bill frankly who would
not have voted for it if they thought it was actually going to pass in the
end, I think. You know, they felt like Harry Reid put a lot of pressure on
them for this vote. It was a political point to show that 51 Democrats
were willing to vote for it, that a civil majority of the Senate was
willing to vote for it -- but had no repercussions for them.

If it was going to pass, you`d see a fair number of Democrats
actually, eventually defect it and vote with Republicans on it.

MADDOW: It is astonishing -- I mean, Republicans can find unanimity
on the most complicated issues in the world as long as it`s bad for a
Democrat. Democrats can`t agree that the sky is up when they`re standing.

The president saying tonight, John, that this isn`t done. He clearly
wants to campaign on the jobs bill. He says he wants to try to pass any
part of it any way he can.

What do you think happens next on this?

STANTON: Well, I think that`s what you`re going to see. I mean, you
know, next week, they`re going to be doing appropriations bills and there
will be a week off. And the Senate will come back to this probably in
about three weeks.

What you`re going to see between now and then is essentially, you
know, a political campaign run by the White House, by Senate Democrats, by
House Republicans, continuing sort of this same fight that they`ve been
having frankly since, you know, February or January of how do we move
forward as a country and not really trying to talk to each other but past
each other to the voters -- hoping to put enough pressure on the other guy
to get them to cave as opposed to trying to find some kind of middle ground
which has traditionally been what we`ve done in this country -- and they`re
really no longer trying to do that. It`s mostly a game of who can yell at
the other longer and louder at this point.

MADDOW: That`s very depressing. John Stanton, reporter for "Roll
Call" -- John, thanks for joining us. Appreciate having you here.

STANTON: Any time.

MADDOW: All right. Bill Maher occupies our airwaves straight ahead.
That`s a great new thing on the show. But it is not the "Best New Thing."
For "The Best New Thing" -- we had to turn to zombies tonight.

That means we`ve got Bill Maher and we`ve got zombies all coming up on
the show but not together. It`s two different things.

Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: We`ve got Bill Maher tonight for the interview. I wanted to
get his take on "Occupy Wall Street" and whether this is finally the shot
in the arm, outside the box, lefty populist movement the country is about
two generations overdue for.

Today in New York, somebody made this protest sign for "Occupy Wall
Street," "Repeal the Enclosure Act of 1801, common land for the common
folk." That would be a British law that made sheep farming possible and
that drove peasant farmers into the city where they became cogs in the
industrial machine.

I do not know who made this sign, but I think this cardboard protest
of an 1801 foreign land statute shows that people have a thousand different
reasons for joining the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

This guy, for example, told us today that he`s there because of income
inequality.

This person says she wants to see the economy improve.

This man believes that Americans need to stop voting for rich people
because they think it will somehow make their own non-rich people lives
better.

This artist in this work-consumed be silent hazmat suit says people
need a wake-up call to treat the planet better. For instance, no nukes.

And this guy here wants to know who wrecked the country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a fantastic, beautiful, bountiful land
that`s hopelessly in debt. What happened? What went -- you know, what
happened?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: We talked to another person today at "Occupy Wall Street" --
a somewhat famous one, though not as famous as he`d like to be. He`s Buddy
Roemer, former governor of Louisiana, current Republican candidate for
president, running what you might call politely an underdog campaign.
Republicans are not putting him in the debate. He`s down at Jon Huntsman
levels in the polls.

But Buddy Roemer is not a wing nut. He is not a crank. He is a
candidate who`s sole and signature issue is getting corporate money out of
politics. And today out at "Occupy Wall Street," Buddy Roemer signed on
for another issue -- another issue about how democracy rolls now in
America.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your party has made a concerted effort
nationwide to change voter registration laws. They`re going to
disenfranchise millions of people. What are you doing about that? Are you
saying anything about that?

BUDDY ROEMER (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am not. I am not saying
-- but I am --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why not?

ROEMER: In Louisiana, we did not do that while I was governor. I
mean, my record is pretty reform and clean on those issues.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, what are you going to do? Like, why don`t
you go on the news tonight and say my party is passing laws nationwide that
will disenfranchise millions of people, and I support the right of people
to vote regardless of whether you vote for me, you vote for Republican, you
vote for whoever?

ROEMER: Let me tell you what I`m doing. Let me tell you what I`m
doing. I have put my whole 24/7 on money and politics. That`s what I`m
doing. And I can`t be given 18 message, but I can give one. That is free
to lead.

But you asked me, have I made this an issue. I have not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you? Will you?

ROEMER: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Immediately?

ROEMER: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. I mean, we can`t ask for more than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: There it is. Real time -- real time, real live footage of a
movement moving someone. In this case, the inimitable Buddy Roemer who is
not getting enough attention he deserves. We`ve got to have him back on
this show soon.

Coming up, the great Bill Maher on "occupy Wall Street" as a shot in
the arm for American politics.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: Joining us now for the interview is Bill Maher, the host of
"Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO.

Bill Maher, it is nice to see you. Thanks for being here.

BILL MAHER, "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER": Always good to see you,
Rachel.

MADDOW: The "Occupy Wall Street" protesters today, Bill, they took a
tour of Wall Street billionaires` homes in New York City. Noting among
other things that New York`s special millionaire`s tax expires at the end
of this year. There`s been this surtax on millionaires in New York, but
yet all these millionaires are still here.

I wonder if you feel like the "Occupy Wall Street" protests are
resonating, have come up with at least a vague message that is speaking to
people who may not be participating in those protests yet?

MAHER: Absolutely. I think it`s a great thing.

On our show, we`ve talked for the longest time about how what the left
needs is something to put the wind at the back of the president and other
Democrats who as you know have a tendency to falter toward the side of,
shall we say centrism. And this could be it, you know?

So what their message is a little vague. I kind of like it they`re
sort of militantly vague at this point, because they are in a lot of ways
the opposite of the Tea Party movement. Although that`s sort of weird also
because the Tea Party movement, let`s remember, sort of started out as
protesting some of the same things. Remember the bailouts of the banks.
They didn`t like the big banks.

It just shows how easily the people in the Tea Party can be herded to
something else. They were sort of on the same page as these folks but then
they started to watch FOX News and found out, no, what they were really
upset about is things like Obamacare and taxing the job creators and
somehow they wound up on the wrong side of the issue again.

MADDOW: The Tea Partiers, though, I feel like -- I feel like you`re
right that where they ended up was just being a really awesome brand name
for what is always the conservative base of the Republican Party.

But I think back to the Rick Santelli call from the stock exchange in
Chicago and the bailout that he was angry about, that he called for that
first Chicago Tea Party, was not a -- he wasn`t angry about a bank bailout.
He was angry about the idea that people with mortgages might get bailed
out. Individual homeowners might get bailed out. And that was the
outrage.

So, I don`t know. I feel like the origin myth of the Tea Party is
something that`s screwed up in my own mind. I`m not sure they were ever
anti-bank.

MAHER: I`m not sure they were ever even that much about financial
issues which is what they purport to be about. When you, of course, look
deep into the Tea Party -- not that they`re really that deep -- they`re,
you know, it`s sort of the same stuff that we`ve had in this country going
back to the Birchers.

It seems like the Republican Party periodically gets taken over by a
group of people, the Birchers in the `50s, and then in the `80s, remember,
it was values voters types, the Christian coalition. Now it`s the Tea
Party people.

And it seems like it`s one of those viruses that every time it comes
back, it comes back a little stronger and more dangerous. And that seems
to be what we have here. I mean, a lot of really what we find out about
the Tea Party and their agenda despite the fact that they`re named after a
gay sex act is really social issues. You know? They`re really -- they`re
really mad at the same things that those pants wetting nativists have
always been worried about.

MADDOW: I wonder, though, if you -- I mean, you just think back on
this year, even just the year in stupid punditry and the amount of power
that has been ascribed to the Tea Party movement. They`re seen as
essentially driving all Republican political decisions at this point. Is
that in part because they were seen as being so potentially -- because they
were seen as being potentially violent, because they were seen as an unruly
mob?

I was thinking about that as we see Eric Cantor and other Republican
congressmen denouncing the "Occupy Wall Street" people as an angry mob and
somehow dangerous to the country. I wonder if a sense of dangerousness is
what gives them power.

MAHER: Well, yes, I think so. I don`t think anyone feels that we`re
in a country like so many in the world. Let`s remember we are luckier than
most, where violence really is going to rule the day and effect policy.
Yes, people can be intimidated by that kind of thing.

I mean, this idea that they`re marching now on millionaires` homes, I
couldn`t help but think of that scene in the Martin Scorsese movie "Gangs
of New York" where the riots break out in New York and Martin Scorsese has
the cameo where he plays this rich guy. You know, he`s in his Fifth Avenue
apartment and a brick comes through the window.

Well, if a brick came through Rupert Murdoch`s issue, I have a feeling
FOX News would be a lot more gentle on the Wall Street people.

MADDOW: In terms of the way Republicans are dealing with this -- I
mean, it`s interesting enough to see Democrats dealing with this, trying to
decide how much they want to embrace the idea of some movement outside
politics as having their message. But Republicans I think are also
changing their message toward it, too.

In one day, Mitt Romney went from describing "Occupy Wall Street" as
dangerous to saying he understands how these people feel and he worries
about the 99 percent. I mean, that`s Mitt Romney`s evolution on the
subject over the course of one day on the campaign trail.

Does that tell you more about Mitt Romney or does that tell you they
may be seeing some political cost in denouncing these folks?

MAHER: Well, I must say, if you`re trying to say Mitt Romney is a
flip-flopper, that does not resonate with me. That`s not the Mitt Romney I
ever remember.

But if you`re going to try to sell that, I`m buying it.

No -- you know, I don`t know, who knows what Mitt Romney is saying
from one day to the next?

But I -- he said in the debate, the last debate, that he wanted
everyone to be rich. That seems to be the line from the Republican Party,
which, of course, is just a complete fantasy. Herman Cain, of course,
famously said recently that if you`re not rich, blame yourself. This is
what really bothers me, this idea that somehow we can all be rich.

I mean, among the stupid things and you really have to dig deep to,
you know, have that contest which is the stupidest, that is one of the
stupidest things I`ve ever heard any politician say. I want everybody to
be rich.

First of all, if everybody was rich, who would do the things that rich
people hire people to do for them? Who`s going to be my foot man, my
tonist (ph), my liposuctionist? Rich people need poor people to work for
them.

And this idea that Herman Cain said that, you know, if you`re not
rich, blame yourself -- this is what bothers me about rich people. They
don`t, first of all, as Elizabeth Warren said, they don`t cotton to the
idea they wouldn`t be rich if they didn`t have this great country that
provides the roads and the schools and all the other things that allow them
to be rich. But also this idea, they never understand it`s a fluke mostly,
that what you do is something that made you rich.

Yes, if you throw a baseball 100 miles an hour or even what I do -- I
mean, I`m not humble about some things. I`m very humble about the fact
that telling jokes is something that gets you a lot of money. That is a
complete fluke -- and so is owning pizza parlors.

Yes, Herman Cain was good at business. Great. He became very rich
from it.

But what about teachers and cops and firemen? You know those people
we always say are our heroes. They`re such heroes that we pay them like
crap. Well, they do what they do very well. It doesn`t happen to be
something that is ever going to make you rich.

So, this idea that if you`re not rich, blame yourself -- oh, really
bugs me. But I tried to hide it.

MADDOW: Bill Maher, can you hold on one second and come right back
with us in just a moment?

MAHER: No, I can`t. I`m just going off right now.

MADDOW: Well, keep the camera on. OK. Hold on one second.

MAHER: OK.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: One correction from earlier on the show. Our guest from
"Roll Call" said Ben Wilson and Jim Webb were votes against cloture on the
president`s jobs bill tonight in the Senate. Ben Nelson, true. Jim Webb,
not true. It was actually Jon Tester of Montana, not John Webb, who is the
second Democrat voting with Ben Wilson against the president`s bill
tonight. Apologies that was misreported here.

We will be right back with more Bill Maher.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: Joining us once again is Bill Maher, the host of "Real Time
with Bill Maher" on HBO. Bill, thanks very much for sticking with us.
Great to have you here.

MAHER: I`ve calmed down, Rachel. I`ve calmed down.

MADDOW: Well, I`d like to get you more excited by talking to you
again about Mitt Romney who I know gets your blood pumping.

MAHER: Oh, God.

MADDOW: Chris Christie has endorsed Mitt Romney now. Tim Pawlenty
today said he wishes he was back in the race, which is a little odd given
that he`s Romney`s campaign co-chairman now. It`s hard to make the case
for that guy being the guy for the country when you say you wish you stayed
in the race to beat him.

MAHER: Right.

MADDOW: What do you make of the Republican Party`s dissatisfaction
with Mr. Romney as they seem to be picking him for their nominee?

MAHER: Well, you know, it`s funny. I mean, it`s delightful for
someone who doesn`t like the Republicans. I`m enjoying them watching them
pick at each other.

I mean, you have to understand the Republicans I think basically
cannot find a person that they really like because they really don`t like
people. They like people in general. They like people in the abstract.

If you show a soldier, you know, in a sunset and put the syrupy music
behind it, they get teary like John Boehner. But if that soldier then
opens his mouth and says he`s gay, they`ll boo him out of the room.

So, I think that`s part of it. They don`t like human beings. You
know, they`re like Ayn Rand, who doesn`t like human beings.

And as far as Mitt Romney -- you know, I was reading an interesting
poll today which said most Americans are not familiar with Mitt Romney.
They can`t even name the people who are running. This isn`t just
Americans. This is Republicans who you think would be a little more
interested.

I don`t think they know who he is yet. So, he`s still defining
himself. You have so much to pick from to define because he`s been on
every side of every issue as we know.

What really is going to be the problem for Mitt Romney is the for
Mormonism thing. I don`t think the flip-flopping thing bothers people
anymore. They kind of accept politicians are always full of it and all
trust them and t hey say one thing and do another. But the religion stuff
in this dumb religious country, that`s going to be a problem for Mitt
Romney.

As we saw this week when Herman Cain -- well, not Herman Cain. Who
outed him? Rick Perry, the Jeffress guy, who was a Rick Perry surrogate,
yes, Rick Perry -- outed him as a Mormon, and started to play this Mormon
card.

And when people find out that Mormon is really is not a branch of
Christianity, I think it`s going to be a problem for him. When Mitt Romney
made his speech in 2007, people compared it to the Kennedy speech in `60.

It was nothing like the Kennedy speech. What Kennedy was saying was
I`m a Catholic, yes, but I`m not going to take my orders from the Pope. I
separate church and state.

That`s not what Mitt Romney said. What Mitt Romney said was look,
yes, I`m a Mormon. That`s different than the Christian. But what`s
important is that we all believe in nonsense. We can all rally around
that.

MADDOW: Do you think, though, that -- Mitt Romney now has this choice
of whether or not to redo that speech that he did before about his faith.
Or should -- I mean, he could also go sort of on the offensive against the
people who are calling his religion a cult. It seems like he`s counting on
this creating some sympathy for him because his religion has been attacked
by his political rivals.

If you were advising Mitt Romney and you wanted him to win the
nomination, what would you tell him to say about this? I mean, he`s sort
of in a box, isn`t he?

MAHER: Well, yes. I mean, I would advise him to become a Protestant
and I`m sure he would have no problem doing that because he`s Mitt Romney.
He is the ultimate shape shifter.

If a poll came out tomorrow that said he could get elected easier if
he was a black woman, he would have the sex change operation tomorrow, get
a weave and rename himself Latisha. I have no doubt about that. But, you
know, he`s not going to do that, of course.

You know, he`s going to down play it as he did before. Kind of gloss
over this idea that Mormonism is a completely different religion as it is
from Christianity.

He`s going to try to sell this idea that we`re all -- you know what?
This is just a different branch of Christianity.

No, it`s not. I was raised Catholic. I don`t remember anything about
magic underwear or baptizing dead people or getting your own planet to rule
over when you die. Mormonism -- I mean, look, all religion is nuts. But
Mormonism just takes it to a different level.

I mean, all religion is magic tricks. Mormonism is just a
particularly cheap, novelty store brand of magic trick.

MADDOW: Please address your commentary RACHEL MADDOW SHOW viewers to
Bill Maher, the host of HBO`s "Real Time with Bill Maher." Bill, can I ask
you one more thing about the Democratic side of things?

MAHER: Absolutely.

MADDOW: All right. President Obama right now has this jobs program.
It`s infrastructure investment, it`s middle class tax cuts, it`s all these
hiring incentives. And he`s got Republicans 100 percent uniformly against
him on all this.

But he cannot get Democrats uniformly behind him on this. He cannot
get unanimity from the senators in his own party that they should support
his jobs plan. Is that just in the nature of Democrats at this point? Or
is there anything that they can do to sort of get them in line on this?

MAHER: Well, it`s a great question. I don`t know if they can get
them in line. But I would agree with you that is one of the big problems
in this country, is we understand that the Republicans are mostly bad
policy makers who are trying retreaded ideas that didn`t work the first
time. What`s especially disappointing is that group of Democratic
senators, you know, the Ben Nelsons, these same types, these centrists,
corporatist Democrats who ally with them.

You know, it`s bad enough you need 60 votes which is a quiet coup in
government because, really, the Constitution says it should be 51 to get
something done. When you add the fact that there`s 53 Republican -- I
mean, 53 Democratic senators, 40 of them are pretty good. But there`s
those 13 that call themselves centrists that really wind up with the
Republicans, and then, of course, nothing is going to ever get done.

And this is again to come back to what we started to talk about, why I
think that "Occupy Wall Street" movement is so important, because the left
needs something to move them away from the center and toward the left. You
know, we`ve tried conservativism in this country. We tried centrism. We
need something to make us try liberal policies.

MADDOW: Bill Maher, the host of HBO`s "Real Time with Bill Maher" --
he`s performing live at the Gibson Amphitheater at Universal Studios on
November 5th. Mr. Maher, I will see you next week on your TV show.

MAHER: Right here in L.A.

MADDOW: Woo! I will be there.

MAHER: Thank you.

MADDOW: I`ll be much more relaxed. Thanks, Bill. Good to see you.

MAHER: OK. You, too.

MADDOW: We`ll be back with "The Best New Thing in the World Today."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: "Best New Thing in the World Today" -- but it started with a
good news/bad news caveat. The bad news is that this story does involve
some bruises and even some broken bones.

No one more seriously injured than that, but there were injuries on
set while a movie was being shot in Toronto. Sixteen people hurt when some
scaffolding collapsed. So, that is the bad news.

The good news is everything else is about this story. The movie being
shot is "Resident Evil Part 48" or something. There`s a million "Resident
Evil" movies. And the next one was being shot in Toronto and they have
this scaffolding mishap/

Like all the "Resident Evils," this one new features zombies. This is
from the extras on the first "Resident Evil" film. Looking at this makeup,
imagine you`re a paramedic called to the scene of an accident and you`ve
got to assess if there have been any injuries. When you turn up there are
16 of these. It was 16 people in full zombie regalia and makeup on that
scaffolding. How exactly do you triage that as an EMT?

Now, the "A.P." delicately put it today -- the victims gory costumes
made it difficult for crews to assess the severity of the actors` injuries.

So, bad thing: people do get hurt. Better thing: none of the injuries
is expected to be very serious and some of the zombies are reportedly
already back at work playing their part in "Resident Evil`s" fictional
cannibalistic undead horde.

But "The Best New Thing in the World Today" is the stories that the
paramedics that responded to the zombies on that movie set today will be
able to tell their kids, late at night with a flash light under the chin on
Halloween.

That does it for us tonight. Now it`s time for "THE ED SHOW."

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>