IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Read the transcript to the **day show

Guest: Steve Clemons, Jeff Goodell, Mark Potok, Eugene Robinson



KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST (voice-over):  Which of these stories will you

be talking about tomorrow?

Nuclear sanity—


HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE:  We are reducing the role and

number of weapons in our arsenal while maintaining a safe, secure, and

effective deterrent to protect our nation, allies and partners.


OLBERMANN:  The secretary of state announces the new Obama doctrine:

no nuclear retaliation by this country to a non-nuclear attack.  No such

rules will apply to Iran or North Korea, or any other nation on having

signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  How will the world respond—

with Steve Clemons.  How domestic politics will respond—with Howard


Disaster at the Upper Big Branch: 25 dead, recovery operations

suspended, rescue operations effectively over.


GOV. JOE MANCHIN (D), WEST VIRGINIA:  The train rails that go back in

looked like they‘ve been twisted like a pretzel.


OLBERMANN:  The mine had 458 violations last year.  Owners assessed

$900,000 in penalties.  Why?  Because that‘s cheaper than keeping the

miners alive.

Threats and blackmail or bribery on health care reform.  “Kill the

senator,” the man under arrest said on Patty Murray‘s answering machine. 

“Hang the senator.  I hope somebody puts a bullet between your eyes.”

And why is the Democratic attorney general of Louisiana joining in the

frivolous lawsuit against reform‘s constitutionality?  Because he had to

cut a deal with the Republican governor.

“Worsts”: Of course, they didn‘t know he was dead when they tried to

wheel him on to the flight—the day after he died.

And, the natives are restless—


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Republicans originally thought that FOX worked for

us, and now, we‘re discovering we work for FOX.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  So don‘t catch yourself being biased by FOX News,

that somebody is no good.


OLBERMANN:  The last guy is a sitting U.S. senator.

All the news and commentary—now on COUNTDOWN.



OLBERMANN:  Good evening from New York.

If not throwing it fully into reverse at high speed, it is at least a

step back from the nuclear break.

Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN: Under this president, the United

States will never use a nuclear weapon against a nonnuclear state.  There

are exceptions for places like Iran and North Korea.

And this is less than some in his administration wanted, such as a

declaration that we would never again use these weapons first.  But

especially against the context of the current political climate, President

Obama has affected a bold and even startling policy change.  The Obama

administration‘s Nuclear Posture Review officially unveiled today, the day

after the president had outlined in an interview a strategy that limits and

substantially narrows the conditions under which the U.S. would deploy

nuclear weapons.

Under the new policy, the U.S. would not use them against non-nuclear

countries.  A clear contrast with previous administrations which have left

opened the possibility of a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear state in

retaliation for a biological or chemical attack.  But the president carved

out a significant caveat for, quote, “outliers like Iran or North Korea”

that have either violated or renounced nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

And in presenting the new policy today which sets the nation‘s nuclear

framework for the next five to 10 years, the defense secretary, Robert

Gates, made plain the U.S. posture regarding those two nations.


ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY:  If there‘s a message to Iran and

North Korea here, is that, if you‘re going to play by the rules, if you‘re

going to join the international community, then we will undertake certain

obligations to you.  But if you‘re not going to play by the rules, if

you‘re going to be a proliferator, then all options are on the table.


OLBERMANN:  And Secretary Gates stressed that the new policy is to be



GATES:  The United States reserves the right to make any adjustment to

this policy that maybe warranted by the evolution and proliferation of

biological weapons.


OLBERMANN:  The Secretary of State Hillary Clinton underlying the very

point that critics may find the most objectionable, that the United States

is removing the deliberate ambiguity of its previous nuclear policy.


CLINTON:  The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear

weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.


OLBERMANN:  According to “The New York Times,” the president had to

personally adjudicate among advisers who believed he was not changing U.S.

policy enough and those who feared a reaction from allies if the policy

made too great a change too soon.  The new strategy precedes a nine-day

nuclear summit in Prague where the president will sign, along with the

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a new arms control agreement.

Secretary Clinton addressing the overall vision underlying both



CLINTON:  We are reducing the role and number of weapons in our

arsenal while maintaining a safe, secure and effective deterrent to protect

our nation, allies and partners.


OLBERMANN:  Senate Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl today expressed

concern about the Nuclear Posture Review.  They issued a joint statement

taking issue with the policy‘s departure from what they called, quote,

“longstanding policy embraced by administrations of both parties to retain

all options to respond to a nuclear attack.”  They also said the new

posture appears to limit the options available to enhance the reliability

of the current nuclear stockpile.

Policy and politics.  Policy first—for that the director of the

American strategy program at the New American Foundation and author of the

foreign policy blog, “The Washington Note,” Steve Clemons.

Steve, good evening.


OLBERMANN:  Is this change indeed truly significant?  And if so, how?

CLEMONS:  I think it‘s hugely significant.  I think this is real

legacy stuff for the Obama administration.  They‘ve checked off a box

that‘s so important because it‘s shown that this president can say

something, say they‘re going to do something and show to the world they can

achieve their objectives.

I also think what‘s really important is that they‘ve simultaneously

shown that they‘re rewriting the kind of global social contract with

nations like Russia and China, bringing other stewards of the international

system together and trying to create greater stability while still keeping

pressure on outlier nations.  And I think it‘s a very depth move.

OLBERMANN:  But, the devil‘s advocate question pertaining to those

outlier nations.  If you say, we don‘t use nuclear weapons to respond to a

non-nuclear situation and then you caveat out North Korea and Iran, which

are obviously the likeliest possible perpetrators of a nuclear situation—

did you really change anything?

CLEMONS:  Well, I think they‘ve changed a lot.  I think they‘ve made

it culminate (ph).  And I think you heard it in Defense Secretary Gates‘

comments that in one case, with negotiations with North Korea, we want to

bring back into the non-proliferation treaty.  This was a treaty that John

Bolton, you may recall, spent a lot of time trying to undermine and to

basically break that apart.

With Iran, which still remains part of the NPT, but not in compliance,

we‘re also keeping the door open there.  And we‘re making—they‘re making

a comment that I think broadly, this global social contract, this weaving

of nations together, back to work together, and to reverse what otherwise

would be, I think a very likely nuclear weapons breakout around the world,

particularly if Iran does acquire a weapon, this is showing that America is

serious about trying to hold a common good of security and balance and

putting muscle behind it.

So, I think it‘s both a blunt force instrument with North Korea and

Iran to some degree, and also, a soft way to bring them back.

OLBERMANN:  But to the other end of the global social contract as I

phrase it, Steve, that sense I described earlier from perhaps some of our

allies, that we might still be moving too far and too quickly—is that

likely to be a prevalent reaction worldwide?

CLEMONS:  Well, I talked to some senior members of the administration

this evening and they have briefed China.  They briefed Russia.  As best we

know right now, they are quite onboard with what‘s going on.  Countries

like Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, that could be possible nuclear follow-on

countries if Iran were to move forward, are largely onboard.

And so, I think what the president has done is really done a masterful

job of communicating that we want to reduce the footprint, if you will, of

nuclear weapons in America‘s defense posture, but at the same time, we

don‘t want to narrow it recklessly in such a way that takes the pressure

off some nations that are still on a very disconcerting nuclear track.

OLBERMANN:  Obviously, this is not happening in a vacuum.  What is it

that President Obama wants out of that nuclear summit in Prague that he

throws down this gauntlet the week before?

CLEMONS:  He is showing that the United States is back in action and

that we are sculpting the global order in positive ways again, and working

with allies in a multilateral sense on both overtly and behind the scenes. 

We‘ve changed the tenor of the U.S./Russia relationship.  We have a nuclear

materials lockdown conference next week as well that Vice President Biden

and Secretary Clinton and Gates have been working so hard on.

And then in May, we got the MPT review conference, which I mentioned

that John Bolton and his fellow travelers spent so much trying to wreck in

the past.  So, we‘re showing that we‘re rebuilding the framework of the

international order.  And I think, if you take all of those things

together, this is a huge downpayment that I think he deserves a lot of

credit for.

OLBERMANN:  Steve Clemons, the author of “The Washington Note”—we

appreciate your time and insight on this.  Greatly helpful tonight.  Thank

you, sir.

CLEMONS:  Thanks very much, Keith.

OLBERMANN:  For the politics, let‘s turn to “Newsweek” magazine‘s

senior Washington correspondent, political columnist, and MSNBC political

analyst Howard Fineman.

Howard, good evening.


OLBERMANN:  All right.  Congress is in recess.  So, McCain and Kyl are

left to set this tone, at least initially of the Republican response.  How

does the Republican response evolve or is this to some degree, because

those caveats are in there about North Korea and Iran—is this a

nonstarter for them?

FINEMAN:  Well, I think they‘re acting cautiously.  I thought actually

that Kyl and McCain statement was notable for its uncharacteristic of

absence of hysteria.  You know, yes, they had some criticism there, they

raised questions about the basic philosophy, deterrence and ambivalence,

but they didn‘t come screaming out of the box.

And I think the Republicans are being a little cautious.  I think it

will change when they come back here.  I think it depends on events.  It

depends on what the Russians say and do, what the Chinese say and do.

But, for right now, especially since they‘re out of town, I find them

uncharacteristically quiet.

OLBERMANN:  That seemed to be the overall reaction, but there is and

there has been for some time this drum beat from his critics that this

president, the president‘s party is somehow weak on national defense.  Is

the White House, no matter how quite, too quite it is now, is the White

House anticipating that will be ratcheted up?  And do you have any idea of

how they intend to respond if they feel that way?

FINEMAN:  Yes.  They do think it will be ratcheted up.  They‘ve been

dealing with the Republicans now in Congress for, you know, well over a

year.  They know that.  Even on this.

But look at what Obama has done, how he‘s positioned himself and the

decisions he‘s made.  He doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan,

largely (INAUDIBLE) from the Republicans.  I mean, he‘s not dismantling

totally the nuclear arsenal by any means, even if signs that, and if and

when he signs that agreement with Medvedev next week in Prague, there‘s

still going to be 1,500 American nuclear missiles and warheads.

So, you know, we‘re not dismantling that.  But I think the

administration officials that I talk to say that they expect the same drum

beat of attacks from Republicans down the road, that the Republicans are

going to look to pick their spots.

OLBERMANN:  Where, in terms of picking spot, where on the political

battlefront would this hit hardest?  Because despite, as I mentioned, these

caveats against Iran, despite the fact that this is distinguishably

mentioned response as opposed to any kind of offensive or for some reason,

we go back to the preemptive nonsense from the Bush era—is this going to

register more sharply relative to Israel and relative to that “bomb, bomb,

bomb Iran” club?

FINEMAN:  Yes.  I think—I think in many ways, this is all about

both politically and substantively, Iran and Israel.  It‘s about isolating

Iran.  It‘s about changing the paradigm and saying that the Russians and

the Americans and the Chinese and the other members of the nuclear club are

standing together to try to control proliferation around the world, to lock

up loose nukes and prevent other countries from getting weapons.  That‘s

designed as a prelude to putting global pressure on Iran.  So, that‘s part

of it.

And the other part is to put pressure on Israel.  Israel has never

directly acknowledged as a member of the nuclear club.  Of course, it is. 

They‘ve talked about harsh response to Iran if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

The president also is positioning himself in a way to put global

pressure on Israel to come to terms with whatever deal they can make as far

as Iran is concerned.

OLBERMANN:  Howard, let‘s close where we began on the—not the

Republican reaction to this, but Democratic reaction to this.  Has that

been almost equally as quiet?  Is that been your observation as well?

FINEMAN:  Yes.  So far.  I mean, you know, checking around on the

progressive blogs, I mean, there are some disappointments that he didn‘t go


But I think—I think Obama here is playing not so much to the

immediate politics, Keith, as he‘s playing to long-term thinking and

history.  When he was in the U.S. Senate, one of the friendships he made

was with Dick Lugar, the Republican senator of Indiana, who really is

probably the dean of people who are concerned about loose nukes in the

world.  Lugar is a serious guy.  Obama is a serious guy.

And the president is also playing to prevent, he‘s planning and hoping

to prevent catastrophe.  And he‘s not going to get immediate political

rewards.  Ironically, you know, he‘ll only be rewarded by the absence of



FINEMAN:  -- because it‘s loose nukes, both actual and potential, that

is the gravest threat to the world as we know it.  And that‘s what every

expert says and he‘s listening to them.

OLBERMANN:  Howard Fineman of MSNBC and “Newsweek”—as always,

Howard, great thanks.

FINEMAN:  Thank you, Keith.

OLBERMANN:  If we are bringing leadership and sanity finally to the

issue of nuclear weapons, when will we bring those qualities to something

as comparatively simple as domestic mining policy?  At least 25 dead now at

Montcoal, West Virginia.  And any real chance of rescuing four potential

survivors could not have begun until tonight because it‘s all cheaper that


Also, an arrest in Washington State of a man who allegedly threatened

the life of a United States senator over the new health care laws.


OLBERMANN:  Death threats against a U.S. senator because of how she

voted on health care reform and how a state attorney general was either

bribed or blackmailed into joining that frivolous lawsuit against it. 

Another senator and a top conservative columnist rip FOX News, claiming it

can bias its viewers and that Republicans who thought FOX was working for

them, now have learned they are working for FOX.

New developments tonight in “Worst Persons” in the “Weekend at

Bernie‘s” case—the family that tried to board dad on a flight to Berlin

after he died.

And to West Virginia and the Upper Big Branch mine where 25 are dead

and it will be tomorrow before we know for certain the fate of four others

and where there is no hesitation to price out which is cheaper: paying the

fines for safety violations or actually trying to keep the miners alive.



OLBERMANN:  Rescue efforts suspended, recovery efforts delayed, newly

drilled vent shafts where high levels of methane gas will not be finished

any earlier than noon tomorrow.  Meaning for now, that the Massey Upper Big

Branch mine at Montcoal, West Virginia, is a tomb, in a worst mining

disaster in this country in 20 years: 25 dead, four missing.  To search for

them before ventilation has begun would simply to endanger more lives.

And in our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN: Mounting evidence tonight

that the mine owners had cost-benefited the thing and found it was cheaper

to take the fines and to try to ensure that their employees would have a

chance of making it home from work alive.

The president this morning opening an Easter prayer breakfast by

expressing deepest condolences to the families of the workers killed in

yesterday‘s explosion.  That‘s the scene obviously in West Virginia as some

of the rescue teams arrive.

Here‘s what‘s supposed to happen in coal mines—giant fans supposed

to keep concentrations of methane, the colorless, odorless gas below

certain levels.  But if those concentrations are allowed to build up, the

gas can be ignited by almost any kind of spark, the kind of static even

created merely by walking across a carpeted room in wintertime could be

enough to cause an explosion.

The cause of yesterday‘s explosion is still unknown, but safety

officials saying that Massey Energy, owners of the mine, have frequently

been cited for safety violations, including for about 50 citations at Upper

Big Branch just in the last month, poor ventilation of methane and dust

among them; and for 458 violations in the preceding year with just $900,000

in fines.  And since 2005, for more than 1,300 safety violations overall at

Upper Big Branch with $2 million in proposed fines.  And it gets worse.

Massey Energy leaving it to government officials to inform family

members that their loved ones have died.  Michelle McKinney who lost her

father Benny Willingham, 62 years old and due to retire in five weeks.  As

McKinney telling the “Associated Press,” quote, “They‘re supposed to be a

big company.  These guys, they took a chance every day to work and make

them big, and they couldn‘t even call us.”

At a news conference, the West Virginia governor, Joe Manchin,

described what the initial search crews saw at the site of the blast.


MANCHIN:  When the rescuers that were in the mine and saw what they

were able to see until they had to come out, and the type of damage that

was done, that it had to be a horrific explosion to cause that kind of


REPORTER:  For instance?

MANCHIN:  For instance, rails that cars buggies and heavy equipment,

train rails that go back in looked like they‘d been twisted like a pretzel. 

That‘s horrific.  That‘s an explosion that is just beyond proportion.


OLBERMANN:  Time to turn now to Jeff Goodell, the author of “Big Coal:

The Dirty Secret Behind America‘s Energy Future.”  His new book is called

“How to Cool the Planet.”  He‘s also a contributing editor to “Rolling

Stone” magazine.

Mr. Goodell, thank you for your time tonight.

JEFF GOODELL, AUTHOR, “BIG COAL”:  Thanks for having me.

OLBERMANN:  Paying the fines imposed for these violations or paying to

improve the conditions there and hopes to keeping the mines safe and the

miners safe, which one is actually cheaper at this point for a company like


GOODELL:  Well, that‘s sort of a no-brainer.  I mean, it‘s much

cheaper for them to just take the fines.  You mentioned that since 1995,

they‘ve had about $2 million in safety—in fines for safety violations,

but less than half of that that they‘ve actually paid.

And, you know, if you average that out over 15 years or so, we‘re

talking about, you know, $50,000, $60,000 a year, which is nothing.  I

mean, that‘s peanuts.

I think the really important thing to understand about the way the

coal business works is that it‘s a commodity business.  And it‘s all about

getting the stuff out of the ground as cheaply and quickly as possible.

OLBERMANN:  A quote I‘d like to read you from Mr. McAteer, who was the

head of the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration during the

Clinton administration, the “Associated Press” quoted him as saying, “There

are mines in this country who have operated safely for 20 years.  There are

mines who take precautions ahead of time.  There are mines who spend the

money and manpower to do it.”  And he added, “Those mines haven‘t been

blown up.”

Is this—does this pertain to drilling these ventilation shafts at

this hour to release some of those gases?  Couldn‘t those shafts be in

place in advance?  Is that the issue?  Is that the thing that‘s not being

done because it‘s too prohibitively expensive from a profit-making point of


GOODELL:  Well, that‘s only one thing that could be done.  But, it is

expensive.  And they don‘t really want to do it unless they are forced to

do it.

I mean, look, there are certain coal mines that are more dangerous

than others because of the geologic conditions, because they‘re gassy,

because they have weak grooves, they‘re more prone to caving in.  Now,

there‘s infinite variety of situations and there are also different kinds

of coal operators.  Some coal operators are very safe and very thoughtful

about their employees; and some coal operators are not.  And Massey Energy

certainly has a reputation as being one of the companies in the industry

with a very poor safety record.

OLBERMANN:  What do you think is the likeliest and the most productive

and the most immediate impact of the possibilities to relieve us of this

situation where every three or four years we all look at West Virginia and

hear about some tragedy there or elsewhere in the country, but principally

in that part of the nation.  Is it—is it weaning off coal as a resource? 

Is it doubling, tripling, making 10 times as much the fines or changing the

status of what happens to these companies if somebody dies in the mines to

where the people could be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter?  What‘s

the best way to change this the most quickly?

GOODELL:  The best way to change this is to stop mining and burning

coal.  I mean, I think that that is the only way that you‘re going to

eliminate mining deaths.  Mining in these deep underground mines especially

is simply a dangerous thing to do.  And certainly, tougher enforcement

would help.

During the Bush administration, the federal Mine Safety and Health

Administration, the agency that is in charge of overseeing mine safety was

sort of notoriously gutted and weakened.  Now, under the Obama

administration, President Obama gets a lot of credit for putting in a

really tough administrator who is in charge of the safety administration


So, I think this is going to be a big challenge for him—his first

real big test to see how he is going to handle this.

OLBERMANN:  What happen?  What would happen to this country if we

stopped mining coal?

GOODELL:  Well, we obviously can‘t go cold turkey from coal right now. 

We get half of our electricity from coal.  No one is suggesting that we

stop burning coal immediately.

But, you know, it‘s very clear in the big picture that the sort of era

of fossil fuels is over, that we‘re moving away from coal in general.  And

more importantly, this is happening in West Virginia anyway.  It‘s not

because of environmentalists or something like that; it‘s because they‘ve

been mining coal for 200 years there.  They‘ve mined out all the good coal.

The stuff that‘s left is increasingly difficult to get at,

increasingly dangerous.  And unless you have really tough regulatory

oversight, which is difficult in a state like West Virginia where you have

politically powerful coal operators, it‘s not going to happen.

OLBERMANN:  Jeff Goodell, the author of “Big Coal,” the new book is

called “How to Cool the Planet”—thanks for your time and for insight

tonight, sir.

GOODELL:  Thank you.

OLBERMANN:  Two incredible developments now from health care reform. 

A United States senator threatened with death over her vote.  A man is

under arrest.

And a state attorney general threatened with the firing of some of his

employees unless he joined the frivolous lawsuit of the unconstitutionality

or constitutionality of the new laws.



OLBERMANN:  Ahead in “Worsts”: we didn‘t know he was dead.  We just

thought he was exhausted at the thought of flying to Germany.

First on this date in 1941 was born Zamfir, the master of the pan

flute.  And on April 6th, 1813, Napoleon was captured and sent into exile,

but he had the presence to mind to speak in a Palindrome as they dragged

him off, “Able was I ere I saw Elba.”  No, he didn‘t say that.  He wouldn‘t

have been talking in English for any good reason.  Zamfir said that.

Let‘s play “Oddball.”

We begin in Greece, where this spectacular use of pyrotechnics is how

folks on the island of Phios (ph) know that it‘s Orthodox Easter.  It‘s the

annual rocket war.  Two rival churches mark the holy occasion by causing

structural damage, as 60,000 rockets line up the night sky.  It is fun and

almost no one gets hurt, except that one time.  Which reminds me of the

Biblical proverb, one man‘s celebration of the lord‘s resurrection is

another man‘s excuse to blow the crap out of the property of the next guy. 

Twelve blocks north of here, hello.  Finally, a way to make Hummers

more environmentally friendly, remove the engines and drag them around

Central Park.  This Hummer, fueled by horsepower, is actually art.  The

artist, Jeremy Dean, rides it around the park with the help of horses, Dean

and Diesel.  The monster car features the chrome rims, the booming audio

system.  Mr. Dean hopes his masterpiece makes a statement about

sustainability and energy resources. 

Meanwhile, marketing execs hope it tests well with Amish with

something to prove, because they have a lot of these clinkers to sell.

Finally, to Tokyo, where a tough economy has gotten people down.  What

these commuters need is a cheer.  Aya Saito (ph) brings her one-woman pep

squad to the Shin Ju Qu (ph) train station every morning, hoping her spirit

fingers will help downtrodden workers feel better about the job market. 

Most are grateful for Saito‘s work, except, of course, any of them who have

recently been fired from their jobs as cheerleaders. 

How do you get a teetotaler to agree to agree to give the keynote

speech to the national convention of the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of

America?  It‘s easy.  It‘s Sarah Palin.  Just pay her money.  Ahead on



OLBERMANN:  More than a dozen phone calls were made, the voice

messages left ranging from profane to misogynistic.  “I hope you realize

there‘s a target on your back now,” one of them said.  “Kill the senator,

I‘ll donate the lead,” said another. 

In our third story on the COUNTDOWN, Charles Allen Wilson, age 64, of

Washington State, arrested, accused of having left those messages for

Senator Patty Murray of that state, because she was supporting health care

reform.  Wilson was arrested after the FBI obtained phone records, and

confirmed his voice was the same as the one heard on the messages at the

senator‘s Seattle office.  Court documents detailing that the first

threatening message recorded and saved by Murray‘s staff was on March 22nd,

the day after the House had approved health care reform. 

Mr. Wilson allegedly called five times the following day when the

president signed the bill into law.  Wilson said in one of those calls,

“since you are going to put my life at risk, some bureaucrat is going to

determine my health care, your life is at risk, dear.” 

On April 1st, a federal agent posing as an opponent of health care

reform called Wilson, engaged him in a 14-minute conversation.  Mr. Wilson

agreed to have the call recorded and told the agent that he hated the law,

admitted to repeatedly calling Senator Murray‘s office to complain, and

said that Murray and the Democratic senator from Washington, the other one,

Maria Cantwell, quote, “need to be strung up, and I mean put in the


Joining me now is the director of the intelligence project for the

Southern Poverty Law Center, Mark Potok.  Mark, thanks for your time again



OLBERMANN:  Wilson had allegedly been calling the office of the

senator‘s for months.  But the overt threats did not come until the health

care bill passed.  A lot of members of Congress received threatening calls

about this.  What, in your opinion, and your assessment, makes this case


POTOK:  Well, it sounds like this man actually carried out what is

known in case law as a true threat.  In particular, from what I was able to

read of the messages, when he said that he would help other people to kill

the senator, you know, that is a very believable, sort of concrete threat. 

This is what I‘m going to do. 

You know, a true threat in the law is a threat that a reasonable third

party would take to be a real threat.  That is quite real.  That is

different than saying, for instance, you deserve to die for this terrible

vote you made, or it would be good to kill you, or I wish you were dead. 

This actually kind of laid out a plan, we will kill you.  I will help other

people kill you.  I think that pretty clearly does amount to a real threat. 

OLBERMANN:  The suspect is apparently, from his claim and from

investigation, not affiliated with any particular group or party, claims to

be politically neutral.  Does that reduce the anxiety over this?  Or should

it increase the anxiety over this? 

POTOK:  Well, I think that, in a very real sense, it tells you just

how far this anger, this rhetoric, this incredible polarization of the

political debate has gone.  You know, it is one thing to be in a group that

is very politicized and interested and focused on anger over an issue like

health care.  It is quite another to be simply out there in the general

public absorbing what I think has become the white-hot rhetoric of the

general political debate.  I‘m saying, in a sense, it is worse. 

OLBERMANN:  How does this—or how would you expect this to resonate

inside the communities in which violence or threats of violence or, more

realistically, fantasies about violence are considered acceptable in a

political context?  Does this sober anybody up or exaggerate their


POTOK:  One would hope it would sober some of these people up.  This

is the culmination of a few weeks of quite incredible news, bricks being

thrown through congressmen‘s windows, gas lines cut to what was thought to

be another congressman‘s house, and so on, real death threats, coffins

dragged on the lawns of another congressman‘s office, and so on. 

On the other hand, I‘ve got to say it is remarkable how people on the

right are now coming out with the kind of theory that this is all put up

somehow, that this has been created by the, quote/unquote, liberals in

order to attack conservatives.  So we‘ll see.  I think probably the most

radical among the angry people will take this as part of a plot, sort of a

setup by the government.  But as I say, hopefully more responsible heads

will prevail, at least in some quarters. 

OLBERMANN:  Those people, certainly, if everything were somehow

repealed tomorrow, they would think that is a setup, too, to pass a more

changing law.  Ultimately, Mark, just for this topic, the idea of threats

and the idea of the white-hot rhetoric of health care reform, what calms

this situation down, in your opinion? 

POTOK:  I think it is obviously high time, long past time for the

leaders of both parties, but in particular the party that has been leading

the charge on putting out this rhetoric, to try and say something that will

calm the situation down. 

You know, we‘ve discussed it before.  This is a very difficult genie

to get back in the bottle.  It is one thing to pump people up like this,

and quite another to then say, you know, I was only just kidding.  This was

really rhetoric.  Let‘s calm it down and return to some kind of real

Democratic discourse.  The upshot though is real damage is being done to

our democracy and to the democratic process. 

OLBERMANN:  And to the individuals involved as well.  Mark Potok of

the Southern Poverty Law Center, as always, we appreciate your insight and

your time.  Thank you, sir. 

POTOK:  Thank you so much. 

OLBERMANN:  Senator Tom Coburn and conservative columnist David Frum

rip Fox News.  I‘m not kidding about this.  Gene Robinson joins me to

assess the implications. 

New developments in the case of the two women accused of trying to

take dad on an airline trip after he died.  Worst persons ahead.

And when Rachel joins you at the top of the hour, California‘s

investigation of the James O‘Keefe Acorn tapes, the truth behind what was

edited out, like the Acorn employee calling the cops to turn in O‘Keefe the



OLBERMANN:  Worsts ahead.  First, tonight‘s comment.  Nothing is

sadder than watching a formerly prominent politician self-destructing in

the bid to survive at any cost.  Senator John McCain is trying to fend off

a primary challenge by Tea Partier J.D. Hayworth from Arizona.  He tells an

interviewer from “Newsweek,” quote, “I never considered myself a maverick.” 

So far in this campaign, Mr. McCain has denied everything except

having run for president.  He sold out his principles, lied about where he

stood on the bank bailout, climate change, Don‘t Ask/Don‘t Tell, and on his

election night promise, the noble climax to that campaign, to work with the

then president-elect. 

But to try to convince people that he never ventured towards the

center or away from GOP by saying I never considered myself a maverick

borders on the delusional.  You need only to see the very start and the

very end of the McCain/Palin TV ad that was launched on September 7th,

2008, to get the gist.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  The original mavericks. 

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ®, ARIZONA:  I‘m John McCain and I approve this



OLBERMANN:  This is better suited for a one of our Friday night

Thurber readings.  But McCain‘s embarrassing denial of self recalls the

Thurber fable about the bear who became a drunk and would, as a result,

knock over everything in his home.  His wife was greatly distressed and the

children very frightened. 

Then the bear sobered up and became an exercise freak and would, as a

result, knock over everything in his home.  His wife was greatly distressed

and his children were very frightened. 

Thurber‘s moral applies as much to Mr. McCain as it did to his

reformed alcoholic bear.  Moral?  You might as well fall flat on your face,

as lean over too far backwards.


OLBERMANN:  One right wing pundit says Republicans thought that Fox

News worked for them, but it turns out they work for Fox News.  And a

sitting Republican senator warns constituents against, quote, being biased

by Fox News that somebody is no good. 

Also, this just in, hell freezes over. 

That is next, but first tonight‘s worst persons in the world.

The bronze to Gita Jerant (ph) and Anka Antik (ph) of Oldem (ph), in

England, wife and stepdaughter of Curt Vili Jerant (ph).  All three, plus

two kids, were to fly from John Lennon Airport in Liverpool to Berlin.  The

two woman told an airport worker they needed help with the 91-year-old man. 

The employee got them a wheelchair.  As the women wheeled Mr. Jerant toward

the check-in counter, that employees was the first one to suspect that the

man slumped in the chair wearing the sunglasses was dead. 

In fact, he died the day before.  Ms. Antik, the stepdaughter says

“they would think that for 24 hours we would carry a dead person?  This is

ridiculous.  He was moving.  He was breathing.  Eight people saw him.” 

The women have been arrested, with investigators thinking they were

trying to cut the extra costs when someone dies in one country and has to

be buried in another.  Plus, the in-flight movie was “Weekend at Bernie‘s.” 

I made that up entirely.  I apologize. 

Our runner up, half Governor Sarah Palin.  She was scheduled today to

give the keynote speaker at the National Convention of the Wine and Spirits

Wholesalers of America, for money, at least 75 grand.  The Pentecostal

Church the governor has claimed membership in for nearly three decades has

one of its core beliefs abstinence from alcohol.  Now the ballot initiative

group Nevadans for Sensible Marijuana Laws has offered Mrs. Palin 25,000

dollars to speak at one of its events. 

Our winner tonight, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.  Odd that

Louisiana‘s Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, a Democrat, is one of those

debasing his office by joining the frivolous lawsuit against the

constitutionality of the health care reform laws.  Well, the small

newspaper in the Eunice, Louisiana, the “Eunice News,” appears to have the

answer.  Listen to this, it writes, “in a subsequent address to the

employees of his office, the attorney general said the decision was made

out of the necessity of saving jobs in his agency than any real hope or

desire of overturning the health care law.  One employee said Caldwell, in

a candid admission, claimed that a deal was made with Jindal.  Under the

terms of that agreement, the governor would not make additional cuts in the

attorney general‘s budget if Caldwell joined in the litigation.  Caldwell

agreed to be the token Democrat, he said, so that he might save additional

job cuts by an administration whose state goal is to reduce the number of

state employees by as much as 5,000 per year over three years.” 

In other words, Governor Jindal either blackmailed Attorney General

Caldwell or bribed him.  Support this moronic, pathetic, partisan, legally

flimsy lawsuit on behalf of the insurance companies or we‘ll fire your

employees.  Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, blackmailer or briber,

depending on your point of view, but either way today‘s worst person in the



OLBERMANN:  They are two inescapable tenets of the modern Republican

party, Nancy Pelosi devil, Fox News God.  In our number one story,

Republican Senator Tom Coburn bucked his party‘s talking points and leveled

with the crowd at an Oklahoma City town hall meeting last week.  According

to Coburn, Nancy Pelosi is nice, and Fox News can be biased, and uses its

own set of facts.  And one conservative columnist says Republicans thought

Fox worked for them, but have discovered, to their horror, that they work

for fox. 

First, the Coburn town hall event was held on March 31.  The website

Capitol News Connection uncovered the relevant audio clips, which happen to

have been recorded by an Oklahoma NPR station.  During the hour long

meeting with Coburn, a woman complained to the senator about the

unconstitutionality, in her opinion, of the new health care reform laws. 

The woman was worried she would go to jail for not buying health care


Coburn was put in the position of defending the health care bill he

voted against because of the Fox News misinformation campaign. 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  They can put us in prison, take away our

liberty.  Are they not trampling on our Fifth Amendment rights by putting

it under the IRS? 

SEN. TOM COBURN ®, OKLAHOMA:  The intention is not to put anybody in

jail.  That makes for good TV news on Fox.  But that isn‘t the intention.


OLBERMANN:  Coburn went on to discuss his position on letting

unemployment benefits expire for hundreds of thousands of Americans.  He

placed the blame for that on Nancy Pelosi.  But he also reserved some kind

words for the speaker of the House, to the amazement of the crowd. 


COBURN:  I‘m 180 degrees in opposition to the speaker.  She‘s a nice

lady.  I don‘t think we can wait.  Come on now.  She is a nice—how many

of you have met her?  She is a nice person. 

Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn‘t mean they are not a

good person.  What we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this

country so that you can see what‘s going on and make the determination


So don‘t catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody‘s no

good.  The people in Washington are good.  They just don‘t know what they

don‘t know. 


OLBERMANN:  Senator Coburn would end this gathering by imploring his

constituents to consider various sources for their information, not just

right-wing media.  He then appeared to suggest that what Fox News was doing

was, in fact, bad for America. 


COBURN:  I want to tell you, I do a lot of reading every day.  I‘m

disturbed we get things like what this lady said and other have said on

other issues, that are so disconnected to what I know to be the facts. 

That comes from somebody that has an agenda other than the best interest of

our country.  And so please balance and be careful. 


OLBERMANN:  I‘m shaking here.  Let‘s bring in the associated editor

and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist of the “Washington Post,” MSNBC

political analyst Gene Robinson.  Good evening, Gene. 



ROBINSON:  I, too, am almost speechless, Keith. 

OLBERMANN:  I know.  It‘s like suddenly I‘m going to turn into Sally

Field here, you know, they like me.  Do we expect now the response to this

is some sort of Glenn Beck expose on how Tom Coburn is a socialist or he‘s

a democratic plant or something? 

ROBINSON:  I think Beck is going to go to the blackboard, and he‘s

going to write out the name “Tom Coburn” and show how if you rearrange the

letters and actually substitute some other letters, it is “common tern” or

something like that, and it‘s all part of this kind of “Da Vinci Code”


OLBERMANN:  You‘ve got a few left over, but it does spell com-but. 

That‘s sort of a Beckian level of analysis. 

ROBINSON:  It also spells Root McBun, but I digress. 

OLBERMANN:  He was a noted communist in Scotland.  Between what Beck

said and what David Frum—what the senator said about this and what Frum

had said, about the Republicans thinking that Fox worked for them, only it

turned out they work for Fox.  Is there an iceberg there?  Are

conservatives, elected or otherwise, sort of secretly chafing at a bit?  Or

are these isolated opinions? 

ROBINSON:  Well, some are.  Look, David Frum famously lost his post at

American Enterprise.  You know, I heard that a lot of people at the

American Enterprise Institute were basically cheering on the Obama health

care plan because it‘s so based on Republican ideas on things that they‘ve

been advocating for years.  So, you know, they are out there, these

mythical creatures, these reasonable Republicans and conservatives, these

moderate Republicans.  And maybe they‘ll come out of the forest. 

OLBERMANN:  Yeah, but, if you are a Republican and you will not say

Democrats or liberals are evil and they should be hated, and you will, in

fact, say, look, you won‘t go to jail for not buying health insurance, and

Fox News exaggerates and manipulates and demonizes—what does happens to

you politically if you won‘t do these things?  It seems like, of all the

threats we think of to the overall political spectrum and to democrats and

threats against Senator Murray in a literal sense—but if you look at it

just within the Republican party, it is a purity purge.  It is as bad as

anything you could see in a political party anywhere in the world. 

ROBINSON:  Yeah.  What happens depends on your situation, basically. 

If you are David Frum, you lose your job.  If you are Tom Coburn, if you

are a sitting U.S. Senator, in pretty good shape, maybe you lose some

contributions you wouldn‘t have gotten.  Maybe you lose some Tea Party

people.  Maybe down the line, if you keep saying this sort of thing, maybe

you get some Tea Party challenge in a primary.  We‘ll see how this purity

purge works out over the next months and years. 

OLBERMANN:  One last thing, Frum also suggested something in another

interview that‘s somewhat counter-intuitive.  Decode it for me.  Here is

the quote: “Fox, like Limbaugh, has an interest in pushing the Republicans

to the margins, making people angry.  When people are angry and alienated,

they don‘t vote.”  Isn‘t that the opposite of the premise of the tea party? 

And if so, who is right? 

ROBINSON:  David has a point historically.  When voters are alienated,

they stay home from the polls.  One of the reasons that campaigns go

negative and go massively negative is to depress turnout.  It‘s to keep

people home, because they say it is all a cesspool.  I‘m not going to vote. 

Now, is the Tea Party a special case of this?  Does the anger

transcend this alienation of depressing turnout?  I don‘t think we‘re sure. 

But historically he has a point. 

OLBERMANN:  By the way, you can take—go back to the Beck blackboard

here.  You take David Frum‘s name, you have something left over, but you

can spell “Avid Dum F.”  There you go, right? 

ROBINSON:  Thanks, Keith. 

OLBERMANN:  Gene Robinson of the “Washington Post,” and when we‘re

lucky, MSNBC.  Thank you, Gene. 

ROBINSON:  Good night. 

OLBERMANN:  That is COUNTDOWN for this the 2,532nd day since the

previous president declared mission accomplished in Iraq.  I went to

college to be able to do something like that.  I‘m Keith Olbermann, good

night and good luck. 

Now that the unedited James O‘Keefe Acorn tapes, having been analyzed

by the state of California, and they clear Acorn, ladies and gentlemen,

with that, here is Rachel Maddow.  Good evening, Rachel.




Copyright 2010 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 Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,

copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>