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

'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Thursday, March 15, 2012

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Guests: John Brabender, James Inhofe

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Good evening, Ed. I`m very excited, Ed.
Tonight is the night of my big interview with James Inhofe of Oklahoma that
was talking to you about the other day.

ED SCHULTZ, "THE ED SHOW" HOST: A Republican is coming on your
program. I can`t score any Republicans. Not that I want to, but I`m going
to watch Jim Inhofe.

MADDOW: I desperately want to. I mean, if you were wondering what
the fireworks were about in the hallway earlier, it`s us celebrating that
we got a Republican to come in here. I`m really looking to it.

SCHULTZ: No doubt. You can ask him why he landed on the wrong
runway, but that`s another story.

MADDOW: Next time. Thanks, Ed.

Thanks to you at home for staying with us. Nothing like pilot humor
between guys who fly, right?

All right. I have a small beef with the state of Oregon, specifically
I have a beef with the Oregon Republican Party. The Oregon Republican
Party -- God bless them -- wanted to be players in this year`s race for the
Republican presidential nomination.

So, in order to try to be players, Oregon Republicans scheduled a
debate. They wanted all the Republican nominees to come up to Oregon to
strut their stuff for Oregon voters. Makes sense, sort of in the abstract.

But Oregon Republicans scheduled their debate for next week, for

Want to know what else is going on in the Republican primary in the
meantime? Well, this weekend is the Puerto Rico primary -- Puerto Rico,
not on the way to Oregon from anywhere. After Puerto Rico, it`s Illinois.
Then, it`s Louisiana, then it`s D.C., then Maryland, then Wisconsin,
Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New York, Indiana, West
Virginia, North Carolina -- you`ve got to go all the way through those
states and to May 15th before you get to the Oregon primary.

But Oregon Republicans wanted to hold their debate next week, because
what? What? The Republican candidates were going to look down the field
and decide from this vantage point that on March 19th it was going to be
worth it to spend a day in Oregon instead of any of the other states that
vote before that on the calendar?

I do not know what the Oregon Republican Party was thinking, but they
thought, apparently, they were going to get all of the Republican
presidential candidates to fly up to Oregon for a debate next week. And
so, when one of those candidates cancelled, Mitt Romney has now bailed on
the idea. Oregon Republicans, surprise, had to call the whole thing off.

Where Mitt Romney is going instead of Oregon is across the street from
right here, actually, after Rick Santorum accused the FOX News Channel
earlier this week of shilling, in his words, for Mitt Romney -- Mr. Romney
decided to make FOX News awkward about that charge by suddenly agreeing to
do a ton of interviews on FOX News Channel shows.

Mr. Romney today was on a FOX program that`s hosted by a man named
Bill Hemmer. Yesterday, Mr. Romney was on another FOX News program, one
hosted by a woman named Megyn Kelly. That interview actually ended up
being a little testy at times.


MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You know, you`re struggling, though,
with folks that make less than $100,000. Even in the states you won,
you`ve struggled --

MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, no, no. Let me tell you

KELLY: In Ohio?

ROMNEY: You don`t win a million more votes than anyone else in this
race by just appealing to high-income Americans.


MADDOW: No, no, no, no. Point of fact here, I`m on Megyn Kelly`s

If you are Mitt Romney, you do win races by just appealing to high-
income Americans. I mean, we`ve talked about this on the show. That is
how he won Ohio. Ms. Kelly was right about this.

Mitt Romney tied or lost every other income bracket in Ohio except
Ohio Republicans making more than $100,000 a year. Mitt Romney cleaned up
in that category and was, thereby, able to win the state, but he lost or
tied with everybody else. And it was the same thing in Michigan. Mitt
Romney lost every single lower income bracket to Rick Santorum.

Everybody who makes less than $100,000 a year in those brackets, he
lost. But he won so big among the wealthiest sliver of the electorate that
he was able to win the entire state. He`s only able to win because he wins
with wealthy people, even when he loses with everyone else.

This is sort of how Mitt Romney has been winning. There are now 16
states with entrance or exit polling data, where, for example, you find out
what somebody`s income is who has voted.

Mitt Romney has won the wealthiest sliver of the electorate in 14 of
the 16 states for which we know that kind of information about the voters.
The only states where he has not won the wealthiest sliver are Alabama and

But remember, he got creamed in Alabama and Mississippi. He lost
everybody there. He didn`t even come in second place in Alabama and
Mississippi; he came in third in both of those states.

So, yes, Mitt Romney is the rich guy campaign. He owns the richest

The other reason Mitt Romney is available to do interviews at FOX
News, across the street from here, is because Mr. Romney has been in New
York City the last couple of days raising money from New York City
zillionaires, which, financially, I`m sure makes more sense than, say,
flying to Oregon for a primary that`s two months away.

Come on, Oregon, what were you thinking?

Mitt Romney is one of the richest people to have ever run for
president in modern times. He`s winning the richest income brackets pretty
much everywhere he competes. He`s raised most of his money from high-
dollar donors. He`s now focusing on doing more of that at this point in
the campaign.

Mitt Romney is the rich campaign, and it shows.

This is Mitt Romney`s spending in Illinois right now. Campaign
combined with super PAC, so that`s the pro-Mitt Romney spending in Illinois
compare that to -- bonk, yes, that`s the Rick Santorum spending.

This is according to NBC News data. Team Santorum, his PAC and his
campaign, is being outspent by Mitt Romney seven to one in Illinois. And
this is true in practically every other state. Overall, so far, Team
Romney has outspent Team Santorum six to one, if you average out all of the

And that raises an important question about the Rick Santorum for
president campaign. They have been trying to sell this dynamic as an
asset. Look how we`re able to win some places even though we`re being
dramatically outspent. They are also, now, trying to brag about how much
money they`ve been able to raise recently.

So, you know, if so, it`s not showing in Illinois. What are you guys
saving it for exactly? Rick Santorum campaign, are you saving your money
for Louisiana? Let`s see the numbers there. Oh, no, getting lapped in
Louisiana, too.

This is a real question for the Santorum campaign. It`s a real
question about whether or not he is actually a viable contender.

The Santorum campaign is getting pummeled in the money race, even this
far into the campaign, after they`ve done so surprisingly well, they are
getting destroyed in the money race in the primary. How are they going to
compete against a sitting president?

Why should anybody think that they can? I mean, money is part of it.
It shouldn`t be, but money is a big part of it.

Here`s another question. Even if Rick Santorum overcomes the seven to
one spending deficit and does great in Illinois, he is not allowed to win
10 of the 54 delegates that are at stake in Illinois. Why is that?
Because the Santorum campaign could not get it together to sign him up to
do the paperwork to win those delegates.

Doesn`t really matter if you do great if you don`t progress towards
getting the nomination, and unless you can collect delegates, you can`t
progress towards winning the nomination. And Rick Santorum, like it was in
Ohio, again, cannot get the delegates, even if he wins, has not done the

There are only four contests left in the whole enchilada where the
delegates are winner-take-all, where you can really make up some ground
towards your delegate count. Of those four, one of them is Washington,
D.C. Guess who`s not on the ballot in Washington, D.C. -- the Rick
Santorum campaign.

Why are they not on the ballot in D.C.? Well, according to D.C., they
never even asked to be on the ballot there.

I have questions for the Rick Santorum campaign, and apparently we
have the Rick Santorum campaign, who`s going to be on the show, next.


MADDOW: One quick bit of new news before we get to Rick Santorum`s
senior strategist and the interview tonight, which is Senator James Inhofe,
which is going to be epic. That`s all coming up.

But I need to let you know a county judge in Wisconsin has just signed
a date for the Wisconsin recalls, the recalls of four Republican state
senators in Wisconsin. And if they are certified, the recalls of
Republican Governor Scott Walker and the state`s Republican lieutenant
governor. All the recalls, according to this ruling, all the recalls will
be held on May 8th, unless there`s a primary on the Democratic side, those
will be May 8th and then the general recall elections will be in June.
They`ll be June 5th.

So, May 8th, June 5th, Wisconsin recalls. Mark your calendars. We`ll
be right back.



MADDOW: John Brabender, chief strategist with the Rick Santorum
campaign -- your time is at a premium on a night like this. And I know
this is a big night for your campaign and you guys are interested in
celebrating. Thank you for taking the time to be with us. I appreciate

JOHN BRABENDER, SANTORUM CAMPAIGN: Thank you for taking the time. I
hope to speak with you again soon.

MADDOW: All right. I will take you up on that.


MADDOW: As promised, the senior strategist of the Rick Santorum for
president campaign who said on a primary night recently that he would come
back and talk with me, has agreed to come back and talk with me -- a man of
his word.

John Brabender, thank you so much for being with us live tonight. I
really appreciate it.

BRABENDER: Well, thank you for letting me celebrate your all-
Republican all the time night here on your channel. And I don`t know if
this is a big switch or you`re going for a new audience. But thank you for
inviting me back.

MADDOW: Well, you`re kind for saying it. I`m always asking
Republicans to come on the show. Nobody ever does, but when it rains, it
pours. So, it`s a great night.

Let me ask you about some of the stuff that I presented in the
introduction a moment ago. Why aren`t you guys on the ballot in
Washington, D.C.? And why didn`t the Santorum campaign get all the
paperwork in on time in Illinois to get all the delegates there? Why
didn`t those things work out?

BRABENDER: Yes, very fair questions. A lot of these delegates and a
lot of the ballots you had to get into the petitions and everything else
were months and months before the beginning of the year when we were just a
skeleton crew, we were concentrating on Iowa. That`s all we could do was
concentrate on Iowa. So, there were certain states with very high hurdles.
In most cases we made those, there are a few small examples where we

We`re on every ballot in Illinois, anyone who wants to vote for us in
Illinois can, there are a couple districts that are generally Democrat
districts, where we don`t have a delegate there. But generally, every
place else across Illinois, people can vote for us. All the other big
states coming up like Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Maryland -- all those
places we`re doing well, even Utah, which is new (ph), we`ll be on the
ballot there as well.

So, part of those really early on, we were just a very small
shoestring campaign and doing our best, a couple places didn`t reach the
level we had to. But I will tell you, with the dramatic wins we had,
double-digit wins, our campaign is much bigger now, more sophisticated.

And we`re not the Romney campaign with their largeness and big
bureaucracy, but we`re a much better campaign than certainly we were and I
think that`s why we`re winning so well.

MADDOW: That dynamic you`re talking about, the emergence of the
campaign following the senator`s success in these primaries, some of it
unexpected, frankly, you talked the last time -- the last time, we talked,
you talked about how excited you were that in February, you guys raised $9
million. A lot of that money was coming from small donors, and your
fundraising definitely has picked up, we can all see it. That said, you
are still getting walloped in the spending race, even after raising all
that money and this is just the primary.

And I know that`s because Mitt Romney is Richie Rich, but do you have
an electability problem around fundraising? Because you`re not keeping up
with Mitt Romney -- why should people be able to think you`ll keep up with
President Obama?

BRABENDER: Well, first of all, I think if Mitt Romney was here, what
you`d be asking him is how the heck are you spending all this money and not
able to win? And so, I think, really, this is a great American story that
says the guy that simply can write the biggest check is struggling. In
Kansas on Saturday, Rick Santorum got more than the other candidates

Second of all, the measurement that you`re looking at is simply
advertising dollars. In many cases, we`re choosing to invest on the
ground, people, folks, all these type of things rather than in advertising,
because if you go on Chicago TV, quite frankly, which is the third most
expensive media market in the country, you`re wasting about 98 cents of
every dollar, because it`s going for people who aren`t going to be voting
in a Republican primary.

So, we also think, strategically we`re a little bit smarter than the
Romney people here. Look, they`ve spent over $40 million on negative ads
and they`re still having trouble winning and I think it`s because our
messenger is better and our message is working.

MADDOW: Of the forthcoming primaries, in terms of Illinois,
Louisiana, Puerto Rico, and then looking beyond those -- what do you think
you have -- in which of those jurisdictions do you think you have the best
shot at coming in first again, at a first-place finish?

BRABENDER: Well, again, our goal is to get as much delegates, just
like theirs is, what you see, everybody has a math problem. We have a long
way to go to get to 1,144. But, frankly, the Romney people have an awfully
long way to get to 1,144 as well.

So, a big part of this is like a state like Illinois -- we think we`ll
do very well in some of the congressional districts, which is how they`re
going to give delegates. We think there`ll be other areas that are more
moderate that we concede that probably Romney will do better.

Louisiana, we think, can be a very, very strong state for us. There
was a poll out this week which I think that had us with a five-point lead
over everybody else in the field.

But let me make clear, I do think what we can`t allow to continue to
happen is let the conservatives split the vote between a multitude of
candidates while Romney cleans up with the moderate votes and wins by small
margins, like he did in Ohio.

MADDOW: So, you`re -- I know your campaign hasn`t been shy about the
idea Newt Gingrich getting out of the race will help you. There was an
interesting piece of analysis today from ABC News saying that actually Mr.
Gingrich staying in the race might help you even more since some delegates
that Mr. Gingrich gets are, essentially, delegates that are not going to
Mr. Romney, and more than anything, you guys just need to deny Mr. Romney
the number of delegates he would need to clinch.

Do you see -- do you see any logic in that?

BRABENDER: There`s a logic up to this point where a lot of those
delegates, because they are either unbound or they could be committed to
somebody else, we could still get those. The flaw in that thinking is when
you get to a state like Texas, which is going to be winner-take-all by
congressional district.

If the conservatives split the vote in each of those congressional
districts, it`s possible Romney can win a bunch of them.

If the conservatives and Tea Party are united behind one candidate,
we`ll clean up in a state like Texas and you`ll see big movement in the
delegate counts.

MADDOW: The math makes sense. We don`t agree on anything but the
tactics of how you are trying to get to where you want to get are
fascinating. And it`s really nice for you to come here and explain them to

John Brabender, thank you very much.

BRABENDER: Thank you. And I`m one Republican that`s happy to come
back whenever you want to have me.

MADDOW: I will totally hold you do that. Thank you, sir. That`s
excellent. Excellent.

John Brabender, of course, a senior strategist to the Santorum

The interview tonight is someone who has been a politician since six
years before I was born. And I`m old. A conversation with a very hard
core conservative Republican senator, who I have been looking forward to
talking to for a very long time. Senator James Inhofe, coming up.


MADDOW: Welcome back.

Here is Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe.


SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: My point is, God`s still up there.
And this is the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would
be able to change what he is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.


MADDOW: Senator James Inhofe on global warming.

This is one of those issues where if you participate in only
conservative media and consult only conservative authorities, you have a
totally different understanding about what`s happening in the world than
the rest of the world does.

For example, take what they call "climate-gate." In November 2009,
someone, we still don`t know who, somebody apparently leaked or stole a
bunch of e-mails between scientists at the University of East Anglia in
England. They were scientists who are working in the climate research

Now, this seemed like a huge scandal at the time. The Senator Inhofes
of the world are right -- the most damning snippets and excerpts of the e-
mails made it seem like scientists were manipulating data and doing other
shady things to convince us that the earth is warming, when the earth is
not, in fact, warming. The most damning sentence, at least from I don`t
believe in global warming point of view, is an email from the director of
the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia. It`s a
professor named Phil Jones.

And he wrote in this e-mail, quote, "I`ve just completed Mike`s nature
trick of adding in the real temps to each series from the last 20 years,
i.e., from 1961 on wards, and from 1961 for Keith`s to hide the decline."

There it is right there, see? Those scientists are using tricks to
hide the fact that the earth`s temperature is actually declining.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These e-mails, if you read through them, they are
pretty damaging. And I`m being gentle.

PHELIUM MCALEER, FILMMAKER MALE: They are truly damaging. It`s --
it`s hard to say how damaging they are. I mean, you`ve got people saying
we need to use that trick to hide the decline.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, what they call Mike`s trick, I`m going to add
certain temperatures on to other temperatures.


MADDOW: Now, Phil Jones, the scientist who wrote that e-mail that`s
getting taken apart there on FOX News, Phil Jones tried to speak up on his
own defense. He said, quote, "The word `trick` was used here colloquially
as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to
anything untoward."

Yes, right, you climate-hoaxing scientist.

Then again, the "hide the decline" part of this damning e-mail, turns
out also that wasn`t about hiding declining temperatures. What they were
hiding in the data was the fact that tree rings are less reliable as
thermometers after 1960s. We don`t exactly know why, but it is a
documented thing that if you`re using tree rings as a way to tell what
temperature things are, that gets less accurate after 1960.

So, if you were using tree rings to show temperatures a long time ago,
and that is the only way to tell temperatures from hundreds or thousands of
years ago, it can be misleading to use tree rings as your temperature gauge
for data that covers the last 50 years.

Luckily, in the last 50 years, we`ve got other ways of telling
temperature. There are other temperature records around, so you can
combine that recent data with the tree-ring information, so as to make sure
you`re keeping the data on temperature accurate over time.

Scientists work like that. Science sometimes works like that. The
data has to be as accurate as possible. And since data doesn`t come down
from a mountain on a stone tablet, you have to work to keep the data

Using the word "trick" and "hide" in explaining how to keep the tree-
ring data accurate, makes it sound awful if you take it out of context and
put it on FOX News, right?

But until these e-mails were stolen from scientists, these were
scientists e-mailing each other in work and there`s nothing weird about
what they were saying.

I know, I can hear you now, why believe Maddow, why believe me? I`m
part of a global conspiracy to convince you that the earth is heating up.

All right. If you don`t believe me, how about this? The University
of East Anglia paid an independent commission, they paid for an independent
commission to investigate whether the scientists were being unethical,
whether the scientists were trying tot cook the books or falsified data, or
unduly influenced other people. Nobody on the review team was a part of
the university.

That investigation`s 160-page report found, "Their rigor and honesty
as scientists are not in doubt. In addition, we do not find that their
behavior has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers."

They did find one thing. They said, there has been a consistent
pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness. That was the
criticism. Not enough transparency. Everything else pretty much all good.

I know, though, this investigation was funded by this university. I
know a global conspiracy when I see one, I don`t believe that either.

How about the British parliament, you think they are part of the
conspiracy? The British parliament also investigated these scientists, e-
mails, and university. They found that the contents of the e-mails showed
discussions and activities that were in line with common practice. Quote,
"The phrases such as trick or hiding the decline were colloquial terms used
in private e-mails. They were not part of a systemic attempt to mislead."

Researchers from Penn State also investigated the e-mails in climate-
gate, because one of the professors whose e-mails were stolen was a Penn
State guy. They found no wrongdoing when Penn State looked into it. The
EPA looked into it, they found no wrongdoing.

Most of the world who has taken any time to figure out what happened
here knows the gate should be removed from climate-gate. There was no gate
here, there was no real scandal.

But this is where the rest of the world and the conservative world
diverge, if you only trust conservatives sources, if you only trust
conservatives with whom you already agree, the lesson here is that the
whole global warming thing was disproven by that e-mail scandal, it`s over

Senator James Inhofe has just written a book about how it`s all over
now. And one of the chapters, chapter six, is called "Climategate."
"Climategate Equals Vindication." That`s the title of the chapter,
vindication of his career-defining crusade to prove that global warming is
not happening.

Also, according to Senator Inhofe`s very entertaining book, even if it
is happening, of course, global warming isn`t that big a deal. And even if
it is a big deal, as you heard at the top of the segment there -- God will
probably take care of if anyway and we shouldn`t be so arrogant to think we
could get in God`s way of taking care of us.

Joining us in just for the interview tonight is Senator James Inhofe
of Oklahoma. I`m delighted to have him here. We`ll be right back.


MADDOW: Joining us tonight for the interview, I`m very happy to say,
is Senator James Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Environment and
Public Works Committee.

Senator Inhofe, thank you so much for being here. I`m really happy
that you`re able to be here tonight.

INHOFE: Well, Rachel, you won`t believe this, but I`m happy to be
here with you.

MADDOW: When I talk about all those investigations clearing the
scientists and the university and I talk about the general consensus what
happened with climategate being different from your consensus, do you feel
I`m part of the hoax? Do you feel I`m being misled? How do you feel about

INHOFE: First of all, you talked about FOX News and some of the right
wing, as you refer to them. Let me talk about the left wing and how they
responded to it.

This climategate was a big deal, hold on, just a minute now, you got
to listen to this. "The U.K. Telegraph", one of the biggest ones in
London. They said it`s the worst scandal of our generation. "The
Financial Times" said the stink of the intellectual corruption is
overpowering, the IPCC -- this is one that came from the United Nations,
was a fraud on a scale I have never seen before.

The U.N. scientists, and this guy, Dr. Phillip Lloyd, called it the
fraud result is not scientific. "Newsweek" finally changed their position
and came out and was condemning it.

I mean, you can`t find anyone white-washing thing except you.

MADDOW: Wait. Hold on. I don`t have an opinion on it, though.

What I was citing was the University of East Anglia, the British House
of Commons, the Penn State investigation, and the American government`s

INHOFE: Everyone you named was someone investigating themselves.
What is different here is --


MADDOW: Higher external researchers to do it. There was nobody from
the university, they hired an external, independent investigative unit to
look into it.

Do you think that East Anglia was corrupt?


INHOFE: East Anglia and these organizations here, these are news
organizations quite frankly, three of the five I read were very much on the
liberal side of this issue for a long period of time.

MADDOW: "The Telegraph"?

INHOFE: But, you know, so, instead of you and me talking about what
our opinion is, let`s look and see who the media what studied this is.
Yes, I`d say "The U.K. Telegraph," that`s the first one I mentioned.

MADDOW: That`s the most conservative paper in Britain. You know how
we have partisan TV, they have non-partisan --


INHOFE: They`ve got other problems too.

MADDOW: They have non-partisan news on TV in Britain, but they have
really partisan papers and "The Telegraph" is the most right wing of all
papers. "The Financial Times" --

INHOFE: They say the intellectual corruption is overpowering, would
you say the same about "The Financial Times"?

MADDOW: Whatever you think about "The Financial Times", I think
saying that liberals have decided that climategate was real was an
overstatement. I mean, I think the British House of Commons looking into
sort of matters more than what conservative papers in England think about
it, right?

INHOFE: You know, when this thing came out. the appropriate thing you
may not have remembered, Rachel, is that I asked the question of Lisa
Jackson. By the way, you and Lisa Jackson and Barbara Boxer are my three
favorite liberals, I enjoy watching you very much.

Lisa even has a picture of my 20 kids and grandkids hanging on her
wall. She and I get along fine.

I asked her the question before I left for Copenhagen. I said, you
know, have a feeling, as soon as I get out of town, you`re going to have an
endangerment finding so that you can regulate the very thing you could not
pass legislatively, that`s cap and trade. She kind of smiled, and I said
when this happens, what science are you going to use? She said, well, of
course, the IPPC.

Now, that`s what we`ve been talking about here. Everything that is
coming out in terms of regulation or, I should say, overregulation, is
going to be predicated on this science, and this is the serious problem
that we have.

By the away, when I talk about the cost of this thing, back during the
time that we`re looking at Kyoto, then we have the McCain/Lieberman bill,
we had all these cap and trade bills, the cost to the American taxpayers
would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.

Now, Rachel, if you look at that, go back to what I thought was the
biggest tax increase in three decades, the Clinton/Gore increase of `93.
This would be 10 times that great.

Do you realize I was actually on your side of this issue when I was
chairing that committee and first heard about this? I thought it must be
true until I found out what it would cost. When I started questioning the
science, our phone was ringing off the hook in my office in Washington by
scientists who said that they were -- they were rejected from the process
because they didn`t agree with the conclusion.

So, I`d say it`s a rigged deal.

MADDOW: Well, here`s one issue that I had with your book and, I
think, your overall approach to the issue. You take small anecdotes and
you extrapolate to the broader conclusion that there is no global warming.

For example, you write that in the past, in the 1970s, the media wrote
scary stories about a coming Ice Age.

INHOFE: Oh, yes.

MADDOW: And you use that as a data point to point out, to prove there
is no global warming today, because the media was wrong before and so there
is no global warming today. Or you write that not all scientists agree
there is global warming happening, and that`s true.

But something like 97 percent of scientists in relevant fields do
agree -- and you`re right, they don`t all agree, but they mostly do, and
you never -- you never concede that in your arguments.

INHOFE: That isn`t true, Rachel. You say something over and over and
over again and sooner or later, people are -- particularly your audience,
there`s a liberal audience, they want to believe it. Except for me, I
watch you all the time. I want to see what the other side is doing.

But this 97 percent, that doesn`t mean anything. I named, literally,
thousands of scientists on the floor. I didn`t name them all by name, but
had them on a Web site people could refer to. These are top people.

And I know you get tired of hearing from Richard Lindzen from MIT.
But he`s the guy that was talking about the severity of this. He said, cap
and trade or global warming is a -- regulating cap and trade is a
bureaucrats dream. If you regulate carbon, you regulate life.

And so, I`d have to tell you, I know you disagree with this, and I
know that Larry Combs (ph) disagrees with this, because I had an interview
with him. But that`s, in my opinion, what it`s all about.

MADDOW: OK, the only point I would say is I think your argument would
be stronger if you don`t try to make it seem like all scientists are on
your side on this, most scientists aren`t on your side. And you`ve done a
good job highlighting the ones that are --


MADDOW: But you do have to concede that numerically, more people are
on the other side.

INHOFE: That`s not true. That`s not true.

MADDOW: You don`t think that more scientists --

INHOFE: Everyone believes that because it came from the IPCC.

And, again, I hope if you read the book. Have you read the book?

MADDOW: I have read the book. I read the whole thing.

INHOFE: Did you read the whole thing on the United Nations?

MADDOW: Yes, I read the whole thing.

INHOFE: OK, that`s fine.

MADDOW: I got to say, let me -- let me bring up one other thing.

You joke in your book, when people ask you how much of your campaign
contributions come from the energy industry, you answer "not enough," which
is a very funny answer and your top three donors are Koch Industries, big
part of their business is petroleum refining; Murray Industry, a coal
company; and Devin Energy, which is an oil and gas natural company.

INHOFE: And they`re a great group. Let me mention to you --

MADDOW: Hold on. Let me just ask you a question -- why wouldn`t a
reasonable person learn that about you and assume that your anti-global
warming, pro-fossil fuel stance is what your donors are paying for?

INHOFE: Because we hear things about big oil, what you named there is
not all that big of oil. But it doesn`t really make any difference.
There`s an article that you would love, and I dare say you haven`t seen it
yet. It was in "Mature" magazine, a very liberal publication, or
publication on your side, and they talk about this thing from American
University, and they analyze.

They say, why is it we, on the global warming side, are not winning?
We are spending more money, we have the media on our side eight to ten, 80
percent of the media is on our side, yet we`re losing. And then they go
into the detail as to how much money actually comes out.

Did you know, and I dare say a lot of your guys on your program in
your camp don`t realize that the environmentalist groups raised, and this
is in the period of 2009-2010, $1.7 billion as opposed to the other side,
$900 million. So, you`re talking about spending twice as much money. And
that`s --

MADDOW: You think that the environmental groups have more money to
spend on this issue than the entire energy industry?

INHOFE: Absolutely.

MADDOW: The energy industry is the poor partner here?

INHOFE: You get to, the George Soros, the Michael Moores,
and all the Hollywood elites, and all your good friends out there -- yes,
they sure do.

MADDOW: I would put Michael Moore up against Exxon any day.

INHOFE: Hey, Rachel, this is in their article.


INHOFE: And, again, it pretty well-documented. So, I suggest you
read that, maybe the most recent copy. Anyway, about the study that was
done by American University.

So, you could use the argument, but, you know, assuming that you`re
bought and paid for. All I want to do in energy is be self sufficient,
Rachel. We have more recoverable reserves than any country in the world.
We have more than any country in coal, oil, and gas. We could be
completely self sufficient from the Middle East just with our -- with the
Canada, Mexico, and us, in a very short period of time.

We`re the only country in the world that doesn`t exploit our own

Now, you heard today the president made a speech where he talked about
he wants all the above and all that. But, again, when it gets down to it,
I`m sure it upsets a lot of your people out there. But he really doesn`t.
He has fought this tooth and nail, fossil fuels.

MADDOW: Oil production has gone up. Oil production has gone up under
President Obama compared to what it was under President Bush.

INHOFE: Yes, it has. Absolutely. And there`s a good reason for that
because of the new shale findings are there.

MADDOW: So, but talking about him as a guy who`s stopping production
is not true.

INHOFE: No, no -- look at all in -- you normally don`t expect it, in
New York, in Pennsylvania, the Marcellus there, all the opportunities. We
have a guy named Harold Hamm (ph), who`s up right now in North Dakota.
He`s from Enid, Oklahoma. He`s the largest producer up there now.

You know what his biggest problem is, his biggest problem is -- they
are fully employed, can`t find anyone to work.

So, anyone who`s watching us right --

MADDOW: The point you made here is President Obama is blocking
production and doesn`t want us to be producing energy. Energy production,
oil production in particular, is up under President Obama versus President
Bush. So, making this a problem with President Obama doesn`t make any
sense no matter what anybody --

INHOFE: Well, it makes sense because these finds took place, they
were into the oil sands the way they are now. And that`s what it`s made --
when I say we could run the United States of America at present consumption
for 90 years on natural gas and 60 years on oil, that`s true today. If we
were having this conversation two months from now, it would probably be 110
years and 80 years because of what`s going on out there. But that`s in
spite of the president.


INHOFE: The president will tell you that he`s done everything he can
to stop fossil fuels, hasn`t he?

MADDOW: And they`ve gone up under him. Senator Inhofe, I know you
are a free market capitalist, so you`ll understand that we have to take a
commercial break for a second. Do you mind sticking around?

INHOFE: I`d love to.

MADDOW: All right. Thank you. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma when
we come back, in just a moment.


MADDOW: Joining us again for the interview is Senator Inhofe of

Senator, thank you very much for staying with us. I`m glad you could.

INHOFE: Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW: One of the things that`s buoyant and happy in your book is
that you pretty gleefully talk about criticism you have received as a
senator. I was very flattered that in a couple of different times in the
book, you talk about me mentioning you on the show. You specifically
called me out on a show that I did where I talked about you December 3rd,
2009. Did you actually watch that show that you mentioned in the book?

INHOFE: You have to repeat it. What happened on December 3rd?

MADDOW: December 3rd, 2009, I mentioned you on my show, and you,
twice in the book, write about how I talked about you on my show. I`m
wondering if you actually saw the show or somebody just gave you --

INHOFE: Well, I`m sure I did. But, you know, this book is 320 pages
of fine print. I can`t remember exactly what happened on that date. If
you tell me, I`ll tell you whether or not, you know?

MADDOW: It`s the part about me, so I just wanted to -- you made it
seem in your book I went after you because you had just gone to the
Copenhagen summit.

INHOFE: Oh, I see.

MADDOW: That wasn`t what I was talking about actually on most part of
the show that night.

Here`s what we did on the show that day and what we talked about. I
just want you to see it now.


MADDOW: The Family, of course, the secretive religious organization
that runs the dormitory for lawmakers in Washington is led by a man named
Doug Coe. Republican Senator James Inhofe credits Doug Coe with launching
his own activism in Africa.

INHOFE: Doug Coe has always been behind the scenes and very quiet.
He talked me into going to Africa, I had no interest in going to Africa.

MADDOW: Religious conservatives saw Uganda specifically as a place
that they can some real influence. Uganda`s first lady became an
emphatically born again Christian. Her husband, the president, is believed
to have serious ties to the Family. Same goes to the ethics minister of
Uganda, as well as legislators there. Senator Sam Brownback traveled there
to look into the AIDS issue in 2005. Senator James Inhofe made at least 20
trips to Africa just since 1999, mostly to Uganda, as well as Ethiopia.

In March of this year, a group of three American evangelicals traveled
to Uganda for a conference on the evils of homosexuality. There message
was that homosexuality is a choice, that it can be cured by a relationship
with Jesus. There`s been a dual effort under way here -- anti-gay
proselytizing by American evangelicals and assurances from conservative
American politicians that we can solve that nation`s AIDS problem.

The culmination of these efforts, this massive focus on Uganda is a
piece of legislation that`s been introduced in that country now that
attempts, it says, to tackle the AIDS problem in that country and the
problem of homosexuality all at once. It`s a bill that calls for the
execution for any gay Ugandan who`s HIV-positive who was caught having sex,
death by hanging specifically. And it`s not just gay Ugandans, who are HIV
positive who are being targeted. The sentence just for being gay is life

This bill was written by a Ugandan legislator, reportedly taken in by
Senator James Inhofe and the Family here in America. We`ve been repeated
calls to the offices of Senator James Inhofe and Senator Sam Brownback, we
have yet to hear back from either of them on this issue, despite the fact
they`ve been so proudly outspoken on issues affecting Uganda.


MADDOW: Senator, when you talked about that show in your book, you
made it sound I was going after you for Copenhagen. But that was the
actual context, and that "kill the gays" bill is back now. I`m wondering
if you want to weigh in on that issue for the first time publicly and say
if you`re for it or against it?

INHOFE: Are you saying, are you suggesting, Rachel, I want to make
sure everyone understands this -- that I am for executing gays? That I
somehow knew something about what their philosophy is over there and what
they`re doing legislatively?

I know Uganda, I now Ethiopia, I know Ghana, I know Benin, I know
Africa better than anyone else certainly in the United States Senate. I`ve
spent a lot of time over there. I`ve developed close relations over there.

And when 9/11 happened, I was -- since I was the only member of the
Armed Services Committee who knew where Africa was, and we were making a
decision to get into Africa to help train them to resist all the things
coming into the state, into the country, into the continent. That`s what I
did. So I do know Africa well.

As far as Doug Coe is concerned, you know, I think, when you hear
about persecution for the sake (INAUDIBLE) I can`t think of a better
example. I wish you knew Doug Coe. I`ve never known anyone in my life
that just loves everyone. You know I see him persecuted and my heart
bleeds for him. I do -- I`m sorry you did that. That`s way out of --

MADDOW: I did that in 2009. That`s what you were quoting me from
totally out of context. I mean, the reason I`m asking --


INHOFE: Then I go with what I said. I think it`s really bad. When
you go after a guy like that just because he believes -- I`m sorry, go

MADDOW: The "kill the gays" bill sponsor has brought the bill back
now. He`s telling reporters as of last month that the whole idea for the
"kill the gays" bill came from, as "the New York Times" put it, quote, a
conversation with members of the Fellowship, aka, the Family in 2008 --

INHOFE: No, it`s just wrong.

MADDOW: This is what he says. This is how he explains where the bill
came from.

INHOFE: Who is he?

MADDOW: This is David Bahati. He says he was told by Americans that
it was too late in America to propose such legislation. That`s David
Bahati speaking to "The New York Times."

INHOFE: And can you tell me who he is? I`ve never heard of him.

MADDOW: David Bahati was described as The Family and The Fellowship`s
key man in Ugandan. Did you ever talk to any Ugandan legislators --

INHOFE: How would I know if -- how could -- I don`t have any idea who
you`re talking about. And I certainly don`t have any idea on these
accusations of executing gays.

You know, let`s talk about the book. Let`s talk about something to do
with global warming instead of getting off on these hysterical things.

MADDOW: Certainly, sir, this isn`t hysterical. This is the context
in which you brought me up in your book, totally out of context. And so,
I`m trying to redress something that`s wrong in your book. I wasn`t
talking about Copenhagen when I brought you up. I was talking about Uganda
and your contacts with Ugandan legislators and influential people in Uganda
who claim their relationship with American conservatives such as yourself,
associated with the Fellowship, is how they came up with the "kill the
gays" bill. That`s why I`m asking you.

INHOFE: Yes. I don`t know. I don`t know anything about it and the
individuals you`re talking about, I don`t know -- I do know Doug Coe, and I
can`t think of a greater injustice being done to any great person than
what`s been done to him.

MADDOW: Well, I`d be happy to talk to him if he returns my calls.
We`ve tried to contact him a number of times on this issue and he won`t

INHOFE: OK, that sounds good.

MADDOW: Well, let me just ask you one question so we can agree on
something -- end on something we agree with.

INHOFE: Did you like the chapter about the igloo my daughter wrote?

MADDOW: It was a funny anecdote. The fact your family calls you
Popeye for Pop Inhofe. It`s very cute.

INHOFE: Yes, Popeye. Yes, I always remember when my granddaughter
came over to the school, and this is country story. I think this might be
in the book, she said, Popeye, she`s in the fifth grade, why is don`t you
understand global warming? And I said, well, why did you ask that?

I went back and checked. She was in a public school. Everything came
from the Environmental Protection Agency brainwashing my grandkids in
school. This is one of the things is my goal to stop. That is unelected
bureaucrats taking positions, contrary to the elected officials in
brainwashing our kids. That would be a good subject for you and me to talk
about sometime.

MADDOW: Well, here`s something on which I think we might be able
agree on, whether or not we agree on brainwashing. It is the issue of free
market capitalism and energy.

Even if we don`t agree on global warming, shouldn`t you and I agree
that taxpayers shouldn`t be giving $4 billion a year in subsidies to the
oil industry because the oil industry is so profitable? And even if
they`re not profitable, shouldn`t the free market be taking care of that?
Why are we subsidizing oil?

INHOFE: Well, first of all, I don`t call that a subsidy, those are
taxes. When they talk about the manufacturing tax that they`re talking
about repealing, that Obama`s been trying to go in his effort to do away
with fossil fuels, that`s a tax that all manufacturers pay and that`s one
that is for them.

Now, you talk about the subsidies, what about subsidies for wind, for
solar, all of those subsidies? And I have to say, a lot of those came
during the Bush administration. So, that`d be a good topic to talk about.

MADDOW: But the $4 billion in taxes they would pay if they weren`t
singled out to get a tax subsidy for their manufacturing, don`t you think
that the oil industry can handle that on their own? They don`t need that
kind of help, do they?

INHOFE: They`re actually doing very well right now. I`m glad we`re
finding this -- they are key do being self-sufficient. I think it could

By the way, we do agree on one other thing, Rachel, and that is -- and
I say the same thing about my friend, Barbara Boxer. I really love people
who are liberal and are honest about it. The ones I don`t like are the

I had a good friend that was a very liberal person I served with in
Congress who`s deceased now. I said, how in the world can you get by with
all those liberal positions? And you`re from the state of Oklahoma? He
said, it`s very -- it`s easy, Inhofe, all you do is vote liberal and press
release conservative. We have a lot of them.

Can you name one person who votes conservative and press releases

MADDOW: Well, a lot of liberals think that about most Democrats --
that Democrats try to seem more liberal than they are and go along with you
guys too much.

So I think this is -- we live at opposite ends of the telescope,
Senator. When you look into the middle, we can`t see much of each other.
But I appreciate us at least trying. I`m grateful that you were here

INHOFE: You bet.

MADDOW: Thank you.

INHOFE: Thank you.

MADDOW: Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. All right. His new book
is called "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens
Your Future."

We`ll be right back.


MADDOW: Correction. I`m not going to fact check every argument that
he and I had right now, but I got to say when Senator Inhofe called a
Clinton-era tax hike the biggest tax increase in three decades, just a
moment ago, he was not right about that. In the senator`s book, he makes
the same mistake, except he calls it there the biggest tax increase in

It wasn`t. The biggest peacetime tax hike ever actually was not the
Clinton tax hike that Senator Inhofe is describing in 1993. It was the
Ronald Reagan tax hike in 1982. Clinton`s tax hike was $30 billion.
Reagan`s tax hike was $37.5 billion. Because it was Ronald Reagan who
levied the biggest in American history, it`s sometimes hard for
conservatives to remember that. But that is in fact the truth.

I`m grateful Senator Inhofe was here tonight. I hope he`ll come back.
He said at the end of the interview he enjoyed and he thought it was fair,
which is a nice thing.

Talking to people with whom you disagree is healthy and I find it fun.
Bob McDonnell, please call me.

Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD" with Lawrence O`Donnell. Have a
great night.


Copyright 2012 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.>