tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC September 17, 2010 2:00am-3:00am EDT
it doesn't say, you know, what you'd like it to say. then where are you. >> patrick henry, more than monroe, believed in no mice men. most people think pinky in the brain was a documentary. gene robinson, thank you. gene. i'm keith olbermann. goodnight and good luck. now to discuss why republicans think a candidate like christine o'donnell is to get women voters, ladies and gentlemen, here is rachel maddow. good evening. >> the mice and men jokes write themselves. it's almost impossible to avoid them. >> she is a gold mine. between that and the other jokes. >> i know. i know exactly what you mean. i thought sharron angle was as good as it got, baby. not true. >> yesterday news, sharron angle. >> thank you, keith. appreciate it. thanks to you for staying with us at home for the next hour. after a day or so of marching out of step and hath each other for it, republicans today got in line.
right behind their senate candidate in delaware, christine o'donnell. which means they are plating their political trough with christine o'donnell just as the country is learning lots, lots, lots, lots, lots more about christine o'donnell. >> there's also the issue of murder with vincent foster. >> we'll also tonight have more of my exclusive interview with the vice president of the united states, joseph biden. and there is a political mailer out there that smells like garbage. it has been sent to republican voters. i have a theory it may be art. that's coming up all this hour. we begin with the senate candidate who appears to be following the same trajectory that sarah palin went through in 2008. that trajectory from more or less profound obscuity to instant nationwide stardom. i'm speaking of christine o'donnell from delaware.
she's scheduled for her first high-profile right wing event in washington, d.c. tomorrow morning at the value voters thingy. when john mccain picked sarah palin to be his running mate in 2008, the national response was -- let's let meghan mccain say it. >> my initial response was who the hell is sarah palin, like everybody else. >> it was a collective nationwide, who. after we figured out the answer to that question, and boyhowdy did we, the next thing that everybody realized, the instant, real universal analysis of mccain's choice was that it would help the mccain campaign attract women voters. obviously it would. that's totally rational analysis. you will get women voters because you are picking a woman candidate. >> obviously this is a signal to women voters in particular, because the mccain campaign has been trying very hard to attract women voters.
>> mccain is counting on the appeal of palin's life experience to connect with women voters. >> the latest poll shows mccain getting a big bounce with white women voters, nearly a quarter say mare more likely to vote for mccain. >> that was a totally reasonable analysis and also seemingly a reasonable reaction, initial reaction, to the surprise choice of sarah palin. how did it work out? the assessment that it was going to help, was it based on sarah palin's stance on the issues is of the assessment that palin would help with women voters was based specifically on the pact that she was a woman. for all the impact that the choice that palin had had on the presidential election and politics. since that election, for all of the impact that sarah palin had on everything in american politics, one thing the choice of sarah palin did not do was
earn john mccain women voters. to be fair, we can't say historically how many women voters he would have gotten without sarah palin. but he did really poorly with women voters with her on the ticket. for example, in the prior election of all the women who voted that day. the proportion of women who voted for george w. bush was 48%. he got 48% of the female vote. in the following election, given the choice of john mccain and sarah palin, the republican proportion of the female vote dropped from 48% to 43%. the proportion of women who voted republican dropped five points, despite the fact that republicans had a woman on the ticket in sarah palin. take heed, people analyzing this year's elections. although women candidates equal women voters seems to make sense. also check the evidence that women vote for their own interests, not just for their own chromosomes.
as of this week, we know what the matchups will be for this year's national elections. there are a huge number of women republican candidates on the ballot. this led to lots of interesting questions about whether this means republicans are going to attract a lot more of the female vote. i recognize that it's easy to look at candidates and say, look, women. i wonder what the other women will do in reaction to the sight of these women. but you if past is any prologue about this specific phenomenon of modern conservative republican women drawing in women voters, we don't just have to speculate. there is quantityifiable information. it suggests that the issues on which the candidates run can matter to women voters much more than the fact that the candidates herself is a woman. that brings us to what remains, i am stunned to say, the great unacknowledged big honking policy issue in this year's elections nationwide. we're now able to add yet
another republican senate nominee to the roster of truly radical anti-abortion crusading candidates in this year's elections. just being anti-abortion is almost mandatory for republican candidates across the board these days asa the party continues its purge of its moderates. what we have this year is beyond just being anti-abortion. there are at least five republican senate nominees, five, who not only think that the government some outlaw abortion nationwide. they think there should be no exceptions made for anybody who's the victim of incest or the victim of rape. >> how do you feel about abortion? are you for abortion, against abortion, for it, in what instances would you allow for abortion? >> i am pro life. i will answer the next question. i don't believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. >> is there any reason at all for an abortion? >> not in my book. >> rape and incest would not be something? >> you know, i'm a christian. >> right.
>> and i believe that god has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives. and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations. we need to have a little faith in many things. >> i'm not sure what you're supposed to have faith in, that you can get an illegal abortion if the government makes it illegal? that god will help you in some other way? i don't know what you're supposed to have faith in. but that was republican senate candidate sharron angle of nevada. before her, we heard from ken buck of colorado. both putting themselves in the no exceptions category when it comes to reproductive rights. then there's rand paul from kentucky. back in february, he told the kentucky right to life association he opposes abortion even in the cases of rape or incest. earlier this month, republican senate candidate joe miller of alaska was added to the list. now we have republican senate candidate christine o'donnell of
delaware. her campaign confirming to us today that she opposed abortion in all cases, including rape and incest. until recently, the position that those five republican senate nominees had, until recently, that was considered a fringe position even in the anti-abortion movement. even staunch republicans would say in cases of incest or rape would be allowed an exemption. that exemption is apparently now over. they're talking about the federal government not only monitoring every pregnancy in the country to ensure that it ends the way the government prefers -- which is a live birth -- but they're also saying the government should force rape victims -- the government should force rape victims under pain of criminal prosecution to give birth to their rapist's baby.
the government must force that outon come any time somebody becomes pregnant as a result of rape. if you are a 14-year-old girl raped by your uncle or father, the government will force you, as a 14-year-old, to give birth to the child that is the product of that incestuous rape. remember, this is the year of small government conservatives. getting government out of your life. government just small enough to -- yeah. this is obviously awkward for the whole libertarian character of this year's conservative uprising. the supposed libertarian character. the whole freedom thing, right? but it also represents a historic swinch of the pendulum on cultural war issues. maybe women will be super enthused about voting for female candidates just because they're female. maybe all sorts of voters will do like they've done in the past and vote on abortion and other women's issues rather than just on which candidates are themselves women. >> i suppose senator john doe
puts forth a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. you attend the announcement and support him in that. would you do it? >> i would. i would, yes. a proposal like that, i would stand by it. >> joining us now is princeton university professor and msnbc contributor melissa harris lacewell. thank you for joining us. >> can we please have the whole hour, rachel? there's a lot here. >> i'm going to make my first question very short so you can just start. huh? what do you make of this, melissa? >> you've got a lot of complicated things going on here. on the one hand, this group of insurgent young women in the gop who are doing something that scholars of women's politics would say is very unlikely. they are running with little experience, with little name recognition, against incumbents.
this is precisely why we've said we don't have many women in national government. it's precisely because it is so hard to be a person of less experience running against an incumbent. on the one hand, there's this tiny bit of me that wants to cheer for the fact that you have women candidates willing to be courageous enough to put themselves forward in this very tough political situation. on the other hand, let's be completely clear about the facts here. there is no place in the world and no time in history where restricting women's reproductive rights makes a people or a nation more free or more equal. these extreme positions on abortion are without any question a war on american girls and women. and the fact that there are women who are both complicit and participatory in it is neither surprising nor unprecedented.
it has always been true and incredibly important that we recognize that despite the fact that we can be very proud of these women as women and as politicians, that the question is, how do women as citizens fare on the other side of them either be elected or not elected? >> we now have at least five republican senate candidates on the record espousing this view of no exceptions to a nationwide abortion ban, even in cases of rape or incest. the reason i say i'm stunned by this not getting more attention, this is unprecedented to have this many anti-abortion radicals running at this level. do you think that view is becoming mainstream is american politics or because we have extreme candidates running this year? >> you know, i don't have the evidence yet that this has become a mainstream view. what i suspect is that it has more to do with our ignorance of our understanding about women's life experiences, even as women.
when you talk about the rape and incest clause, i suspect that many americans and many pro choice americans think that rape and incest and pregnancy resulting from it is a pretty unusual occurrence. i suspect that maybe there's a few dozen women for whom that would make a difference in any given year. but the fact is that sexual assault is an embarrassingly common experience. i don't mean embarrassing for those who are victimized, but rather embarrassing that in our country it's still true that 1 in 4 girls and women is likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. we know particularly in cases of incest the question of possible pregnancy, because incest is often a repeated violation and one that does not often include protection, that the possibility of pregnancy is very real. we're talking about hundreds of women, thousands of women in pregnancies.
look, i'm from a people who really did experience the need to hold on to a god who would see them through difficult times, including generations of black women who in times of slavery were forced to bear the children of their rapists. and i do believe in a god who can intervene. but i'm also an american who believes that the point of government isn't to make life so hard for half of our citizens that the only force there to help them is god. we as a government and as a people deserve and should do better. >> princeton university professor and msnbc contributor melissa harris lacewell, who didn't write what she just said right there. she just said it because she can do it. you're amazing. thank you. >> thanks, rachel. how are republicans expressing their resentment over losing to this outside onner who they campaigned against so hard?
somebody who they derided as a fraud and a liar? what are they saying now to that person who they fought against so, so, so hard in delaware? they're saying, welcome to the lodge, sister. here's the secret handshake. have some money. that's coming up next. a week ago, we knew almost nothing about republican nominee carl paladino. now we are on the way of knowing way too much. an adult-sized version is worth sticking around for, i promise. [ woman ] so i protected my hair from styling damage using herbal essences shampoos and conditioners, all with damage protection serum. and dreamed i became a movie star. stressing my hair to get all the starring role looks... from touchable tousles... to sleek straight. [ female announcer ] clearly... someone's been doing the herbal!
there are two great liberal frustrations aphorisms in liberal politicians. there is one, that democrats naul love while republicans fall in line. that means that democrats are always looking for perfection in their candidates because they want to believe their candidates are as perfect and pristine as a sunset in a rain in a cumulus cloud in the shape of a unicorn all at the same time. while republicans pick a candidate and get in line behind them no matter what their qualms are about this candidate. do you want to see this in action? on tuesday night, karl rove now famously called delaware candidate christine o'donnell nutty. >> i've met her. i've got to tell you i wasn't frankly impressed in her abilities as a candidate. it does conservatives little
good to support candidates who at the end of the day, while they may be conservative in their public statements, do not evince the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for. there are just a lot of nutty things she's been saying. >> karl rove, like all the othe conservatives expressed doubts about christine o'donnell, making the express of expressing them, then got the memo. within 48 hours, they turned the -- there are a lot of nutty things about this person and started saying things like this. >> i'm also helping her. so many people have written me an e-mail saying, i'm irritated with you what you said the other night. i'm sending her a lot of campaign critics. >> democrats fall in love. and republicans fall in line and sign on the line. republicans are all falling in line.
the coming catastrophe is that before they were all forced to get in line behind her, there are substantive reasons why folks were hesitant about christine o'donnell as a candidate in the first place. we have this coming catastrophe, this incredible confluence of events around this woman's campaign. republicans falling all over themselves to get in line and endorse her as the new palin-esque star. and the unstoppable flood of information about who exactly it is they are endorsing and how she has made her political living. >> i think it's very interesting that president clinton has come on a lot more charges and a lot more serious charges than what newt gingrich is being charged on. yet we're not making as big of an issue and not forcing there he go to trial.
not giving the case of vincent foster a fair trial when there is a lot more empirical evidence that clinton is involved in wrongdoing. there's also the issue of murder with vincent foster. that's a much more serious charge than failing to seek legal advice. yet we're all just blowing that off. >> totally blowing off how bill clinton murdered vincent foster. want to see me shoot a pumpkin? joining me now is msnbc contributor chris hayes. it's nice to see you. >> nice to see you too. >> the shooting the pumpkin thing, is the vince foster thing enough of a close enough time as the conspiracy thing that the shooting the pumpkin, watermelon in the head to reference how bill clinton murdered vince foster? does that date me? >> no. it's close.
i will say, it does not date you as much as her hair cut in that clip. >> she was obviously fashionable. i was obsessed with republicans trying to make bill clinton out to be a murderer. >> davewe goel is like, we're done. that's the thing about o'donnell, i don't think she's any crazier than your median republican. she's just spent 20 years on television talking about her views without any conception someday she was going to have to run away from them. >> that's i think the central issue right now. even in considering what kind of coverage the christine o'donnell candidacy gets. maybe she is a mainstream editorial page republican, but then again, the government is secretly making mouse/human hybrids.
mice that have full-grown human brains. there is more scientific evidence for creationism than evolution. you spread hiv by using condoms? i don't want to underestimate the craziness of the right over the last 20 years. but i feel like she's even on the fringe act of the craziness. >> i guess so. the mouse/human hybrid. i'm defending christine o'donnell on national television. here's what i feel, there isn't that much distance. i mean that as a way of indicting where the republican and conservative coalition is right now as opposed to exculpatory toward christine o'donnell. i think her views are completely zany. i think they're zany in a wam that is unvarnished and out there and amateurishly expressed over this long period of
punditry as oppose onned to so far outside the realm of your average -- look at republican house members. they're saying things on the floor of the united states house of republicans all the times that equal maybe not the mouse/human hybrid but other things. >> i have to disagree with you. this is true for sharron angle too. both with angle and o'donnell, when i hear them talking about conservative hot button issues, i don't hear it as amateurish. they have both sound very media trained and savvy. they get their subject/verb agreement right more often than i do. i hear them on culture war issues that republicans don't want to run on. if you're talking about telling people that having sex by themselves is a form of adultery
and condoms spread hiv, you're a cultural warrior and this isn't supposed to be a cultural war election. >> somewhere donna shalala is smiling about the amount of coverage about masturbation. i think what sharron angle shows and christine o'donnell, there was a moment when the mainstream press fell for it that this tea party was this totally new thing and this never happened before in american politics. these are the same cultural warriors. the same -- in some ways the exact same people. the same that came to washington under ronald reagan and that pursued impeachment against bill clinton. christine o'donnell got her start working for phyllis shafly's organization.
the notion that the tea party is a brand-phenomenon has been there, it's always been there. i think angle and o'donnell demonstrate that. they give lie that this is a totally new phenomenon in american politics. >> understanding it as a latest iteration of the long-standing conservative movement makes a lot of things make sense this it year that otherwise seem like conundrums. we ended in agreement, chris. >> i'm so glad we got together before the segment ended. >> i'm having a feeling of ambivalence. on the one hand, i feel like i really want to talk to you about carl paladino. on the other hand, i'm worried once you know what there is to know about carl paladino, you will want to unlearn it and blame me for having exposed your mind in this way.
♪ [ male announcer ] an everyday moment can turn romantic anytime. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment's right. ♪ tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications, and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. [ man ] don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision,
as of last year, nearly 44 million americans are below the poverty line. 1 of every 7 americans. the most people ever since the census bureau started counting in 1959. it could have looked worse. more than 3 million americans worse. that's how many were saved when the unemployment benefits were extended. it's serving as a safety net, keeping millions of americans out of poverty who would provably otherwise be there. this happening when the whole idea of their being a social safety net is being derided as a foreign, kenyan, communist plot. this is the policy issue looming behind all of the personality politics. it looms even larger when those job numbers stay locked in first gear. well, he cleans three times more soap scum per swipe than you. [ spray bottle ] and i bring out the shine, too! ding!
he's the obama's political point man on iraq. it was vice president biden who flew to iraq to diffuse the crisis. when the iraqis dead-locked on how to pick a new government, vice president biden flew to baghdad. he has been there six times since taking office. while back in d.c., he runs the administration's monthly meetings on iraq.
when i spoke with vice president biden yesterday, he had just met with the president and with the former commander of the u.s. forces in iraq, general ray odierno. i know you're just out of a meeting with general odierno, the departing commander of the u.s. you've been in iraq a number of times, including quite recently. you told "the new york times" last week, the bottom line is there are a lot of bad ass 50,000 troops that are left. these guys can shoot straight. 50,000 troops in country is still a big, big contention. with 50,000 as you put it bad ass troops -- >> and women can shoot too, by the way. >> they are in peril. since the handover, we have had u.s. killed in action and wounded in action. does it undercut their service and their sacrifice to say this is no longer a combat mission? why do we need to use that
phrase-ology when it seems like they're in combat? >> i'll tell you why, because the iraqis, we've trained up 640,000 iraqi forces. here's the point -- and i know you know this -- they have been taking over since january of last year. we made a firm commitment to the iraqi people and the american people. we get all people out of the city last year. we bring down from 100,000 to 50,000 troops out of the country by this august. all 50,000 remaining will be out by the end of this next year. we're in a very different role. it's a support role. but we are there in case the iraqis need additional help to use our combat. by the way, it was used recently.
the technical definition means that you're up over the hill and leading the way. we're not doing that anymore. it was very important for the sovereignty of the iraqis to let them know we recognize the fact they're capable. we'll continue to train them and help them. but by the end of next year, we're out. we're gone. it may be a misnomer. but you in literal military terms, we are no longer in a combat position. we are doing support and protecting american facilities, the embassies. we are protecting american personnel, american citizens and training iraqis. >> one last question. i know your time is short. but on the issue of iraq, having come back from there, i felt like -- if i forget all the history and i just think this very broad strokes about the fact we have had 7 1/2 years of
presence in iraq, a trillion dollars, everything that was spent there in every sense, it be leaving there with no electricity in baghdad and the suffering that causes iraqi people and the effect on the prospect of peace and in civil society taking hold in iraq after all those years, electricity seems to be not just a list of things but the thing we could most do for the iraqi people if we could do anything. why hasn't that been the u.s. priority, to at least leave them with that? >> by the time we leave, we will. two, i've been there 14, 15 times. there is a great deal more electricity than when the war first started. >> in baghdad. saddam gave power to a lot of the country. >> what happened as we and now the iraqis eliminate the al
qaeda that's left in iraq as well as the -- there's a difference between terrorism and insurgency. the insurgency was trying to form a new civil war. it hasn't worked or taken root. they were doinga i great deal of damage to the electrical infrastructure and electrical grid. this will get better and better, but it's a long process. when we leave iraq next year, we are leaving militarily. we are significantly ramping up our civilian presence. i mean, significantly. we are working it -- i conduct a meeting once a month with the -- our folks in iraq as well as with every cabinet member. i have the sblth of commerce, the secretary of education, the secretary of agriculture.
we're all there working with iraqis. providing for the ability to help them build their institutions so they can function, including how to make the electric grid function. that is a process. we're not walking away from that. we are increasing our civilian commitment. we're trying to work out what they call a strategic arrangement long term that is not military but on the civilian side. look, the iraqis are not in a position now. by the year 2013, they're going to be in surplus. by the year 2015, 2016 and twen 2017, they have enough natural resources to be pumping as much oil as saudi arabia. this is putting them in a position they can take care of their own security. >> this is going to take a long time.
>> it is going to take a long time. but we're bringing those kids home, including my son sff. >> mr. vice president, thank you for your time. the vice president telling me what we're doing right now in iraq is gonna work. the idea of getting electric to baghdad, going to take a long time. a veteran of iraq and afghanistan joins us next. we're learning more about new york republican candidate carl paladino. after that, brain bleach will be offered.
if you look here, this is typical now. wires everywhere. baghdad had 24-hour power before the invasion. 24 hours a day. >> not everyone in the country but the places saddam wanted there to be power? >> the capital, and the strategic places where he lived and his buddies. >> tikrit was golden. >> even in the south, they had more power than they do now. >> what the american officials say is that overall, there's more power being generated in iraq right now. it's just about the demand. >> i would invite them to live in an iraqi's house for 24 hours. just do that. stay in an iraqi's house for two days and see if you still say the same thing. the power situation is better now than before. that is ludicrous and wrong. when it comes, it blows out all of your appliances because you
haven't had it in a while. >> this is the country with the second-largest oil reserves in the world that doesn't have enough power to have power everywhere in the country for more than an hour at a time. and america is in year nine of a full-scale war here and we're leaving with that being the case. >> especially with it being ramadan and they're fasting, that is the taste they're left with in their mouth. >> an issue that vice president biden told me will get solved in iraq before americans leave there. all u.s. troops are due to be gone by the end of next year. there are 50,000 american troops there on an ostensibly noncombat mission. two u.s. soldiers have been killed in iraq, nine wounded
since operation iraqi freedom, technically a combat operation, became operation new dawn, which is technically not a combat operation. joining us is iraq war veteran, paul rykoff. thanks for being here. the vice president says this can't be called a combat operation because the u.s. army cannot serve a foreign government. is that satisfying to you? >> no. it's absolutely unsatisfying. combat operations are not over. the military community is upset. they need to stop saying it. it does a disservice to the military and the american people. it does a disservice to the iraqi people. try telling the families of sergeant jenkins and private mcclamrock that it's over. it's garbage.
>> even though it's legally not considered a combat mission, we haven't be using that term? >> there's probably a high percentage of american people who think there are zero troops in iraq right now. that's because the white house is pushing this message. they're trying to keep a campaign promise. i think that's what a lot of this is about. i've spoken to people on the ground that said, if combat operations are over, why did i just get shot at? why did my son get deployed over there? it's untrue. >> i think a lot of people think there hasn't been a war in iraq since it left the news and we stopped talking about. our moral responsibility, what's the best way to support the troops that are still there in danger such that's what we still have to deal with at home? >> part of it is recognizing that they're there. when you say combat is over, people think there's no one there.
that's what we still need to deal with at home. >> and part of it is recognizing that they are there. when you say combat is over, people think there's no one there. we've got this massive disconnect between the military and the american people and messaging like this only perpetuate it is and make it is worse. >> i know you're working on a g.i. bill 2.0, an update on a bill passed in the last few years. what is the status in. >> it >> look, i'm going to let it up to newt to do the philosophical theories on politics. but i think that when you look at one the problems with obama, he just hasn't been effective. he hasn't -- he needs to focus
purporting to run for office but is really doing elaborate performance art about how to run for office? what if the person accidentally gets elected or gets close? is the republican nominee for governor in new york pullinging a joaquin phoenix? it. i've never had an accident. is there anything you can do for me ? yeah, i'm here with liz. i need a brilliant idea right now. guys ! i just gagged. here it is. deductible. take $50 off. wait. take $100 off for every year she doesn't have an accident... ... and call it vanishing deductible. hook, line, sinker. done.
tonight, it's that new yorkers are as mad as hell. [ cheers ] >> and we're not going to take it anymore! [ cheers and applause ] >> they say i'm too blunt. well, i am. and i don't apologize for it. [ cheers ] >> they say i'm an angry man. and that's true. we're all angry. not just because we woke up on the wrong side of the bed. >> carl paladino introducing himself to american voters. after new york voters overwhelmingly voted to make him their republican nominee for governor, if you were intrigued by his primary night victory speech, if you wanted to learn more about what more there is to carl before the whole "i'm an angry guy" thing, visiting his website won't help you.
when you write on the internet in all capital letters, that is the equivalent of shouting as if you are very angry. and so carl paladino's victory speech printed in all capital letters on his shouty website doesn't offer much insight into what else may be going on besides the whole mad, mad, mad thing. did you notice the little black square in the column over there that says "the last new york governor from buffalo became president of the united states." grover cleveland, 1883. so carl paladino is yelling at you on the internet in all caps that he not only wants to be your governor in new york. he's already charted it as a path to the presidency, or rather as a path to the presidency -- in all caps. his first campaign solvo was directed -- i kid you not -- against the statue of liberty.
>> here's blumberg saying, america, give us your poor. we don't want them. let them stay where they are. stop inviting them to our state to come on the backs of our taxpayer. >> give me tour tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free. not if carl's in charge! it may be that he talks like this because he can afford not to be embarrassed. he's a multi, multimillionaire self-financing the campaign and whose fortune largely comes from being a landlord for government offices. awkward with the whole "i hate the government" platform he's running on. it may be that this is what he's like and he's so rich that he doesn't care and darn the consequences. or the carl paladino angry man for governor campaign could be just performance art about how it is simply not possible to seem too crazy in conservative politics this year. it's not impossible, is it? exhibit 68 in support of this theory of mine.
this mailer sent out by the campaign to 200,000 new york state addresses, it is a mailer doused in the smell of garbage on purpose. his campaign telling the a.p. that the mailer is, quote, scented with a landfill odor. the idea is that government is trashy or something. that's the ostensible idea. of course the idea also could be that this year at least if your goal is to excite conservative voters it is not possible to seem too -- [ whistles ] prove to me that this is not performance art. we know about the flyer because the campaign is bragging about it. we don't yet have it to verify the reported smelliness. the good news is we have spoken to the carl paladino campaign and they assured us they put one in the mail to us. we are eager to receive it and will show it to you in smell oh vi