tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC April 27, 2012 4:00am-5:00am EDT
what's the second most important election this year? it happened in june and it will probably establish each party's prif momentum for the whole summer heading into the final stages of the presidential race. the second most important election day of the year would be this one to recall wisconsin's governor scott walker. a million wisconsinites signed their name to get scott walker out of office now, the way he stripped union rights and up ended their life and got them the worst job rates in the country. calling scott walker a hero and man of courage. scott walker's recall election is on june 5th. we've been in a busy season for recalls these days russell pearce, head of the arizona state senate who rammed through the arizona immigration papers please law. this is mr. pearce testifying
before congress this week in a don't tread on me tie. he wasn't there as elected official. evening the he used to be the most powerful man in arizona, he was recalled from office in november. in maine, the conservative majority there took away the right to vote on the same day you register, something mainers had enjoyed for decades without controversy. republicans said voting needs to be harder in maine. mainers said poppycock to that and recalled that republican make voting harder law through a citizen's referendum in november. in ohio, the hard core conservative majority in ohio voted to strip union rights in that state kind of like wisconsin but worse. the ohioan republicans law never went into effect because it was recalled by more than a 20 point margin in november. republicans passed it in the legislature. governor john kasich signed it but the people rejected it.
the ohio union stripping law never took efft. the great state of michigan has the same kind of process for recalls. signatures from 5% of the number of people who voted in the last race for governor is what it takes to get a law on the ballot for recall. like ohio, if you get a law on the ballot for recall, that effort stops the law in its tracks. the law is no longer enforce. the law can't be enforce anymore until after people get a chance to vote on it. that's the way it works in ohio. i think 6% of signatures. the way it works in michigan with 5% of signatures. in michigan february 29th this year without any fanfare we saw in ohio or wisconsin, these michiganers turned insignificants to recall a new law passed by the republicans. the caravan to the state capitol in lansing and carted these boxes to the board of state canvassers. this week, they found out they got enough signatures. they had more than enough by 40,000.
the staff of the state canvasser said they went through the signatures and totaled up the real ones and threw out the ones they could not verify and said there were more than enough signatures to put this michigan law on hold and let the people decide with a vote or maybe not. even though the people gathered enough signatures and even though the state of canvassers said they have enough signatures. it was rejected today because the font on the petition was too small. a group calling themselves the citizens for fiscal responsibility challenged the petitions because they said the font size was too small. the two democrats on the board voted to let the petitions go forward. the two republicans voted no. board members jeffrey timer and norman shrinkle said the law was clear and they must follow it to the letter.
as we reported it in the past, jeffrey timmer is one of three partners in a republican consulting firm that was involved in bringing the font size challenge to the petition today. these challengers, citizens for fiscal responsibility live inside this guy's republican consulting firm. their address and phone number are the same as the address and phone number for the consulting firm run by jeffrey timer, republican strategist and republican member of the board of canvassers. think about this. he is ruling yes or no on a font size challenge brought by a group that is operating out of his own republican consulting firm. we have been wondering whether mr. timer would recuse himself from this decision because of the obvious conflict of interest or whether he would stay in the game as effectively both the pitcher and umpire. now, we can tell you he stayed in the game. he joined his follow republican in even partisan split.
democrats voting to put it up for appeal and republicans including republican jeff timmer saying, no, the font size is too small. doesn't matter how many signatures you turned in, the law stands, no recall. here is how it was reported in the local area. lansing. >> shame, shame, shame. shame, shame. shame, shame, shame. >> you see, they're just walking right up to the board right there. this really disrupted the hearing. listen to this. >> the board will take a 10 minute recess. >> that was it. we're going to take a recess on this. >> we'll take a little recess. democracy, wait back here until we decide on something else. the law at stake here is an important one.
right now, 21 states are in total republican control. the whole legislature and the governor ship are republican. since the big republican wins that made a lot of that possible in 2010. since that great red tide in the mid-term elections in 2010, republicans have been using their control over these states to pursue some pretty radical policy changes. they have turned state houses into a nonstop anti-abortion paloza, going after abortion rights at a rate unprecedented since roe versus wade. more than 90 anti-abortion laws turned into law last years alone. the sb 1070 pioneered in arizona, imitated in alabama and south carolina and elsewhere is currently having its fate decided at the united states supreme court. they strip union rights in ohio before the people took them back and wisconsin where it's likely to end scott walker's time in office before the scheduled close of his first term. this michigan law is in my
opinion the single most radical thing done by november the all red states since 2010. this law described as michigan's emergency manager law, it gets rid of local democracy, lets the state declare your town to be too broken, too financially broken for you to be allowed voting rights anymore. you're not allowed to have elected representation anymore. your right to support what happens in your town, your mayor, et cetera, effectively nullified by the state. instead, republican governor rick snyder appoints a single so-called emergency manner who gets put in unilateral control of just about everything emergency or not. we have seen this at its extreme in benton harbor, michigan where they stripped all payer from the mayor and commission and after being stripped all power, they tried to test that out. that can't be right. we were elected. you can't strip us of that power. they decided to have a symbolic
constitution week in benton harbor. the emergency manager said you can't do that. they overturned that vote. there is no commission. forget constitution week, is there an overseer in charge with unilateral authority. we have seen it at work in places like flint, michigan and pontiac. on the eve of today's hearing whether the emergency manager law would get recalled. last night, with the prospect of the emergency manager law put on ice until voters can have their say on it last night with every emergency manager in the state having his unilateral authority cut off within hours, last night in flint, the emergency manager there posted a dozen new unilateral orders including several affecting union contracts of public workers. flint said the decision to post all those orders including the ones that wrote the union contracts had nothing to do with today's hearing and working on them a while but a coincidence
of the timing. after we saw the story in flint, we checked with the website for the city of pont yag also has an emergency manager, a guy who once joked about himself as the tyrant in pontiac. the ha-ha so funny tyrant in pontiac also posted a slew of brand new orders yesterday, five of them affecting union contracts. the contracts of union workers and retired employees all dated the night before the hearing where everybody thought that recall was going to be given the go ahead, it looked like enough signatures were in. enough signatures were in. looked like the state would have to freeze on ice the power to issue those contracts. we have asked pontiac's emergency manager about the timing of those orders whether it has anything to do with the hearing scheduled for today. if he answers we will let you know. this week, we sent a couple producers to michigan to learn more about the law and talking
with local mayors about the law we heard a couple things over and over again. a, the emergency manager law is not democratic, small d, not democracy, b, many towns are being facing taken over, too. this will not be a short list of towns affected. here's kyle stack, manager of trenton, michigan. >> we don't always tell the state of michigan what they need to do. i think cities can have better jurisdiction over their own areas. they know what needs to be done and where we need to go with it. we will probably all be in line the way it's going. talked to a few of the mayors here. we all have money issues. >> we will probably all be in line form. for takeover. if you drive out to detroit this month turned its finances to the state for supervision, you drive out to detroit, you come to town after town under some form of emergency management, some form
of state takeover, whether actual emergency manager or state takeover to do what the state says or else. not just michigan, the state is set for other states under various forms of emergency manager laws in those states. the capital of pennsylvania, city of harrisburg exhibit a outside michigan. the question for michigan and other states looking at this as a potential model is not whether cities and towns are in good shape or bad shape, the question is whether we use democracy as the way we fix problems in this country or whether democracy itself is a problem, whether this pesky thing about people voting for people to represent them must be gotten rid of in order for us to do what we want to do, whether that experience in governance is over and we govern in a new way. joining us is reverend bullock, pastor of the highland church and of the rainbow/push
coalition. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me on the show. >> that was a big mouthful. >> amazing. in terms of the way this unfolded, did i say anything contrary to your understanding what is going on? >> no. that is a great analysis. the only thing i would add we have seen it rolled out in a way that is racial. benton harbor, african-american population is very high. detroit, very high. flint, pontiac, these are cities with a high percentage of african-americans and democratic voters. not only is it anti-democratic, it seems to have a racial undertone in the way the legislation has been implemented that has lulled many of us to sleep. on the back end of this we're seeing it hitting african-americans, low income communities, high democratic party voting communities, hitting labor. this is not what democracy looks like.
>> obviously, in a lot of towns facing these kinds of takeovers, facing having their local voting rights overruled, there are big financial problems. a lot of different kinds in these cities. do you think the concern about the overall health of municipalities in michigan is primary in people's minds or with the emergency manager law, are people worried about losing their rights? what do you see as the balance between those two levels of concern? they have a big impact on people's day-to-day lives. >> this is a false dilemma. we don't need financial -- we need recovery. let's deal with foreclosure. 90,000 foreclosures in the city of detroit. 90,000 forced evictions in the last three years. you look at 300,000 people leaving one city, you're seeing the tax base leave. it's not in financial strain because of mismanagement because people are incompetent, not the right analysis. we have to deal with foreclosure, insurance red
lining. what the state should be doing is helping to -- the federal government, county government and state government to reinvest in these cities. michigan is a manufacturing state. really, a one industry state. so, as the automative industry, we saw manufacturing meltdown, saw plants go from michigan to mexico. that's trade policy. this is not incompetence in detroit. >> down to economic recovery in michigan. >> it's coming back but not fast enough. we lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs. if 50,000 or 100,000 come back, you've still got a minus and you still have to deal with the 90,000 vacant lots and vacant homes in the city of detroit, insurance red lining and foreclosure. we've been saying this all along. we don't need financial stability, we need economic recovery. there's no connection between throwing democracy out and fixing the financial crisis. this is bad public policy.
who drew this play? what's going on. in egypt, it was pharoah and the south slave masters and overseers. in michigan, it's emergency dictators. what kind of public policy says we continue to cut cut police, cut fire, cut city workers and somehow we'll stabilize the city and people will want to move back into it. is the bad public policy at its best. >> reverend david bullock. pastor of highland park and president of that city's naacp and rainbow/push coalition. >> i understand this not going on the ballot is likely to go into the courts. i have a feeling we'll talk to you about it as it unfolds. >> thank you. we will litigate and agitate and demonstrate, this is not the last you will see of the fight for democracy in michigan. we're not giving up. >> thank you, sir. >> we have chris hays still ahead.
everyday between now and election day in november, you will hear something like the romney campaign today did or blah blah or the obama campaign did a blah blah blah. it's not just things done or said by the candidate but news made by the campaign in some way. there's a practical nuts and bolts way campaigns do stuff that makes news.
it's a little bit weird participating in it. covering the campaign firsthand right now pretty much means doing this everyday. ♪ >> is the what it was like to dial into the romney campaign conference call today. this is the actual sound from the start of that conference call. ♪ this is what covering the campaign is like now. yes, i do think that is the version of "in the wind" by elton john. >> thank you for joining the obama failed conference call. >> thanks for getting on the call. i have with me alex, part of our policy shop. and additionally, we have dan senor on the line. ambassador pierre prosper and secretary john layman.
i am going to turn it over to dan senor. >> that's what it's like. that's what it's like. they do these calls almost everyday and everybody calls in and listens to what they have to say. that's how we report what the campaign said today. once upon a time, i guess it was faxing, every once in a while, it still is the candidate himself or herself talking in the back of the bus or plane with reporters. mostly, it's like this on speaker phone. the reason -- what did they call this one again today? >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining the obama's failed foreign policy conference call. your host for today, amanda -- >> the obama's failed foreign policy conference call today is because they're doing something they call bracketing, whatever the obama administration does something, the romney campaign plans a response thing on the same subject. vice president biden laying out the obama campaign's narrative on foreign policy today, and
then the romney conference call is about giving the romney campaign counter narrative on that same subject, on foreign policy. here was the problem today though other than the candle in the wind today. the vice president biden narrative is exactly the same as the supposed counter narrative from the romney campaign. here's what the vice president said today. >> governor romney, i think, is counting on collective amnesia of the american people. americans know, americans know that we can't go back to the future. back to a foreign policy that would have america go it alone, shout to the world, you're either with us or against us. lash out first and ask the hard questions later. if they get asked at all. governor romney's national security policies in our view, would return us to a past we moved hard beyond. >> the charge from the obama-biden campaign is mitt
romney has george w. bush foreign policy agenda and take us back to that foreign policy. romney has 24 announced advisors on foreign policy. 17 of the 24 are george w. bush administration foreign policy people. the obama campaign sees that as a vulnerability. their narrative today, hitting mitt romney for being advised by these george bush people. the counter from the romney campaign? >> we have dan senoh, ambassador prosper -- >> two of the three advisors the romney campaign put out to counter mr. romy will have a george w. bush for ren policies, two were george w. bush for ren policy advisors. dan senor was the guy telling everybody the war was awesome and the other to be america's ambassador to the world on war
crime issues while the administration was setting up secret prisons and torturing people. >> unless you believe mitt romney's foreign policy will be anything like george bush's foreign policy lets the george bush foreign officials advising mitt romney that that is not the case. chris hayes, up with chris hayes you can watch every saturday and sunday. nice to have knew always a pleasure. >> is this a situation we have two worlds that don't overlap, having the iraq war spokesman speaking on your behalf doesn't seem like a bad thing to republicans? >> i have pondered this for a long time. i genuinely don't understand this. you watch the republican primary debates and turn to foreign policy. there has to be some space between ron paul and dick cheney and no one is occupying it. either an incredibly isolationist agenda of ron paul
not majority position of american politics or the most bellicose dick cheney neoconservative line that seems to have learned nothing from the lessons of iraq. the space between those are occupied by the president of the united states. they have a strategy problem they need to distinguish themselves from the sitting president. part of the way they've done this is gotten the old band back together. those are the people running foreign policy. if i want to know what foreign policy will look like, don't listen to mitt romney. foreign policy unlike domestic policy where there are constituents you have to paille tension to. foreign policy is what consensus elite policy advisors are. there is no difference in lessons learned and world view and outlook in the republican party since iraq. >> the people who emerged from the george bush administration
as full of regret or truth tellers or whistle-blowers, while i think they were rehabilitated in the eyes of liberals looking for truth tellers, those people did not end up taking leadership jobs in republican politics. >> no. they were essentially cast out. in the wake of iraq, the democratic policy was iraq. the reason president obama is president of the united states, he got up and said this is a dumb war. that was indisputeable. that was litigated on the left, never litigated on the right. no one ever had to face up to what happened the magnitude of the error is completely erased by history, like the old stalin books. they think it's a good idea to have dan senor on this lined the mouthpiece of the coalition
authority during what someone on the obama campaign said was the worst period of foreign policy in 100 years quite plausibly when the country was descending into chaos. >> doing the ticktock of what happened on the campaign trail today is not always my favorite thing. the fact we have vice president biden making a speech about warning mitt romney would be going back to the george w. bush foreign policy and the romney campaign not seeing that as something that needs to be rebutted but rather something that needs to be discussed seems is the more than a fight, they're talking past each other and they don't have any idea what to do with iraq. >> that's right and don't know where the economic median voter is. foreign policy is a niche issue. you write about this incredibly in your book it has become a niche issue how we have become disengaged. the median voters worry about the economy. the foreign policy is signalling to other people in the republican coalition, that's what it is about. the vote and election will not be decided on that.
>> if you had a job before and want to get back in government, support me. if you had a job before in republican foreign policy, i'll put you back in office. >> people who write about places like turkey and pakistan call it the deep state. this is the republican deep state on national security. >> chris hayes, you are wicked smart. i know you're like my friend and weird to say. i love talking to you. >> i love talking to you. >> up with chris hayes 8:00 to 10:00 on saturdays and sundays, will make you smarter and happy.
there is an important universal rule everybody must always remember. you cannot pick your own nickname. marcel the shell with shoes on taught us all this very well. >> guess what i want but i'm not going to beg for it? a nickname. because you can't -- you can't make it for yourself like -- you can make yourself a new hairstyle but you can't say, now, i go by the name of the general or whatever. >> if you could have a nickname, what would it be? >> ace. >> ace. adorable and true. this advice about not picking your own nickname was not heeded by these men. a few years ago they gave themselves the very manly and virile nickname "the young guns." their main objective was to get new republicans elected to congress, not to replace incumbent republicans but to
fill open seats and unseat democrats. then they turned the idea and their self-appointed nickname into this book. the purpose of giving themselves the "young guns" nickname was to predicate and aura of youth and virility and manesh and excitement they think they need. this year, republicans think they need something different. they need to seem less vieri lintly anti-woman. we will unveil the reincarnation of "the young guns." it has 100% more pink. [ cell phon e rings ] [ cell [ female announcer ] with secret outlast,
in september of 1998, two in september of 1998, two men, john lawrence and terone garner were arrested at an apartment in texas for violating the texas state law against two people having sex by any means other than the one specific combination that might some day produce baby. there is a new book out that casts doubt whether or not mr. lawrence and mr. garner were actually having sex when police burst into mr. lawrence's apartment and arrested them.
in any case that is what they were charged with, two consenting adults charged with having a kind of tex illegal in texas. in 1998, when they were arrested, mr. lawrence and mr. garner both vowed to contest the fine they were charged and to appeal their case and did all the way to the united states supreme court. in june 1993, nearly five years after they were arrested, the supreme court quashed the case against them, struck down the texas law. >> until today, it was legal for individual states to at least try to legislate what went on in the bedroom. not anymore homosexual conduct is no longer a crime. nbc news justice correspond pete williams is with us from the court tonight. good evening. >> reporter: good evening to you. people on both sides of this issue are calling it the most significant gay rights issue ever. the government cannot use moral grounds to make private sexual conduct illegal. the ruling was 6-3.
justices antoine antoine scalia and thomas and the another no longer alive. and rick perry thought he should be president on defense of that rule with regulating the kind of sex you and your partner are allowed to have in your own home. pennsylvania state senator rick santorum also took that position in the campaign. that call to limited government and personal liberty was not enough to propel either of them to the presidency. another big gay civil rights case making its way to the courts that may very well end up being decided by the supreme court. that's the prop 8 case the referendum in california in 2008 to take away existing marriage rights from same sex couples. prop 8 has been in litigation since it passed in 2008.
the case around prop 8 hinges in part on the question of immutability. is being gay and immutable characteristic. can you change it. if you find yourself gay for some reason, do you have to stay that way? one of the arguments the anti-gay rights side makes is being gay is a choice so marriage then isn't a question of equal rights. everybody has an equal right to get married already, if you want to get married and you're gay, you can get married, you just have to stop being gay, choose to become straight, now, you can get married, presto change-oh here comes the bride. this is a part of the transcripts from the oral arguments in the prop 8 case. the lawyer is arguing on the anti-gay side against gay marriage and questioning an expert, psychology professor. you will find here a document premarked. can you identify that document? answer interpret this is an argument of robert spitzer of sexual behavior in 2003.
can some gay and lesbians change their sexual orientation. >> you are a familiar with the author, correct? a prominent psychiatrist considered to be an expert in his field. >> answer. he is a prominent psychiatrist. >> question. please turn to page 413 and the second column first full paragraph. some gays and res bans following repairtive therapy report they have made major changes from a predominantly homosexual orientation to predominantly heterosexual orientation. it was important for the lawyer on the anti-gay side to get it on the record this prominent study by this prominent expert psychiatrist proved gay people can change. it is relatively central to their argument denying gay people access to marriage isn't some kind of second class citizenship for gay people. they have first class citizenship. all they have to do is change into straight people and have all the rights they want. that argument has kind of fallen
apart n. dr. roberts spitzer, the aforementioned prominent psychiatrist quoted there in the prop 8 trial whose work is supposed to prove gay people can change themselves into straight people. dr. robert spitzer recently revealed to the american prospect he would like to retract his study cited in that prop 8 trial and he does not think it qualifies as science. his study was published in this journal "archives of sexual behavior." the editor says it will not formal retract the study but will publish this letter from dr. spitzer. thanks to truth wins out for being the first to publish it. it is kind of astonishing. he writes there is no way to determine if the people in his study who said they turned ex-gay were credible when they said it. no way to determine if they were credible when they said they had
been cured of the gay. he also goes on to apologize. quote i believe i owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of repairtive therapy and apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of repairtive therapy because i believed i had proven that repairtive therapy works. if the next gay rights civil rights case hinges on the idea you can change being gay if you want to and if the basis for that claim just evaporated in a puff of, i'm sorry, from dr. spitzer, what does that do to the law as civil rights in the country. joining us is chief justice earl warren professor of constitutional law. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> the fact this study from the early 2000s, the fact it no longer exists for the anti-gay rights side in the prop 8 case,
how do you think that will affect the case going forward? >> i think it's a big deal. the reason immutable is important because under equal protection clause of the 14th amendment there's a standard called heightened scrutiny, race, national origin, non-national parentage get that scrutiny. the $64,000 question is whether or not sexual orientation will be added to that list. one of the criteria the supreme court looks at to determine if they get heightened scrutiny is immutability. the fact spitzer retracted this and the testimony the prop 8 trial that sexual orientation is very hard to change could figure into that analysis. >> are there other analyses of the anti-gay side in these anti-gay cases, other examples of them citing scientific literature to bolser their side? didn't that come in the marriage act?
>> it's almost worse because the defense cites to lisa diamond a psychologist, the staple stick you just talked about, you have this pro gay person because robert spitzer was prominent in getting homosexuality declassified as a mental illness. >> and regarded as a hero. >> and it was a cruel thing that they could convert and the other side made hey out of this and lisa diamond, a psychologist out of the university of utah and paul clement just argued the arizona case a conservative super lawyer said here's a pro gay scholar and she believes homosexuality is actually changeable. is the actually even worse because almost like a marshall mccluen moment, lisa diamond shows up, i will sign this document that is an a complete distortion of everything i've done and all my work and everything you cite. the same thing all over again,
the kind of emperor has no clothes dynamic gradually realizing these arguments the anti-gay marriage side has are nothing. >> one of the reasons you're the right person to talk to about it, i feel you have an appreciation for what's happening in the courts but also for what's happening in culture and politics and how these things tend to interact. i guess the thing that is kind of shocking to me the more i look into this, i don't feel like anybody credible believes gay people can click their heels together and become straight. it's seen as a quack idea and popularized on the anti-gay political movement for a reason. it seems to collapse under the wealth of ridiculousness. to find out it is central to the courtroom arguments against gay rights even as far up as these cases likely to go to the supreme court is surprising, just for the base political credibility of that case.
i wonder if you see it that way or if there's something i'm missing. >> i guess i would say yes and no to that. on the other hand, yes, i've been on the front line of the professorian trying to argue against the so-called immutability criteria. it doesn't really make that much sense for the reasons you describe. for example we would never say religion is not going to be protected because can change your religion, even if we have a despised religion in this country we will still protect it under the freerks size clause and people can convert as they do all the time, it won't affect that analysis. i agree it doesn't make sense at that level. at the same time, it seems to have an odd and deep-rooted traction and it quiets people's fears their children will grow up gay if exposed to same sex marriage one and thing we will see is this infamous princess ad this little kid comes home to her mother, i just learned in school a king can marry a king because teacher read me a book and i can grow up to marry a princess.
that has been incredibly difficult to overcome in the pro gay side in referendum after referendum. >> however it functions ultimately its power is the way it evokes fear? >> exactly right. >> ken, thank you for being here. chief justice earl warren professor of constitutional law. somebody i've been looking forward to talking about this a long time. last word, find out what karl rove thought about the choice of dick cheney as vice president. not what you think. lawrence o'donnell has the details on that. best thing in the world, not intended to be a karaoke edition but nobody will stop you if it turns out that way.
since the strategy of advocating furiously against women's hale, republicans are trying something new and decided to take a you turn from their previous position and deciding now to not block the reauthorization of the violence against women act in the senate. it looked for weeks like it was poised to become a big partisan political battle when it passed out of committee on a party line
vote with zero republican support and ultimately the republicans caved. it passed on a 68-31 vote and 15 republicans voting yes. there is more. the now women friendly republican party not blocking the violence against women act, they're creating a brand new republican group just for ladies. a group of house republicans created a caucus in 2007 called the young guns program, a group designed to help and support young awesome republicans like themselves. today, the young guns announced a new program, a young guns program for republican women called yg woman up. it's supposed to be like saying man-up but saying it for a woman. woman-up. of the 435 members of the house of representatives, only straight are women, about 18% of the house. house republicans are reaching
out with this new young guns women up group to a constituency that makes up more than half the general population but less than 20% of the elected members of the house. maybe they see this math problem they're in with women and want to try to fix it. the young guns program has a record on spouting women candidates for office. they have a whole list of candidates they're backing this election cycle on their website. here has the math part. supporting 94 republican candidates this year. supporting 14 women. only about 15% of the candidates the young guns are supporting this year are women. that is a lower proportion than the already really low proportion of women already serving in the house. they're taking congress's math problem with women and they're working to make it worse. woman-up. this is their big outreach effort. let's have even fewer women in congress than we have there now. if this is what it means to women up, i don't think it will help with the gender problem. i just don't.
this is going to seem awkward. this is the best new thing in the world today, but it starts from a very bad place. it ends up somewhere surprising and great, but some were bad it starts off. nine days ago, a norwegian man that was a militant nationalist set off a car bomb outside a government building. killing eight people. he took a ferry to an island where kids were on a labor party team camping trip and opened fire with multiple high-powered weapons and killed 69 more people, most of them teenagers occurred it was a cold-blooded massacre that lasted an hour and 1/2. now he is on trial for those crimes in norwegian court and has admitted to the killings. he said it was all justified. he said he should get a medal
because in his twisted mind he was protecting nor wafer multi-cultural was some. specifically he testified last week that he believes norwegian schoolchildren are being brainwashed by a children's song that is popular in norway. born norwegian version of a pete seeger song called my rainbow race. after 8 he singled out that song as particularly offensive to him, today 40,000 people turned out in oslo to serenade him with that song. 5,000 people rsvp that they would turn up. they said the crowd was 8 times that number. they were gathered in a square right next to the first building that he bombed, right near the courthouse where he is on trial. they stood in the rain carrying roses and setting him that children's song that he hates so much.
♪ ♪ [ applause ] >> what you heard at the very end, norwegian, that was the singer who popularized this peace seekers signed a guy. what he said at the very end translates english into, it's we who win. genius, peaceful, musical rebuttal to a madman. the scandal thickens. the secret service investigates new allegations of misconduct on presidential trips. shaken and