tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC February 7, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PST
chris hays is in for "the rachel maddow show" did you enjoy the super bowl, did you have a dog in the fight? >> i was raised in the bronx but a dad from chicago, grew up a bears fans, i was wishing the giants well but not the same way my fellow new yorkers did. >> i went for the giants, i told rachel i hoped her team won, whatever. >> thanks, ed, thanks at home for staying with us for the next hour. rachel as you have noticed by now has the night off. when you think about the most iconic lines in american movie history, you think the memorable quotes in the history of cinema, near the top of the list probably sits this specific 12 second clip right here "go ahead, make my day."
>> that is of course the great clint eastwood, playing the role of dirty harry. in his 1983 film "sudden impact" go ahead, make my day. five words that have lived on since they were spoken on the big screen. when clint eastwood said that in 1983, there was a fellow actor occupying the oval office who recognized the power of the line, decided to make it his own. >> i have my veto pen drawn and ready for any tax increase that congress might even think of sengd up. i have one thing to say to the tax increases, go ahead, make my day. >> ronald reagan was so fond of the whole clint eastwood make my day thing he put his own spin on that line from time to time. >> if we liberate the energies and imagination of the american people, and allow them the
wherewithall to build their dreams, america will be a dynamo leading the world in the 1990's, and a new era of prosperity the likes of which this world has never before seen. that is our goal, that is our challenge. i might put it this way. go ahead, america, make my decade. >> this was perfect for republicans in the 1980 clint eastwood's character was a character who appealed to essential conservative instinct, a law and order vigilante guy. didn't hurt of course that clint eastwood the actor, human being, is famously very republican in his own political leanings. he told the l.a. times in november he voted republican in every single presidential election dating back to 1952 and only time he was tempted to break ranks with the republican party was with ross perot in 1992.
for conservatives constantly whining about the evil liberal elite in hollywood pushing their cultural filth upon the innocent folk, they could always rely on two people who had their back. b list actor who would become president and defeat the soviet empire and dirty harry. ronald reagan, if you were still alive, would be 101 years old today. the reason that ronald reagan is so beloved by conservatives has less to do with the particulars of his policy achievemens such as they were, than two things like a, his political success, and b, his unabashed torch carrying for the idea of american exceptionalism. in the conservative mind, under jimmy carter america was on the decline. we were weak, we had been emasculated. in rolled ronald reagan to reassert american supremacy in the world. now, that wasn't necessarily the experience of the population at
large. to the population at large, america was in a recession at the end of jimmy carter's first term in 1980, experiencing a recovery in 1984. the voting was essentially reflection of the economy reality of the day. the stung in 1980, it was getting better in 84, reagan won again. this year, central retore i cal challenge that barack obama has faced and faces now is not a nation recovering from a financial crisis. but a national psyche that once again is haunted by the specter of permanent american decline. for his likely opponent the fall the way to run against barack obama is clear, blame him entirely for the economic difficulties and insinuate sometimes not so softly, that if reelected, barack obama will guarantee irrepairable damage to
american supremacy. >> this campaign is about more than replacing a president. it's about saving the soul of america. president obama and i have very different visions of america. president obama wants to fundamentally transform america, and make it something perhaps we wouldn't recognize. i want to restore to america the values and principles that made us the hope of the earth. if you want to make this election about restoring american greatness, then i hope you will join us. >> mitt romney promises to very explicitly "restore american greatness." that message is simple and straightforward for mr. romney. as we enter in moreorless the general election season, the central rhetorical challenge for barack obama is telling story of his presidency that speaks to the duel layered anxiety. about the economy generally and more emotional anxiety about the idea of america in decline.
the challenge for president obama is as of yet the economy is not glet a place he can go out and say something like this. >> in 1980 we asked the people of america are you better off than you were four years ago? well the people answered then by choosing us to bring about a change. we have every reason now, four years later, to ask that same question again for we have made a change. >> are you better off than you were four years ago? if president obama asked that question today the answer for most americans probably is yes. but it is a much more ambivalent, equivocal yes than 1984. ronald reagan ran his famed morning in america ad campaign, which touted the fact the economic picture in the country improved since he took office. the jobs picture was better, inflation was down, things were according to reagan, looking up.
as barack obama heads in his reelection, things are without a doubt much much better than they have been. and much, much better, much, much better than they could have been. so how do you turn much better than they have been in something that packs the rhetorical force that morning in america packed back in 1984? how do you convey the feeling things are getting better in an effective message dirty harry himself, i never voted for a democratic president in my life seemed to have solved for president obama. by now you have seen the clint eastwood chrysler ad that aired during the super bowl last night, right? was an ad that focused on the success of the auto bail out specifically, but may have served as an update to ronald reagan's morning in america as well. >> it's halftime, both teams are
in their locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half. it's halftime in america, too. people are are out of work and they are hurting. they are all wondering what they will do to make a comeback. and we're all scared because this isn't the game. people of detroit know a little something about this. they almost lost everything. but we all pulled together, now motor city is fighting again because that's what we do. we find a way through tough times, if we can't find a way, we'll make one. all that matters now is what's ahead. how do we come from behind? how do we come together? and how do we win? detroit is showing us it can be done. and what is true about them is true about all of us.
this country can't be knocked out in one punch, we get right back up again and when we do, the world will here the roar of our engines. yeah, it's halftime, america. and our second half's about to begin. >> i'm a bit of a sucker, it's halftime in america. that slogan, the gutteral feeling captures something i think the obama team has been attempting with mixed results to project. the idea of it's halftime in america is an idea we are now mid-way through a project of national reconstruction, there is promise and possibility just ahead and we have survived and come through the worst. that ad i think more than anything else man abled to project a theme the obama campaign has been struggling toward. that ad is about the auto bail out specifically, a specific piece of policy the president pushed through. the reason the auto bail out is important because of all the recovery policies put in effect
by president obama that is the one that has most directly and visibly borne fruit. it's difficult to prove to people without the stimulus package things would have been worse though every analysis says just that. to say to people that gm is now the number one car company in the world again, because of what we did as a country, that is a powerful message. it's particularly useful because none other than mitt romney was himself so adamantly against it effectiveness of the message, doubt the political potency, look at the conservative backlash against the clint eastwood ad today. karl rove took to fox news to announce he was "offended by the halftime in america ad" the weekly standard said the ad was filled manied in new orleans and l.a. national review warned the underlying message we should be pulling together represents "the death knell of a democratic
culture" all this ink was spilled on the right over an ad. super bowl ad from a conservative icon that may have provided the answer team obama has been in search of. joining us now is the michael beschloss. what was your impression of the ad? >> i guess i'm in a minority, i thought it was helpful to obama but not anywhere near the sort of obama created commercial that other people saw. you look at that morning in america comer sthal reagan had in 84, this is a commercial yesterday that said people are scared and they are hurting. that is not exactly something that the white house i think would have manufactured had it had the chance to do it. >> i think that is clearly right, although a number of of people around the president tweeted approval and gave it shout outs. and i think what is interesting
is the underlying economic conditions, do you present this challenge to the president bausz if six months from -- because six months from now, the president can just run morning in america and literally get up and say are you better off now than you were four years ago. >> absolutely. >> that is easy. you don't need to pay someone a lot of money to figure out what your message is. >> something else there, chris, we remember morning in america as representing reagan's america, everything was wonderful. that year unemployment was over 7%. very artfully done. more people went to work this morning it said than ever before in our history. that was a weazly way of saying we have people jobless. >> the population growth in your campaign ad. they do have this challenge, right, on the one hand you can't
be seen as out of touch, right? you can't -- you can't project a message, the tim geithner --. >> elder george bush in 1992 tried to do that. >> you can't be that on the one hand, you can't been too rosy or dour, how do you thread the needle? >> reagan is the obvious example. fdr was better, 1936, roosevelt was running for reelection, unemployment was almost 17%. 25% four years earlier, so roosevelt did say are you better off, that is where reagan got the line. what roosevelt said was the unemployment is too high, things are getting better because of our policies. the key thing he said was why would we ever give things back to the people who created the mess was thrust in our lap in
1932? meaning the republicans. same thing that reagan said in 84, the end of that morning in america commercial, announcer says where would we go back where we were four years ago? walter mondale would return you to the policies of jimmy carter. my guess is we will see a lot of the same things said by barack obama this year. >> so fascinating we were doing a world count of the amount of times president bush the former george w. bush has been mentioned almost entirely written out. i think that is obviously intentional because it blunts that rhetorical approach. >> michael beschloss thank you for your time. at the opposite end of the success factor is attack ad so mind blowingly offensive i thought it was a put on. that epic fail is next. also ahead casino
mitt romney rolled to another win in nevada. the most personally hurtful poll i heard of has bad news for him. that is just ahead. how about ? you're not my dad ahh!! hey honey, back feels better, little dancing tonight, you and me? dr. scholl's pro inserts relieve different types of lower body pain by treating at the source so you're a whole new you. go pro with dr. scholl's. [ gargling ] oo-ay-ow. savings. savings. savings? progressive was the first to offer online quoting.
you can do better. first to show comparison rates. ding! the "name your price" tool. oh! gosh, don't mind if i do. who was the first to offer pet injury coverage? we were. and when did you know you wanted to sell insurance? i said i wouldn't cry. um... whee! it's flo time. now, that's progressive. call or click today. another super bowl ad has gotten a bit of media attention. >> thank you, michigan senator debbie spend it now. debbie spent so much american money, you borrow more and more, from us. your economy get very weak. ours get very good.
we take your jobs. thank you debbie spend it now. >> i think this race for u.s. senate is debbie spend it now i'm pete spend it not hoekstra and i approve the message. >> we were thinking about some way of talking about the ad without actually playing it and we couldn't come up with a good answer. reason i didn't want to play it it's obvious what pete hoekstra is doing here, he's troling the media. if you're not familiar with the word "trolling" when someone intentionally says something offensive or sensationalistic to attract attention. it is working. the ad was created by the master of outrage inducing free media, a guy name fred davis. he created ads for rick snyder and christine o'donnell. this one is racist, people are saying it's racist.
>> i'm not apologizing for the ad. i think it clearly drives the message. >> of course talk more about his attacks on the democratic incumbent he's trying to challenge for a senate staet in michigan. the ad ran in michigan. hoekstra is trying to raise money from the ad outrange. his campaign sent out an e-mail liberals are doing what they always d crying racism. the ad aside from the tone and outrage also makes some substantive claims, every bit as offensive in their untruthfulness. the core of the ad's argument u.s. deficits redistribute power from america to china. the mechanism by which it does that is china purchases american treasury bonds which are the means we use to fund american deficit.
when we have a gap between tax revenue and spending, we have to make that up with debt. the instrument is a treasury bond. and scary china is buying up the debt. that notion, take away the offensive way it's couched, that scary china owns america notion is almost a consensus idea. absolutely everywhere. also become a prominent theme in many political ads. this is an ad put out by the vague front group conservative not for profit citizens against government waste. set in beijing, in 2030. be very afraid. >> .
>> that notion of a scary china has become an accepted truth in american politics. the problem it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of who owns american debt. based on all this, what percentage of american debt would you say china owns? i'll do my best ron popeil, 60, 70, 80, every last piece of our debt? to the pie chart. the answer is roughly 8%. it's not nothing. china is the foreign country that owns the most of american debt but it's still 8%. in fact china is barely ahead of japan which owns 6.9% of our debt, who used to stand in as the scary asian nation, challenging american supremacy when i was a teenager.
uk owns the next biggest chunk. majority of american debt owned by drum roll please, americans. partly in the form of the social security trust fund. so it is just not the case that america is in hock to china. but let's say for the sake of argument and because we are charitable on the "the rachel maddow show" it's the case american deficits con tribe you tet to american decline, a theme of the hoekstra ad against debbie stabenow, dubbed spend it out in dubbing himself as spend it not. who has been contributing to the deficits, if you believe his rhetoric, debilitated america. pete hoekstra was a member of congress 17 years. he voted for the medicare part d care plan, it created a new social insurance program that extends out in perpetuity with no way to pay for it.
kind of a good news-bad news day for mitt romney. mr. romney begins the week with three trends shaping up around him, one is quite promising for his campaign, the other two are plain worrisome. the promising trend is this. >> thank you, guys, wow. what a great showing, thank you nevada. >> after winning the nevada caucus by nearly 30 points, mitt romney -- now won two in a row after a big convining win in florida he had another one in nevada. the odds of him being the nominee have jumped accordingly. his chances of becoming the nominee dropped 20 points after south carolina, from 92% to 70%. today, fresh off the second in a
row victory, it has him back up at 87%. but, funny thing about that nevada victory. while he did absolutely crush newt gingrich, not to mention ron paul and rick santorum, mitt romney lost to another candidate. in this year's nevada caucuses, mitt romney to mitt romney circa 2008. in 2008, the last time mitt romney ran for president, he got more than 22,000 votes in nevada, over 51%, this year, he got about 16,000 votes in nevada, 50%. that is part of a broader worrying trend for both mitt romney specifically and the republicans generally. lower turn out among republicans in their primaries and caucuses this time around. if you look just at self-identifying republicans in the exit polls, here is what has been happening to turn out in republican contests. iowa, with 2008 turn out on the left, this year on the right. 11% drop off. in new hampshire, 2008, compared to this year, numbers drop 15%.
only real bright spot is south carolina, turn out did go up by 20%. in florida, return to the downward trend, turn out was down 16% this year, compared with 2008. of course the enthusiasm gap was invoked in 2010 as the key to republican victory. so it looks to be a drop in republican turn out from 2008 is worrying trend number one. the second worrying trend is the polling on his favorability and likeability. in one of those brutal, hurtful polling questions i have ever seen, voters were asked, as they get to know mitt romney whether they liked him more or less. by more than 2-to-1, the more they got to know mitt romney the less they like him. 52% said they are liking mitt romney less as the nomination battle plays out. if you only ask republicans or people who say they lean republican, more people say they like mitt romney less, the more they get to know him, than the other way around.
of course the more common measure of likeability is favorability, the trend for mitt romney on that count is very grim. indeed. here's talking points memo poll tracker on unfavorability, which is skyrocketing. mitt romney's unfavorability at 47%. so, good news for mitt romney he's winning bad news, he's losing to himself. newt gingrichist going to stick around and say meaning things and august is six months away. joining us now celinda lake, democratic pollster and trat at the gist. -- strategist. how well can we use previous turnout in an open primary to extrapolate forward and predict what turnout is looking in the general? is that a dodgey metric for us to be using or does that have validity?
>> well, it has some validity and particularly when you look at the patterns underneath. the fact you have it in state after state after state, in fact romney does better the lower the turnout. and then if you look at who is not showing up to vote, the people who aren't show up to voters born again christian voters who have real problem, with mitt romney, they don't think he's a good conservative, they worry about his religion, that bodes real trouble for the election in the fall, and real opportunity for democrats who in the inverse are getting more enthusiastic about their nominee. >> i thought it interesting that to the point you made that south carolina was the one place where turnout increased mark edly, a place where romney got the most sort of traditional tea party grass roots activism behind the outcome. >> right, and in fact, mitt romney is only getting even in states he's winning a quarter of the tea party vote and a quarter of the born again christian
vote. he's running behind or tied with santorum and behind newt gingrich. there are core elements of the base that are disgruntled with the ticket. when you get to general election voters, you have someone who is winning and these aren't just newt gingrich-inflicted problems, these are mitt romney-inflicted problems. those negatives are going up because of what mitt romney is saying about mitt romney. >> i have been actually advised, frankly, how much his unfavorability ratings have sky rocketed, one of the most robust polling results of president obama's tenure is how strong is personal favorability remains despite whatever economic situation we're having. how important is that metric, favorability, how you feel about the person who is standing in front of you there in a suit a microphone running for president when you get to election day? >> it matters a lot. not only is mitt romney failing on the personal likeability, but
he's failing on the guy you want to sit down who would understand your life. it's what we call in the democratic party the have a beer with the guy test. mitt romney by his own words and deeds, just seems completely out of touch with what is going on for average people, when you make bets for $10,000, when you think income that is the value of people's houses, when you have offshore accounts, and it's on and on, you pay a lower percentage for taxes than the average secretary in the united states, honestly, this man is the perfect candidate as poster child for the 99% to 1%. he's inflicting these wounds on himself. you get donald trump's endorsement at a casino, most independent voters don't pay attention to the mitt romney is drawing attention to himself and it's negative. >> self described moderates
moved back toward president obama. >> that's right. >> part of that i think is probably the result of the recent good economic news, which you have to disaggregate from favorability. how much do you think the president is so known to the american people that whatever people think about him, the idea of attacking him is somehow other, which seems part of what the republican message has been, no longer resonates. >> it doesn't resonates, the character attacks don't resonate. frankly, mitt romney is the other, the guy who is strange and the guy who keeps -- what is amazing for me, a very polished candidate keeps shooting himself in the foot. >> celinda lake, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. there is one completely hilarious super bowl ad you almost certainly didn't see last
night. now that i've seen it my solemn duty to share it with you for the lulls. best new thing in the world, straight ahead. what a bargain! [ female announcer ] sometimes a good deal turns out to be not such a good deal. but new bounty gives you value you can see. in this lab demo, one sheet of new bounty leaves this surface cleaner than two sheets of the leading ordinary brand. so you can clean this mess with half as many sheets. bounty has trap and lock technology to soak up big spills and lock them in. why use more when you can use less? bring it with new bounty.
if you have been following the 2012 presidential race at all lately you heard of a man named sheldon adelson by now. he is a las vegas tycoon, casino billionaire with estimated personal fortune of 21.5 billion, moreorless not counting what is in the couch or under the slot machines at work. he is one of the richest men in the country. he made news most recently writing a single very large check to the super pac that supports newt gingrich, $5 million, to elect newt gingrich president of the united states. that was followed by another very large check to the super pac that supports newt gingrich, this one also for $5 million, only it came from mr. adelson's wife. the support helped newt gingrich get back in the game and win south carolina last month which seemed like it might scramble the entire race. at least until mitt romney whooped gingrich something fierce in florida last week, his double digit win re-establishing the establishment.
this weekend the fight for the republican nomination pulled in sheldon adelson's backyard with the nevada caucuses. sheldon adelson and billions are in no way the kind of political force that nevada republicans are prepared to alienate. they decided to hold a special evening caucus to people who couldn't vote during the day for religious reasons, held that the special caucus in a building named for none other than sheldon adelson, with the family name on the front. result was kind of a zoo, with ron paul supporters showing up an making a ruckus, they called the proceedings a felonious, unconstitutional sham. ron paul won the special caucus in a walk. newt gingrich nearly caught mitt romney for second. in the overall caucus, mitt romney won by a lot.
it may seem weird to hold a democratic exercise in a building that honors a single person who so happens to be almost single handedly personally propping up one of the candidates on the ballot in the caucus. but in another way, nevada's special caucus in the school with mr. adelson pass name on the front is a microcosm for post citizens united world. it's the billionaire's country, we're just voting in it. mr. adelson continued throwing his weight around. new york times reported mitt romney's campaign has been reaching out to mr. adelson, aware he could keep newt gingrich in the race all the way to the convention, if he decides that looks like fun. for the adelson's to write a $10 million like someone worth $21000 for ten bucks. like going to the movies. the newt gingrich campaign is as entertaining as any film you can find screening in america you would pay ten bucks to keep it
going. the romney people find themselves in a situation shared by every political campaign in the country having to massage the ego of a billionaire. sheldon adelson assured the campaign he will open his checkbook for mitt romney too. which is not to say that you should in any way be very concerned about political fund macing for mitt romney fourth quarter reports were filed, the super pac raised $30 million last year, 98% in donations of at least $25,000. you don't need many donors when they are giving a million dollars apiece. they gotten of those last year. if mitt romney goes the distance you can look for sheldon adelson's name on the list. the caucus and the building may have been a set back for sheldon adelson, we're all caucusing in
to robert ford, this guy, the ambassador to syria. in september this show gave mr. ford the nickname ambadassador, he really seriously no joke earned it. president obama called on the president of syria to step down, the syrians were not pleased. they told the ambassador he needed to ask permission to order to leave the capital. he went to the city where olive branchs greeted him. the embassies were attacked. so too was the ambassador's house. he also went to observe a peaceful protest by lawyers at the syrian bar association, a government demonstrator attacked him and it was caught on tape. he went to the funeral of human rights activist who died in the custody of syrian security forces. an hour after that funeral
security forces trashed the place. later that month while driving through the syrian capital to meet with a leader, loyalists attack his convoy, reportedly threw eggs and tomatoes. robert ford stayed in syria another month after that attack. state department pulled him out when the media tageted him. he was home six weeks then went back to damascus. he's one tough cookie. how you know things in syria are really, really bad. the united states announced it has completely shut down the embassy in syria. every single staffer has left including the ambadassador. syrian opposition leaders say the government has killed 300 civilians in a city that has become the epicenter of the deadly crack down. one thing the government has been able to achieve with almost complete success is a media blackout, kept western
journalists out of the country, almost all. the bbc reports the violence is so bad in one city people can't safely bury their dead. >> the shelling is constant now, hearing impact every few seconds. in reply you can also hear a little bit of fire, a pretty futile gesture. >> the shroud is for a 7-year-old girl, carefully write her name. like all the dead, she must be buried in darkness. day time is too dangerous. there is no family, no prayers, and little dignity. they have to hurry, even now they are attacked. there will be many more such desperate and lonely burials.
>> the syrian regime's violence and inskrim nature attacks today seemed bold. russia and china are partially to blame. over the weekend they vetoed a united nations security council resolution that called on the syrian president to step down, to what american's ambassador responded with nothing short of indignation. >> the fact that russia and china chose to align themselves with a dictator who is on his last legs rather than the people of syria, rather than the people of the middle east, and rather than the principle views of the rest of the international community was disgusting and shameful. >> joining us now is josh roggin. thanks for talking to us tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> the vote that up happened over the weekend with the security council that prompted that condemnation from susan rice, what is your understanding of why that vote went down the
way it did, and what does it mean for what the next step is in regards to both the u.s. and the international communities' policy on syria? >> sure. the u.s. and it's allies worked for weeks to try to satisfy russian and chinese concerns about the draft resolution, which was part forth by morocco and the arab league. they watered it down pretty well. at the last moment russia and china had no intention of going on. i was in munich it this weekend with hillary clinton and the foreign minister, and he said we don't believe it's the u.n.'s role to intervene in other countries. what he didn't say is that russia is standing by syria because it's a major arms buyer of russian equipment and also because russia seeks to counter u.s. and western influence in the middle east. but the bottom line is that russia never had had any intention of supporting a call for assad to step down, and it played out exactly the way we expected.
now that the united nations security council is neutered as secretary clinton says, it moves to regional approaches and some sanctions, and then the debate begins over what do we do next? do we atd syrian opposition? do we give them humanitarian assistance? do we provide buffer zones? all these questions have not been answered, and that's what the administration is working on right now. >> there's some concerns about the broader civility of syria in terms to the degree of which it will hold together through this. there's a big sectarian divide between the majority of the country and the assad ruling clique and concerns that what we're see is the beginning of a genuine and terrifying civil war. how worrisome -- how worried are you about that? >> i think the civil war is erupting and beginning right now, and that's something that u.s. officials are starting to ago knowledge reluctant lu because it's not just a nightmare but for the people of
the region as well. they say syria is not libya. libya was sort of self-contained, and syria the violence has a potential of spreading to all sorts of different countries. that's real. that means that the assad regime, as they are protected by russia and china for the time being, feels imperative and feels the pressure and they want to change facts on the ground by increasing violence and end this thing before they're forced out one way or the other. what they've done is unleashed a full-out assault on the city of homs and suburbs of damascus and other places. it's escalating and getting worse and worse, and the national community is simply paralyzed. this is the worst case nare joe all around. >> since i have you here, josh, i want to turn to one more piece of news out of the region today which struck as important. worse and worse, and the national community is simply paralyzed. this is the worst case nare joe all around. >> since i have you here, josh, i want to turn to one more piece of news out of the region today which struck as important. in egypt the government is filing charges against 19 americans who work for nonprofit groups.
does the u.s. want to try and fight those charges publicly to make a point or negotiations for the release? what does it say about the relationship of the u.s. government right now and the scaff, which is the ruling entity in egypt at the moment? >> this is all related because this is part of one theme, the arab spring and the revolution in the arab world where people are demanding pour sovereignty and the u.s. is shifting focus to human rights and democracy and popular votes. this is not going well in egypt, and the egyptian government is clinging onto power. they're making the american aid groups they're attacking and harassing the villains in this scenario for political purposes, and it's ruining the u.s./egypt relationship. the obama administration is very worried about this, and they have no solution. as long as egypt remains in turmoil, they'll continue to vul fi the u.s. and these aid workers totally innocent. the relationship will continue to deteriorate. >> you're a font of good news today, josh. thanks for talking wuls.
appreciate it. >> anytime. >> right after this show on the last word the fallout from the planned parenthood funding controversy continuing. lawrence o'donnell has the latest. don't miss that. here, the cool refreshing taste of the best new thing in the world is next.t, conquer your busy day. ♪ burn! let's do it! hello, jenny! ♪ thank you. [ cellphone rings ] working on it. ♪ hi. hi. how are you? [ female announcer ] outlast your day, any day, with secret's 48-hour odor protection technology. new secret outlast. on my feet and exactly where i needed more support. then, i got my number. my tired, achy feet affected my whole life. until i found my number. i tried the free dr. scholl's foot mapping center.
the most talked about ningt news today was the clint eastwood ad for chrysler. it was a sterling example of one of the main super bowl ad genres. bigness, grandness, toughness. the other two main categories of the super bowl ads, brain-dead fables about the fundamentalal and hilarious difference between bros and chicks and zany ad where is the unexpected happens, a concert breaks out ♪ street, babies talk. what there isn't a ton of is genuine and successful self-satire, which is why the best new thing in the world today is a different take on the
same thundering themes exhibited in the eastwood ad. a different super bowl ad for an american beer with a big american movie star. it was shown on one station in nebraska during the game which is this use of america's grandest advertising stage is the best new thing in the world today. ♪ >> will ferrell's appearance is an automatic candidate for the best new thing in the world today. it makes will ferrell in his latest spot for old milwaukee the be