"What’s the answer to the Tea Party racist question?"

Galloping into the 10 p.m. Eastern timeslot as the white knight of truth, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, host of "The Last Word," challenged left-wing writer Matt Taibbi on September 29 to answer this incisive question.

Eager to discuss the subject of his latest conservative hit-piece, Taibbi imparted the sort of thoughtful analysis viewers should expect from a Rolling Stone political reporter: "My answer is it’s not so much about hating black people for these people, I think it’s more about believing in this preposterous fantasy that white people are some kind of oppressed minority in the age of Obama."

After belittling the Tea Party for its "incredibly stupid" worldview, Taibbi pointed to the grassroots movement’s "collective narcissistic" behavior as the source of its alleged stupidity. A seemingly entranced O’Donnell concurred with Taibbi’s diagnosis, then invited the correspondent to press on:

They really believe in this sort of idea that they’re this persecuted, oppressed people and they have no frame of reference about anybody else’s experience and they also don’t have any sense of how their rhetoric is received by the rest of the country.

Taibbi, who once referred to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) as a "elderly sumo wrestler in drag," further fleshed out the Tea Party movement’s ostensible intolerance with a closed-minded rant: "Just think of the whole idea of a tea party: if they’re the Tea Partiers, people like you and me are redcoats, you know, we’re literally not Americans, we’re un-American. And they really believe that."

A transcript of the relevant portion of the segment can be found below:

MSNBC
Last Word
September 29, 2010

10:19 p.m. EDT

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Matt, before we get to the transformation, one of the central questions about the Tea Party, and one of the accusations that flies around, is that this is a racist group – predominantly racist group, partially racist group, or more racist than your average collection on a subway car in New York City. You’ve been in and among them. What’s the answer to the Tea Party racist question?

MATT TAIBBI, Rolling Stone magazine: My answer is it’s not so much about hating black people for these people, I think it’s more about believing in this preposterous fantasy that white people are some kind of oppressed minority in the age of Obama. And I don’t know whether that’s racism, but it is just incredibly stupid. And that’s really my answer. I think there’s not that much overt racism, clearly race is a factor in almost all of their political views. But it’s really more like a collective narcissistic –
    
O’DONNELL: They’re working without a historical framework for anyone else’s experience except their own and their own families. And that’s what you’re calling the kind of the narcissistic view of our politics.

TAIBBI: They really believe in this sort of idea that they’re this persecuted, oppressed people and they have no frame of reference about anybody else’s experience and they also don’t have any sense of how their rhetoric is received by the rest of the country. Just think of the whole idea of a tea party: if they’re the Tea Partiers, people like you and me are redcoats, you know, we’re literally not Americans, we’re un-American. And they really believe that.

O’DONNELL: Now the narcissism is why we were playing the (inaudible) thing on the way in, it had nothing to do with you. Okay, that is not our view of Matt Taibbi.

On Wednesday’s Rick’s List, CNN’s Rick Sanchez implied that Fox News played some kind of part in James O’Keefe’s attempted "punk" of correspondent Abbie Boudreau: "The same right-wing videographer, who entrapped and embarrassed innocent people in the past, tries it again- this time on a CNN correspondent….How could he try something so stupid, and what was Fox News’s role?" [audio clip available here]

Sanchez made this parting shot at his longstanding nemesis on the last prime time edition of his show, as the 8 pm time slot on CNN is being taken over on October 4 by a new program featuring former New York governor and "Client Number Nine" Eliot Spitzer and pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker. The anchor raised his implying question about the apparent "role" of Fox News during the lead-in to his program. Instead of making a direct accusation against Fox News, as he did in the aftermath of the murders of three Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania police officers in April 2009, he replayed an earlier interview with Boudreau from the top of the 4 pm Eastern hour of his program.

At the beginning of the interview, Sanchez stated that O’Keefe "that took down a liberal group, ACORN, by ambushing them and presenting them in an unfair light after his video was shown endless times on Fox News." Unfair light? The "liberal group," as the anchor correctly describe them, had already been under investigation for illegal activity. As CNN itself reported in October 2008, authorities in Nevada conducted a raid on the organization’s headquarters in Las Vegas as part of an investigation into voter registration fraud (though anchor Kiran Chetry referred to ACORN as merely a "non-profit group"). Speaking of unfair, how about the time Sanchez highlighted an unsubstantiated quote of Rush Limbaugh?

The CNN anchor only directly mentioned his competitor by name during the segment during the beginning, but one of his later questions led to Boudreau mentioning them and their possible involvement. Thirty-three minutes into the hour, Sanchez brought up the document that O’Keefe and one of his collaborators made in the process of planning their "punk" of the CNN correspondent, which was subsequently leaked to the network. Though the 13-page document apparently didn’t specifically mention Fox News, Boudreau named them as one of their possible "allies" in the planned stunt:

SANCHEZ: Let’s go to the second part of the document. In the document- and there we’re seeing James O’Keefe- he- does the document explain why he had planned to do this? What his M.O. was for us here as a network at CNN?

BOUDREAU: Okay, and just to be clear, this document- at the very beginning of the document, it says written by- and it’s one of James’ mentors and one of his fellow activists- under activist, it lists James’ name. Now, James would have been the person who acted out this entire punk. James has said in a statement that he knows about the document, but I’ll just go ahead and read his e-mail to us-

SANCHEZ: Okay.

BOUDREAU: It says, ‘That is not my work product. When it was sent to me, I immediately found certain elements highly objectionable and inappropriate, and did not consider them for one minute following it.’ But our reporting will show- and we’ll reveal all the details in our documentary- that appears not to be true.

SANCHEZ: So he was- at least your reporting seems to indicate that he was in on it.

BOUDREAU: Yes. You asked about the first part-

SANCHEZ: Okay. Yes. In on what? What was the M.O.? What did they plan to do with this video they’re going to have on you and him inside this boat?

BOUDREAU: Okay. Well, that is unclear. But that was all in the second part of the document.

SANCHEZ: Right.

BOUDREAU: The first part of the document that you are asking about is about how to punk CNN into reporting a false story, either about Sarah Palin or about the Tea Party movement. And what they would then do is give their allies or their ‘friendly’s,’ as they called them in the document, which would be FOX News-

SANCHEZ: Right.

BOUDREAU: A heads-up, that CNN is about to report a fake story so that they could- quote, ‘pounce on CNN and undercut CNN’s credibility’- and that was the first part of the document. It was very detailed about how that plan was supposed to go down.

SANCHEZ: That’s a heck of a story.

So it’s purely speculation of both Boudreau and Sanchez’s part that Fox News might have played any role in this, purely because his first and most infamous set of videos on ACORN aired multiple times on their competitor. It’s just another example of the CNN’s anchor’s continuing vendetta against the network, where he has questioned their legitimacy as a news organization, or slammed them as "way, way, way to the right" or "the voice of the Republican Party."

The second headline on washingtonpost.com Friday morning highlights "High marks for stimulus package." Oh, who gave it high marks? It explained underneath: "Massive program is coming in on time and under budget — and with strikingly few claims of fraud or abuse — according to a White House report."

On page A15 of the paper, the headline is "Positive review of stimulus package." Underneath that in smaller, capitalized type is "White House Report." Online, it’s simply "Report gives stimulus package high marks." Lori Montgomery’s story reads like a breathy Obama-Biden press release — and it quotes no conservatives or Republicans.

Montgomery reported Team Obama had support in arguing their so-called stimulus "staunched the worst bleeding in employment and led the economy to rebound late last year. Many prominent economists agree with that assessment." The Congressional Budget Office estimates it "may" be on track to "meet the administration’s goal of preserving 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year."

Right after that, in the tenth paragraph, is where conservatives (and the vast majority of the public) are briefly acknowledged:

Congressional Republicans and many conservatives challenge those claims, arging that the stimulus package led to record budget deficits while doing little to improve the economy. With the unemployment rate stuck at 9.6 percent, two-thirds of the voters agree with that view.

Montgomery acknowledged in paragraph two that in this election season, "the report challenges public perception of the stimulus aid as slow-moving and wasteful — an image that has fueled voter anger with the dominant party."

But the rest of the story is devoted to the dominant party’s "positive review."  The narrator seems to be Jared Bernstein, formerly of the liberal, union-funded Economic Policy Institute, who is now Vice President Biden’s chief economist. Biden was made responsible for evaluating the "stimulus." The word "liberal" never appears in the story. As usual, it’s "conservatives" versus "many prominent economists" and nonpartisan government experts.

Montgomery insisted the "speedy spending" has been largely free of waste or fraud. "Even some former skeptics who predicted the money would lead to rampant abuse now acknowledge that the program could serve as a model for improving efficiency in government." She also insisted "The administration also met nearly a dozen deadlines set by Congress for getting money out the door."

The story championed the positive view of two "former skeptics." Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a center-left budget watchdog, exclaimed "Certainly, the fraud and waste element has been smaller than I think anyone anticipated…You can certainly challenge some projects as questionable economically. But there haven’t been the examples of outright fraud where the money is essentially lining someone’s pocket."

The other is "Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, which represents government contractors, said the unprecedented [?] focus on oversight clearly paid off and should be analyzed for lessons that could be applied throughout the government."

Lori Montgomery’s story closed with Biden’s man Bernstein saying "We have a ton more work to do", but the report (not to mention the very cooperative Post reporter) serves to verify "the Recovery Act has accomplished much of what is set out to do."

Appearing as a guest on Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart argued against Maher after the Real Time host linked conservative protesters to images of President Obama with a Hitler moustache, and went on to recount his own observations of left-wing protesters depicting conservatives with Hitler moustaches. This portion of show could be seen on the Web site during the Overtime portion of the show.

Breitbart also recalled the case of conservative activist Kenneth Gladney being physically attacked and called by a racial epithet by left-wing SEIU members, and his own experience of being called "gay" by protesters on the left.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Friday, September 24, Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO:

BILL MAHER: But they didn’t draw the Hitler moustache on him. There was no big movement.

ANDREW BRIETBART: (INAUDIBLE) Hitler moustache. Honestly, last week, we filmed a, last week in Illinois, we actually filmed people having a protest that had Hitler moustaches on Beck, Palin and an Air Force guy running against Debbie Halverson, and we followed them after they finished their protest and they walked into Debbie Halverson’s office.

The Hitler moustaches have come from the LaRouchians, they’ve come from the actual Democratic party, and we’ve found two of the people – no, no, I’ll tell you their names. Anna Murkowski and Ben Dawbins – he’s from the DCCC, and we’ve got Anna Murkowski from Organizing for America were caught on tape. They were caught red-handed. (INAUDIBLE)

SEIU called Kenneth Gladney the "N" word and beat him up, so the racism we’ve caught on tape has come from the people, last week, no, you’re going to like this part, you’re going to like this part a lot, I was at a rally where I spoke and Beck was there, and there was a Stop the Hate rally, and I confronted the Stop the Hate rally, and I started to ask people about what were on their signs, "Glenn Beck Lies," I asked them to say one thing Glenn Beck has lied about, the person said, "I’m not going to fall into that trap." They ended up leaving. … One person in the crowd called me gay. One person in the crowd goes "That guy’s gay" at a Stop the Hate rally. I said, "You just called me a homosexual. Why did you call me a homosexual?" Another guy in the Stop the Hate rally said, "Because of the way you talk." And they all started howling.

Appearing as a guest on Tuesday’s Joy Behar Show on HLN, comedian Bill Maher praised Jimmy Carter as "a better proponent of what Democrats actually believed in," and asserted that it was "fantastic" when Carter bragged about never taking military action against anyone during his tenure, as the HBO host complained about the modern day Democratic party. Maher: "He was a better proponent of what Democrats actually believed in. He was saying the other day, I heard him on 60 Minutes say that during his administration they never fired a shot, not a bullet, not a missile. He said, you know what, I thought, as the world’s superpower, we had the obligation to be the peacemaker. I think that’s fantastic. What a choice that would be for a voter because we don’t have that kind of choice."

Host Behar complained: "And the tragedy is that Jimmy Carter has been vilified as the worst President in the United States history, practically, besides George W. Bush, of course, and it’s really not very nice for people to say that."

During a discussion of Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell in which Maher took shots at her religious beliefs, he declared, "I need someone in the Senate who believes that global warming is real and the Earth is not 6,000 years old," leading Behar to add, "I know. It’s true. I mean, maybe they should be given an IQ test before they can even run."

Maher also voiced support for raising taxes on the wealthy, claiming that increased taxes "healed" the economy in the 1990s. Attacking the credibility of supply-side economic theory, he dismissed the benefits of cutting taxes on the wealthy as he declared that the wealthy would use their money to purchase more boats, seemingly oblivious to the fact that middle class people build boats and therefore benefit financially when they are purchased by the wealthy. Maher:

Obama just wants to go from what it is now, 36, to what it was under Clinton, 39. And I was saying it’s a win-win because people with that much money don’t even feel that three percent tax raise over $250,000. And it heals the economy. It happened in the ‘90s when Clinton did it. … That is the biggest canard ever that it trickles down. Give me a break. Rich people don’t do that. They put it in the bank or they buy a boat-

The discussion eventually returned to more religion-bashing:

MAHER: Well, they’re well versed in what, you know, they cherry-pick little things that they probably read in a pamphlet, but trust me they have, they have never read the Bible cover to cover. I don’t know if anybody could read the Bible and still want to be a religious person. It is a book that is filled with immorality, wickedness, and then just plain silliness.

BEHAR: Uh-huh, well, the other day I was having a conversation-

MAHER: But there’s a lot of wickedness, there’s a lot of-

BEHAR: Yeah.

MAHER: -God acting like a psychopath and just ethnically cleansing people and wiping people out and-

Below is a transcript of relevant portion of the Tuesday, September 28, The Joy Behar Show on HLN:

JOY BEHAR: He hates hypocrisy. He hates religion. But, most importantly, he hates stupidity. And we love to listen to him. He’s Bill Maher, and he’s got something to say about everything. Good thing because there is a lot of news today I want to ask him about. So welcome to the show, Bill Maher, host of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher.

…

BILL MAHER: But we have a microphone, and we like the President, but we want more. It’s our job to hold his feet to the fire. But when it comes time to vote, okay, that’s the time when you say, look, the talk is over. Talk is cheap. Now we have to make a choice. We only have two parties in this country. So we have to grow up and realize there is a difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy.

BEHAR: Right.

MAHER: And when you look at the accomplishments, you know, of the administration, they’re actually pretty impressive. It’s really been a better year or two for liberals since the ‘60s. I mean, they did get health care through. It’s not the perfect bill, but it is a start. It’s about as much as I guess we could do in this climate. I mean, they got banks from, to stop being the middle men in student loans. They got a credit card bill of rights, they pulled out of Iraq, they had a flat lining economy that they at least have up and running again. There’s been a lot of stuff to be happy about, and the Democrats are just awful at bragging about their own accomplishments. The Republicans run on their screw-ups, and the Democrats stay quiet about their accomplishments.

BEHAR: That’s true. That’s true.

…

BEHAR: Well, who’s going to be the tough guy in the White House now, Hillary? I mean, who have they got?

MAHER: Well, I don’t know if you need a tough guy. I think you would need a guy like Bill Clinton who can make the argument. That is what they’re so bad about doing, is making the counterargument. Jimmy Carter, you know, who was always portrayed as this weak, ineffectual President, you know, he’s out plugging that book, so I see him all around. You know, he was a better proponent of what Democrats actually believed in. He was saying the other day, I heard him on 60 Minutes say that during his administration they never fired a shot, not a bullet, not a missile. He said, you know what, I thought, as the world’s superpower, we had the obligation to be the peacemaker. I think that’s fantastic. What a choice that would be for a voter because we don’t have that kind of choice. People say there’s not enough bipartisanship. There’s too much bipartisanship. If both parties are for using the army in Afghanistan to fight terrorism, that’s not too much bipartisanship. That’s not enough.

BEHAR: Well, and the tragedy is that Jimmy Carter has been vilified as the worst President in the United States history, practically, besides George W. Bush, of course, and it’s really not very nice for people to say that.

…

MAHER: She was on Politically Incorrect 22 times, and I’m apparently the only one who has every episode of Politically Incorrect. It’s good to be a hoarder. You know, we released the witch one the first week and last week the one where she says that, you know, come on, why don’t monkeys evolve right before our eyes? Like you could sit at the zoo and watch the chimp become a human? You know, whether, I have more, you know, we could put together a montage. It’s funny stuff, but I don`t want to make my show the Christine O’Donnell show, so I don’t know what we’re going to do this week. We might show one. We might not. I just think it’s important for people to assess that this person could be in the Senate. You know, there’s only 100 Senators. Those votes count. And, you know, I need someone in the Senate who believes that global warming is real and the Earth is not 6,000 years old.

BEHAR: I know. It’s true. I mean, maybe they should be given an IQ test before they can even run.

…

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEHAR: I`m back with the star of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. You know, I’m a huge fan, Bill. I watch you every week, and I’ve been on your show. Maybe I’ll come back-

MAHER: As I am of you.

BEHAR: Okay, darling. But, you know, the other night, you were talking about millionaires and how annoying they all are. You took on Ben Stein and Forbes, right? What’s your beef with Ben Stein specifically?

MAHER: Well, these rich people-

BEHAR: Go ahead. I’m sorry.

MAHER: Well, it’s that rich people are whining-

BEHAR: Right.

MAHER: -about Obama’s plan to merely raise the tax rate on the richest one percent, basically, three percent. I mean, it’s insane how, how they react, how they overreact. We’re talking about a three percent raise from 36 percent to 39 percent just for the richest people. Now, under Eisenhower the richest people paid 90 percent tax rate. Under Nixon it was 70 percent. Obama just wants to go from what it is now, 36, to what it was under Clinton, 39. And I was saying it’s a win-win because people with that much money don’t even feel that three percent tax raise over $250,000. And it heals the economy. It happened in the ‘90s when Clinton did it.

BEHAR: Well, what about this rap that they keep giving on the right about how you have to, you know, give tax breaks to these rich corporations and people so that it’ll trickle down in jobs? It didn’t during the Bush years, so why would it happen now?

MAHER: That is the biggest canard ever that it trickles down. Give me a break. Rich people don’t do that. They put it in the bank or they buy a boat-

BEHAR: Right.

MAHER: -or a bigger boat. This idea that we have to give the money to the rich people because then they’ll create jobs with it. No, they’re much more likely to cut jobs, mergers, and outsourcing. These are all, hiring immigrant labor, these are all ways to squeeze the middle class and make more money for them. That’s why we have this unbalanced economy that we have now where we have the very rich, just a few people who have more money than they could ever do anything with, and the rest of the people trying to find a second job at a yogurt shop.

…

MAHER: This is not news to me because this is exactly what I found out when I was on the road for a few months in 2007 making my documentary Religulous. What we found out talking to endless numbers of religious peoples that they know absolutely nothing about religion because they don’t want to know. Religion is all about sticking in fingers in your ears and humming. They don’t want to hear what the reality is. They want to believe what they believe. It’s not about critical thinking. I mean, faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking. I always ask the question: Why is that good? Why is it good when people brag about, "I have faith, I’m guided by my faith"? Every President says I’m guided by my faith. If there was a crisis, what would you do? Pray. Oh, good. I’m so reassured that if there was a crisis, the first thing you would do would be to try to telepathically communicate with your imaginary friend. That’s what we need in a crisis.

BEHAR: You know, the tragedy of that also, as you point out here a little bit, is that we’ll never have an atheist as a President. And even in running for the Congress you cannot say that you don’t believe. They won’t vote for you. I mean, there’s-

MAHER: Right.

BEHAR: -a new prime minister who is a female in Australia, and she’s an avowed atheist. She was elected. This country is way behind on that particular topic.

MAHER: Way behind. And, as I also tried to point out in Religulous, the biggest minority that gets absolutely no respect in this country is atheists and agnostics. They are at least 15 percent of the country. They are a bigger minority than blacks, Hispanics, Jews, National Rifle people, teachers, you know, gays, you name the minority, it doesn’t, it’s not quite 15 percent. And yet they have absolutely no voice.

MAHER: They talk about how there’s no Protestants on the Supreme Court. Who cares if there’s no Protestants on the Supreme Court? What they are, all are believers in something. So when you’re having a case of, you know, the First Amendment, church and state, yes, they have a, they have a stake in this because they believe in some sort of a church or a temple.

BEHAR: But, you know, you were saying that the religious people that you interviewed for Religulous … But they’re uninformed, and yet they can quote chapter and verse of the Bible a lot of times and give you some kind of like story about Noah … and also things about gay people. You know, they seem to be well versed on that. How come?

MAHER: Well, they’re well versed in what, you know, they cherry-pick little things that they probably read in a pamphlet, but trust me they have, they have never read the Bible cover to cover. I don’t know if anybody could read the Bible and still want to be a religious person. It is a book that is filled with immorality, wickedness, and then just plain silliness.

BEHAR: Uh-huh, well, the other day I was having a conversation-

MAHER: But there’s a lot of wickedness, there’s a lot of-

BEHAR: Yeah.

MAHER: -God acting like a psychopath and just ethnically cleansing people and wiping people out and-

BEHAR: Yes.

MAHER: -just, you know, that, I was pointing out on the show Friday night the Ten Commandments. You know, this is the ultimate list of the ten things right from God, and it doesn’t include rape, incest, or genocide. That’s okay. That’s not on the top ten. But apparently swearing, working on Sunday and building statues to other gods, those are the things that are important.

BEHAR: Okay, thank you, Bill, always a pleasure to hear from you. Keep up the good work.

MAHER: Okay, Joy. Thank you.

Advancing the Democratic-liberal effort to discredit Tea Party-favored candidates as unhinged cads, Thursday’s NBC Nightly News elevated a heated exchange, between New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino and a reporter, into an excuse to denounce “mean” and “angry” candidates. “The mean season in politics gets nastier with charges of infidelity, something close to a fistfight and they’re just getting started,” Brian Williams teased. “Tonight,” he soon relayed, “opponents of the GOP nominee for Governor of New York are saying he behaved like a thug in a piece of videotape that rocketed across the Internet today.”

Reporter Kelly O’Donnell asserted: “Carl Paladino has admitted his own infidelity and then just accused his opponent of cheating with no proof. That’s what set off this fight. But the bigger picture,” she intoned, “is how many voters and candidates have been losing their cool. Anger management is not required or even expected this year.”

She proceeded to highlight how “in Maine this week, a candidate for Governor lashed out at the President.” Viewers then saw Web video, promoted by a left-wing blog, of Republican Paul LePage promising an audience: “You’re going to be seeing a lot of me on the front page saying, ‘Governor LePage tells Obama to ‘Go to Hell.’”

In a feint to balance, O’Donnell noted “Democrats, like Congressman Anthony Wiener, have boiled over, too.” She played a clip of Weiner yelling on the House floor in late July: “The gentleman will observe regular order and sit down!” (At the time, however, NBC Nightly News fill-in anchor Ann Curry painted it as an admirable display: “The U.S. House of Representatives erupted in a display of anger and passion that we often don’t see.” On ABC, Diane Sawyer hailed him: “Every now and then, someone seems to express the nation’s frustration with the endless wrangling and delay in Congress.”)

O’Donnell concluded by castigating Paladino and unnamed others for the lack of proper remorse:

We’re seeing that when some of the candidates who show less than civil behavior get called out, they don’t give the usual apology or clarification we’re accustomed to seeing. Now Paladino, for example, he defended himself, said he was passionate and that he didn’t back down at all. So, we’re finding that anger itself is enough justification for some.

From the Thursday, September 30 NBC Nightly News:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: With the midterm elections getting close, the increasing noise is making noise tonight. Across the country, the voter anger being channeled by various candidates for office. Tonight, opponents of the GOP nominee for Governor of New York are saying he behaved like a thug in a piece of videotape that rocketed across the Internet today. Our own Kelly O’Donnell is here with us with all of it. Kelly, good evening.

KELLY O’DONNELL: Good evening, Brian. There were nasty accusations flying back and forth in a confrontation that got really personal. That candidate, Carl Paladino, has admitted his own infidelity and then just accused his opponent of cheating with no proof. That’s what set off this fight. But the bigger picture is how many voters and candidates have been losing their cool. Anger management is not required or even expected this year.

PALADINO TO FRED DICKER: You’re his bird dog.

O’DONNELL: Tea Party Republican Carl Paladino unloaded on a reporter with a list of grievances in his race for New York Governor.

PALADINO, TO DICKER: You send another goon to my daughter’s house and I’ll take you out, buddy.

FRED DICKER, NEW YORK POST: You’ll take me out? How are you going to do that?

PALADINO: Watch.

O’DONNELL: Around the country, the usual boundaries keep getting crossed as candidates sound off and act out voters’ pent up anger.

PHIL DAVISON, STARK COUNTY, OHIO: I will hit the ground running, come out swinging and end up winning!

O’DONNELL: In Maine this week, a candidate for Governor lashed out at the President.

PAUL LePAGE, REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR OF MAINE, IN WEB VIDEO: You’re going to be seeing a lot of me on the front page saying “Governor LePage  tells Obama to ‘Go to Hell.’”

O’DONNELL: And Democrats, like Congressman Anthony Wiener, have boiled over, too.

CONGRESSMAN ANTHONY WEINER, ON THE HOUSE FLOOR, IN JULY: The gentleman will observe regular order and sit down! I will not!

O’DONNELL: In this anger fueled political environment-

CHRIS CHRISTIE, GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY: You know what? It’s people whraise their voices and yell and scream like you that are dividing this country. We’re here to bring this country together, not to divide it.

O’DONNELL: Analysts say voters will choose to ignore some candidates’ personal flaws or questionable credentials.

RON BROWNSTEIN, NATIONAL JOURNAL: When voters want to make a statement about their discontent, they will cross a lot of hurdles to do it, and there’s just no question about that.

O’DONNELL: First-time candidates still get hit with old-school political attacks. In California’s tight race for Governor, Republican Meg Whitman has been accused of employing an illegal immigrant in her home. Attorney Gloria Allred says the woman knew she was undocumented. Whitman denies that.

MEG WHITMAN: I think this is a typical political stunt led by Gloria Allred, who does this just about every election cycle.

GLORIA ALLRED: As soon as somebody starts name calling me, I know that, essentially, I’ve won the argument.

O’DONNELL: Leveraging voter anger may help some outsider candidates win. But can it do the job?

BROWNSTEIN: It’s going to be a challenge for many of these outsider candidates to transition to Washington and be effective. Some of them will, and some of them won’t.

O’DONNELL:  We’re seeing that when some of the candidates who show less than civil behavior get called out, they don’t give the usual apology or clarification we’re accustomed to seeing. Now Paladino, for example, he defended himself, said he was passionate and that he didn’t back down at all. So, we’re finding that anger itself is enough justification for some.

WILLIAMS: And we’ve got well over a month to go yet.