tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC December 19, 2011 2:00pm-3:00pm PST
little bit of a break for the afternoon and michael smerconish will be the man driving the car for you, starting right now. newt takes a tumble. let's play some "hardball." good evening. i'm michael smerconish, in new york, filling in for chris matthews, who's taking a short break after his tour for his book, "jack kennedy: elusive hero." he'll be back on thursday. leading off tonight, down goes newt. roughly one week ago, newt gingrich looked like he was on his way to becoming the iowa nominee. but two iowa polls out today show ron paul leading with gingrich crashing. for that you can think of a week's worth of negative advertising, aimed squarely at newt. and it won't stop. this week the romney campaign and pack are expected to vastly outspend gingrich in iowa.
right now, gingrich is paying the price for his disorganized campaign. plus, gingrich has a creative idea for what to do if a judge makes a decision that you don't like. ignore it, and if necessary, arrest the judge. it may not be constitutional, but it's excellent politics on the right. also, are we finally seeing the republicans splintering into tea party and non-tea party factions? hours after senate republicans agreed to a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut, house republicans said, no way. now even some in the gop, like senator scott brown, have had it with the tea partyers. and we're learning more about what people at penn state knew, when they knew it with. and how little was done about evidence of serial sexual abuse of children. finally, last week michele bachmann felt insulted by the way newt gingrich treated her at the fox debate. let's how she feels about ron paul now that he's said that she hates muslims. that's in the sideshow. we start with the apparent collapse of newt gingrich in iowa. howard fineman is an msnbc political analyst and "the
huffington post" media group editorial director. david yepsen is a political columnist and the director of the paul simon public policy institute at southern illinois university. howard, is this the continuation of what we've discussed previously about how this wave of support moved from bachmann to cain to perry to newt, and it seems like continual discontent, or is this different? >> i think it's different because it's more intense. i think newt gingrich being the famous guy that he is, the controversial guy that he is, excited great acclaim when he managed to survive the beginning of his campaign and became sort of the last man standing. but now he's really in it, talking to our people out in iowa. and i'm talking about john ward, our lead reporter for huff post, and todd richardson, the regional editor for our patch local sites. they're saying that newt is announcing this afternoon that he's going to go on a 44-city and town bus tour for the last
several days of the campaign. and i'm sure dave yepsen can confirm that when you head on a bus tour for 44 towns, that's not necessarily a strong sign. newt gingrich has been pummeled, absolutely pummeled by at least $3 million or $4 million worth of negative advertising, from independent pacs, from ron paul and so forth. and what went up in iowa seems to be really rather dramatically going down big-time, in a hurry. >> david, let's look at the numbers that howard makes reference to. newt gingrich's support in iowa, and you're close to this, is on a steep downward slide. this is the latest pp poll and it's got ron paul at 23%, mitt romney at 20%, and newt at 14%. but two weeks ago, it was a different story. at that time, this poll had ron paul at 18%, mitt romney at 16, and newt gingrich leading at 27%. meanwhile, the real clear politics trend lines in iowa from november 1st until today tell the story there. you've got gingrich making a
steady and steep climb until about december 11, and then his support drops off a cliff. at the start of november, romney was in his low 20% comfort zone, and then he began a slide that didn't turn around until early december. now he's back in the 20% range. and ron paul has had a fairly steady rise in the polls to the point where he's now the front-runner. david yepsen, diagnose what's going on here for newt gingrich. >> well, there's an ebb and flow to this for all the candidates, there's a lot of uncertainty in this electorate, even those people who have made a decision, if you push them, they'll tell you, well, they might be persuaded to change their minds. in the case of newt gingrich, i think howard's right. i think candidate newt was doing quite well and he was hit with a tsunami of attack ads and of criticism, so caucusgoers took a second look at him. and i think this thing with the judges that you mention strikes a lot of caucusgoers as maybe just a little bit weird. and so, i think some of the social conservatives are having
some trouble with newt gingrich. so it fits a pattern of what we've seen throughout this entire campaign of a candidate rises, gets hit by something, has a gaffe, and so newt gingrich has fallen victim to that. and you're right, he doesn't have much on the ground -- >> but, david, it's almost like a game of musical chairs, and now with 15 days to go, as they continue to remove the chairs, there aren't too many places left for those folks to go who are dissatisfied and have moved from candidate to candidate to candidate. i guess my question is, who benefits from this environment? >> right now i think mitt romney does. because as sort of the moderate candidate in the race, he's the odd man out. we saw this pattern happen in iowa in 1980 when george herbert walker bush won. he was able to win with a plurality. i think romney is hoping to do that same sort of thing with the conservative vote all chopped up. we haven't mentioned the social conservatives, who are having a great deal of difficulty
agreeing on who they're for. and also, one thing that does get overlooked, not everyone's a social conservative in the republican party. and even among social conservatives, issues like jobs and the economy are what drive -- is what's driving this. but every republican you talk to say they like certain things about some candidates, they don't like other things about them. so they're having a real difficult time making up their mind. >> howard fineman, you made reference to the ad spending. let's take a look at that spending in iowa. in the first national election, since the citizens united ruling allowed unlimited campaign spending by pacs, it's clear to see the impact. in just the coming week in iowa, here's the breakdown on tv ad spending. restore our future, that's the pro-romney pac, is going to spend $713,000 in iowa, far more than the romney "campaign" will be spending, $258,000. and the newt gingrich campaign is going to spend $222,000, combining pac money and campaign money, mitt romney outspending newt gingrich by our count, four to one. >> well, there are a couple things going on here.
and david, when he was covering for the "des moines register," knows exactly how this works. in a multi-candidate field, with a long race ahead, there are complicated strategies in iowa. for mitt romney, it's a bigger priority for mitt romney that newt gingrich lose than mitt romney wins. if mitt romney wins, it's gravy. but if newt gingrich loses, having become the front-runner nationally, that is a tremendous victory for romney, even if it's ron paul who ends up being the ultimate winner. on the social issue conservatives, a couple thing. the judge issue, from my understanding, what our reporters are saying, the judge issue, you know, arrest the judges, all the things newt's been saying, that plays with some social conservatives. but that is a very disruptive and sort of overly dramatic way to appeal to social conservatives. newt gingrich has to do that, because he has other problems with social conservatives, given his personal biography, et
cetera, and so he's using an issue that's popular in iowa with the far right, namely, dislike of judges, but it may turn off the moderates who do also participate as david says in the republican caucuses on caucus night. >> david, to what extent do endorsements hold the key to why all of a sudden now newt is tanking and mitt romney seems to be strengthened? >> you know, i don't think endorsements mean very much anymore. i think newspaper endorsements are a bit of a throwback to the hold days. certainly "the register's" endorsement, that's a paper with an editorial on the left-hand side of the spectrum. it just doesn't have credibility with republicans -- it does -- i'm sorry, on the right-hand side of the spectrum. "the register" has credibility on the left-hand side of the spectrum in a democratic primary fight. the only endorsements i think that count in a caucus fight are ones that either bring money or organizational support, shoe
leather. so, for example, in a republican caucus fight, you want to get the support of social conservatives, because a lot of those pass totors have networks members that they work. and in a democratic fight, you want to get support from organized labor. but endorsements of individual politicians or newspapers, i don't think they make much difference. >> howard, is there any prospect that ron paul wins in iowa, builds on that, and puts himself on a path to capturing to gop nomination? >> well, we keep saying no. i suppose it's not impossible. i covered ron paul's campaign pretty closely last time around, four years ago, in new hampshire. i thought he ended up doing better in new hampshire than i thought he would. but if he wins iowa and gets the validation there, he has to be considered a chief contender in new hampshire. and once that happens, who the heck knows? everybody seems to think that ron paul is somehow too out there, and surely enough, some of the things that he said about iran and, you know, iran being
justified in getting a nuclear weapon and, you know, a lot of the other things that ron paul has said would seem to put him out of the mainstream of american politics, but we're at such a weird point in the republican party's history, kind of collective nervous breakdown here, where they're kind of at the end of an era. they don't know quite what's next. the reagan era is over. george bush and the bush father and son kind of followed on onld reagan. now the republican party is split in a million ways. they don't know where to go. ron paul represents a consistent, if minority, part of the republican party, which is the strict libertarian view. anti-government, anti-defense spending, no foreign aid, no foreign entanglements, no federal reserve, you name it. and for 15 to 20% of the hard-core republican electorate, that's where they're at. >> it just seems like the numbers outside of iowa and new hampshire have been consistent for him. and not showing any surges. i'm going to show you both something. mitt romney used the reliable criticism against gingrich
again. it was on sunday. let's listen. >> republicans came together and proposed a program to make sure that medicare is sustainable. paul ryan was the author of the plan, but almost every single republican in congress voted for it. and the world watched to the see, okay, are we going to have progress? and the speaker said, this is right-wing social engineering. talk about unreliable. >> david yepsen, is it that voters in your state of iowa are rallying to mitt romney, or that they're abandoning newt gingrich? which is it? >> i think it's -- i think they're abandoning newt gingrich. i think they -- i think they -- you know, a lot of republicans, they like the way newt gingrich bashes the democrats, he's articulate, you know, it's kind of red meat. but when you start thinking about making him your party's nominee, there's a little buyer's remorse that sets in here. that pattern has happened several times already in this race, and romney's quite content to keep fueling it, because he'll be the last person
standing. could do well with a plurality. i think howard's right. the ron paul factor is very real. he certainly could win. you can't look at that polling and say he's out of the picture. he's doing what a lot of candidates have traditionally done, tried to do well in iowa and use that media attention to break out of the pack and try to generate some support later down the race. he's got a lot of young people who are showing up at his events, and that's a wild card. we haven't seen a lot of those people. >> howard, real quick, final comment. go ahead. >> i was just going to say, i doubt the ron paul could win. it would be a little bit like pat buchanan, or pat robertson winning the republican caucuses. but i'll say this also, newt gingrich has done mitt romney a favor, because newt has made mitt come you have his shell, start doing interviews, start being more user friendly. the thing that's made mitt romney look halfway decent or at least acceptable is the presence of -- the gigantic presence of newt gingrich. >> amazing, by the way, that it took newt to bring him out of that shell.
>> exactly. >> thank you, howard fineman and david yepsen. coming up, we may be witnessing the republican party splintering into tea party and non-tea party lines. after the senate agreed to extend the payroll tax cut, the tea partyers in the house ditched that deal. that's ahead. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc. ♪ ♪ ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh ♪ ♪ it's nice to be here ♪ it's nice to see you in my bed ♪ ♪ ♪ there are diamonds in her eyes ♪
[ male announcer ] this is your moment. ♪ and they sparkle in the night ♪ ♪ when the moment comes alive [ male announcer ] this is zales, the diamond store. for years, iowa has been criticized as having an out-sized influence in presidential politics. critics say the state is too small, too rural, its population too white to lead the rest of the country in picking a presidential nominee. "the new york times" points out another fact about iowa that puts it out of the mainstream, at least this year. it's too economically healthy. the unemployment rate in iowa is about 6%, that's nearly three points lower than the national average. we'll be right back. all because so many people came to louisiana... they came to see us in florida... make that alabama... make that mississippi. the best part of the gulf is wherever you choose... and now is a great time to discover it. this year millions of people did.
beyond its year-end expiration. the senate voted overwhelmingly saturday, 89-10, to back the compromise. for a minute, it looked like a bipartisan christmas gift for american workers. well, not so fast. speaker of the house john boehner appears to be facing a revolt from the right, that's the right flank of his party. and when the house votes on the deal later today, it's expected to reject what the senate passed. as a result, we've seen republicans in the house and senate trading blame all day, and everyone is wondering, what exactly happened? how did senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and speaker john boehner wind up on such different wavelengths? the most important question, though, is whether political brinksmanship in washington will mean millions of americans are in for a tax hike next year? we're joined by congressman jack kingston, a republican of georgia. congressman, what went on here? were mcconnell and boehner not on the same page? >> apparently they weren't. we thought by passing an unrelated appropriations bill that we had last week prepared to do, that we had strengthened senator mcconnell's hand in
terms of negotiating the payroll tax deduction. that wasn't the case. 89 senators elected to do a two-month. they wanted to punt rather than finish up the program for an entire year, which, by the way, that is the president's position, let's do it for a year. that's what the president said repeatedly throughout the fall, as did most of the democrat leadership in the senate. so when 89 senators voted to just take the two-month, let's get out of town and live to fight another day route, we were pretty disappointed in it, because we believed the american workers deserve a one-year solution to this. this is too important to the economy and to the american families. >> but here's the part that confuses me. initially, when the debate first began, the position of the republicans seemed to be that there should not be an extension of the payroll tax cut at all. and now, somehow, we've moved to a position where the republicans are saying, not only do we want it extended, it's not being extended long enough in the scenario that's been proposed. >> well, i think what we wanted
to do, michael, we were working with the white house, and again, the president laid down the gauntlet. he said we need to have a one-year solution to this. and through the negotiations of the fall, we took him for his word. we put in other issues. some of the reforms on unemployment insurance. we put in the medicare so-called doc fix, and we put in the keystone pipeline, and so one of the epa rules on boiler regulation that we thought was onerous, we had it removed. now, we are willing to compromise on those things. but we felt like the line in the sand was a one-year fix. and you know, i guess there has been an evolution in terms of where we are and where the democrats are, and it might seem like we've reversed positions. i know a lot of the house democrats last week who voted against the one-year bill we are saying that they felt it would be better than a two-month solution, but now they're going
to have to vote for the two-month solution if they feel like that's the president and their party's position. but, you know, this isn't a huge deal, michael. i mean, this is -- i've been in congress for 19 years. we go to conference committees routinely. we've done that for over 200 years. when the senate and the house disagree, we've got 11 days. i've seen bigger issues resolved in a lot shorter periods of time. and all we're saying is, you know what, we don't like what you did on your way out of town. let's go to a conference committee, iron out our differences, and come up with something better for the american workers and the american job creators. >> are you prepared to let it expi expire? >> no, i don't think so, nor do we need to let it expire. again, 11 days is plenty of time. when i was in the private sector, i worked christmas eve routinely. congress can do that. we don't have some special buy that we got to get out of town by the 20th of december. >> congressman, the criticism is not all coming from members of the democratic party. here's what your republican colleague in the senate, senator scott brown, said just today.
"the house republicans' plan to scuttle the deal to help middle class families is irresponsible and wrong. thto increase taxes on hard-working americans and stop unemployment benefits for those out of work during this time of divided government, both parties need to be reasonable and come to the negotiating table in good faith. we cannot allow rigid partisan ideology and unwillingness to compromise stand in the way of working together." what's your response to your republican colleague? >> well, what i would say, picking out his own words, he said we need to negotiate, we need to come to the table to compromise. that's the only thing we're asking. we're saying, you guys want a two-month deal, that's not in the interest of the american recovery. people need to know that this tax break and these medicare reimbursements are going to be there for more than two months. and what we're saying to the senate is, we do not like what you did, but we certainly are willing to negotiate. it the does not have to be our way or the highway. that's not what we're saying at
all. so, taking senator brown's word, as we did with president obama, let's negotiate. and we're willing to do that. and we're willing to do that tonight, tomorrow, on up to christmas and after christmas, and we're going to get this thing done. i want it done. john boehner wants it done. the house republicans want it done. but we do not think that the american workers should accept a two-month extension on something so key to this. you know gene sperling, an economic adviser to the president said, november 30th, this could create 600,000 to 1 million jobs. that is within our grasp. so let's do it. you can't create those kind of jobs with the two-month extension. we need to have a one-year agreement. >> congressman, we'll see what happens next. thank you for joining us. >> thanks, michael. ron paul versus michele bachmann. it's a feisty little fight on the gop's undercard, and now it's in the sideshow. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc. what makes scottrade your smartphone's
most powerful trading app ? total access - to everything. from idea to research to trade. including financials, indicators and real-time streaming quotes. whether you check your investments every day or every minute, our app can take them from thought to trade. at scottrade, seven-dollar trades are just the start. try our powerful mobile app. it's another reason more investors are saying... i'm with scottrade. when you pour chunky beef with country vegetables soup over it... you can do dinner. four minutes, around four bucks. campbell's chunky. it's amazing what soup can do. [ man ] we've been in the business over the course of four centuries.
[ woman ] it was a family business back then, and it still feels like a family business now. the only people who knew about us were those in new england, that moment that we got our first web order... ♪ ...we could tell we were on the verge of something magical. all of a sudden it just felt like things were changing. we can use this to advertise to bakers everywhere. [ man ] browns summit, north carolina. crescent city, california. we had a package go to kathmandu once. the web has been the reason this entire section of the warehouse exists today. we were becoming more than this little flour company in vermont. [ woman ] we're all going after one common goal, which is to spread the joy of baking throughout the whole world. ♪ ♪ ♪
back to "hardball." and now for the sideshow. first up, picking a fight. ron paul made his way to the late-night scene on friday, appearing on the "tonight show." but don't think for a second that he avoided the chance to make some digs at his opponent. one in particular. let's watch. >> mitt romney? >> he used to be governor of massachusetts. maybe that's where he should stay at. >> newt gingrich? >> he maybe should run for speaker of the house again. >> michele bachmann? >> she doesn't like muslims. she hates muslims. >> wow. really? >> she likes to go get them. >> there's the kick per. and if michele bachmann wasn't at home on friday night, she apparently caught wind of paul's comment later on, and she's not laughing. >> it's an outrageous statement that ron paul made, and i call on him to apologize.
it's important to note that there really are haters, and the haters are the president of iran and the mullahs, who have already stated their desire is to be -- they're genocidal maniacs. they want to take israel off the face of the map. >> speaking of that, as newt gingrich becomes the latest candidate to start slipping in the polls, a lot of people are starting to ask a question that up until now has seemed like a real pipe dream. could ron paul really snag the nomination? according to real clear politics editorial, not if the republican establishment has anything to say about it. what awaits the paul campaign if the candidate does manage a win in iowa and new hampshire? "if those two unexpected events do occur, then all hell will rain down upon the paulistas. the gop establishment will throw everything including the kitchen sink, the garage door opener,
and two dozen pair of oversized baboon dentures at paul to keep him from becoming the nominee. but i'm getting ahead of my myself." it's still a big unknown who will win in iowa and new hampshire, but ron paul is no stranger to getting pummeled by the republican establishment. and finally, date night for the first lady. you'll be surprised to find out i'm not talking about with the president. late last week, first lady michelle obama was donating gifts at a military base in maryland when one of the cadets mustered up the courage to ask that she join him at next year's marine corps ball as his date. apparently the first lady said she'd love to go but had to speak with the president first. and the will she or won't she speculation made its way into the white house press briefing. >> the first lady had a marine corps toy for tots event today and a 20-year-old asked her to be his date at the ball next year. and he claims that she would love to do it, but had to check with her husband. has the president -- >> if the president's watching this, this might be the first
he's heard of it. >> anything new at this point? >> i don't know. but i think that's -- i think that's, you know, the first lady's commitment, to military families is very strong, indeed. so i'm sure she was flattered by the invitation. >> i guess the jury's still out. my guess, by the way, is it will be a yea. up next, newt gingrich has a novel plan for what to do if a judge makes a decision he doesn't like. first, ignore it. and then, if necessary, arrest the judge. that's ahead. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc. [ female announcer ] your mom, so proud.
tells the neighbors all about her son, the lawyer. someday, but not today mr. intern. today, your boss needs her caffeine. the boss that calls you nick. your name is nate. but you'll do whatever it takes to impress. you'll bring her the all-natural sugar in the raw and the all natural, zero calorie sweetener stevia in the raw. now run along and learn lots. like how she doesn't drink coffee, just tea. it's only natural. i know you're worried about making your savings last and having enough income when you retire. that's why i'm here. to help come up with a plan and get you on the right path. i have more than a thousand fidelity experts working with me
it was banks that led the way lower, and it was on the word that the federal reserve had failed to convince regulators in switzerland to relax capital requirements for the next rounds of reform. anyway, retailers struggled on word that huge black friday discounts and demand are resulting in a surprisingly large slump in pre-holiday sales. but if you're an investor in wynn dixey supermarkets, congrats. that stock soared 70% after buy low agreed to buy it for $760 million in cash. airline stocks slipped despite a midday dip in oil profits. and some big breaking news after the bell. at&t giving up on its bid to buy t-mobile. it's accusing government regulators that moved to block the merger are refusing to accept the speed at which the industry is growing. that is it from cnbc, first in business worldwide, now back to "hardball."
welcome back to "hardball." newt gingrich returned to an old favorite on sunday. he went after activist judges. and he said, in a gingrich administration, he'd arrest those he says are too radical. listen. >> one of the things you say is that if you don't like what a court has done, that congress should subpoena judge and bring him before congress and hold a congressional hearing. some people say that's unconstitutional. but i'll let that go for a minute. i just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? would you send the capital police down to arrest him? >> if you had to. or you'd instruct the justice department to send the u.s. marshal. >> this kind of tough talk, red meat for the base, but can it stop gingrich's drop in the polls? and is it constitutional, that which he said? jonathan turley knows. he's a professor at george washington law school, and a
constituti constitution expert. j.v. watts today endorsed gingrich for president. be careful, because when your party is office, do you want such a subpoena by the president? >> i think the basis of what he was saying was is how do we stop activist judges? how do we help judges the to understand that you got a legislative branch, an executive branch, and he said if a radical judge or a judge makes what is seen to be a radical case, that you bring them before congress and ask them to explain it. so i think, i think there's a, you know, a thought process there -- a thought process out there that says that should be the case. we should have them explain, why do you think, in this case, what he was talking about, under god, or god being removed from the pledge, or a judge saying that you will put a superintendent in
jail if he hears the word benediction or inknvocation, th sort of thing. >> but can you imagine if president obama issued a subpoena and said, i would like to have scalia thomas show up here at 1600 pennsylvania avenue and explain to me their rationale in how they vote next year on the health care bill. there howould be a hew and cry, and appropriately so. >> i think judges do take opportunities across the country to go into different forums to talk about different issues. i've seen on c-span and other forums where judges, supreme court judges, appellate court judges, district judges, i've seen them go into different venues and talk about, you know, ideology or talk about the law, the constitution. and i don't think there's anything wrong with having a judge come before members of congress to give their thoughts.
they've done that on many occasions. >> professor turley, in a blog post today, you write, "it is the very definition of demagoguing to dangle out the image of judges being clapped in irons to satisfy citizens angry over decisions by judges. article iii is designed to guarantee independence from people like gingrich so that judges can rule in favor of the constitution, and yes, at times, take positions disliked by the majority." i think you went on to say, other than that, it's fine with you. i'm joking. respond, if you would, to congressman watts. >> well, there's a great deal wrong with this. it's perfectly robu lly robes p. john adams warned that a democracy often ends in wastes and exhausts and murders itself. what he was referring to is that in a pure democracy, citizens can do great harm to themselves in the passion of the moment. what gingrich is describing here
is truly horrific. i understand that there are red meat speeches during a campaign. this isn't a red meat speech. this is something closer to cannibalism. one branch devouring the other. and he is threatening the very thing that gave stability to our system. if you look back in our history, the rock that we have based our system on has been an independent judiciary. it's what george washington called the strongest cement of good government. he was referring to that system of law and that court system. >> well, is history -- is history on newt gingrich's side? because he injects the reference to president jefferson and talks about how three circuits were abolished under his watch. >> yeah, he's wrong. i got to tell you, i don't know which concerns me more, his rather misinformation about the law or his misinformation about history. the historical examples he gave are simply wrong. i mean, he refers to, for
example, to lincoln -- >> may i interrupt and show it to everybody? he defended his position by invoking abraham lincoln, as you say. let's all watch. >> are judges above the rest of the constitution? or are judges one of the three co-equal branches? >> but isn't the other side of that, are the rest of us above the constitution in obeying the law? don't at some point you have to say, this is a nation of laws and we all have to -- >> you do. but i go back to lincoln, who people generally think respected the law. lincoln explicitly instructed his administration not to enforce dread scott, and he said, it's the law of the case, not the law of the land. and it's in his first inaugural. >> professor turley, is that true? >> no, it's absolutely not true. the i think that undead dred scott was the 14th amendment. the emancipation proclamation did not conflict with dred scott. because dred scott said you could not give citizenship to
african-americans. it did not give citizenship. it was in compliance with the rather mutated view of dred scott. ultimately, the 14th amendment got rid of dred scott. so the history here is pretty shaky, but the message is really scary, because what he's suggesting is that a president can simply ignore the court. and become a government unto himself. >> congressman watts, go ahead and respond. and along the way, please speak to the issue of whether this is vialtive of a separation of power. this notion that all of a sudden an executive branch or a legislative branch would be able to call members of the judiciary on the carpet. >> well, michael, what the speaker -- the essence of what the speaker was saying or trying to say, and i've heard him talk about this before, what he was saying was is that, you know, an activist judge, basically, it is the responsibility of the judge to interpret the law, not to make the law. that's the legislative branch's
responsibility to create laws. and the speaker went on to say, in his interview with bob schaefer, he said, you know, if the judges -- if judges render a decision that congress and the president could overrule that decision, that they did have a say, that they did not -- that they were not necessarily final word, because the president and the congress could overrule or could create a law saying we disagree with that. so i think he was the essence of what he was talking about was trying to say, how do we -- do we have any say over a judge making a ruling, saying we should take "under god" out of the pledge, as they said in the ninth circuit. the speaker was saying, implying that, yes, we do have some say in that, and some authority to say, you are not the final word, through the congress and through the administrative branches of government. >> final question, if i may, for you, congressman watts. i know that you came out today for house speaker newt gingrich. why have more members of that
class of '94 not done likewise? >> well, for whatever reason. i don't need anybody to, you know, hold my hand and tell me who i should support. you know, i think what we're seeing is is that the establishment and the republican party i think is trying to lead everybody to mitt romney. republicans, you know, we don't fall in love, we fall in line. and i -- you know, i think newt gingrich, i know newt. i don't think he's a saint, and neither do i think mitt romney or michele bachmann or rick santorum or rick perry or any candidate that we have out there, that they're a saint. but i think we need somebody that's prepared to do the heavy lifting, to get us to where i think we all want to go. and i think when you look at newt's leadership in terms of what he did as speaker, we had balanced budgets, we paid down debt, we took on entitlement programs and reformed them. and we did those things with a democrat president. so i think his track record as speaker is pretty good.
>> congressman, thank you. appreciate your time and also professor jonathan turley, we appreciate your being here. >> thank you. up next, new information about what the officials at penn state knew, when they knew it, and why they did so little when confronted with evidence of child sexual abuse. you can follow me, by the way, on twitter, if you know how to spell smerconish. this is "hardball," only on msnbc. progresso. it fits! fantastic! [ man ] pro-gresso they fit! okay-y... okay??? i've been eating progresso and now my favorite old jeans...fit. okay is there a woman i can talk to? [ male announcer ] progresso. 40 soups 100 calories or less.
[ male announcer ] don't miss red lobster's surf & turf. 3 grilled combinations all under $20. like maine lobster with peppercorn sirloin, or new bacon-wrapped shrimp with blue cheese sirloin for $14.99. offer ends soon. i'm john mazany and i sea food differently. . u.s. officials are keeping an eye on north korea where the tradition of power to kim jong-il's son is underway. the media announced this morning that kim jong-il had died over the weekend and now his 27-year-old son, kim jong-un is taking control of one of the world's most repressive and enigmatic governments. u.s. officials say they're very concerned about instability in north korea, given the country's nuclear ambitions. we'll be right back.
♪ sen♪ co-signed her credit card - "buy books, not beer!" ♪ ♪ut the second at she shut the door ♪ ♪ girl started blowing up their credit score ♪ ♪ she bought a pizza party for the whole dorm floor ♪ ♪ hundred pounds of makeup at the makeup store ♪ ♪ and a ticket down to spring break in mexico ♪ ♪ but her folks didn't know 'cause her folks didn't go ♪ ♪ to free-credit-score-dot-com hard times for daddy and mom. ♪ v.o.: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com ♪ but you tonight [ male announcer ] this is your moment. ♪ [ male announcer ] build your own unique memories with persona beads. now at zales, the diamond store. so i used my citi thank you card to pick up some accessories.
a new belt. some nylons. and what girl wouldn't need new shoes? we talked about getting a diamond. but with all the thank you points i've been earning... ♪ ...i flew us to the rock i really had in mind. ♪ [ male announcer ] the citi thank you card. earn points you can use for travel on any airline, with no blackout dates. premier of the packed bag. you know organization is key... and so is having a trusted assistant. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle...and go. you can even take a full-size or above and still pay the mid-size price. here we are... [ male announcer ] and there you go, business pro. there you go. go national. go like a pro. when you pour chunky beef with
country vegetables soup over it... you can do dinner. four minutes, around four bucks. campbell's chunky. it's amazing what soup can do. we're back. mike mcqueary, the key witness in the sexual abuse case against jerry sandusky, testified publicly for the first time on friday at a preliminary hearing for two penn state officials accused of lying under oath about what they'd been told about sandusky sexually abusing a child. mcqueary testified that in 2002, he witnessed extreme sexual activity between sandusky and a young boy in a locker room shower. however, mcqueary is on record as having told varying versions of the story to several different people. joining me now to talk about mcqueary is kathleen kane, a former prosecutor, and a democratic candidate for attorney general of pennsylvania, and buzz bissinger, a daily beast contributor, pulitzer prize winner, and author of "friday
night lights." i want to ask you both, what stands out. because i know the three of us has been paying very close attention. what stands out from the friday testimony? i want to put something on the screen that will made me to make my first observation. it's what mcqueary said. he was questioned about why he never approached the police about what he believed he had seen, and he said he believed he'd pursued the the proper protocol by talking to penn state vice president gary schultz and athletic director tim curley. "i thought i was talking to the head of the police, to be frank with you. in my mind, it was like talking to a d.a. i was talking to the police who knew what to do and what to do with this it." that's a reference to schultz, and what strikes me, kathleen and buzz, is that we now have confirmation that schultz was in the loop in the 1998 incident that was not prosecuted by a local d.a. albeit, he said he didn't know much about it, but he was in the loop. so now it's 2002, when mcqueary tells him whatever it is he told him about having seen this conduct in the shower. and my point is that a foghorn
should have sounded at that point. it was four years after that first incident. you'd think that schultz would have said, my god, it's sandusky again. instead, six more years go off the clock, all the while, presumably, more abuse is taking place. that's what i found to be significant. buzz, how about you? from friday, what was striking? >> well, i mean, that certainly was striking. i thought mcqueary was an incredibly credible witness, despite all this dragged before. but what was really intriguing and disturbing to me, actually, were the notes of grand jury testimony read into the record, particularly from paterno. i find it fascinating that his first reaction to what mcqueary told him, which was clearly extremely sexual in nature, that's what mcqueary says, joe's first reaction is, look, there's not much i can do. he doesn't work for me anymore. and that seems to me it's really now a liability issue. it's a legal issue. he waits a day, because it's a
saturday. doesn't want to disturb anyone on a weekend. says he wants to think about it. think about what? think about what? think about the fact that a former coach former coach has apparently sexually abused a child? we've talked about this. when he meets with curley, why is mike mcqueary, the eyewitness, not there? mcqueary should have been there and joe says, listen to what mike has to say. he's not there, why? because paterno wanted to control the flow of information. >> buzz, you're right, we have discussed that. and i have said to you that i think it's far too serious a matter to play whisper down the lane and for one individual to assume responsibility for that version of events and pass it on to somebody else. to be a contrarian, i guess i could say because mcqueary has so soft-pedalled it, that paterno didn't fully recognize what he had on his hand. i know you don't buy into that. >> i don't buy into that because i think paterno slumps into his
chair, according to friday's -- what was read into the testimony on friday. he slumps in his chair. he says to mcqueary, i'm sorry you had to see that. so mcqueary must have told him something. now, he did not use the words able intercourse out of respect for the coach. but obviously paterno saw some disturbing. you get the eyewitness, you get mcqueary there and you say, look, this is what mike so and the whole tenor of the thing might have had changed. >> what did you find most significant in court friday? >> as a prosecutor, from their standpoint, i thought the testimony was strong, it was credible and it was consistent. we were worried that maybe mcqueary wasn't going to be consistent. but he was. and i agree with buzz. all of the actions of the -- coach paterno afterwards show that he knew the significance of it. i think that it goes right back to that culture of sweeping it
under the rug, of the good old boys club and making sure that they control that situation despite the fact that that little boy was clearly in trouble and every little boy that came after him. as a prosecutor, i thought the testimony went in very well, i thought the case was very strong both against curley and schultz as well as against sandusky. but as the mother of two little boys, again, i was shocked and i was disgusted and it left me wondering, where is the goodness of these men? when are they going to stop? when are they going to tell the truth, come clean and why do they have such little respect for our system of justice to continue to keep up this lie? >> kathleen, the cross-examination of mcqueary is still to come, as you know from the rules that applied to the preliminary hearing. we've still not yet found out, did, in fact, dr. dranov --
>> i don't agree with hearsay on hearsay. it's unreliable and inconsistent. let's put the eyewitness under oath and put him before a trial and a jury. >> that is going to happen. 30 seconds, buzz, you can take it. >> i think kathleen is right. it seems like the victim, the alleged victim, i hate to use the word alleged. he's at the bottom of the pile. i don't think paterno really cares about him. curley doesn't care about him. mcqueary cares about him but doesn't do enough. i think the issue is, how are we going to get out of this? and they say, let's blame it on second mile, on jerry sandusky's foundation. it is not our problem. >> got to end it there. thank you, buzz bissinger and kathle kathleen kane. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc.
this was the gulf's best tourism season in years. all because so many people came to louisiana... they came to see us in florida... make that alabama... make that mississippi. the best part of the gulf is wherever you choose... and now is a great time to discover it. this year millions of people did. we set all kinds of records. next year we're out to do even better. so come on down to louisiana... florida... alabama... mississippi. we can't wait to see you. brought to you by bp and all of us who call the gulf home.
last friday there was an important hearing in the penn state case. it featured two hours of testimony from mike mcqueary, a former penn state football who in 2002 at a time when he was a graduate assistant claims to have witnessed jerry sandusky raping a boy in the football locker room showers. while what mcqueary saw and said is being challenged, one thing we know is that no one called the police in 2002. no, the police were not called until 2008 as a result of the courage of a high school student who went to his principal and
said that he was being victimized by sandusky. he's referred to in the grand jury summary as victim number 1, not because he was the first to be victimized but because he was the first to come forward and because of him, there are now a total of ten known victims and 50 charges of abuse pending against sandusky. and frankly, it strains kre duality to to believe there are only ten victims. where would we be without victim number one? arguably, the case would still be the stuff of cover-up. that's what i thought last friday when i was reading tweets from media in the courtroom. remember, there was a report of abuse by sandusky that was investigated by penn state police and referred to a local d.a. back in 1998. the d.a. declined to prosecute. four years later is when mcqueary saw something in the showers. he told the athletic director about it and the vice president
in charge of campus police. a man who was in the loop on the claim four years prior. no matter how mcqueary described it, you'd think a foghorn would have gone off, alarm bells would have sounded and an investigation launched at the time that he brought this to their attention in 2002. but that's not what happened. instead, six more years passed and it wasn't an adult who brought this to an end it was a young man who had been victimized. he's paid a price for his courage and a newspaper said this weekend regarding victim number 1, his story gave others the strength to come forward to share their stories with authorities. together, their testimonies have built a mountain of evidence against sandusky and led to the fall of men once thought untouchable. without him, it might still be continuing. once he came forward, others did likewise. others who until that moment were presumably suffering in silence. we ought to take a moment and reflect upon how a brave boy confronted an evildoer at a time when cowardly