tv The Cycle MSNBC June 27, 2012 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
change the court forever. >> i'm krill ball and make it mandatory with all this talk about the health insurance mandate, what else should we force people to do? maybe tune into the spin cycle. >> i'm tourre in the guest spot. filing a lawsuit against a little leaguer? seriously? forget about the supreme court. what has the entire american justice system come to? >> i'm s.e. cupp. capitol hill is counting the hours until the health care decision. luke russert joins us from the rotunda for his debut on the cycle." >> all that plus why i'll lay out why obama care act is not popular but the affordable care act is. june 27th, "the cycle" begins right now. >> and good wednesday to you. welcome to the cycle". the gang is here. i was just about to say we have a new participant today because
krystal has sleeves on. i got very confused all of a sudden. >> the big news is that we are having an impact. we are turning s.e. blue from the inside out. show them the tongue, girl. >> yeah. >> we knew it was going to happen. >> you had day three. >> you are coming over to the light side. >> i like my blue raspberry jolry ranjo jolly ranchers. >> we can talk about tongues and sleeves later, but we'll begin with the high court decision on the affordable care act. it's only day three of the cycle. we're learning in cable news there are two types of coverage, reacting to the news and anticipating the news. with the supreme court on the clock for health care, guess which one today is. as carly simon's song says, it's anticipation. both president obama and pitt romney are doing some anticipating of their own.
>> the american people understand that we're not going to make progress by going backwards. we need to go forward. they understand we don't need to refight this battle over health care. >> if obama care is not deemed constitutional, then the first three and a half years of this president's term will have been wasted on something that did not help the american people. >> politico's white house reporter josh gerstein and dallal lith which can a senior editor at slate. josh, you say the odds are chief justice roberts will shape history with his view of the decision. why do you think it is and what do you think that means? >> that's just a guess based on the fact that he didn't present any of the majority opinions for the last couple months of arguments at the court. so he would seem to be the next person up. also a lot of people thought from the beginning that the chief justice would write the opinion majority opinion either way on the health care case because he's shown some interest in trying to craft opinions that either can get a consensus or
near consensus viewpoint or maybe to try to in some cases narrow them a little bit. so there's a little bit less infighting and maybe a little bit less dramatic effect. >> dahlia, you know the court. you know the personalities really well. so much of the speculation about this has boiled down to psychoanalysis. and really specifically involving justice anthony kennedy. everybody acknowledges him as the swing vote. let me ask you from this direction. i look at kennedy's career. this is a guy who has been on the -- he's been with the republicans on bush gore in 2000, citizens unites a few years ago, reupping citizens united. i kind of look at this and wonder if he looks at his legacy at all and says i've kind of been the author or on the side of a couple partisan decisions. do i want to be the guy who does it again on probably the most consequential thing left in my ten tour on the bench or do you think he doesn't want to be seen as a partisan hack.
>> he wouldn't frame it that way. he wouldn't say that if he votes with the conservatives he's being a partisan hack. i think you've nailed the difference between kennedy and some of the conservatives on the court, the more sort of party conservatives is that kennedy's always been a kind of western country club conservative. he's not really a reagan republican the way we think of some of the other court's conservatives. he has had a more expansive view of gay rights, of the rights of children in eighth amendment cases. i think it's fair to say he's quite different even though he is reliably conservative. i think this question whether he wants to be the one to pull the trigger on striking down the biggest presidential act in decades, i think that is the question. it's just, i don't know that he wants to be that guy. >> dallia, speaking of the more conservative members of the supreme court, we heard justice scalia in echo a lot of sort of
republican talking points about the health care bill. he talked about the broccoli argument. he complained about how long the bill was. he brought up the cornhusker kickback which even isn't actually in the bill. how unprecedented is it to hear those sorts of talking points reiterated from the bench and also, is it fair to say that republicans have really influenced the justices over the past year in this argument? >> well, for one thing, it was quite surprising unprecedented both at oral argument hearing him talk about the cornhusker kickback, talking about broccoli, making arts that you really only saw on cable news. but i think it's just of a piece with scalia's general bad boy enfante terrible personality. we saw it on monday in the arizona immigration case. he departed from the four corners of the issue before him and went after president obama over the d.r.e.a.m. act. i think it's just the way he is.
i think he has certainly become more so, but whether it's just kind of getting old and cranky or there's something else going on, it's hard to say. >> doing this sort of cable fuss waiting game, anticipating, talking about what it may be. predicting what it may be. i find it really interesting that the supreme court has this culture that makes it that they leak less than even the cia and the fbi combined. no information gets out of there. >> it's rackable. >> we need to have more of that in government. this decision was written months ago. and yet, all these people, all these secretaries, all these interns and nobody whispers anything to anybody. >> can i put you on the record for we needless transparency in government? is that where you're going with this? >> no, i think the flow of information needs to be more proper. the supremes got right somehow. >> they certainly seem to be disciplined whereas other institutions are less
disciplined. it is remarkable that in this age. >> ask yourself if they've known the decision, what's the wait for? i mean, what's, why, did they wait to tell us what's going on? >> let me actually josh maybe could you speak to this a little bit. that sort of secluded isolated culture of the supreme court. do you have a sense why that is that we never get any leaks from the court? is it because it's such a small world and everybody would know where it's coming from? >> a lot fewer people know the supreme court's secrets than know the secrets in the executive branch. even things kept an at a pretty tight level at the executive branch, a fair number of people know about them. at the court, it's a pretty modest number and it's the culture of the place that the clerks and so forth don't do a lot of leaking. there have been maybe one or two leaks in 50 years of any real signatures. it's something that has been one of the court's practices of doing a better job than other places in washington of keeping a lid on things. i think they also are working
hard on getting the wording of what they want to say right. you can be sure those on the losing side will want to get in exactly the right word about what they think just happened. >> well, listen, we all heard john boehner say republicans were not going to spike the football if part or all of the law is overturned. but i have a question for all of you fine people. do you think that romney will spike the football? and if obama sort of wins, do you think the obama campaign will spike the football? >> the romney campaign, yesterday, sent out an e-mail trying to make hay out of president obama's awkward comment about the red sox. they will seize on literally anything to try to make political hay of. >> this would be huge. >> well, it would be huge. i think that they will because now if any part of this is deemed unconstitutional, romney has struggled to differenceate his health care reform in massachusetts from what the president did. he could say mine was constitutional and his wasn't.
>> the obama campaign to celebrate if they win. >> win or lose, both sides have something to campaign on no matter which way it goes for you. so both sides will have something that they can work with. >> if the individual mandates overturn, how does obama win? >> it energizes the base. >> look, we have this activist court. you need me to put more judges on the kurt. >> the court becomes the enemy. >> i have a feeling we're going to have 120 more shows to talk about this between now and november. thanks to josh gerstein and dahlia lith which can. the justices will decide whether insurance can be mandated? what else should be? as we roll on for wednesday, june 27th. [ valeda ] since the very beginning,
a lot of the debate around the constitutionality of the health care law has cycled around the individual pan date. that every american must have health insurance but this is no first. drivers are mandated to have car insurance. kids mandated to get vaccinated before they start school and right here in new york, mayor bloomberg is mandating you can't buy more than 16 ounces of soda at a pop. so what else should we force people to do? i'll throw it out to the group. i think we should all be required to vote. i think it would be more representative democracy if people actually had to go to the polls and vote. you would see less of an influence of pone in politics because a lot of that money is spent frankly suppressing the vote. steve what do you think of my
idea. >> as we come pullry voting. it's not voting id require them to do but show up at the polls like you're required to show up at the courthouse if you get a summons. you can cast a blank ballot. you don't have to vote for any particular candidate. i don't think it's the kind of thing you have to enforce with like you're going to jail. australia has mandatory voting. they get 94 to 96 participation. the biggest benefit. think about our politics right now and how much emphasis is placed on targeted turnout, sometimes the ugly side of that, suppressing the vote. we want our people coming out. if neither party had to deal with that, we might have a different election. >> i want to see voting registration be mandatory so when you get your driver's license, you're automatically registered. there's a functional disenfranchise chaosment of the
poor and young that comes from taking another whole step to become registered. look, if you believe in america, if you believe in any nation that's democratic, you understand you have to participate in that nation. and in the process of choosing who governs and ultimately it's essential to the function. if you don't like government, then you're going to say, well i'm not going to vote because i don't like them and it's always the same guy. that's why the reason you should run to the polls and get involved. >> the best part about living in america is that you have the right to be stupid. and lazy. i like having that right. >> you exercise it all the time. >> this is absurd. let me get it straight. you think the very people who are so disengaged politically that they can't bother to vote, these are the people you want run together polls by force lest they be charged with a crime. >> do you think the people who are voting now are doing such a great job? >> you might disagree with them, krill, but yes, these are by
definition the people -- >> but the culture of not voting, this group of americans chooses not to vote and it imcoulds to influence another that same group of americans to not vote. if we force to you vote versus getting a fine you will become more -- more knowledgeable about the system. >> one of the other suggestions in order to further compel people to vote is to attach it to a lottery. so vote and insome money. i don't think that coercion or bribery is going to foster patriotism. >> that's the free market. >> or change the democratic process. it's absurd. >> hold on, steve, sorry. what's wrong with a private person offering a cash prize if you vote, your name gets entered in a lottery. it's the private market. it's incentives. we believe in that right. >> but what is the value in not voting? >> well, believe me, i treat
voting as a privilege. it is an absolutely privilege, as such, it should be val you'd, it should be hard. it should be fought for. >> it shouldn't be hard. >> not easy. >> but -- >> can i offer something i think should be mandated? >> a civics lesson for everyone at this table. obviously we have forgotten what american democracy looks like. >> you get a summons from the courthouse, you have to go to the courthouse us. >> duty. >> it's not optional. >> not the same thing not the same thing. >> you have to participate. >> moving on to something that tourre thinks should be mandatory, who has it harder juggling work and family, men or women? that's the question p very question exploded into the main straenl last week with and marie slaughter's essay why women still can't have it all. tourre argues it's not just women. tourre, do you want to tell us what you think? >> women absolutely have it harder. there's biological issues in
terms of the maternal instinct. there's the generational issues of the previous generation saying we have to try to have it all so we can tell our daughters they can have a family and a work career fulfilling career. so men's issues are nothing compared to that. all that i was trying to say in the piece that i wrote for "time" is that men also have it hard too in terms of trying to make a balance between work and family and you feel like you're a provider so you go to work and you make a lot of money or as much as you can to take care of your family but you miss your kids and you neat both. it's really impossible. >> i really appreciated your piece. this idea we have to be at odds who has it harder, we all have it hard. in today's modern society, life is hard. the more choices we get, the more opportunities we get, the more complicated our lives become. and you have sexual politics issues as men that you have to deal with that we don't. burdens we don't have to carry and vice versa. we should all agree, life is
hard. nobody has it all, true. >> one of the things that a lot of people jumped at me for saying i said men don't complain about this problem because men are taught by society and each other to be stoic. i was in no way. >> which is another burden. >> we take our pain and push it down. we don't share with other men. men don't ask for help. i was in no way saying women complain. ann's essay was brilliant. i feel for her, i feel for all the working mothers. in no way taking away from the challenge of women, but men just don't enter into that conversation. we just suffer that burden silently. >> men are not judged on whether to decide -- what job they decide to do or how they decide to live their adult life the way women are. >> that can be another burd. >> and women will stop themselves. whichever choice they make, men will be more comfortable sacrificing family for work, but then the pain is still there.
>> none of that is to diminish the fact that women are still underrepresented in the top levels of companies and the top levels of our political echelon. we still have work to do in finding that work/life balance. we have to leave it there for now. >> i was just about to say that women have it hard and women have it easy to be different. no, i'm kidding. >> breaking news. all right. coming up, philip k. howard joins us to talk about the newest installment of tputting justice back in the legal system. first, remembering a true trailblazer for women, norah ephr ephron. >> it's you. >> it's me. >> yes, yes, yes! oh, oh, oh. oh, god. >> i'll have what she's having. >> i go online. >> welcome. >> and my breath catches in my chest until i hear three little
words. >> you've got mail. >> do you know how to bone a duck? >> no, but that's sect the sort of thing that i'm very interested in learning how to do. >> the biggest thing that makes 50 the new 40 and 60 the new 50 is not better living through chemistry, not exercise. but hair dye. ♪ as time goes buy [ male announcer ] this was how my day began. a little bird told me about a band... ♪ an old man shared some fish stories... ♪ oooh, my turn. ♪ she was in paris, but we talked for hours... everyone else buzzed about the band. there's a wireless mind inside all of us. so, where to next? ♪
well, as the clock ticks towards tomorrow's health care ruling our guest spot today brings you this. the american legal system now has taken on a life of its own from suing little leaguers for throws to drawnout court reporter proceedings that cost millions that reach obvious results. well, the man in our guest spot philip howard is calling on judgeser from to step up in his
latest piece on america the fixable. he is the chair of common good offering americans a new way 0 look at law and government. philip, i guess i want to start with this. it's an interesting piece. the theme seems to be you want activist judges. tell me what you mean by that. >> well, judges shouldn't act as legislators but they have to assert norms of reasonableness as a platter of law. otherwise, people can sue for anything. lawsuits become suits for anything rather than lawsuits. we need the law part and that requires judges to assert that maybe you've got a claim for a broken leg but not for $10 million. >> one of the themes you're hitting at in the article is the litigious culture we have this in country and hold all americans to account for it. i want to read you a quote. you write americans have been brainwashed foo thinking there is a right to claim almost anything. lawsuits are not a unilateral
act of freedom but an act of state power just like indicting someone for money. we would never tolerate a prosecutor seeking the dp for a misdemeanor. why do we allow an obsessive la your to claim $54 million for a pair of lost pants? i guess i take your point. the question i would ask you is this. the culture in this country seems slanned against the kind of conduct you're describing. in poll after poll, one of the most despised class of professionals are trial lawyers, ambulance chasers. every time there's a verdict that mcdonald's $2 million coffee spill verdict, it seems there's widespread outrage. is this really a problem with our culture? >> americans don't trust the system of justice anymore but they also are confused about what it takes to fix it. so, ultimately, we have to accept the fact that if we live under the rule of law, somebody on behalf of society has to draw -- has to assert norms of
what law says and whether a claim is a valid claim or not at some level has to be decided by a judge and judges aren't doing that. they let people sue for almost anything. >> i think you're right our culture definitely looks down upon the professional, especially the lit tinge jus aspect of our culture. if we can look at it from another way that we've come to see the ability to sue as somehow a validation of our americanness. i'm going to pull one quote. he writes letting anyone sue for anything is not a proof of fair justice. it's proof of unfair justice. that's why americans go through the day looking over their shoulders. my point is, this notion though is regularly reinforced by our political class, right? this ability to sue is seen like a civil right. lily leadbetter for example, this is not about getting women equal pay.
lily ledbetter is only giving women the right to sue more often. that's it. it's championed. as sort of a civil rights. >> it should be championed. >> how do we go against this culture of being lit continual jus but also support this idea of suing as invoking our americanness, our civil rights. >> i see this whole thing totally differently. in almost every aspect of our society now, the big guys have all the power. whether it's the big corporations, big government, whatever it is. if you are average person who is legitimately injured, this is one of the only areas in our society where you personally can actually bring to account that corporation, that whoever who has wronged you. i see that as a beautiful thing and an essential thing. that's not to undermine the point that's made in this piece which is a valid point. but i would be very hesitant to
undermine the ability of legitimate victims to bring suit and have their day in court. i'll give you a perfect example. in texas, they passed this law, it's a losers pay tort reform law. where if you are a victim and you bring a suit and you lose, you have to pay. it goes even further than that. if you are offered a settlement out of court and the settlement is -- and you don't take it and you go to court and the settlement that you were offered is more than what you received in court, you have to pay the difference. you are a legitimate victim who is then still having 0 pay. i think that is really egregious and awful. i'm very leery of taking that power away interest legitimate victims. >> let me go back to philip for a second. different article but a similar subject. i love the idea that you came up in another piece about having special courts to judge malpracticen an medical claims. there's a tremendous amount of
waste in the health care system based on the idea that the doctor wants to make sure he gets shoe ed or she gets sued t have a safety net against that. we eliminate a lot of that. a lot of times doctors are doing the best they can and come up against unforeseen complications and don't really understand you know what, they're facing. when they are judged by medical peers they're going to get a much better outcome, a much fairer outcome and much better health care system. i really like that idea you advanced. >> it's very important that courts be reliable for whoever's right. so the current court system is no good for people who have been hurt by a big company. the big company can drag its heels for years. and so, if you have judges taking more authority or in the case of health courts, judges actually making rulings of right and wrong of what's good practice and what's not, as a matter of law, it's better for the patient who's been injured by mistake but it's also better
for the doctor who's been unpairly charged. that's the reason why judges have to take back control of courtrooms. now the system favors whoever is in the wrong and the packet is they undermine everyone's freedom because anytime a kid falls off a seesaw, you might get a lawsuit. then all the seesaws disappear. pretty soon, everybody's looking over their shoulders. there are no diving boards, no jobs, no employers are giving job references anymore. i mean, the whole society's changed because everyone's paranoid. >> i don't know that the answer is giving more power to unelected and unaccountable judges. i hear you on the problem, but i'm not convinced yet that that's the solution. >> there you go. we have the liberal railing against the unelected judges. >> we've got to say thanks to philip k. howard. next up, marie tillman, wife of the army ranger pat tillman to talk about the impact of the war back here at home. [ female announcer ] you can make macaroni & cheese
without freshly-made pasta. you could also cut corners by making it without 100% real cheddar cheese. but then...it wouldn't be stouffer's mac & cheese. just one of over 70 satisfying recipes for one from stouffer's. diarrhea, gas or bloating? get ahead of it! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. hit me!
[ female announcer ] live the regular life. phillips'. [ female announcer ] live the regular life. an intense burning sensation i woke up with this horrible rash on my right side. like somebody had set it on fire. and the doctor said, cindie, you have shingles. he said, you had chickenpox when you were a little girl... i said, yes, i did. i don't think anybody ever thinks they're going to get shingles. but it happened to me. for more of the inside story, visit shinglesinfo.com and this is what inspires us to create new technology. ♪ technology that connects us to everything the world has to offer and vice versa. ♪ technology that makes lightweight stronger, safer, and faster than ever before. ♪
technology that makes electric electrifying and efficiency exhilarating. ♪ technology that doesn't just drive us, but drives progress. ♪ and driving progress is what we do every day. ♪ ♪ sven's home security gets the most rewards of any small business credit card! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put them on my spark card! why settle for less? testing hot tar... great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet?
here's your invoice. during the ten plus years america's been piting in afghanistan, the most high profile casualty of war was nfl star turned army ranger pat tillman. he was an nfl player who was so move by 9/11, that he turned down a $3.6 million deal with the arizona cardinals to join the army. in 2004, he was in afghanistan. in a war his family says he didn't want to be in when he was killed by friendly fire. before he went to war, he wrote a just in case letter to his wife she read only after he died. his wife marie has written a beautiful book called "the letter, my journey through love, loss and live." it would be lauded by anyone who knows about dealing with death.
it's like the year of panel cal thinking from an army wife's perspective. she is the founder of the pat tillman foundation and joins us now. you found your strength to get through this tragedy in a letter pat wrote to be read in his of case death on the battle philly. can you read the part of the letter the book centers on and what those words mean to you? >> through the years i've asked a great deal of you. therefore, it should surprise you little that i have another favor to ask. i ask that you live. that simple request that pat had left for me has taken on so many different meanings over the years. when i first read that to live meant just getting up every day and sort of putting one foot in front of the other. and now eight years later when i think of what he left for me, those words, i ask that you live, it's really about trying to focus on sort of the depth of life and figuring out how to really live every day. >> how did it complicate your grieving process to learn he was
killed by friendly fire rather than what you were originally told, enemy fire? >> it was certainly something that i think prolonged the process for me. spending several years trying to figure out what happened and really reliving everything over and over again was a difficult thing. >> i mean, you talk about complicated grief in the book. so it was more than just a normal morning when you discovered that it was one of his own ho went to war with. >> you know, i think for me, it was such a shock when he died even though he was overseas. i was really shocked by his death never thinking that something would ever happen to him. so to be originally told one thing and then have to sort of reconstruct that story, you know, months later was something that sort of set me back. >> marie, over the past decade in particular, we have really been asking incredible amounts from our servicemen and women but also from their families. how are we doing as a country in
terms of supporting the families of the men and women who fight for us overseas? >> you know, i think it's a topic that is definitely at the forefront of the things right now and certainly there are a lot of support you know networks and systems in place for military families but because it's such a small portion of the population that serves, we can always do more. you know, when pat was deployed and then when he had been killed, there's definitely that sense of isolation and of feeling that you know, the rest of the country doesn't really understand what you're going through. >> you know, maria, i wonder if you have any advice for the spouse or the parent who gets that knock on the door and finds out that their loved one fell in combat or in friendly fire or under any circumstances. i wonder you know, if there's any advice you might share for somebody who has to go through what you went through. >> i think that's one of the most difficult things is there is no easy answer. you know, grief is complicated.
it's messy and it's something that you have to really just move through. you can't get around it. so you know, my advice would be just to do the best that you can pre day and to know that as cliche as it is in time things do get better. >> you know, i think we've all been following this story. and the book is so touching and oh emotional. and we're all grateful for it. but pat tillman's been a politicized figure. that's unfortunate and by both sides. and this subject has been politicized. i'm curious to hear whether marie's seen the move "act of valor"? did you get a chance to see the movie about the marines? >> it might be for the best. i enjoyed aspects but thought it went a little far in glamourizing and glorifying the war. but it's been hard to have these
conversations about pat tillman and similar issues surrounding these wars. >> tillman has become such a complicated symbol. this great manor turns down millions of dollars to fight for his country and then he's like, wait a minute, i don't like afghanistan. i don't believe in the mission we're fighting for. but wait a minute, i'm going to continue to fight just the same as if i did believe in the mission. and. >> then we all know how it ended. >> you know, i mean, for the army to have the most high profiled soldier come out of the army and perhaps criticize the mission would have been devastating for the military. so it's not quite clear what happened actually in afghanistan. i mean, just a very complicated situation. i can see how. >> it is very complicated. >> many people could try to take it in their own direction. one thing that happens with this
book is that it brings pat back to a man. from high school and they lived in the same area before they knew each other. their cultural and emotional connection is very deep. and you know, i mean this could be -- this could be read by anybody you know, who's been through the military experience, the military family, anybody who's lost anybody. it's a beautiful book. marie, thank you for your currently in sharing this. >> thank you. >> a book that many people should check out, the letter. up next, luke russert gets his first turn live on the cycle". we're talking fast and furious, student debt and the overall house of cards on capitol hill. you know, we're a little early for this thing... want to hop in the back and get weird? no. family vacation... vegas. ♪ no. no. give it a big yank! really? yeah! [ knock on window ] no! no. ♪ ugh, no! [ sighs ]
we can have hotdogs for dinner?! yes. [ male announcer ] in a world filled with "no," it's nice to finally say "yes." new oscar mayer selects hotdogs. made with 100% beef and no artificial preservatives. it's yes food. made with 100% beef and no artificial preservatives. focus lolo, focust sanya let's do this i am from baltimore south carolina... bloomington, california... austin, texas... we are all here to represent the country we love this is for everyone back home it's go time. across america, we're all committed to team usa.
>> as you'll recall fast and furious was a program where we allowed untrackable guns to be sent to mexico in an effort to tra track -- here's the guy heading up the fast and furious investigation. chairman of the house oversight committee. >> they've never answered the question, what were they thinking of? could it be what they really were thinking of was in fact to use this -- this walking of guns in order to promote an assault weapons ban? many think so. and they haven't come up with an explanation that would cause any of us not to agree. >> so the absence of a clear explanation for this unbelievably stupid gun program that mirrored only a slightly
less unbelievably stupid one that began during the bush years is evidence of a larger conspiracy to ban assault weapons. are you sure it's not evidence that obama's just arming mexico so they can lead him to retake the alamo? do you think it's that? maybe he's using the weapons to weigh mexico down sinking it. thus creating acres of new beachfront property. to soil with an oil spill. >> that's a guy named jon stewart the daily show's take on the scandal. between the contempt vote tomorrow, the student loan rate debacle and the fallout from the supreme court on health care, there's plenty to talk about on the hill. who better who talk us through than nbc's luke russert. >> i want to get a cool power ranger name like you guy spooz you have to come in the studio
for that. >> i want to be deputitized with a name like that. that's cool. >> let me start with the holder contempt vote. now that the nra has said it is going to score this vote, how many democrats do we expect to be pulled over onto the contempt side? >> i've heard anywhere from about 25 to as high as 35. you basically have to look at folks who represent swing districts for the nra could play an important role or the rural districts. we've haired from mr. mass thiss thisson. mainly because they don't feel the information's gotten there. but the back story is that's a fear of the nra. you have to understand, the nra on capitol hill for blue dog democrats or democrats in tight swing districts that is one special lobbying groups you don't want to anger. a lot of people feel gore lost
the election for coming out for gun control. they're a special issue advocacy bloc greatly feared to this day. >> let me piggy back on that point. there's an interesting dil lemna ma for the national democratic party. if you're a blue dog democrat, you've got to be careful about the nra. keep in mind what they are promoting. a conspiracy theory. the idea that somehow this was a subterfuge to get gun control by sending these unmarked arms into mexico. basically the lesson for national democrats is you don't actually have to do anything to be demonized by the nra. the thing the democrats did in response to what luke described in 2000, what happened with al gore, think of john kerry in 2004, backed totally off on gun control, went goose hunting before the election. the obama administration has done nothing on gun control. democrats are still treated like
the gun control party. my thought for democrats is if they're going to treat you like the gun control party, maybe you should act like the gun control party so you get something done. >> fast and furious is about brian terry and this hearing is about a potential cover-up. house republicans would be wise to stay out of the conspiracy theory business and just make it about the evasiveness, the lack of transparency. democrats would bei izwise not enter race into the issue. the nra has every right to speculate on whatever conspiracy theory it thinks it has. we have no evidence as to obama or the department of justice's motive in fast and furious. none. but the nra is absolutely free to speculate. >> brian terry gives it a certain weight that you can't easily dismiss this. even if his tragic death had not happened, we would still be in the same situation. this is a classic partisan election era witch hunt sort of
thing. >> no one expected it to go this long. this would have been wrapped up last year. he did not expect it to be a summer 2012 issue. >> just very quickly, we have to point out fortune did reporting today saying that issue was no lock. the premise behind the fast and furious witch-hunt has been debunk. >> that does not have anything to do with the contempt vote. >> that's what they are asking him about. >> coverup. asking what they know. >> i have to go back to luke. >> on your point, the house gop leadership this morning, question posed to john boehner about what he thought about this theory by mr. issa. he did not -- >> does not want to go there either not at all. mr. hoda not giving over the proper documents. >> did luke say you are doing
republican points. >> leadership e-mail. that's not a bad police to be. give us the information. >> back to luke on the student loan bill. this is a done deal, right? >> yes. for all intents and purposes. it would hand congress, the republicans and democrats a huge win before the july fourth recess. there's always talk of dysfunction but will get the transportation bill through. we will sea a -- will be a job creator, both sides agree on that. republicans will from what i heard will not get the keystone pipeline. however, will get a process by which environmental permitting is sped up and there is a consolidation of a lot of federal highway -- different funds and that money that the federal government gives to the states for their highways, sidewalks, bike paths, it has to go to the roads and democrats get their bill through and stay is a job create sxwror get the president re-elected and also don't have to move on keystone.
one of those things both sides get all they p want, no side against the student loans. the difference between the two bills is student loans, they agree on what was in it. disagreement was how to pay for it. $6 billion by moving it over premiums for pension funds. folks have to pay their employees. >> yeah. all right. thanks, luke. luke russert. >> always a pleasure. i want my name when i come back. >> inaugural debut, you will. >> thank you. >> steve speaks. we are not allowed to interrupt him no matter how much we might want to. want to. stick around. at liberty mutuau
i just wish it wouldn't fade away so fast. let me show you something. [ dr. rahmany ] as soon as you leave here... plaque quickly starts to grow back. but now there's a way to keep the clean longer. introducing new crest pro-health clinical rinse. it's a clinical breakthrough that actually keeps your teeth 91% clean of plaque at 2 months after a dental visit. plus, it gives you these key benefits. new crest pro-health clinical rinse. crest. life opens up when you do. also try new crest pro-health clinical plaque control toothpaste.
it is not exactly revelation obama care is supported by democrats, controversial amoyngds and detested by republicans. a poll from a pew weeks ago tells the story. among democrats three out of four like the law. among independents 37% do. republicans down to 9% which is roughly on par with e. coli. you know what's really popular with all voters? democrats, independents, republicans? affordable care act. which is also known as obama care. just consider what reuters pound when they asked voters this week about the key components of the law like creating an insurance pool or small businesses in the uninsured, taking advantage of large group price. how about subsidies on a sliding scale to help those that can't afford private insurance? 07% of independents are for that
and 60% of republicans. overwhelmingly say yes, do it. a majority of republicans even say they think companies will more than 50 employees should be required to offer insurance to their workers. some say that all of this reflect as messaging failure on the part of obama and fellow democrats. if only they explained what's in the law better, you know, combated death penalty rumors for rigorously, i don't buy it. i think the lesson here is simpler and probably a little more depressing. you can't do big things in government without a big backlash. part of this has to do with partisanship. when you get down to it most of us are loyal to one party or the oth other. we tend to think about part answer is. which side we are on first and working backward to justify why. the result is what we see here. republicans respond by saying socialism.
there are -- it is true some voters who really don't think like partisans and really are independent. they also lead busy lives. they haven't read the law. 2700 pages long. maybe you heard. they have spent the last would years hearing all sorts of overheated partisan noise about it. where what do they do? air on the side of caution. maybe we are going too fast with the controversial law. i doubt there was ever any way around it for democrats. there isn't and never will be a simple, magical argument to sell something as sweeming as the health care reform law. the only thing that will bring the public around is time. the supreme court is going to decide tomorrow if democrats will even get that. >> i have a question. what if instead of going for the public public option and mandate and health care bill we went for, what if we just had medicare for all? simple and easier to understand. it is not 2,000 pages long. would that have been easier for people to get? >> the line that dispel it is idea that would be popular and easy to understand is that
famous town hall expression from tea party member in 2009 keep your government hands off of my medicare. even when it comes toing? as simple as medicare, i don't think we can sell it that easily. >> you are right that we think in this partisan way we choose its side and then we are backwards to figure out why we are choosing that side and -- i mean, you -- you pointed out exactly that -- obama advance as bill with lots of republican ideas, individual mandate and then the republican space i hate it. you know, even romney says he hates it. it was your idea, dude. >> i want to say this is -- both parties do do this. how many democrats were offend bid the civil liberties record of the bush administration and look the other way -- >> in fairness, there are a lot of democrats that are criticize. >> sure there are some. you know. i -- >> it is not a -- >> tend to be more self-fl self-flatulating. >> ray will get the last word. martin bashir, it is all yours. >> happy hump day to all