tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC May 24, 2011 2:00am-3:00am EDT
really hurts their credibility. >> you bet. nbc political analyst ed rendell, thanks so much. tonight i asked you in our survey, roger ailes reversed himself today and sarah palin is smart. do you agree? 2% of you said yes. 98% of you said no. we'll see you back here tomorrow night. 2011, the elf giant graveyard, let's play "hardball." >> good evening, i'm chris matthews down in washington. leading off tonight, saturday night massacre. last week huckabee announced saturday night he was out. this saturday was mitch daniels who said no thanks. what is scaring ofthe serious candidates in the republican party? thune, trump, barber, pence, all
of them have split the scene. if as they insist, obama is so vulnerable, why will no one take him on? the sad gop field is our top story tonight. plus more evidence now that democrats are drawing blood on the medicare issue. if the republicans can't hold a republican district in western new york, it will be for one reason. their plan to kill medicare as we know it. tomorrow's election to replace the embarrassed chris lee is now a toss-up and republicans have a reason to be very nervous. you can bet republicans wish lee kept his shirt on. the right wing in israel and the right wing here in the u.s. have joined to take on obama. when is the last time lawmakers lined up with a foreign prime minister against their own president? imagine the outcried if democrats did that to a republican president. see how herman cane when asked a very basic question about middle east policy. finally, let me finish with
a republican party that can't forget its past, and can't see its future. we start with the gop 2012 field such as it is. mark hall paren, a political analyst, and jon heileman, a national columnist. gentlemen, let's take a look now at this situation. what is causing all these people to drop off the field? people who got out so fast. mitch daniels this past weekend. haley barbour a couple weeks ago, mike huckabee the week before this. john thune several weeks ago. pence several weeks back, and trump last week. i have never seen so many names allow to be exposed as candidates then publicly say i'm out of here. >> there is no clear front-runner. that's created a vacuum that's caused a lot of people to look at it and say maybe that is the right year to go, maybe it is my time. i think the top three guys, heavyweight candidates, barbour, daniels and huckabee all passed
for personal reasons. i don't think it was the politics or personal as much as personal factors in their life, i think the bottom three guys had ambivalence about whether they could win and ambivalence about actually being president. that kept them out of the race. that doesn't mean that the president can't be beaten and that they couldn't win on some level but none of them had the fire to get into this. >> what did you think is missing, john? why isn't there fire? nobody likes to say it, but any democratic political system is based on ambition. there must be men or women willing to take a lot of crap, if you will, because they really want to be leader of the country. they are not here right now for some reason on the republican side. >> as mark said, the first three guys all did the top three candidates that we would be most serious of the ones who decided to take a pass, all decided for personal reasons. my impression of watching all of them at various stages at last
six or nine months all lacked the fundamental fire in the belly. they all thought they would be a better president than barack obama. they all think that barack obama is bad for the country, but none of them ever, listening to them talk, sometimes with me and sometimes in media settings, never had the driving ambition that hillary clinton had in 2008 or john edwards had in 2008 or john mccain had in 2008. you didn't hear that from them, and i think when they got to the edge of it, they looked at what the modern president system has been become, and they said, i'm just not -- i just don't have the burning that i need to have to go through that held. that hell. >> the funny thing is, mark, i'll get back to you in a minute. i think you made the point that they had more personal reasons. no one had more personal reasons than bill clinton who said, i won't go in '88, but i'm going in '92, having thought about it again. his judgment was it's worth the hell i'm going to take out on the stump, and these guys say it is not worth the hell i'm going to take on the stimp. why is it different for them
than it was for clinton? >> i think the most important thing any of these guys or women can ask themselves is, is this my time? does what i have to offer match the mood of the country and needs of the country? barack obama showed that in 2008. he ran against long odds because he had a burning desire to do it, and thought he was the right person. frankly, some people in the field now have that feeling of history and moment and personal destiny. >> gotcha. >> i don't know that that's anything -- >> that's so telling. >> i don't know if that is anything about obama, i think it is an accident of history right now that republicans have strong candidates who don't feel that burning passion, that mission to do it. >> i love that thing, not just ambition, it is the sense that your ambition synchronizes with the site zeitgeist, that you can ride in glopping on the horse of history. you can ride into the presidency the way bill clinton did in '92, the way barack obama did in 2004. this poll shows romney with 24%.
this is new hampshire, i believe. undecided 20, sarah palin doing okay at 12. newt down at 9. giuliani at 7. giuliani is not doing really much here. that is not really a strong shape. there's nothing that that says that paul. you can say, what does that tell you? nothing. it tells you the public hasn't gotten excited. >> it tells you that all of the guys, if you rank them top to bottom -- >> they are all bottom. >> with any scintilla of name recognition on a national level or even in new hampshire, the three we think will comprise the a tier, you've got romney, pawlenty and huntsman. two of those guys, pawlenty and huntsman, are just totally unknown, so the fact they are not showing up on polls -- >> they are the anti-romneys,
right? >> well, they are the alternatives to romney. >> this is interesting put together by our producers. it puts together the commentary into a nice collage you can follow. let's watch this. let's listen. >> i think governor christie in new jersey will be pushed to consider this. >> i think there's only one last hamlet question, crist christie, who is a big star. >> i think this will open it up for chris christie of new jersey. it will open it up for paul ryan. >> i was saying this morning maybe it is time to draft paul ryan. >> i'm not getting into the hypothetical. >> i am not running for president. >> >> think perry in texas will reconsider. >> i think the third person you have it think about now is jeb bush. >> here we are all the way around the circle. the usual suspect is back, a bush. it seems like chris christie might have discounted his experience as front-runner, like you are hearing these words like oh, he is not popular in new jersey, cuts are starting to hurt people.
it is a lot of talk. he is a bit of a bully. you hear the tough talk about him. has he gotten past his excitement moment where they will look past him, even to jeb at this point? >> no, i think you will hear a lot of chatter listed in that montage. i think there is high probability that the nominee will be huntsman, romney or pawlenty. no one else is thinking of running and no one else on that dream list, getting past romney for someone starting now is going to be different. he has other advantages. when they get in, they have to get a staff, raise money. get over scrutiny. i think getting over what mitt romney has build in subterranean fashion will be too difficult to do for someone getting in in december and i think they are smart enough to know that. >> i find this is the most boring list i have ever seen in my life. pawlenty, the name itself with is like polenta. where is the exciting part of the meal? then romney is already
yesterday. then this guy, huntsman, i don't get huntsman except he doesn't like romney. i don't know what he's doing it other than his personal dislikes. here is pawlenty, for everybody to look at him. here he is on the "today" show just today. let's listen. >> our country needs new leadership. we have to get this economic moving again. president obama unfortunately doesn't have the courage to look people in the eye and tell them the truth. these are serious times and we need serious people with serious solution. if you are looking for the loudest comedian in the race, i'm not the one. but i will bring the solutions to help fix the country. >> oh, yeah, here is huntsman. >> does he have a chance? he worked for obama. what's the answer? >> i work for the president of the united states. the president asked me, the president of all the people. during a time of war, during a time of economic difficulty for our country. if i'm asked by my president to
serve, i'll stand up and do it. >> so would you do it again? >> i would do it again, of course. >> what do we make of that? john, then mark, this idea you serve as personal representative of the president of the united states, it is not just the job. you are personal representative on all issues. that's why you take an ambassadorship. there was no war with china, by the way. he did it because he saw an opportunity and he sees one now. does that look opportunistic, to break with a guy you worked for? >> i don't think so. we will see his argument, his rationale, for what he disagrees with barack obama on. we are still in very early days. from the standpoint of primary voters and the nomination fight, for him to be able to say, look, i served the president. i served the country abroad, and to to -- i know you said they are not at war with china. but the military analogy is not a bad one. when your president calls you on the global stage, you answer that call. >> i think that's not a bad answer. >> you think that's not a
problem of opportunism. transactional politics, where you work for a guy as long as it is useful to you, then you run against him when that is useful to you. >> i think that's the case he articulates against obama. you could imagine him arguing a case that says, look, i've been on the front line with china. i can see what our policy is doing. >> i don't know about that guy. >> you can hear him making that argument and not being laughed off the stage. >> i don't know, mark. the question of whether you work for a guy as personal representative, then at some point something changed where i made a decision that this guy was not the right guy to lead the country, because beginning i thought he might be. you can't say, you never thought he might be president because you went to work for him because he asked you. >> i spent saturday and sunday covering hundredsman on the general discussion on china, i don't think there is any doubt
on the merits that this will be plus for him. he has the ability to talk about one of our greatest challenges currently and for the next hundred years, unlike any presidential candidate i've heard with the exception of bill clinton and he shows potential on a range of issue. if he lives up to it, i think he will be the next president of the united states. >> you first, which one of these fellows, we mentioned three of them, regular conservative republicans, i assume. i guess we are thinking that perhaps left to right it's probably huntsman, pawlenty then romney. but it keeps changing. which one of these could excite a big heated room down in tampa, florida next september? when all the people are there, the whole party, far left to far light, is present which could excite them and turn them on most likely? mark? >> all three have the potential to do it. but all of them have challenges. that is a challenge for all
three of them, that particular skill. >> i think the one who has the most potential to be able to tap into the tea party's energy is tim pawlenty. in fact, he is more of a populist. a more of a working-class guy and more of a social conservative. we will see him run that way, a strong evangelical christian. he can tap into a lot of that grass-roots energy. >> i don't want to interview any of these guys. i don't think any of them excite the tea party people. they seem establishment, they seem like part of the people running this country for years. >> if there is a problem with the way the country is running, they are part of it. i don't see them as joan of arc. overnight. i'm waiting to see it. >> the tea party cares about deficit reduction, and at this point the tea party doesn't have a strong candidate. every candidate running will be for deficit reduction. they'll probably be against any deal that's struck in washington.
i don't think the tea party will play that much a bigger role in picking a nominee than the establishment in compared to years past. >> i see one guy that raised taxes on energy because he agreed with climate change. i see one guy that replicated the health care plan in massachusetts and supported it nationally, and i see a guy who swore allegiance to the president and broke it. i see problems with all three of these fellas. that's my view. you're the experts. you're writing the back. thank you. you know where i stand. i have you guys here to tell me what you think. you chuckle at me, sir. >> that's your michele bachmann commercial right there. >> i don't need a commercial. the plan to end medicare looks like it is failing its first real test. leading in the polls using one issue, medicare, and the republicans plan to get rid of it. giving democrats hope this is the issue they can use to win back the house perhaps next year. that's ahead. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. [ horn honks ] now we're hitting the road with the proglide challenge. my friend -- come on up. how do you like shaving? i don't like it. it makes my neck itch. [ male announcer ] shaving can cause irritating tug and pull. you think there's a better razor out there? i sure haven't found one. let's take the proglide challenge. [ male announcer ] fusion proglide is engineered with gillette's thinnest blades ever so it glides for less tug and pull. this thing is fantastic.
across the country? >> josh martin is founding member of talking point memo, and john feehery is a republican consultant. first of all, josh, just a memory lane from last week, newt gingrich is around the country getting his butt kicked because he said this plan it replace medicare is right wing social engineering. he then had to go through the cambodian reeducation camp for three days, then ended up swallows all of the hell he was given on this issue, but everyone knows what newt thinks. this is a killer politically. scott brown in massachusetts says i'm not for it. is the message for thinking republicans to be confirmed tomorrow that this medicare plan is, well, it is a death certificate? >> you know, the signs aren't
very good. this shouldn't surprise us. medicare is a popular program. this is an example of the republicans really over-read the man dade that they did get back in 2010. it is clear there was this general sense we have been spending a lot of money on you know, on stimulus kind of all this stuff as reaction to the 2008 economic crisis. again it shouldn't surprise us when the major party gets a party line vote to get rid of one of the most popular programs in the country and replace it with vouchers yet this is hard to take into an election. >> let's take a look at the latest ciena poll that shows kathy hochul and jane corwin. i wonder if that isn't a template for what is coming next year, john feehery, that if you have a right-wing candidate tea partiers jumping in in any race, it hurts the republican, but this whole issue of why do you want to get rid of the most
popular program out there if you are a republican? >> well first of all i think the first issue you raise is the right issue. that is republicans have to call out people who masquerade as tea party guys then spend a couple million, then take 12% of the vote. if davis is not in the race, republicans win fairly handily. i don't think the republicans are going to lose. i think it is very close the people i talk to say the republican has a superior ground game. it'll be close. i still think the republican has a shot at winning. medicare is a very popular on the bigger issue of medicare, medicare is something that's a very popular program, there is no doubt about it. if we don't reform the program the country will go broke. you have to deal with that. i think paul ryan put out a program, not in the budget, but a separate program that is very controversial, that it will actually help to reform the program, but this is something that's coming out of the house,
the senate is probably not taking it up. >> you are backing away, bro. you are skirting the issue. you are saying it doesn't matter. let me show you the latest polls out there. i do have an advance here. here is the siena poll. let me just challenge you on the facts here. the voters most important issue when choosing a candidate is medicare. let me just ask you this, you say reform, the republican plan is to get rid of medicare which is guaranteed entitlement program and give you a voucher like a $10 gift certificate at barnes and noble. it's a gift certificate, not coverage. it is a check that nowhere covers the cost of medicine if you are in your 70s or 80s. with you know that. >> this is the same program put out by bill thomas in the 1990s. we have to fix medicare in the long term, and if there has to be competition involved in it -- obviously what paul ryan said is if you are under 55, this might be something you have to deal with. if you are over 55 it won't
touch you. this is a beginning of a -- >> you are so desperate. you say it doesn't matter if you are over -- you are skirting. >> it has to happen. >> you're saying it doesn't matter then then you say it doesn't matter if you are over 55. >> that's what the plan says, if you are over 55 it won't impact you. that's an important talking point. all of the members i talk to go back to constituents. that is something that sells, that if you are over 55, it's not going to -- i don't think that's fair because i'm under 55. i think if there's reform, the old guys have to pay as well, but i'm not running for office, so, you know, i have a different -- >> >> i want you to know, you know my favorite new weather vane is scott brown in massachusetts. scott brown will get reelected up there unless democrats come up with a good candidate next year. they could. but right now he is looking strong. he is so smart at skirting these
issue. just like john feehery. scott brown said this about the paul ryan medicare plan in politico this morning, quote -- while i applaud ryan for getting the conversation started i cannot support his specific plan and therefore will vote no on on the budget. so there's scott brown, who's got the cosmetics, let's put it right, josh, he has the cosmetics down good. he knows this will look bad for a republican to be out there to ax medicare. i know, just for people under 55, i know that. >> john's point, you can listen to what he is saying, set aside the substance of the plan. i don't think john is denying that this is not working politically at all. sure you can say that you get a poll and it works well among seniors. again i think if you look at a what republicans are doing across the country, it is obvious they don't believe that. they think this is a loser politically and they are trying to get it off saying well it wasn't even a law, just a concept. you know, forget about that. just forget we ever did it.
that's the problem for republicans because all but six of the caucus in the house already voted for this. >> i think it is only four. let me tell you something. just like the cement fingers in hollywood, you know the walk of fame, people have their little fingerprints in there, footprints in there, all the stars like arnold schwarzenegger. all those people have their fingerprints if there. that's your party. every one of you guys and women voted to destroy medicare. you have to run from that. >> chris, the fact of the matter is, we have to fix medicare. if we don't, the growth is exponential. >> what do you mean fix it? your party wants to get rid of it. >> they don't want to get rid of it. >> you want to pass out these medical food stamps to people. >> they want to save it so that people in the future get it. >> good luck. >> there are a lot of ways to save it, but you have to save it. it can't keep going on the way it is now or we will all go broke. >> the reason you are so agitated is you are in dead
trouble on this one. thank you, josh marshall, thank you, john feehery. john feehery would rather talk about anything other than this. explaining why he spent money at tiffany. this guy likes bling, doesn't he? what kind of stuff he is buying for who? you're watching "hardball" on msnbc. >> ( rooster crows ) >> by 2020, 50 billion network devices will roam the earth. that's seven devices per person. this will change how we work in ways we've never before imagined. what do you need to secure your people, their devices, and your business? a network that can evolve and grow to protect your human network.
>> back to "hardball" now. the sideshow. first up, whacking washington. today in dublin irish prime minister gave president obama a hurling stick. a yard-long paddle traditionally used in the ancient game of hurling. our president had another idea. >> members of congress aren't behaving -- give them a little paddle. a little hurl. >> they're not even going to like that as a metaphor. like they are kids to be spanked.
next up, newt gingrich's breakfast, lunch and supper at tiffany. yesterday the self-described fiscal conservative fended reports he once owed tiffany up to $500,000. here he is with bob sheaffer on cbs. >> did you owe a half million dollars to a jewelry company at one point? >> we had a revolving fund. >> what does that mean? >> it means we had a revolving fund. it was a >> who owes a half million dollars on worth of jewelry on credit. >> no. go talk to tiffany's. standard no interest account. >> great question. did he owe the money to tiffany's? if he didn't, why is it on the family financial statement? what is newt hiding here? if he wanted to clear it up he could have done it that second with bob sheaffer. it's reasonable to assume he would like to keep this murky. >> herman cain officially announced his bid, and then bashed the president's policy
speech on israel. the big hitch? cain doesn't know the sid ways. here he is with chris wallace. >> where do you stand on the rite of return? >> the right of return? the right of return? >> the palestinian rite of return? >> that's something that should be negotiated. >> you think the palestinian refugees, people kicked out of the planned in 1948 should be able or have any right to return to israeli land? >> yes, but not under palestinian conditions. yes. they should have a right to come back if that is a decision that israel wants to make. i don't think they have a big problem with people returning. >> oh, yes, they do. mr. cain talked of israel letting palestinians being displaced in the war of 1984 to be displaced themselves. if the palestinians came back in any number, it would threaten existence of a jewish state and everybody's knows it. up next, have we ever seen politicians stand behind a foreign leader over their own
parties themselves, israelis and palestinians will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on june 4, 1967. that's what mutually agreed upon swaps means. it is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was president obama sunday speaking before apac, a powerful lobbies group. the public affairs committee. and reiterating support for the peace negotiation based on the '67 borders with land swaps involved. taking some land here and moving it here, taking other land and moving it the other way. despite the fact that the '67 borders have been the starting line for peace talks for decades, including the bush administration, here is a sample of how republicans are going of a the president on this tough
issue. >> i think it is a disaster. i think it is extraordinarily dangerous. i think that it -- defining the 1967 border would be an act of suicide for israel. >> they certainly made a mistake in this comprehensive speech about the middle east. everybody knows that '67 lines are just not tenable. >> of course sam stein is with the white house as a reporter for the huffington post. let's talk about this thing as -- is it unusual for a bunch of republican senators to line up with a foreign leader against the president of the united states? isn't this -- i'm just wondering. >> the only country in which you see that regularly done here in the united states is israel. and it is -- >> i've never seen this done before. >> well, they have been doing it ever since barack obama has been president. they have been supporting whatever benjamin netanyahu says and we support israel? that doesn't mean we support everything israel's government
does. but republicans line up against the president on this and sometimes so do democrats. >> but the idea of a two-state solution, which is the only thing anyone has come up with over there, as a way to possibly end this war, is a bipartisan proposal. george w. certainly a friend of israel was for it. i think george schultz, republican heavyweights, are for it, because it is the only hope of ending the fighting. >> this is basically a show. we do know the basic outlines of what is possible to do. it is very hard to do, but it is possible. what we have is a routine of republicans trying to make it a wedge for obama. >> for evangelicals. i went back and look at at the speech that mccain gave to apac, and and it was about wanting to talk without preconditions. >> so the '67 line is where they stopped the fighting with the 49 war, up to '67, and the checkpoint. it is a tricky place. no one thinks that line will be restored.
that exact line. because israel will keep control of most of jerusalem. we know that. let's take a look. check out what the president said yesterday. the president said his position is nothing new. let's listen to the president here. >> there is nothing particularly original in my proposal. this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among parties including previous u.s. administration. if there is controversy then, it is not based in substance. what i did on thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. >> well, now watch what president bush said, george w. bush said in january 2008 during a trip to jerusalem. which by the way, in the king david hotel, he said this. >> an agreement will require painful agreements by both sides. while territory is an issue for both parties to decide, i believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to
the armitage lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure the palestinian state is viable and contiguous. >> the lines he referred to there, president george w. bush is the same thing as the pre-'67 borders obama is talking about. there is no difference. here is secretary of state clinton, what she said two years ago. quote. we believe through good faith negotiations the party can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the goal the palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps. back to the same language that president obama used on thursday. bill clinton had the same idea when he made a last-ditch attempt and a good one, following the collapse of the camp david talks. here is what he said the israeli policy forum in january 2001. >> first i think there could be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign
viable palestinian state that accommodates israel's security requirements and the demographic realities. that suggests palestinian sovereignty over gaza, the vast majority of the west bank, the incorporation into israel of settlement blocks. with the goal of maximizing the number of settlers in israel while minimizing for palestinian to be viable must be a geographically contiguous state. now -- >> you know it is complicated language. but if you go over there it is not complicated. arabs generally live on the west bank, they want their own. the peaceful ones do. they want to -- all it takes is 100,000 arabs to want to kill you and he's got a bomb, and that's a fact. >> let's remember that president was very clear that hamas, any
person negotiating on behalf of palestine, has to recognize israel's right to exist. he didn't throw israel under the bus. >> so why is romney saying he is? that was his phrase. >> of course they have to disagree with anything barack obama says. >> let's go to -- >> you mentioned certainly there is conservative people in every community. conservative jewish people and liberal jewish people. i know all of them. mostly liberals i know. there are a lot of evangelicals who don't see israel as a state, a real state. they see it as a biblical thing that has something to do with the rapture and the ending of the world. the end of days stuff. they see it in very mythical or cristial, theological terms, and they want it to be as big as possible. >> it's funny because the border
issue is like the easiest issue to argue about. it is lines on a map. the tough issues is hamas, and what was said on morning joe this past week, it would be strictly jewish controlled. and all the other things like right of return. those are the difficult issues to understand. the stuff of borders has been used forever. they are using it against obama and drive a wedge to camp. it's not unusual that it's the republican candidates leading the charge. >> i think it is really cheap politics. but that is nothing new. anyway, democrats go after them on medicare they go after him on israel. i know how this works. it's called tunism, it doesn't have anything to do with value. thank you. >> what would the head of the imf -- i'm convinced this guy doesn't want to face a jo jury in new york city for what he is accused of. if he is guilty, he doesn't want to face the people in that pew there. this is "hardball" on msnbc.
his relationship with the white house. over the past two years the obama administration worked with arnold schwarzenegger on issues like energy, education, health care and infrastructure. we heard about those issues. they worked together. the relationship gave both sides to claim bipartisanship but they won't be teaming up again anytime soon. we'll be right back. an everyday moment can turn romantic anytime. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven low-dose tablet you take every day so you can be ready anytime the moment's right.
tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications, and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com.
what can the french bank every expect from a new york jury? thank you both for coming. i want jonathan then susan to basically lay it on the line here. this is an adult show. as graphically as you can, jonathan, what is this guy accused of doing in that hotel room? what did he do? >> he is accused of grabbing this maid while naked, dragging her down a hallway, and forcing her to perform a sex act, an oral sex act. police and investigators today revealed that they have dna evidence, and that is a dna match from the maid's blouse, from her shirt that matches the dna of strauss-kahn that he voluntarily offered and we're told there is additional dna testing going on now from other liquids, materials, evidence found in that hotel room and that preliminary results are in
but they are waiting for more results. none of this is good news for dominique strauss-kahn as prosecutors have charged him with forcible sex acts. >> john, just to get this as clear as possible so everybody understands the crime charge here and what punishment would be. if this was something done in grand central station before be, if this was something done in grand jury central in front of thousands of people jane doe and john doe, what would be the penalty? >> maximum on the sex abuse count is 25 years. maximum on the attempted rape is 15 years. and there are other counts that are seven years. and a misdemeanor account as well for one year. the range is one year if it's just the misdemeanor charge all the way up to 25 years as a maximum. >> what this misdeern piece of this? >> that's sexual abuse in the third degree. forcible touching. >> you'red aing it all up. -- you're adding this all up. it's about 30 something?
>> the prosecutors are saying they have have it run consecutively. you're look at dozens and dozens of years. >> susan, give me any modification you might want to offer. that this is a serious felony. if it's proven this guy faces serious prison. >> you're right. this is as serious as it gets. >> it's an attempted forcible rape. that's intercourse by force. it's also forcible oral sex. and that's just not pretty any way you look at it. john thon's right about the time. that's 50 years if you run that contective, plus the attempted rape that's 15. that's 65 he's looking at if you were to take it to jury, lose at trial and have the maximum
sentences run contectively. >> susan, knowing what you know of juries and their behavior, wouldn't be this be seen by a jury of a regular people, a few maids, a few cab drives, a few regular people, perhaps business people. regular new yorkers with a new york attitude about this situation. wouldn't this guy have a very hard time getting any sympathy? >> we don't know what his defense is going to be yet. he's tried a couple of them. he's triedal albi, conspiracy, he's tried consent. >> what would that be damning? why the combination of those two fluids would be damning. >> saliva and semen is going to prove that there was a mouth on a penis. >> let me ask you about this thing, what's this word that this arrogant interior minister in france says we'll jail him over here in france. the crime's committed here, it's a local grab. what right would they have? >> they wouldn't.
>> none. >> new york officials laughed at that suggestion today. the crime in new york. he's prosecuted and kwixed he would have to serve time here in new york if convicted. this is again the state system. this is not club fed that you're talking upstate. you're talking serious jail time if he gets sentenced to prison. remember the defense has said, look, we have a defensible case here. and they've sort of clamped down. >> they would say that. either way, that's what they would say. thank you. i know you have to deny everything. but this guy's got problems. thank you for coming on. when we return, let me finish with why the republican part can't forgot its past and couldn't seem to see its future right now. you're watching "hardball."
let me finish tonight with the old story of the elephant's graveyard. i first heard about this wondrous african land in an old tarzan movie. love those movies. we're now seeing the whole thing again as weirdly with the political party that has the elephant as its symbol. we're watching the old herd sadly trudging into the jungle to that place only they know. elephants have great memories, of course. it's part of their great mythology. they never forget.
the great memory tends to why the republican parties keeps the old names close at heart. it's once again talking about getting jeb bush to run. it's i think stingt. working here the love of the old familiar names. when i was growing up richard nixon was on the national republican ticket for vice president or president in every election from the time i was in second grade to the time i was working for the u.s. senate. a span of 20 years. yes, the party remembers. it doesn't forget and it rewards those who have been there in the past. perhaps it prefers the past. things don't change in the world of the elephant. between 1952 just a handful of years after world war ii up until 2004, the election before last three names appeared on every republican ticket. again, but for one through the entire expanse of more than half a century, nixon, bush or dole. it's all in the old record book for the elephant party. nixon 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972. bush in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992,
2000, and 2004. dole, in 1976 and again an impressive 20 years later in 1996. the same three names again and again and again. this is how the elephant thinks. the way he's designed, i guess. he remembers. he keeps moving around in a fairly small circle with his trunk tied to the tail in front of him with one of the tails somewhere up ahead belonging to the elephant right behind him. so 2012 is just another year in the elephant cycle. they look around for a familiar name. but this time there's no answer. no nixon, no dole. only a bush. jeb. but he doesn't want to do it. too many bushes, too many elephants named bush. the elephants remember the name, but now the people do, too, too well. no many elephants, too many named bush. they hear the name romney and they feel ling nothing hoping for a bush, the jeb. the old tired herd trudges toward