tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC February 7, 2012 9:00pm-10:00pm EST
total hi unrelated to 2012 politics. ted olson, the very famous and very conservative attorney who is challenging california's prop 8 anti-gay marriage ban, he is here with us live tonight on the day the 9th circuit struck down proposition 8 as unconstitutional. a huge civil rights day in the courts and we have the man of the hour to talk to about it. plus, new york city speaker christine quinn is here on the day the new york giants get their we won the super bowl particularer taip parade, i don't want to hear about it rob, i'm getting teased all day. iraq veterans are looking at the parade and asking why we can do this for football but not mark the end of the iraq war and welcome home the troops. so far michael bloomberg says no to that idea but the other most powerful person in new york besides mayor bloomberg is christine quinn, she says she is for this idea. christine quinn will be joining us tonight. that is all coming up over the course of the hour.
but first, as ed mentioned, it is elect shun night again in america. sort of. bringing you results as they come t from the republican presidential primary in missouri, and from the republican presidential caucuses in minnesota and in colorado. at this hour, polls have closed in that missouri primary. they closed at 8:00 p.m. eastern, across the state of missouri and the results we have so far are as follows. in missouri, very small proportion of the vote in, 2% in, rick santorum right now in first place, mitt romney in second place, ron paul in third place, and my favorite, uncommitted in 4th place. in missouri it's important to remember, newt gingrich is not on the ballot. do not be looking for him among the results in missouri. at this hour the doors have closed in minnesota and in colorado. i have to say doors have closed instead of polls have closed. because in minnesota and colorado the state republican
parties are running caucus. the doors were close sod they could start at 8:00 p.m. eastern in minnesota, 9:00 p.m. in colorado. in terms of results so far from those states, right now in minnesota, we have 2% in, by rick santorum in the lead, ron paul in second, mitt romney in third, and newt gingrich in 4th. in colorado, in terms of results from that state, the caucus doors have just closed, we have nothing in to report at this point, but newt gingrich is on the ballot, unlike in missouri we're looking at the match-up between the candidates. no results from colorado we expect them to trickle in over the course of the evening. we'll keep you apprised with a ticker you see right there at the bottom of the screen over the course of tonight and live updates as more results come in. now, you may have noticed in
the coverage whether you're reading it or watching it on tv you may have noticed if you're an eagle-eyed observer you may have noticed a certain snark, a resistance to getting too excited about the three con at thes -- contests. that derives from the sort of uncomfortable fact that the republican party is a freaking mess this year. honestly. new hampshire, went pretty much as normal. south carolina went pretty much as normal, all the other states that have voted so far have pen screwed up or devalued in one way or another. i do not know what is going on i can't explain it, the red white and blue elephant in the living room. the primary process for picking their nominee for president this year has so far been a disaster. logistically. in iowa the night of the iowa caucuses, the iowa republican party said that mitt romney won. then they said they would make that result official in two
weeks. then two weeks later they said they still didn't have an official result, then they said the official result was it was a tie or maybe no one would ever know who won. then they decided that rick santorum won. the chairman in eiowa resigned. it was a total, total mess. then in florida, the republican party has insisted, insisted that their primary was a winner take all contest. whoever won florida got all of florida's delegates. well it turns out that florida actually only gets half the delegates. because the national republican party stripped the state of half of them. and it turns out that it's possible that it's not going to be winner take all, no matter what the state party has been insisting. possible that newt gingrich should have gotten some of the delegates out of florida as well as mitt romney getting some, when mr. gingrich placed second to mr. romney there. now mr. gingrich is petitioning the republican party to get some of the florida delegates and
nobody knows what is going to happen there. again, a totally in conclusive mess. in nebraska -- nevada, caucuses to end at 3:00 p.m., then hate-add an extra one that started at 10:00 after the other ones were over. when they did end on saturday night, then they ended again, the state republican party was not able to release a final vote for nevada for two days. after they found they had more ballots cast than voters. that itself is remarkable given the republican party chair in nevada predicted a turnout of 70,000 people and they got less than half that. imagine what a mess it would have been had they got a reasonable turnout with less than half the people they expected it still took them more than two days to count it. all that disaster upon disaster in the republican race thus far, all that logistical collapse
pales before missouri. voters will have the choice of these candidates, mitt romney, rick santorum, ron paul, rick perry, michele bachmann, herman cain and jon hundredsman -- huntsman. newt gingrich was polling in first place in missouri but he won't be on the ballot there. but that is the least of missouri's failure here. missouri had on the books missouri had on the books a law requiring the state to have its primary today. on february 7th. the republican party said if do you that it will cost you half delegates. they said we'll change it but missouri could not get the act together to actually change their law. by state law they have to hold a primary on this date. what about the threat twhoe lose half the delegates? to avoid losing half the delegates they decided to make the contest pointless. it's non-binding. so it's just a poll, essentially, a test. they picked another date next
month to be the contest that will actual ly alot their delegates on march 17th. missouri republicans are doing an exercise in nonsense counsels for nothing except $7 million spent by the people of the state of missouri to hold this pointless nonsense thing. today's folly comes on the same day as the colorado and minnesota caucuses. which also mean nothing. those states will allocate delegates in april and may, respectively at conferences. they don't do their allocation today. republicans in these states will not make people come out and fake vote before they vote next month but again today's caucus does not allocate delegates and that is the way you pick your presidential nominee. so, yes, it is election day, but not really. we will have results from some
things that look like political contests in these three states over the course of this night. the comedy of of errors logistical disaster how the republican party handled their nominating contest this year is right this second doing the yeoman's work of making newt gingrich like lk the most reasonable guy on earth, that is yeoman's work. because of all the republicans in the running, mr. gingrich is the only guy not bothering to be in any of these fake voting states tonight. mr. gingrich has gone straight to ohio where they vote and it does count. next month on super tuesday.
average for getting conservatives on this show. also the giants get a parade through the canyon of heros in lower manhattan, iraq veterans call to question whether they deserve a welcome home too. it wasn't a football game but was an 8 1/2 year long war. the parade has moved to a new level. >> watch me lose a super bet live on television, please stay with us.
election against john mccain. that was very exciting and very big deal for liberals and democrats and big swath of the country. less exciting though that night was what happened in california. california passed proposition 8 which took away an existing right. before proposition 8, same sex couples had the right to get married and thousands had done so. prop 8 rescinded that right which made for a bittersweet election night and confusion in the late night coverage that night. >> i believe we have pictures out of san francisco as well, some of the celebration pouring out of the castro district of the city as it's known. place near and dear --. >> certainly me having written for the papers. >> that may not be all celebration in the castro. >> prop 8. >> prop 8 passed in california in 2008 many that rescinded same sex marriage rights. but it was soon chal challenged
in court by an odd couple of very very big deal american lawyers. the two most famous litigate tors in the country, david boyce was al gore's lawyer, ted olson george w. bush's lawyer. conservative and liberal icon fighting on the same team. they won the first round in federal court with the ruling that proposition 8 was uncons tuggal. that was appealed up to the circuit court, one level below the u.s. supreme court. today we got the ruling from the circuit court, they found it do violate the constitution. the court found that proposition 8 served no purpose and had no effect other than to less the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in california. joining us now for an exclusive interview is one of those famous lawyers, former solicitor general ted olsen, congratulatio
congratulations, thanks for your type, nice to see you. >> my measure to be here, thank you, rachel. >> i'm no expert on these matters compared to you, the ruling seems to me narrowly construed to apply to the situation in california, not try to assert a right to marriage equality more broadly. is that the way that you see it and did you expect it to come out that way? >> i think it's a very broad decision. let me explain that. in the first place the court said that california was somewhat unique in that proposition 8 took away the rights of sex persons to gmarr d married. the right exists in other states, this precedent stands for the proposition once you grant those rights, people have the right to get married, a fundamental right in this country, you can't take it away from those individuals without violating the constitution. but the court went on to stress
with respect to various other issues in the case that there was no justification, there was no rationah basis to single out gay and he's plesbian individua take rights away from them or deny rights. the court went through every other argument and dismantled every one of the arguments. so while the court focused on the peculiarities of california the principles are quite broad and compelling. >> when you say the court asserted that you cannot take existing rights away but also that you cannot deny rights to couples on the basis of sexual orientation, does that mean you see this as potentially applying potentially blazing a legal trail for states in which there are not same sex marriage rights right now? absolutely. what the relied upon was a major
decision by the united states supreme court, roemer versus colorado, colorado restricted the rights of gay and lesbian individuals and the supreme court of the united states struck that down as unconstitutional. but both in that roemer case and this case today the court said the -- if you're going to select a class of our citizens, these are our citizens, that are presumptively entitled to be treated like other citizens, and select them out on the basis of characteristics that are peculiar to them, you have to have a reason for doing so. the reasons that were articulated by the proponents throughout the litigation were found completely lacking by the 9th circuit and the court below it and so those principles are going to be very important for states that have not yet recognized a right for individuals to get married to the person they love who happens to be someone of the same sex. the united states supreme court 40 some years ago struck down a
similar prohibition that existed in 16 states that prohibited people from different races from getting married. in a case called loving versus virginia, 16 state laws were wiped out, laws that would have prevented the president of the united states, his parents from getting married in virginia in 1967, they would have been guilty of a felony. this decision is very much like that decision. >> you were clear from the beginning that you wanted a case that could win at the supreme court, you wanted a landmark case, i'm putting words in your mouth, you don't speak that bluntly, could this be that case? do you see this as the likely path for it in terms of what the supreme court decides to take up? >> we very much thought this was an important case that could go all the way to the supreme court. the plaintiffs in this case are individuals who have been in relationships for a long period of time. loving individuals, the lesbian couple have four boys that they are raising in a wonderful
household. the trial had eight expert witnesses testify about history of discrimination, what it's like to be gay, what it's like to be denied the right to marry, the district judge rendered a meticulous, thorough decision and the 9th circuit did so. this is the issue that should go to the united states supreme court some day. the people that we're representing and others like those people are not asking for anything special. they are asking for the right to be treated with decency and respect and dignity and afforded the same rights we afford other citizens in this country. they are not asking for much, just equality and i do think this issue will go to the supreme court, i think it will go to the supreme court in this case and there could not be a better record or a better foundation for this important principle to get to the supreme court. >> hearing you speak about in those terms, makes me want to
put a question to you that causes -- will require ex-trap ohlation. the mormon church was the main financial backer and main provider of early volunteers to the proposition 8 effort. all the republican candidates for president except for ron paul put out statements demoring today's ruling. deploring the ruling. as a conservative, why do you think it that hostility to gay rights is still something that is so utterly mainstream and expected of both mainstream politician and mainstream institutions in conservative politics? >> i don't know the answer to the question, rachel i think it's terribly unfortunate. marriage is a conservative value, not conservatives own it or liberals own it but the loving relationship between individuals that want to be respected by their society and treated as equals is a conservative value, it involves liberty and privacy and
association and identity, marriage is a building block of our society. young people get it. older people are still getting it. but all of the polls are changing. people more and more are understanding that these are our american citizens, our brothers and our sisters, and we have got to treat them right, we have got to treat them decently, we have to give them the same freedom and justice that we give to other people. more and more people in america are understanding that, i'm pleased to say more and more republicans are understanding that. i'm sad to say -- it makes me sad to say that republicans haven't fully understood it, with you i think the day will come, ever oh time we have a chance, david boyce and i have a chance to address the question, we believe we're converting more people and persuading more people that this is the right thing. it not a conservative or hliberl issue when david and i came together on this our mission was to persuade the american people
that this is an issue of american justice, american freedom, american equality, these are the principles all men are created equal in this country. we have got to get there. >> ted olson, former solicitor general, the attorney for plaintiffs challenging proposition 8, thank you for joining us, sir, congratulations on your win today. >> thank you so much, rachel. a programming note, one of the couples represented by ted olson, with the four kids, will be on the haas word with lawrence o'donnell tonight. you have to watch that, okay, deal? joining us now is dahlia lithwick. listening to ted olson, do you agree on his take? zpl >> i agree with just about
everything he said i think it's important to look back at judge walker's 2010 decision and look how thermonuclear that decision was. what he did in that opinion finding a fundamental ray to gay marriage, finding equal protection violation was whittled down by the court today, and ironically, i do think you have to read a little bit of judge reinhart, the two judges in the majority of the 9th circuit as writing something that looks like bush v gore. they are saying in states where supreme courts give one the right to marry, and then by referendum that right is taken away, someone dried it as lucy with the football you can't put it out this and take it back. in those states when there are 18,000 couples who marry in good faith believing they have the right to marry you can't take it away, that is a pretty narrow one-ride only determination.
now, i do agree with mr. olson, absolutely, the language in this is so powerful, so eloquent, it really is and i remember we taubed about this when judge walker's decision came down, rachel, a letter to justice kennedy of the court saying please, please, please, this looks a lot like your roemer language from that coklorado case. please please please take this and find determination for dignity. i think it's important what the 9th circuit did not do, up hold everything about judge walker's determination and hand what would have been really a smoking bomb to the supreme court and said here, the most liberal circuit in the country, the one you overturn all the time wants you to have this gift. i think they were too canny to do that. in long run that was probably a smart move. >> in terms of the next steps, this does not mean people can get married again in california, same sex couples are still not
allowed to do it, that is stayed. what we're expecting is a decision by the people who lost today about whether or not they are going to appeal it straight to the supreme court or to a larger group of the 9 circuit, if it does go to the supreme court, it looks like it's written directly to anthony kennedy to swing him in terms of being a swing justice, which choice do you think the losers today are are going to make in terms of where they are going to appeal it and do you think that is important? >> it is important. i think this is some reason to believe they are going to skip taking it to 11 judges on the enbanc, the 9th circuit is perceived as too liberal. they want to get it to the united states supreme court. the other thing that is interesting, this case is in a little bit of a foot race with the defense of marriage cases coming up also being briefed in the federal appeals court. the other moving part here is there is another vehicle for deciding some of these issues,
some folks say a better vehicle it really depends on which team you're on and how you want to think about how the cases get framed. but there is another case that could possibly be a bet are case to get in front of justice kennedy so that is playing out here as well. but truth is there are so many moving parts and don't forget the supreme court is looking at so many landmark blockbuster cases in the next year, the next two years, that that also has to factor in this, whether the supreme court wants to take on another huge mega issue when they are already looking at so many right now. >> senior editor, legal correspondent for slate, i feel it's a big time in what is going on in the judiciary for the next year i feel we sort of need to give you an ankle bracelet and keep you near-by, you don't mind that, do you? >> it sounds very attractive, thank you, i'll take it. >> i'll say with it a smile.
thank you. apparently there was a parade today in downtown manhattan, for some sport-related thing i forget the name of the team. for today at least, that means the trifecta of power in new york city is one, mayor michael bloomberg, two, eli manning, and three, our next guest. that is coming up. blip pl bl bl
eastern. in terms of results from minnesota, the first results from that state have been coming in since the doors closed at 8:00 eastern, with 4% of the vote in in minnesota, rick santorum ahead followed byron paul, followed by mitt romney, followed by newt gingrich. just 4% in. results from missouri the non-binding republican primary in missouri, so far in the show-me state, 17% in, rick santorum in the lead followed by mitt romney, then ron paul, then uncommitted. newt gingrich not on the ballot in missouri. zero votes, guaranteed to remain at zero votes, or how many people wanted to vote for him today, zero votes by virtue of not being on the ballot in missouri. will be newt gingrich. colorado 1% in, rick santorum in the lead, followed by mitt romney, newt gingrich and ron paul. 1%, don't extrapolate too much, we will watch results. stay with us.
obviously i lost a bet. this is an eli manning jersey, the quarterback of a football team called the new york giants, they beat my team the patriots in the super bowl. i lost a bet. it seems like a cruel twist of fate we lost the game, so i have to wear this but my secret boyfriend, did score a touchdown i have to buy everybody on set a beer. i have to lose the bet in both directions. but hey, that is how it goes it's fine. here in new york city a ticker tape parade, several million tons of confetti, marching bands, people on lunch hour, parents who let their kids play hookie. the willis family took the subway in from brooklyn with sergeant willis, he's serving in afghanistan after finishing a tour serving in iraq. his mom told us that another child of her's, a daughter,
served three tours in iraq and is now in germany. ms. willis had come to the parade for her son, a giants fan who celebrated like mad when his team won the super bowl in 2008 would have given anything to himself be in new york today. >> i promised him before we won the first one, i said when we win the super bowl i'll take your picture and go to manhattan for the parade so you can be part of it. and i know he's happy now and smiling. >> we know for a fact he loves this. even without his mom telling us, if you look back at the old coverage, you will find celebrating then too, telling the paper "i don't know all the word in the dictionary i don't think webster has a word to describe how i feel it's indescribesable." he sent this post before the
game. >> hi, i'm sergeant willis, originally from brooklyn, new york, i want to say hi to my family in brooklyn and go big blue. >> from afghanistan. after all that, staff sergeant willis was there if only as a picture on his mom's poster downtown. you can't throw a ticker tape parade without raising the question when the city will welcome home another group of heros, veterans of the war iraq, like sergeant willis. in 1991 the first war in iraq, the gulf war parade, looks like the giants ride through the canyon of heros today, only with line after line of marching troops. we heard talk of parades in other cities for veterans of the second war in iraq, so far only the mighty city of st. louis has thrown one, started with two ordinary guys and a facebook pain, did not start off what you might call an official response but the city got behind it, turned out 100,000 people. the official response of new york has been that now is too soon. with troops like sergeant willis
back from iraq but still serving in afghanistan, not now, maybe later, instead the white house is planning a continue for veterans to take place. a couple members veterans of america, new yorkers called for a welcome home parade but national day of action to help troops find help. we asked glenda willis, whose kids logged four tours of duty, we asked her about a ticker tape parade for the troops. >> why do you think there hasn't been a parade for veterans coming home from iraq? >> i think we don't support the veterans as they should be supported. we need to show a little more apr rea apr -- appreciation and compassion for the job they do. >> little more appreciation and compassion. i know this issue of parades to mark the end of the iraq war is one on which reasonable people can disagree, i also know this
issue is not going away. joining us now exclusively is new york city council speaker christine quinn who supports a city wide welcome home for the troops coming home from iraq. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> while watching the parade, could you picture a celebration for the war? >> absolutely. i was sitting on the stage in front of city hall you give each one of the giants a key to city hall. how will we do it for the veterans. >> a million veterans. >> i was thinking we could do one for each member of the service, then a family who lost a son or daughter also from each member of the service come up, but the point is there is a way to do it. and there is a way to make sure the men and women know our gratitude. and also know that we're not just grateful, we're happy they are back and we want to make it easy as possible for them to transition back in city life.
the way we say we're grateful or thrilled or happy in new york is with a parade in the canyons of heros. if there is other ways the veterans think we should do it i'm hope to hearing that. what i want is to make sure this moment doesn't pass us by. because if we wait too long, it will pass us by, and then the thank you will seem late and belated like the birthday card you got from your aunt. i don't think a parade is enough. i think what the folks, i have said about a national call to action also needs to be heard. a parade is great, the really best way we can say thank you is to make sure when the veterans come back they can get work. that we help them transition their military experience to civilian resumes and civilian jobs, has to be all of it together but you know a parade is a city-wide celebration is a great way to start. >> what do you think of the objection it's inappropriate to mark the end of the iraq war
given that the afghanistan war is still going on and especially given some of the people who fought in iraq are also fighting in afghanistan? >> i would be compelled by that, if veterans were saying that. other people who are veterans speaking for themselves said that, i'm not a veteran, i would say okay. but they are saying they want this, they are saying this would be helpful, so you know what, let's do an immediate one as it relates to iraq and god willing, very, very soon, let's do one for afghanistan. because that's what the vets are telling us. if you look back in history when we ignored their voices about what they needed, what they were feeling, viet nam or whatever, we've made mistakes. >> in terms of how this works in new york city, obviously, every city across the country that has thought about it has somebody in that city who is considering it. what happened in st. louis touched a nerve of. new york is not the capital of the country but it has a role in
welcoming in marking events like no other has. >> when you look at the history the end of world war ii, men and women kissing in new york city. one canyon of heros in the whole world. >> what needs to happen for this to come true in new york? >> for official new york city parade up the canyon of heros, it needs to be called by the mayor of the city of new york. >> he's resisting the idea. >> he is, i feel badly for the mayor in the sense that he checked with the pentagon and said to the department of dedped defense and asked can we do this, they heard back no we don't want cities to do that. that position on the part of the pentagon or dod puts mayors in a tough spot, because do you disregard what the federal government has said to you? so i think what needs to haps the federal government or the pentagon needs to change their position and make it okay for citysif they want to do this, to do this. i think really i believe very
str strongly if the mayor got a green light we would have a parade as quickly as this one. >> he's choosing between the generals and the grunts. >> right. >> tough position to be in. >> it is, i think you have to make a choice, we need to go with the veterans in this case speaking for themselves, but i do think the pentagon needs to change it to a green light so there isn't that difficult position. >> speaker christine kwirnquinn can't believe you've never been here. >> even if you're not in giants paraphernalia. >> there could be another super bowl win. >> i can assure you. please keep us apprised, we take special interest and i would love to follow this. >> thank you for doing that, means a lot to the veterans you've taken this on so seriously. in a minute we have a winner in one of the non-binding contests. a non-binding winner. that is coming right up and i'm taking this off.
plan to be when the results come in. rick santorum in st. charles, missouri because he knew he would have a good chance of winning the missouri primary, nbc news has just declared him the winner there. mr. santorum helped in winning missouri by the fact that newt gingrich was not on the ballot there. so it was our first national test of a republican primary with only one non-mitt romney non-ron paul republican alternative. mr. gingrich is not going to be in any of the states that are holding con at thes tonight. which may be his way of saying i'm expecting to go 0 for 3. my message does it matter? mitt romney is going to be in colorado. he expects to do well in colorado, won it with 60% the last time around. didn't help in the long run, he lost the republican primary in 2008, barack obama beat john mccain nationally and in the state of colorado by 9 points in the 2008 election.
one of the other thing things, colorado voters voted on a personhood amendments, a fertilized egg is a person, a total ban on abortion and likely ban on hormone birth controls. colorado voters rejected the personhood proposal by a 3 to 1 margin. lost by 46 points. that was a huge democratic day in colorado, right? 2008, obama wins by a big margin, lots of other democratic candidates do well. maybe that was a 2008 thing, a really left leaning electorate that didn't like the personhood thing. that is what the anti-abortion, anti-birth control people were counting on, they put the same thing on the ballot again in colorado two years later. for 2010. which of course was a huge republican year nation-wide, and overall a much better year for republicans in colorado. in 2010, asked to vote on this thing that would ban all abortion and probably ban all hormonal birth control, they
looked at it, two years later gs they decided in 2010, no, again, no, no, no. byno, no by nearly the same margin. it lost by 42 points in 2010. that was in the 2010 election, which was, remember, a very republican red tide coast to coast. not only did it fail by a 42-point margin, but the republican thought toob tob a shoo-in in colorado, he lost as well. remember this guy? ken buck. ken buck and his primary campaign for that senate seat said that he was in favor of that personhood thing to ban all abortion and likely ban hormonal birth control, too. even in the reddest possible year colorado looked at that and said, no. are you crazy? no. so the democrat was able to point out how crazy that was, and thereby beat republican ken buck. >> as a doctor i try to protect
the health of women. that's what i do. that's why i'm very disturbed by ken buck. ken buck would ban common forms of birth control and ken buck wants to make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and incest. as far as i'm concerned, ken buck is just too extreme for colorado. >> since ken has supported criminalizing abortion in case of rape and incest, my question is who is going to go to jail, ken? >> that's why we have michael bennet of colorado and not a senator ken buck of colorado. it's because being superextreme on abortion and against contraception is not a electable position in america in any state in the united states. this past november having lost twice in colorado, the people that want to ban bitter control and abortion decided to take their case to a friendlier environment. maybe colorado was too liberal for them, even in a year like 2010. they put it on the ballot in mississippi. good move.
doesn't get any redder than that, right? mississippi also rejected it by double digits by a 16-point margin in november. since then every republican running for president has taken up the losing side of that argument. the anti-abortion, anti-birth control position that couldn't even win in mississippi. every republican running for president has adopted that as their national platform. and that is the remarkable and relevant context for understanding this current furor over whether or not contraceptives have to be covered on american health insurance plans. 28 states already require health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. eight states require health insurance to cover contraceptives without exemptions even for churches, even for any sort of religious institution. even some major catholic hospitals and catholic universities that are not located in one of the 28 states required to cover contraception as part of the health insurance coverage do so. this is being turn sbud a huge
political scandal now because of how it plays into the presidential race. this decision was made by the administration in the middle of last month more than two weeks ago without a jintd political controversy right away. after it already happened, newt gingrich started bringing it up after the fact. that reflected a two-part calculation on his part. number one, i think mr. gingrich has decided he's desperate enough to stay in the race that he'll lecture the country on what it is be to be a good catholic. it's remarkable that he's more famous for hirz adultery than anything else about him. he also wanted to draw mitt romney into this thing. just as newt gingrich knows exactly what he's doing when he calls the country's first african-american president a food stamp president, i think he knows exactly what nerve he's hitting when he says that. i think he knows what nerve he's hitting when he draws the man who is mormon into discussion of religious values. so newt gingrich brings this up
after the fact and raises the issue. he gets mitt romney talking about religion of single day and boxes mitt romney in. when he was governor of massachusetts he did not exempt catholic hospitals for having to extra emergency contraception to rape victims. now newt gingrich has mitt romney talking about religion on the stump every day, and he's nailing him as a hypocrite that can't be truced on the issue. that's how the politics is working for newt gingrich. i will close this with a plea to my friends in media. just because it's working politically for newt gingrich and because the democrats are godless epitaph is a trued and true wedge issue for republicans, it doesn't mean there isn't more to this story. there were catholic voters in the last presidential election and there will be in this one, too. the majority of voters in the last election and probably in this one, too, the majority of voters are women and 99% of american women have used birth control and 98% of the catholic
women use birth control. as republican candidates try to pass more extreme litmus tests they have gone so far right on abortion and contraception they're significantly to the right of even the electorate of the state of mississippi on this issue. the beltway pundit class says the white house is in trouble on this. reality check, guys, okay? where the white house is on this issue is here. hey, women of america, under a democratic president your birth control pills will be covered by health insurance, and if you don't have health insurance you can go to a clinic and get s subsidized birts control there. if a republican is elected your insurance won't cover birth control and if your insurance doesn't cover it, there are no clinics to go to anymore to get birth control pills. planned parenthood defunded. and title 10 gone altogether. so you can't get it from insurance, and you can't get it from a clinic.
you are paying cashing out of pocket retail cost for birth control. on top of what you pay for health care and insurance right now, american women, plan another 600 to $1200 a year cash outlay every year if you want to stay on birth control. that's if you're lucky, because p if you're not lucky you live in one of the states where birth control has just been declared illegal. do you want a democratic president or republican president, women of america? i realize that a lot of 60-something male pundits like at thish uand think bad politics for the democrats on the catholic side. there is another way to look at it.