tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC January 17, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PST
>> i'll do more on the story i can't believe this is happening in america. i cannot believe it. this is what the soviet union did. this is the united states of america. linda cook, sara ferguson, thank you for your time. appreciate it. a story we will do more of on "the ed show". i'm ed schultz, now to rachel maddow. her show starts right now. you watch your show every night you have great shows all the time, this last segment and your whole show tonight, just out of the park. covering important stuff and i'm so happy to be on the same network as you. >> i got this call today from this lady on the radio and she told me the teachers are working for nothing and i said what country? right here in pennsylvania. as a product of public education i think this is just absolutely the abombination of the country to allow that to happen. thank you for staying with us for the next hour. today is the federal holiday honoring the birth dale day of dr.
martin luther king jr. there is news ahead for why the occasion was occasion for annoy see protest outside the door of one red state governor today. also in one of the states where there is a huge fight over union rights right now, some republicans are now taking a side you wouldn't expect them to take in the fight. that is the subject of the interview tonight. also, there is ron paul's head randomly, news on all those things still to come this hour. i have to look at myself and it's reversed like a mirror image. there he is, ron paul. i have to tell you first, there has been totally unexpected and strange news in the 2012 race today. about the meeting of religious right leaders that took place over the weekend in texas. you may recall us talking about this on friday night's show the meeting got underway friday night at this ranch outside houston. the idea was that religious conservatives unhappy with the apparent coronation of mitt romney as the republican party
nominee, those leaders put aside their differences and agreed to coalesce around one non-mitt romney candidate that somebody would have a chance of beating him for the nomination. when news of the meeting was first leaked, the ross respect was raised this group of evangelical leaders might even pressure one or more of the candidates, they did not support, to get out of the race. the plan was to whittle the field to show consensus, to throw collective weight behind somebody and thus make it possible for the republican party to nominate somebody not named mitt. it has gone wrong. the first thing we heard the big announcement, they said they endorsed rick santorum, okay. so far, so good. kind of how we expected it to go. then, rumblings of discontent. i have to pause here to let you know some of this reporting is
from the washington post, a good reporter with sources on the right. i would trust her to the end of the earth. some of the rest of the reporting comes from the washington times. the washington times is a conservative paper for conservatives only and the times can get a little batty at times. not a particularly credible news source, except when their stories are about internal feuds on the right. then the times is often dynamite. when there was an insurgency to get right of michael steele, most of the quotes that came from people willing to talk about that fight was within the republican party, most of those showed up in the pages of the washington times. that was the place where that entire saga played out. do you read the washington times for an authoritative account of some partisan party line dispute in congress or some internal deliberation in the obama
administration? no, no you do not. do you read, though, do you read the washington times for religious right back-stabbing mayhem over republican presidential endorsements? yes, that is exactly the sort of thing for which you read the washington times. listen to this from today's washington times. a civil war is breaking out among evangelical leaders over allegations of a rigged election and ballot stuffing at a saturday gathering of religious and social conservatives. in back and forth e-mails, leaders backing newt gingrich are accusing catholic participants of con knifing to rigging the vote. they were con into leaving, pro santorum participants held the third ballot, which mr. santorum won. my view is that the vote was manipulated said a prominent social conservative, now a prominent evangelical organizer
is saying he has evidence that in at least one instant the participant was seen write plg ing santorum's name on four ballots and putting them on the box. evangelicals are calling on bob fisher to hold a recount. a recount of your religious gathering? so they want to recount, they were conned into leaving before the final vote was taken, there was ballot box stuffing, there is a protestant-catholic schism, at the very least they are a accusing conniving to rig the vote. the whole idea was to unify religious conservatives to give one candidate the consensus stamp of approval of all of these leaders, to smooth over any differences among the conservatives, to show they can come together behind one non-mitt romney candidate.
over at the washington poe, karen tumulty has a few of the gingrich supporters on the record, explaining essentially consensus like what, no way de id they support rick santorum, anyone else saying that is a liar. jim garlow said "there was never a consensus, all of the people i know who came supporting newt left supporting newt." jc watt saying "it wasn't a consensus and it wasn't an endorsement." wow. despite all that, tony perkins came out publicly almost immediately after the meeting and he did announce rick santorum secured a "clear majority of support" and of course then he had to gush, "i will have to admit that what i did not think was possible, appears to be possible." there is clearly a unified group here.
tony perkins may feel unified but with newt gingrich supporters saying to the press it was rigged by the catholics, that the ballot boxes were stuffed and the vote was manipulated, being rick santorum supporters when they are not and want a recount, this supposed unity endorsement projects neither unity or all that much of an endorsement. if this gift left on the santorum campaign's doorstep appears to be a flaming one you have to stamp on to put out it's not like the gingrich campaign is doing all that great either. >> we are awaiting the arrival of former house speaker newt gingrich who we are given to understand is ten minutes away. i tell you what, while we locate the speaker, who i'm sure is somewhere nearby, back at the station we will go ahead and take advantage of this brief delay in the proceedings to take a brief commercial time-out.
that's okay, we can wait. we have no place else to go, we're already here. by the way, welcome to senator rick santorum arrived a few minutes ago. senator, good to see you, sir. >> that was friday afternoon in duncan, south carolina. mr. gingrich introduced from the podium, but he's no where to be found. mr. gingrich was running late, nobody bothered to tell the emcee or crowd before he got introduced, and then he gets the world's most awkward standing ovation that he's not there to receive. then it turns out worse, his rival rick santorum was there at the same event at the time, so he goat capitalized on the momentum, a logistical disaster. associated press ran a survey piece on the logistical stuff the gingrich campaign screwed up, leaving jc watts twice in one day. serve as the lookout for the gingrich campaign bus, because
knew when he would arrive. church micro foeps didn't work. micro phones. a call scheduled for saturday morning never took place the dial-in number was invalid. campaign set up a new number for saturday night call with florida voters. the number worked but there was nothing but silence on the other end of the line when the moderator introduced the first two questioners. the issue was resolved not before mr. gingrich raised an important question, i wonder if we're having a technical problem. including not being on the ballot in his home state of virginia, the gingrich campaign seems to have successfully bullied out of their strongest line of attack against mitt romney, which of course was mr. romney's career at bain capital. having essentially withdrawn that line of attack now, which looks like a display of weakness by mr. gingrich and surrendering strategic advantage he had
against mr. romney, withdrawing the bain attack means mr. gingrich is trying to find another line of attack against mr. romney to replace the bain line. today he tried one out. today he told voters in myrtle beach, south carolina, "why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to obama?" true. think about this tchlt . the guy who lost to the guy who lost to obama is the guy to whom newt gingrich is currently losing which would make newt gingrich the guy losing to the guy who lost to the guy who lost to obama. i don't know this one has legs. so maybe south carolina is not that competitive. maybe the whole nominating contest is mostly over. all the latest polls out of south carolina have mitt romney on top insider advantage up by 11, pcp up by 5, rasmussen by 7. but in a race that i starting to
feel like a foregone conclusion, the political calendar has given us a reminder chaos is always around the corner. that anything can happen. the day of the south carolina republican primary, this upcoming saturday always happens to be the birthday of citizens united. two years ago this saturday is when the supreme court announced that infinite money, anonymously spent can take over american elections. it's legal. so no matter how poorly everybody is running against mitt romney for the republican nomination right now, if at some point some billionaire wants to put millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars behind some non-mitt romney candidate, there is nothing to stop him. one eccentric billionaire can spend infinitely doesn't need to come to consensus with anybody, doesn't need to stuff any ballot box. doesn't need to persuade anyone open checkbook, swivel wrist and the game is back on.
>> super pacs are ousting candidates 2-1. that means there is more speech than before. i don't know about you but i believe in the freedom of speech. money equals speech. therefore the more money you have the more you can speak. >> dan rather will be joining us next. [ male announcer ] if you had a dollar for every dollar car insurance companies say they'll save you by switching, you'd have, like, a ton of dollars. but how are they saving you those dollars? a lot of companies might answer "um" or "no comment."
george. the super pac of i hope i'm pronouncing this john stewart? >> one of the reasons it was so hard to form exploratory commit i had to give away my super pac, that is my baby. you know how hard it is to give away your baby? now imagine if that baby also had a whole lot of money. how much harder would it make it to give away your baby? you might get the baby back but it may not have the same amount of money when you gave the baby away. >> babies have very, very poorly constructed pockets. joining us of dan rather reports, a man who has covered election more than 40 years, mr. rather, thank you for being here. >> always a pleasure, rachel. >> stephen colbert's character character loves the super pac, do you think the way the super pab pacs are functioning are changing feelings on the right
about citizens unite and this overall trend about money and politics? >> the short answer is yes, i think it is changing. when the decision first came through, i think it was shirt consensus thinking practically unanimous thinking about republicans self-described conservatives this is great, a dream come true. but turns out the dream has nightmarish hues, the candidates don't control their own campaign, nor does the state republican party, nor does the national republican party. any big money super billionaire who chooses to do so can pull money in any campaign state-wide or national campaign, mind you much of the money is secret and hidden, the candidate may have one agenda, may see an ad up says i don't agree with that, too bad jack, they have the money. a second way is wait a minute, maybe this is not such a good idea including among republicans
and conservatives. so much so i wouldn't be surprised to see if not in the next congress, very soon, republicans joining to say the supreme court has spoken, this is now the law of the land we can't change it not immediately let's at least see where the money comes from. somebody's name should be attached here, keep in mind right now, contribute all kind of secret money and your name may never be known that it's coming from you. >> do you think there is enough negative sort of blow-back against candidates from off message statements that are nevertheless supposed to be toward their benefit that candidates are more worried about the lack of coordination than they are happy to have billionaires dumping in unlimited money on their behalf? i realize newt gingrich got in trouble for the bain stuff and he backed off but i'm not sure that that trouble is more valuable than the hit against mitt romney that that money got him. >> i think newt gingrich is having second thoughts to answer your question, not yet.
that is to say i think now they still want the money so welcome the money, they have the concerns but i do think as we go along from the right side of the political spectrum and the left, this is terrible for america it fits in the argument that made increasingly left, right, tea party people, as well as occupy wall street people, do we still have a government of the people, by the people for the people, or do we have a government that's for big corporations and super wealthy people, for them, by them, we've reached the point is washington more corrupt than we knew, especially with this money, buying influence, i think this is seeping in all party and most candidates by no means all. this will be reviewed as we go along this election year, make no mistake about it. this year will be close to a $3 billion presidential campaign. and more and more people left
and right are only answering -- asking the question who gives this big money to whom expecting to get what? and on martin luther king's birthday, i want to point out, that it's very popular and easy to praise dr. king for saying we have racial inequality, his bigger message was this inequality stretches across society, one of the things he got in trouble as he went along and people tend to forget poor people's march in washington was the 1960's version of occupy wall street. he was worried about inequality of opportunity that is paid for by special interest money and entrenched interests. >> what he was supporting the campaign, when he was assassinated was union rights for public employees for sanitation workers. if there was money on tap for particular candidate in a $10 million, a billion dollars, not out of reach for some of these
very ideolonl gical donors. could that make essentially anyone a contender, could that -- how many political sins does half a billion dollar donation make up for? >> well, it could make anybody a contender. a half billion dollars certainly a billion dollars could make almost anybody a contender if they chose to do so which raises the specter, this is the kind of climate in which an independent candidate you might see one appear, sometimes after april, between april and middle of july, and if that candidate has kind of billion dollar financing, could be a factor as was ross perot in 1992. >> dan rather, dan rather reports, you will be covering the florida primary live from tampa on january 31st, mr. rather i'm so grateful to have you here. >> great honor, thanks a million. see you in florida.
and there is a protest against you, sometimes if the community is gated well enough the closest the protesters can get to you is the gatehouse on the periphery of your gated neighborhood. thus leaving you in relative peace. i don't know if that is why the michigan governor lives in this community, but he did reap that protesters can't get near me benefit today. governor snyder's administration is considering whether or not to use the remarkable unilateral power that the republican legislature voted to give him last year to essentially abolish the local government of michigan's largest city. and replace it with someone he puts in charge who has unilateral authority. radical policy making in red states that followed the very, very republican between ee 2010 nation, it's michigan's expanded emergency financial manager law. allows rick snyder, the state's republican governor to essentially, effectively abolish all local voting rights.
you vote for your city council, town mayor, but in michigan it does not matter who you vote for, the results of your local election can be overruled if the snyder administration says so. the state, the governor will decide who will run your town, no matter who you vote for. he will put in who he wants. the administration has taken w it's considering the largest city in the state. now it's considering whether to take over detroit. as noted a couple months ago by the michigan politics source, as reported by us, as noted by three members of congress, nine state senators and dozens of state representative, eight detroit city council members in a letter they wrote to the governor recently, if the governor decides in addition to these cities he has taken over he will overrule local decision making, local elections, and take over detroit, and another
city, approximately 50% of all african american citizens in the state would then be living under the authority of an elected manager. think about that for a second. congratulations, michigan. you elected a republican legislature and republican governor last time around. and so now, if you are black and you live in the state of michigan, you may soon have only a 50-50 chance of your vote counting in michigan toward who represents you in your city or town. that letter that was sent to governor snyder a few weeks ago expressed concern about the governor's expanded emergency management law, irreversibly undermining voting rights in the state. dozens of the elected officials asked for a meeting with the governor before he took further action under the law. we spoke with the office of the congressman who was the lead author of the letter, the office said to their knowledge the governor never responded to the letter let alone agreed to hold the meeting. michigan republicans who support this emergency manager law say
it has nothing to do with race, it's about competence and fiscal responsibility, which cannot be achieved through the democratic process and for the democratic process must be halted. whether or not the intention behind this law had anything to do with race, the implications very plainly are racially affected in michigan. on today's holiday honoring dr. king, the president of the naacp opined in the detroit free press, in king's day, intimidation were used to deny voters their rights. today our state government has its own tactic, expanded emergency manager law that lansing is using to dismantle democracy. it abolishes our right to run our communicates. when our government can do this, we no longer truly have the right to vote. the cities and school district under emergency manager rule are predominantly african american. if emergency managers are appointed for detroit and
another city half of the black citizens of michigan will be stripped of local representation, reduced to second class citizens. this new law existed less than a year now, protests in complaint as long as it existed including this town hall event earlier at the detroit church where petitions for a citizens repeal of the emergency manager law were sir circulated. but today honoring dr. king, jr., there was a march on governor rick snyder's house. or rather this was a march on the very well guarded gatehouse well outside his house. joining us now from detroit is reverend david bullock, state director of the rainbow push coalition senior pastor at greater st. matthew baptist church in highland park, michigan, a participant in the march. thanks for joining us great to have you here. >> thank you for having me today. >> i have been following this issue in michigan for a long while now you have been following it much closer up, in the way that i explained that there, did i get anything wrong or leave anything important out?
your analysis is so precise, i enjoy your show every time i get a chance to watch it. this public act for emergency dictator or manager law in michigan is odiou and draconian. i can't believe michigan has become the new mississippi, liberty is being lynched in michigan. democracy is being dismantled. our vote doesn't count. we cannot take it, we mu fight back. >> is it appropriate to march on the governor's house, to march at the governor's residence? why make it so personal that way, rather than marching on the state capital? >> rachel, we must raise our protests so that the governor understands that the vote is say kred -- is sacred. the public act is an attack on the thesa sacred right. we thought that the protest
would have a deeper significance if it would raise our voices in this way in the city of ann arbor, the governor has said that michigan citizens are in favor of public act 4 and so 2,000 more black and brown, white and yellow religious and non-religious occupy irs, naacp, many from around the state from benton harbor, muskegon, flint, came to let the governor know that there is a sizeable contingent and a growing number of citizens in michigan who are appalled at the way the vote has been made null and void. >> what do you make of the overall argument that in troubled communities, particularly financially troubled community, places where local budgets are a difficulty, services aren't being provided
to the degree they ought to be, that democracy is a problem, that local control, local elections for officials is something that needs to be got around so things can be done in a correct way, what do you make of that argument overall? >> i think that is a bad argument. there is no connection between dismantling democracy and fixing a deficit. democracy allows for accountability and transparency, if you take democracy off the table, you have tyranny. there is no accountability. we must also add emergency management does not work. the detroit public schools is under emergency management, still has a deficit. benton harbor, emergency management, bills paid late. highland park was under a weaker form of emergency management for nine years, still has a deficit. you cannot manage a blood loss. if i were in a car accident and was losing blood, you wouldn't manage how much blood i was losing, would you stop the
bleeding and you would send a blood transfusion. we need reinvestment in michigan. >> reverend david bullock, michigan state director, senior pastor of st. matthew church in highland park, a pleasure to have you here. >> thank you so much. one group that republicans did not count on to be very, very angry with their union busting policies, was other republicans, unexpected intra-party push back, just ahead.
green bay packers are not going to the super bowl this year. the broncos are not going to the super bowl. the saints are not going to the super bowl. the houston texans are not going to the super bowl. all of that was decided this weekend. next weekend the team from baltimore will travel up to play in boston. the team from new york will be traveling to play in san francisco. those two blue state games between those four blue state teams will decide who gets to go to the big show to the super bowl which will be held this year in indianapolis. game date is february 5th, two weeks after the games this weekend to decide who is going.
while all that is going on the players association is warning the host for this year's super bowl against what the players described as ramming through a new law in the state of indiana before the big game. as nfl players we know our success on the field comes from working as a team. today as the city of indianapolis is exemplifying team work in preparing to host the super bowl, politicians are looking to destroy it. trying to ram through so-called right to work legislation. right to work is a political ploy designed to destroy basic workers rights. as indianapolis prepares to host the super bowl should be a time to shine in the national spotlight, highlight the hard working families that make indiana run instead of launching political attacks on their rights. so says the nfl players union. a funny thing happen on the way to stripping union rights in indiana. in advance of the super bowl in the nation's eyes will turn to indiana to watch the most famous union workers on earth battle
for national championship. a funny thing happened on the way to that partisan victory in indiana. it got left partisan. we should have seen this coming when a conservative republican state senator brent wolf, decided with democrats in voting against the union stripping bill, in committee in the state legislature saying he did not see it would have any economic benefit, then other republicans like luke abbott criticized the right to work anti-union right law, he said the went against the principles of the republican party. a new group called the lunchpail republicans has started airing ads on indiana television stations, taking on republican governor mitch daniels and the republican house speaker.
>> we have lost our focus, right to work doesn't work it's toim to regain our party in 2012, you will lose big. republicans are good with the campaign music, aren't they? that was the message from indiana's lunchpail republicans to indiana's republican leaders. the pac launched the president described himself as a life long republican and former supporter of republican governor mitch daniels. he said he served on various boards from the daniels administration, but fed up now with indiana republicans efforts to strip union rights. "a lunchpail republican believes in the right to speak freel le and bear arms, supports labor and business and in sss that the government should not interfere
with the day to -to-day operations we should not have to choose between our party, union and guns. the letter from mitch daniels, it said "no need exists to enact take right to work statute in indiana." this may sound surprising to anybody who watched the huge partisan fights over union rights in wisconsin and ohio and maine and on and on for the past year, but supporting union rights, the way mitch daniels said he did in that letter, used to be normal for republicans. and it still is for some republicans. indiana's new lunchpail republicans plan to fund pro-union republican candidates against anti-union republican incumbents. the group so new they have not yet had to filed campaign fox reports, a spern tells us they have been getting contributions from all over the country. they already have quote hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on pro-union republicans in their state on up-ending what has become republican politics
as usual. tomorrow the indiana house will debate stripping union rights. we expect a vote on the measure later this week. joining us tonight for the interview is the chairman of the lunchpail republicans, david fagan, the international union of operating engineers, thank you for being with us tonight. >> thank you, a pleasure to be here. >> can you tell me why you decided to form the lunchpail republicans and what you're hoping to accomplish? >> well, i was totally shocked when the republican leadership in the state of indiana said this was going to be their 2012 number one legislative priority. that was very, very disappointing. when you look around and you see the american society of civil engineers rated the infrastructure of the state of indiana as approximately a "d" this was their number one priority, i couldn't believe
they would make this their number one priority. then the second part of it, as far as i was concerned, this was against republican principles, the fact that the republican leadership would tell the private sector what you can do in your organization, would tell small businesses that you can't enter into these type of commercial -- these type of agreements with labor relations within your company. the fact that the republican party says that a private organization under law as they are proposing it would say that you could not receive services, revenue for the services provided by your labor organization, those are totally anti--republican floss as far as i'm concerned. interfering with the private sector, telling private companies they can't do something and telling private entities that you can't collect services from -- collect revenue for services provided. it goes against the republican principles as i've seen them and
it's not outside of the realm for republicans to be pro-labor and pro-business and i think that is where the republican party lost their focus. they lost the fact that small businesses and working families throughout this great state are part of their constituent base and they are turning their back on group of constituents. to me that is appalling and that was the reason we sat down and decided how do we deal with this. and so we formed lunchpail republicans. and make no doubt about it, we will use this pac to target those republicans who vote for right to work, and turn their backs on small businesses and working families in this great state of indiana. >> what are you hearing from republican leaders, republican legislators, in your state since you started running these ads, since you made the announcement you will be supporting primary challenges to anti-union republican incumbents, how is the republican establishment reacting to you?
>> well, i can say that i've heard from numerous state senators, numerous republican state representatives. i've heard from local republican elected officials. i've heard from working class blue collar people in the state of indiana who are very much encouraged by lunchpail republicans and that is the people that we're going to represent is the working class families in the state and small businesses. i am not, if you would say look at the leadership as the establishment right now, i have not received any verbal communication from those leadership at all at this point. >> david fagan, financial secretary of the international union of operating engineers local 150 n indiana, chairman of the newly formed lunchpail republicans, sir i know there will be voting on the issue this week, we have been closely following this in indiana. i hope i can ask you to come back on the show and talk again as this continues to unfold in your state. >> i look forward to that opportunity and short term we
plan on defeating right to work and again if we can't defeat right to work, we will defeat those elected officials who supported it and thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here this evening. >> david fagan, thank you. very a link to lunchpail republicans, if you like to learn more. very interesting development. right after the show on the last word, jeff garland from curb your enthusiasm, here, ron paul, what has he been doing there the whole show, i'll tell you in a moment.
pop candidates dropped out of the presidential race right after the ames iowa straw poll. two candidates. who were they? okay. one's easy. former minnesota governor tim pawlenty. hi, hi, gov. but who else? you, else, the correct answer is thaddeus mccover. a short-lived and little-noticed campaign for the republican nomination for president that ended around the same time that tim pawlenty's campaign did. interesting about thaddeus mccover and tim pawlenty, they were the first two candidates to drop out of the race. they both endorsed mitt romney when they dropped out with, but the next to candidates to get out of the race did not endorse, neither herman cain nor michele bachmann, neither of the next
two candidates to get out of the race after thaddeus mccover and tim pawlenty made an endorsement of anyone, any other candidate when they quit. so today when jon huntsman quit, when jon huntsman advanced the inevitable and quit his campaign, it was ant foregone conclusion that he would make an endorsement. and given how jon huntsman campaigned for the presidency, there was really no reason to expect that his endorsement would be for mitt romney. >> you can't be a perfectly lubricated weather vane on the important issues of the day. romney has been missing in action in terms of showing any kind of leadership. governor romney enjoys firing people. i enjoy creating jobs. if we were to talk about his inconsistencies and the changes on various issues, we'd be here all afternoon. there is a question about whether you're running for the white house or running for the waffle house. i think when you're on too many sides of the issues of the day, when you don't have that core,
when there's that element of trust out there, i think that becomes a problem. and i think it makes you un unelectable against barack obama. >> for all of the shortcomings of the jon huntsman campaign, the guy who spelled his name wrong. for all of the various shortcomings of the jon huntsman campaign, one thing his campaign was really good at was sticking it to mitt romney. they seemed to grasp early on that the candidate they had to supplant in terms of voter preferences was romney and they went after romney better than anybody else did. >> i believe that since roe v. wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. i'm in favor of having the supreme court overturn roe v. wade. >> mitt romney doggedly refused to take a position. >> romney gave the generic, almost noncommittal answer. >> that he might actually damage republican chances of winning the senate. >> intentionally tried to dodge them to try to protect his brand. >> you're only allowed a certain number of flips before people start to doubt your character.
>> i'm sorry if i created any confusion there. >> that was one of john huptsman's anti-mitt romney ads that was taken down today in a hurry after huntsman endorsed governor romney. they also took down the weather vane ad and the back-flipping monkey ad. but nothing can ever be truly erased on the internet machine. >> i'm very much, very much and adamantly opposed to tax increases. >> the head of the bay state council of the blind said that your name was fee-fee. that you just raised fee after fee after fee. that's a tax. >> you can't be a perfectly lubricated weather vane on the important issues of the day. >> if republicans didn't like mitt romney's position on the so-called union-busting proposal in ohio, all they had to do was wait one day before he changed it. >> history has shown us over the last few decades in this 24/7 media world, the flip-flopping candidate cannot get elected.
>> i believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. >> that i have consistently been pro-life. >> the jon huntsman campaign took down those ads after mr. huntsman quit his own campaign and endorsed mitt romney. they also dropped their $10,000 bet.com website, which mocked mr. romney for that $10,000 bet that he tried to make during a debate. they also took down scaredmittless come, which mock police department romney for ducking questions. both of those websites when you type in their urls today look like this today, they direct to yahoo.com. because the ghost of the jon huntsman campaign wants us to believe that as of today, jon huntsman thinks, vote for mitt romney, he's awesome. the decision to quit was probably a given at this point in the huntsman experiment. the decision to endorse, though, is not a given. it's a decision i would love to ask mr. huntsman about. and remember, i still own huntsman2012.com, which
redirects now to the huntsman cartoon theme song. we bought this because it was the most common misspelling of jon huntsman's name. i'm here to say now the offer still stands, governor, if you would like huntsman2012.com, even with your campaign gone kaput. perhaps now that your campaign has gone kpa compute t, we would you would like this url. it's yours for free. i would be happy to give it to the either one of your for free in person. if you're free one weekday in the 9:00 hour, perhaps, i'd give it to you here. ♪ he was a 21st century global nomad ♪ ♪ home was an airport lounge and an ipad ♪ ♪ made sure his credit score did not go bad ♪ ♪ with a free-credit-score-dot-com ♪ ♪ app that he had
♪ downloaded it in the himalayas ♪ ♪ while meditating like a true playa ♪ ♪ now when he's surfing down in chile'a ♪ ♪ he can see when his score is in danger ♪ ♪ if you're a mobile type on the go ♪ ♪ i suggest you take a tip from my bro ♪ ♪ and download the app that lets you know ♪ ♪ at free-credit-score-dot-com now let's go. ♪ vo: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com™. [ female announcer ] improve the health of your skin with aveeno daily moisturizing lotion. the natural oatmeal formula improves skin's health in one day, with significant improvement in 2 weeks. i found a moisturizer for life. [ female announcer ] only from aveeno.
ago. as you know, the unofficial totals that night could not have been closer. mitt romney appearing to squeak out a win over rick santorum by eight votes. not 8%, but eight votes. tomorrow we should find out the official final tally from the iowa state republican party. now, if it turns out that mr. santorum actually won, then the record will still stand, of no republican nonincumbent candidate ever winning both iowa and new hampshire. if it turns out that mr. romney did win, then he does get to claim that record. that's tomorrow. also tomorrow, supporters of an effort to recall wisconsin republican governor scott walker say they will turn in enough signatures to get the recall of the governor on the ballot. organizers had 60 days to get over 500,000 signature is no recall walker. they say they've got that plus plenty to spare. we'll find out how much extra they got tomorrow. and oh, yeah, on this show, on friday night, we put up a picture of all the republican candidates on a segment for 2012, but in that picture we forgot ron paul. i talked about him, but we