Skip to main content

tv   Hardball With Chris Matthews  MSNBC  February 7, 2012 11:00pm-12:00am PST

11:00 pm
happy tuesday. and thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. lots to come tonight. that is totally unrelated to 2012 presidential politics. ted olsen, the very famous and very conservative attorney who is challenging california's prop 8 anti-gay marriage ban is going to be here with us this hour on the day the ninth circuit struck down prop 8 as unconstitutional. a very big civil rights day in the courts. plus, new york city's council speaker, christine quinn, is going to be here on the day the new york giants got their we won the super bowl ticker tape parade. iraq veterans are asking why we can do this for football but not to welcome back the vets. but the other most powerful person in new york politics besides mayor bloomberg is christine quinn. and she says yes to the idea. and she's here tonight to talk about it. that's all ahead. but first, it is now midnight here on the east coast. the voting has come to an end in minnesota, in colorado and in
11:01 pm
missouri. and it has been a very big night for, of all people, rick santorum. seriously. rick santorum is, at the moment, going for a clean sweep, trying for a clean sweep of the three states where republicans have been voting tonight. he's going to be the hat trick, and he's almost there. here are the latest results that we have at this hour. in the but because tonight's date is earlier than the republican party wanted it, missouri republicans are also going to hold a caucus next month. and that's the one that will actually count. that's where the actually
11:02 pm
delegates will be chosen. that means that tonight was basically the most expensive opinion poll ever. today's primary cost missouri >> like missouri, no actual delegates will be awarded in minnesota. that won't happen until the state convention which isn't until may. mitt romney won the minnesota republican caucuses in 2008 beating john mccain by 19 points. tonight mitt romney losing minnesota to rick santorum. mr. romney running a distant third at this point in minnesota. and then there's colorado. we do not have a declared projected winner yet in colorado. here's where things stand at this hour. as we watch results come in from
11:03 pm
colorado, it's worth remembering mr. romney didn't just win colorado in 2008, he won in a landslide. mitt romney won 60% of the vote in colorado compared to 18% for john mccain in 2008, but right now with 10% in, rick santorum at 42%. and romney 28. 10% reporting. results coming in slowly from the republican caucus in colorado. even if mitt romney wins colorado tonight this has been a disaster of a night for him. his main opponent newt gingrich wasn't even on the ballot in missouri and mr. romney still got crushed there by rick santorum. in minnesota mitt romney lost to santorum but as you saw he is losing to ron paul, as well. he is in third. he won minnesotaer four years ago. incredible. in colorado, a state that mitt romney won in a landslide last time with 60% of the vote, it appears to be out of the question thoont he will get
11:04 pm
another landslide. he is looking for a win. mr. romney telling supporters he hoped to come in first or second in colorado. romney campaign saying that mr. romney called rick santorum earlier tonight to congratulate him on his victories. apparently he could only leave a message for mr. santorum. here's mr. santorum addressing his supporters earlier tonight in missouri. >> conservativism is alive and well in missouri and minnesota. your votes were not just heard loud an wide across the state of missouri and minnesota but they were heard loud and louder all across this country. particularly in a place i suspect, maybe in massachusetts they were heard particularly loud tonight. [ cheers and applause ] >> if it was ever more clear that the race is not over that republicans are not satisfied to just pick mitt romney, here's another night of proof. joining us is the political news
11:05 pm
editor at thank you for coming in late tonight. >> sure. >> in your cole lum, you wrote there's a real chance tonight will belong to rick santorum. how did you know this would happen? >> that was an under statement. i was expecting best case two out of three. things that are almost unimaginable at that point he wins all three. at this hour he is ahead big in colorado. we don't know where the votes are coming from. it is a big story for two reasons. santorum resurgence. you say gingrich as the main opponent of mitt romney. i think there is a chance, given the trajectory of gingrich's campaign, i think there is a chance that santorum will eclipse gingrich as the alternative, the role he almost had after iowa, he lost it and it could have ramifications down the line. the more significant thing is about what it says about mitt romney and his standing as the front runner. he wants everybody to see him as
11:06 pm
the ineffortable candidate in this thing. inevitable candidates don't have nights like this. with missouri we can say it is different because gingrich wasn't on the ballot but i would look at that and say, so the gingrich voters all decided to vote for santorum tonight. they didn't say i can't vote for newt gingrich i will vote for mitt romney instead. that suggests that the dynamic that we have been talking about, will the conservatives ultimately settle on mitt romney. we had a test and they didn't. the other thing is in minnesota and o colorado, caucus states that is a damaging formula for romney so far. that is evangelical dominated contests. this is what happened in iowa. how santorum won in iowa and probably how he won minnesota. in if the wins colorado, focus on the family country it is probably evangelical voters. look ahead to super tuesday and say if he is the consensus alternative and the contest
11:07 pm
moves to mississippi, tennessee, georgia, it moves to southern states where the evangelical conservativism is pronounced to the extent this is resistance to a mormon candidate is where you will see it. the tea party is more pronounced there. romney is not winning those people over and santorum may have an opportunity there. >> the reason i think mitt romney has been able to hold on to the inevitable candidate title is not by strength shown by him of. he has taken hits in terms of his favorable it isn't about his strength but the perceived nonviability of any of the challengers. how does rick santorum escape that perceived nonviability. what can he do to make himself the alternative. >> there wasn't much polling in any of these states but p.p.p. found that in all three states that voted today santorum's
11:08 pm
favorable rating was over 70% and gingrich and romney were 30, 40, 50. >> high unfavorable. >> what happened the last few weeks is they went after each other so aggressively and santorum was above the fray. the romney recipe has been rick perry is my main opponent. we're going to whack him. and now santorum and now gingrich, go after him hard. now santorum will have the time in the spotlight. we will see how he holds up. >> steve, from politics after midnight is not usually this exciting. >> night is still young. >> big night for vic santorum. santorum not a big fan of contraception and the beltway media thinks it is an advantage over president obama. i find that inexplicable. that is coming up.
11:09 pm
11:10 pm
a big day for civil rights today.
11:11 pm
prop 8 taken up today. that got decided today in california. former solicitor-general ted olsen is joining us next, that seriously ups our batting average for getting conservatives on the show about which i am very happy. as the new york giants get a parade iraq veterans call a question whether they deserve a welcome home, too. it wasn't a football game, sure but it was an 8 and a half year long war. the debate over the parade issue moves to a new level. that is coming up. plus, you can watch me lose a super bowl bet live on television. please stay with us.
11:12 pm
for liberals and a lot of democrats the 2008 election was a mixed bag. i mean, on the one hand there was a huge amount of euphoria about a man named senator barack obama winning the presidential election against john mccain. that was very exciting, and a very big deal for liberals and
11:13 pm
democrats and for a 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 have the right to get married in california, and thousands had done so. prop 8 rescinded that right, and that meat made for a bittersweet election night and a little 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 in the castro district of the city, as it's known. a place near and dear to your heart, chris matthews. >> certainly for me having written for the papers. >> it may not be all celebration in the castro and we don't have the results of prop 8 yet. prop 8 passed in california in 2008. that rescinded same-sex marriage rights. it was soon challenged in court by a famous odd couple of very, very big deal american lawyers. two most famous litigators in the country, david boyes was al
11:14 pm
gore's lawyer and ted olsen was george w. bush's lawyer in that case. ted olsen went on to become solicitor general in the bush administration. a conservative icon and liberal icon fighting on the same team. they won their first round in federal court with a ruling that proposition 8 was unconstitutional. that was appealed up to the circuit court, which is one level below the u.s. supreme court. today we got the ruling from that circuit court. they found proposition 8 does violate the united states constitution. it is unconstitutional. the court found that proposition 8 served no purpose and had no effect other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in california. joining us now for an exclusive interview is one of those two famous lawyers that got that big win today, former solicitor-general ted olsen. congratulations and thank you for your time tonight. nice to see you. >> it's my pleasure to be here. thank you, rachel.
11:15 pm
>> i'm no expert on these matters, especially compared to you, but the ruling seems to be narrowly construed to aapply just to the situation in california, to not 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? >> actually, 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 as you said a few moments ago proposition 8 took away the rights of same-sex persons on to get married. but the right exists in many other states now, and people are attempting to take that right away in other states. therefore, this precedent stands for the proposition that once you grant those rights, people have the right to get married, which is a fundamental right in this country. you cannot 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
11:16 pm
was no justification. there was no rational basis to single out gay and lesbian individuals in this country and take away rights from them or deny rights from them. the court went through every argument that had been made on the other side and systemically dismantled every one of those arguments. so while the court focused on the peculiarities of california, the principles it articulate ready broad and compelling. >> when the say the court asserted you can't take existing rights away, but also that you cannot deny rights to couples on the basis of sexual orientation, does that mean you' this applying, blazing a legal trail for states in which there are not same-sex marriage rights recognized right now? >> absolutely. because what the court relied upon was a major decision by the united states supreme court called romer versus colorado.
11:17 pm
in which colorado restricted the rights of gay and lesbian officials and the supreme court of the united states struck it down as unconstitutional. but both in that romer case, and in this case today, the court said if you are going to select a class of our citizens, these are our citizens that are presumptively i entitled to be treated like other citizens and select them out on characteristics that are peck cue yar to them you have to have a reason to do that so. and the reasons articulated throughout the litigation were lacking by the ninth circuit and the court below it. 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.
11:18 pm
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. as i put words in your mouth, you don't speak that blunty. could that be that case? do you see this as the likely path forward as to what the supreme court decides to take up? >> we thought this was an important case that could go all the way to the supreme court. the plaintiffs in this case are individuals who had been in relationships for a long period of time, loving individuals. the lesbian couple have four boys that they're raising in a wonderful household. the trial had eight expert witnesses testifying about history of discrimination, what
11:19 pm
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 ninth circuit did so. this is the issue that should go to the united states supreme court someday. the people that we're representing and others like those people are not asking for anything special. they're asking for the right to be treated with decency and respect and dignity and afforded the same rights that we afford to other citizens in this country. they're not asking for much. just equality. 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 it in those terms makes me want to, i guess, put a question to you that causes -- will require a little extrapolation. the mormon church was the main
11:20 pm
financial backer and the main provider of early volunteers to the proposition 8 effort. all the republican candidates for president except for ron paul today put out statements deploring today's ruling that went your way. as a conservative so important in conservative politics, why do you think that hostility to gay rights is still something so utterly mainstream and expected of both mainstream politicians and mainstream institutions in conservative politics today? >> i don't know the answer to your question, rachel, but i think it's terribly unfortunate. marriage is a conservative value, not that 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.
11:21 pm
people more and more are understanding that these are american citizens. these are our brothers and our sisters. we've got to treat them right. we've got to treat them decently. we've got to give them the same freedom and justice we give to other people. more and more people in america are understanding that. i'm pleased to say na more and more republicans are understanding that. it makes me sad to say that republicans haven't fully understood it, but i think the day will come and every time that we have a chance, david boyes and i have a chance to address this question, we believe we're converting more people and persuading more people that this is the right thing. it is not a conservative or liberal issue or republican or democrat. 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.
11:22 pm
these are the principles all men are created equal in this country. we have got to get there. >> ted olson, former solicitor-general under george w. bush along with david boyes. thank you so much for joining us tonight and congratulations on your win today. appreciate you being here. >> thank you so much, rachel. >> a programming note. one of the couples represented by ted olson are on the last word with lawrence o'donnell tonight, which is very cool. you have to watch that, okay? deal, deal. joining us now is dahlia litwick. senior editor and correspondent for dahlia. thank you for being with us. >> listen to ted olson, do you agree with his take on whether or not this case goes to the supreme court and how it will do there? >> well, i agree with just about everything he said. i do think it's really important to look back at judge von walker's 2010 decision and look at how thermonuclear that decision really was.
11:23 pm
what he did in that opinion, finding a fundamental right to gay marriage, finding an equal protection violation was whittled down by the court today. ironically, i think you have to read a little bit about judge reinhart, the two judges in the ninth circuit that looks a little bit 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, some would describe it as lucy with the football that you can't put it out 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 narrow, one-ride only determination. i do agree with mr. olson, absolutely. the language in this is so powerful.
11:24 pm
so eloquent. it really is, and i remember we talked about this when judge walker's decision came down, rachel, it is a letter to justice kennedy at the court saying, please, please, please, this looks like your romer language from that colorado case, please, please, please, take this and find that same right of dignity and self determination for gay couples. i think it is important to see what the ninth circuit did not do, which is glowingly uphold 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 kanne to do that, and i think in the long run that was probably a smart move. >> in terms of the next steps here, to be clear this does not mean that people can start getting married again in california. same sex couples are still not allowed to do that. that part of that is stayed. what we expect now is a decision by the people who lost today about whether or not they're going to appeal it straight to
11:25 pm
the supreme court or to a larger group of the ninth circuit. if it goes though supreme court it looks like it is written directly to anthony kennedy to swing him in terms of being a swing justice. which choice do you think the losers today will make to appeal it, and do you think that's very important? >> it is important. i think that there's some reason to believe they're going to skip taking it to 11 judges in the en banc ninth circuit court and they want to get it to the united states supreme court. this case is in a little bit of a footrace with the defensive marriage cases coming up also being briefed in the federal appeals court. the other moving part is there's another vehicle for deciding some of these issues. some folks use it for a vehicle. it depends which team you're on and how you want to think about how these cases are framed.
11:26 pm
there is another case that could possibly be a better case to get in front of justice kennedy. so that's playing out here as well. the 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 two years that has to factor into this. whether the supreme court wants to take on another huge mega issue when they're looking at so many right now. >> i feel like it's sort of always a big-time in what's going on the in the judiciary, but for the next year i feel like we need to give you an ankle bracelet and keep you nearby all year long? you don't mind that, do you? >> it sounds very attractive. thank you. i'll take it. >> i'll try to say it with a smile. thank you. apparently there was a parade today in downtown manhattan for some sports-related thing. i forget the name the of the team. oh, well.
11:27 pm
and for today at least that means the trifecta of power in new york city is one, mayor michael bloomberg, and eli manning and three, our next guest. that's coming up.
11:28 pm
11:29 pm
11:30 pm
if you thought the 2012 race for the republican presidential nomination could not get more volatile or unexpected, tada. in a big night for rick santorum
11:31 pm
nbc news has projected rick santorum the winner of the nonbinding missouri republican primary. you can see 99% in there. mr. santorum with 55% of the vote. mitt romney is 30 points behind him. rick santorum is also the projected winner in the great state of minnesota. you can see there, 81% in. mr. santorum in the lead with 45%. mitt romney in third, a distant third after ron paul in second. in colorado at this hour the latest results from that state's equally nonbinding caucuses with with the 23% in, rick santorum and mitt romney very tight. we'll keep you posted as we learn more.
11:32 pm
11:33 pm
11:34 pm
obviously, i lost a bet. this is an eli manning jersey. he's the quarterback of a football team called the new york giants. they beat my team, the new england patriots, in the super bowl. i thereby lost a bet. it seems like a cruel twist of fate that we lost the game and i have to wear this on set tonight. aaron hernandez did score a touchdown on the game, so i have to buy everybody on set a beer.
11:35 pm
i have to lose the bet in both directions. that's how it goes. it's fine. here in new york city they held a ticker-tape parade, the giants floating down the canyon of heroes. on a river of several million tons of confetti. there were march bands and people on lunch hour and parents that let their kids pay hooky. in the crowd near city hall they found the willis family. they took the subway in from brooklyn with a big picture of staff sergeant willis. he's now serving in afghanistan. after finishing a tour serving in iraq, his mom told us that another child of her, a daughter served three tours in iraq and is now stationed in germany. she came to the giants parade for her son, a giants fan who celebrated like mad when his team won the super bowl in in 2008 and who i think would have given anything to himself to 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 down to
11:36 pm
manhattan just for the parade so that you can be there a part of it. >> wow. >> i know he's happy now, and he's smiling. he loves this. >> we know for a fact that he loves this even without his mom telling us, because if you look at the old coverage of the last giants champion sthip in 2008, you will find a daniel willis of brooklyn celebrating telling the paper, i don't know all the words in the dictionary, but i don't think webster has a word to describe how i feel. it's indescribable. we know in from his post in afghanistan. he sent this before the game. look. >> how are you doing? my name is staff sergeant danell willis. i'm originally from brooklyn, new york. i want to say hi to my family back in brooklyn and go big blue. >> from afghanistan. after all that he was there today, if only as a picture on his mom's poster downtown. you cannot throw a ticker-tape parade in new york city without
11:37 pm
raising a question of when the city will welcome home another group of heros, the veterans of the war in iraq. like danell willis. it looks like the giants ride today only with line after line of marching troops. we've heard talk of parades in other cities for veterans of our second war in iraq, but so far only the mighty mighty city of st. louis has thrown one. it started with two ordinary guys and a facebook page. it did not start off as an official response, but the whole city got behind it. they turnd out 100,000 people. the official response in 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 gala dinner for a few hundred veterans to take place in a few weeks. before the super bowl a couple of members of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, new yorkers, put out this video not just for a welcome home parade but a national day of
11:38 pm
action to help the troops coming back find help if they need it. today we asked glenda willis, a mom with kids that logged four tours rs one still at war, we asked her today about a tick r -- ticker tape parade for the troops. >> why is there not a parade for veterans coming home from iraq? >> >> i don't think we support the veterans. we need to shore more appreciation and compassion for them for the job that they do. >> a little more appreciation, a little more 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 for the interview tonight is new york city council speaker kristin quinn who supports the city wide welcome home for the troops from iraq. could you picture a celebrate for the war? >> absolutely. i was sitting on the stage out
11:39 pm
in front of city hall today and you give each one of the giants a key to city hall. i was thinking how will we do it when we think of the veterans? i was thinking we could do one for each member of the service and then i thought we should have a family who lost a son or a daughter also from each member of the service come up. the point is, there's a way to do it. there's a way to make sure these men and women know our gratitude. also know we are not just grateful. we are really happy they are back and we want to make it easy as possible for them to transition back in to city life. >> now the way we say we're grateful or we are thrilled or happy in new york is with a parade in the canyons of heros. if there's other way the veterans think we should do it, i'm open to doing that. but i want to make sure the moment doesn't pass us by. if we wait too long it will pass us by and then the thank you
11:40 pm
will seem late and belated like the birthday card you got if your aunt who forgot. it doesn't mean as much. i don't think a parade is enough. i think what the folks have said about a national call to action also needs to be heard. a parade is great, but the really, really best way we can say thank you is to make sure when our veterans come back that they can get work. that we help them transition their military experience to civilian resumes and civilian jobs. it has to be all of it together, but a parade a city-wide celebration is a great way to start. >> what do you think of the objection it is somehow inappropriate to mark the end of the iraq war, given the afghanistan is still going on, and especially given that so many people who fought in iraq are also fighting in afghanistan? >> i would be compelled by that if veterans were saying that. >> yeah. >> if other people who are veterans speaking for themselves said that, i'm not a have been, i would say okay. but they are saying they want this. they are saying this would be
11:41 pm
helpful. so you know what, let's do an immediate one as it relates to iraq and god willing h 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 have ignored their voices about what they needed, what they were feeling, vietnam or whatever else, 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's considering it. what happened in st. louis touched a lot of nerves. there's something special about new york. 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? where are those iconic pictures? men and women kissing in new york city. there's one canyon of heros in the whole world. >> what needs to happen for this to come true in new york? >> for an official new york city parade at the canyon of heros,
11:42 pm
it really needs to be called by the mayor of the city of new york. >> so far he is 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 defense, can we do this and what he heard back from them is we don't want cities to do that. that position on the part of the pentagon or dod puts mayors in a tough spot. do you disregard what the federal government has said to you? i think what needs to happen is the federal government government or the pentagon needs to change their position and make it okay for cities if they want to do this to do this. i really believe strongly if mayor bloomberg got a green light we would have a parade as quickly as we had this one. >> he is in the midst of choodsing between the generals and the grunts. it is a tough choice. >> if we have to make a choice i think we should go to the veterans speaking for themselves but the pentagon needs to change it to a green light so there
11:43 pm
isn't a difficult position. >> i can't believe you have never been here before. thank you for being here. will you come back. >> absolutely. >> even if you are not in giants paraphernalia. >> i will never be in giants paraphernalia. >> might be another giants win. >> i can assure you. >> thank you for doing that. i know it means a lot that you have taken this on so seriously. appreciate it. we have a winner for what is it is worth we have a nonbinding winner. a it is coming up and i'm taking this off.
11:44 pm
11:45 pm
behold an attempt to invoke the amish bus driver rule on national television before 8:00 a.m. on a day after a day spent in bed with the flu. >> is there traction to this? is this an issue that lasts well into the election or campaign or something that fizzles out? >> i think this is going to fizzle out. if there's a bus driver opening and you're amish, nobody says can't apply for that because you're amish. if you get the job and say you can't drive this bus, i'm amish.
11:46 pm
sorry, you have to be able to drive. if it's health insurance, it includes contraception. it's part of health care in the 21st century. >> do not try this at home. the amish bus driver analogy invoked by a trained professional on a closed course. we'll be right back.
11:47 pm
one way to tell where candidates think they're going to do well on election night is where they plan to come where the results come in. rick santorum tonight in st. charles, missouri because he
11:48 pm
knew ahead of time he would have a good chance of winning the missouri primary. nbc news has just declared him the winner there. mr. santorum, of course, helped in winning mosby the fact na newt gingrich was not on the ballot there. it was the first national test of a republican primary with only one non-mitt romney republican, non-ron paul alternative. mr. gingrich is not in any states that hold contests tonight, which is his way to say i'm expecting to go over three. my question is does it matter? mitt romney is going to be in colorado. he expects to do well in colorado. he won that state with 60% of the vote that time around. that didn't help in the long run. he lost the republican primary in 2008, and then barack obama beat john mccain nationally and in the state of colorado by nine points in the 2008 election. one of the other interest thing that is happened in colorado in the '08 election is that they voted on one of these personhood amendments that define a
11:49 pm
fertilized egg as a person. it is in effect a total ban on abortion and a likely ban on hormonal forms of birth control, things like the iud or birth control pill. they rejected that by a 3-1 margin. it lost by 36 points. that was a huge democratic day. maybe that was a 2008 thing. maybe that was a left-leaning electorate that didn't like the personhood thing. that's what the anti-abortion, anti-birth control personhood people were counting on, so they put the same thing on the ballot again in colorado two years later for 2010, which, of course, was a huge republican year nationwide and over all a much better year for republicans in colorado. in 2010 asked to vote to this thing that would ban all abortion and probably all hormonal birth control, colorado residents took a second look at it two years later, a more republican leaning electorate
11:50 pm
this time around and they decided in 2010 no again, no, no, no by nearly the same margin. it lost by 42 points in 2010, and that was in the 2010 election which was a very republican red tide coast to coast. not only did this anti-contraception and anti-abortion thing fail by a 42% margin, but the one thought to be a shoe in lost as well. remember this guy, ken buck? ken buck in his primary campaign when he was competing for the nomination said he was in favor the personhood thing. to ban all abortion and hormonal birth control too. in the reddest possible year, colorado looked at that and said, no, are you crazy? no. so the democrat, in this case michael bennett, was able to point out how crazy it was and thereby beat republican ken bach.
11:51 pm
>> as a doctor i try to protect the health of women. that's why i'm disturbed by ken buck. he would ban common forms of birth control and wants to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest. as far as i'm concerned ken buck is too extreme for colorado. >> since ken has supported criminalizing abortion in cases of rape and incest, my question is who goes to jail, ken? >> that's why we have a senator michael bennet, democrat of colorado and not a senator ken buck. because being super extreme on abortion and being against contraception is not a tenable electoral position in america. in any state in the united states of america. this past november having lost twice in colorado, the people who want to ban hormonal contraception and all abortions in all instances, decided to take their case to a friendlier environment. maybe colorado is too liberal in a year like 2010. they decided to put it on the ballot in mississippi. good move. doesn't get any redder than that. right?
11:52 pm
mississippi also rejected it by double digits by a 16-point margin. that was 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 win in mississippi. every republican running has adopted that as their national platform, and that is the remarkable and relevant context for understanding this current furor over whether or not contraceptions 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 have cover contraceptives without exempt -- exemptions even for churches and even catholic hospitals and universities that are not located in one of the 28 states required to cover contraception as part of their health coverage for employees do so.
11:53 pm
this is a huge political scandal because of the way 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 giant political controversy swirling around it right away. after it already happened, newt gingrich started to bring it up after the fact. that reflected a two-part calculation on his part. i think mr. gingrich has decided he's desperate enough that he's willing to be the guy lecturing the country on what it is to be a good catholic. it's kind of remarkable given that newt gingrich is more famous for his adultery than anything else about him. he also wanted to draw mitt romney into this thing. just as newt gingrich knows what he's doing when he calls the first african-american president a food stamp president, i think he knows 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 potential ly the first party candidate who is mormon in to discussion of religious values. so newt gingrich brings this thing up after the fact. he raises the issue. he gets mitt romney talking
11:54 pm
about religion every day as part of his stump speech, and he boxes mitt romney in. when mitt romney was governor of massachusetts, he did not exempt catholic hospitals from having to provide 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 who can't be trusted on the issue. that's how the politics here is working for newt gingrich. i will close this with a plea to my friends in the media. just because it's working politically for newt gingrich and just because the democrats are godless, is a tried an true wedge issue for republicans doesn't mean there isn't more to the story. yes, 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. 99 prts of american women use or have used birth control and 98% of american catholic women have used birth control. people like being able to use birth control.
11:55 pm
as republican candidates try to pass more and more extreme anti-abortion litmus tests they have gone so far right, not on just abortion but on contra sempgs they are the to the right of even the electorate of the state of mississippi on this issue. they say the white house is in trouble on this. reality check, guys. 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 your health insurance. if you don't have health insurance you can go to get subsidized birth control there. if a republican is elected your insurance may not cover birth control and if it doesn't cover it or you don't have insurance, there are no clinics for you to go to anymore to get birth control pills. planned parenthood defunded. the government money subsidizes the stuff. title ten gone all together. you can't get it from insurance or a clinic, which means you are paying cash, out of pocket, retail costs for your birth
11:56 pm
control prescription. top of whatever you are paying for your health care and health 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 are lucky. because if you are not lucky you will be living in one of the states where birth control has just been declared illegal. do you want a democrat or republican democrat, women of america? i realize that a lot of '60 something male pundits look at this issue and say bad politics for democrats on the catholic side. there is another way to look at it.
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm
four years ago today mitt romney dropped out of the race for the republican president am nomination. ron paul stuck it out another three months after that, by by this night four years ago it was clear john mccain was going to be the republican nominee. mitt romney desperately wants to be in that position john mccain was in four ye