tv The Last Word MSNBC February 7, 2012 10:00pm-11:00pm EST
uncommitted in fourth place, no newt gingrich the on the ballot in missouri. in the republican caucuses p in minnesota only 13% in. rick santorum right now in first place, ron paul in second, mitt romney in third, newt gingrich in fourth. and in the republican caucuses in the state of colorado, only 1% in. no use extrapolating by for what it's worth right now, rick santorum in first. nbc's coverage of the republican presidential primaries and caucuses continues now with lawrence o'donnell. we'll be back with an update at midnight. have a great night. right now the results are counted in the republican presidential contests in colorado, minnesota and missouri. while new issues are forcing they're way into the presidential campaign, there's the president's new position on super-pacs and the new birth control coverage and health care plans and the constitutionality of marital equality in
california. >> can rick santorum catch some mittmentum tonight? >> he doesn't have an organization. he doesn't have money, and he doesn't really have charisma. >> without the money he can't go much further. >> fepts to secure a win, he has to buy it. >> i talk about the deficit of trust between main street and wall street. >> president obama is giving his blessing for the pro-obama super-pac. >> they looked as this number and realized they would lose this fight. >> the gop 410.9 million generated in the race, democrats 366. >> it puts the president at odds with what he said. >> i want him re-elected. >> there was a pre domestic that the white house will backtrack that this was a mistake. >> the second thing i'm going to say is my uterus is not a pre-existing condition. >> we're talking about birth control. >> the white house is hammered by catholic groups and republicans for the new rule on contraception. >> colleges, universities and
hospitals must provide full insurance coverage for birth control. >> free contraceptives and morn after pills. >> santorum says the administration has been hostile to people of faith. >> this kind of assault on religion will end if i'm president. >> can i really vote for a man who ties his dog to the roof of his car? tonight the president's decision to accept the new reality of super-pacs, the obama administration's defense of their decision on contraception coverage in health care plan, and the momentous court decision in california reversing proposition 8. the proposition supported by mitt romney and the mormon church to ban marriage equality in california. we will have all of those stories coming up, but first, here are the latest results from the caucuses in minnesota and colorado and the primary in
missouri. we start in missouri. nbc news declares rick santorum as the projected winner in the missouri republican primary. rick santorum will finish first, mitt romney second, and ron paul third. newt gingrich was not on the ballot in this missouri primary contest. the primary is non-binding, the missouri republican party will caucus later this year to allocate delegates during their convention. the delegate count will not change. mitt romney will still, after tonight, have 84 delegates, newt gingrich 23, rick santorum 14, and ron paul 11. in the minnesota caucuses with 13% of the vote in, rick santorum has 43% with 3,551 votes. ron paul has 27% with 2,263 votes.
mitt romney, 17% with 1,422 votes, and newt gingrich is at 12% with 972 votes so far. and in the colorado caucuses we are just now getting our first information. colorado is showing santorum at 50%, newt gingrich at 21%, and mitt romney at 19%, ron paul at 10%. joining me now is msnbc political analyst steve schmidt, a senior adviser to the 2008 mccain campaign and strr strategist to president bush's 2004 re-election campaign. also howard fineman aol huffingto know post director. steve whashgs do these results mean to you at first glance, santorum having what looks like the night he needed to have? >> at first glance i don't think
they changed the overall trajectory of the race. i think mitt romney is highly likely barring catastrophe to be the republican nominee. it's a bad night for newt gingrich because it giving rick santorum some claim he's the chief alternative to governor romney heading forward to the march 5th super tuesday states. i think one of the interesting aspects of it is in the republican primary coming in second place is usually a ticket to ride in the next election. so i think that's one reason you're going to see rick santorum keep going to establish himself as the solid runner-up in that contest he's now in against newt gingrich. >> howard fineman, there's a ppp poll out today talking about the personab personal popularity of these candidates. it found rick santorum's personal popularity is over 40%,
72% in missouri, 71% in colorado. mitt romney's favorable rating is 47%. gingrich's is 47% favorable. this seems, to me, to be a problem for mitt romney. he's been running for president much longer than rick santorum and had more time to become favorable to these voters and republican voters in particular. yet, here you have in the states today republicans leaving their homes to go somewhere to vote for someone other than mitt romney. >> yeah. that's the point that i would make here, lawrence. perhaps steve schmidt is right about the inevitablity of mitt romney, but mitt romney is still one of the weakest if not the weakest front-runner for a party nomination i've seen in all the years i've been covering politics. i think it's been true that's true for the last half century
at least. he may be the inevitable, but he's the weakest inevitable i've seen. even though missouri, for example, was quote a beauty pageant and no delegates were directly at stake, the fact that rick santorum -- the numbers for rick santorum are lessig tonight than the numbers for mitt romney. right now 25% in missouri, 18% in third place in minnesota. supposedly he'll do better at the end of the night in colorado. this is a terrible, terrible statement to make about somebody who is supposed to be inevitable. part of it has to do with the way he's campaigned, and that has sunk in with voters including republican voters. i don't think there's any way you can interpret the vote in missouri, beauty contest though it may be, other than to say they don't think mitt romney's a beauty because he's campaigning so negatively. his campaign is based on taking
a paddle and trying to keep everybody else was climbing into the row boat with him. that's the way he's run, and he's paying a price for it, winning ugly. >> steve, isn't this another case of republican voters going out there to their polling place, their caucusing place and trying to express publicly, publicly please, please don't make me strovote for mitt romne? >> i don't disagree with howard's analysis on this. i believe mitt romney is the inevitable nominee at some level but he's weak. he's had a number of turnovers , if you will. he's made mistakes and has been involved in a very negative campaign and all of that has impacted in a huge way on his image. when you look at this race tonight if you're the romney campaign you have to be concerned about the lack of enthusiasm behind his candidacy.
that being said, the goal is to secure his nomination. i think he's well on his way to secure the nomination for a lot of different reasons. >> the goal is to secure the nomination in a style that then allows you and, in fact, helps you win the general election. the romney campaign seems to be a secure the nomination at all costs, including the political costs incurred in terms of jeopardizing his ability to win the general election. >> the problem is he's not that popular within his party, so he has to use a lot of money and carpet bombing of negative advertising to get there. he's not the convinced and convincing conserve dif in the race. now, he's benefitting from the fact that there isn't a perfect conservative alternative. each of these people who were opposing him have their problems. ron paul is the libertarian who can't sell himself really outside of that circle for the most part.
newt gingrich is a flawed candidate for all the reasons we discussed a million times to the moon and back. rick santorum is not a charismatic figure, and he plods along in certain states where he can put a lot of time and attention. there is a new bible belt, lawrence. we think of the bible belt as the south. there's a bible belt in the midwest and plains states. we saw that in iowa. minnesota is kind of a cousin state to iowa. there were big evangelical megachurches in the suburbs of minneapolis. that's rick santorum's territory. so long the other three jostle around, mitt romney has the mathematical chance to build up the majority he needs. ipts not pretty, and it's going to be long. every time somebody like santorum wins delegates in a place like minnesota, that prolongs the math of getting to
the 1,044 that mitt romney is going to need. by the way, arizona on the 28th now of this month, is, i think, going to be a contest. the other big one is michigan, which mitt romney is going to win. it's sort of his semi-home state. arizona is going to be a battle, i think. >> on the personal popularity number that is a difficult one to turn around with television campaign advertising, which is romney's primary weapon. >> no doubt. and look, he's come through this primary pretty bruised up when you look at that number. that being said, when you look at the structure of the general election contest and there are some polls out it this week that show the contact prospectively between governor romney and president obama opening up a little bit in president obama's favor. as a general proposition over to last month, you see an even race between the president and between governor romney. i think, lawrence, that one of the good things if you're on the romney team is that the
structure of the general election is that i think both sides start with essentially a floor of about 47% of the vote. they're going to be competing for about 4% to 6% of the electorate. it's a very narrow slice. now governor romney has work to do. one of the things he has to do is offer a positive vision for moving the country forward, not just the criticism of the president. >> steve schmidt and howard fineman, thank you very much for joining me tonight. >> thanks, lawrence. >> coming up, if you can't beat them, join them. president obama signs off on super-pacs backing his election. later, mark sheels will join me on the controversy and don't be surprised if he says some things you don't agree with. later we'll be joined by the couple whose case overturned proposition 8 today in california. in the rewrite tonight the susan g. komen foundation had a big
they're being helped along this year by essential interest groups spending unlimited amounts of money on attack ads without ever disclosing who's behind all these attack ads. you don't know. it could be oil industry. it could be the insurance industry. could even be foreign-owned corporations. that's not just a threat to democrats. that's a threat to our democracy. >> that was back in 2010. today the obama re-election campaign officials confirm that the president personally signed off on his campaign's decision to encourage democratic donors to contribute money to pro-obama
super-pacs. >> the president's views of the influence of the citizens united decision haven't changed. he strongly opposed it. i think you can define that, that this is a decision that was carefully considered by the fact that it's february of 2012. you've already seen in the republican party how much money is being raised by these organizations. the campaign has made clear he they cannot unilaterally diskarm in a circumstance like this. >> you see on your screen that rick santorum is the winner of minnesota according to nbsz news projections at this point. we're going to stay with our coverage here of the super-pac story and come back to any election results that will update under the information we have there. rush limbaugh interpreted the president's new position on superpacs this way. >> it's because they don't have
this billion dollars. they don't have nearly the amount of campaign dollars they've wanted everybody to believe. so we got to win. winning. we have to win. so if it takes super-pacs to win, we do super-pacs. it's that simple. we'll do whatever it takes to win. we're not being hypocrites. the other side is doing super-pacs and we're doing super-pacs. the other side said they never opposed them. >> joining me now is cnbc chief washington correspondent and "new york times" political writer john harwood, and also staff writer for the new yorker jane mayer, her latest caller is "attack dog." it appears in this week's issue of "the new yorker." i want to look at the results in minnesota now with rick santorum being called the winner there. john harwood, this seems to be
the night that the santorum campaign was able to stay alive. >> absolutely they are. it's as your guests were discussing a few moments ago, it's pretty embarrassing for mitt romney to have numbers this weak against somebody like santorum. yes, he keeps his campaign alive, but he's not thriving in the contests up to now in nevadanevada or in florida or south carolina for that matter. for rick santorum to get up off the mat and really clean mitt romney's clock in missouri and minnesota has got to be concerning to the romney campaign. >> jane, you've been studying the romney campaign and the attack dog, who you wrote about this work in "the new yorker." they tried to down-play the results today. here he is the prezumed pront runner in a party that one they know who their presumed nominee is, the republican voters have a way of getting on board with that. these republican voters are
extremely resistant to their front-runner. >> well, you know, also one of the things that's going on is that each of these candidates have their own super-pacs with their own billionaires behind them. santorum has foster freece behind him. they're prolonging the race where canadas would give up if they didn't have the money a chance to keep going. you're seeing another result of the money, i think, also here. >> john howard, what are we seeing in the president's position on super-pacs. my first question is why are we seeing it? why did the president feel compelled to let it be known publicly that, yes, he acknowledges that the super-pac created for him last year that we all know about, he actually would be happy to see people contribute to that? why not let the word go out in
the more -- put less of a focus on some sense of inconsistent st see in the president's position. >> that's what they did in 2011, and the money didn't come rolling in. if you compare how much priorities usa action and other democratic associated super-pacs raised, it was a fraction of what crossroads, gps, what karl rove and ed gillespie has raised. rush limbaugh is right. they want to win the election. people talk about chicago-style politics. if there's one defining characteristic of barack obama and anybody else who runs for national offices, they want to win. so they were serious about not unilaterally disarming. the only thing about rush limbaugh is he said the opponents didn't say they opposed super-pacs. mitt romney doesn't like super-pacs either. that's not the system we have,
and barack obama has decided in the general election he's going to maximize his ability to compete with mitt romney or whoever the republican nominee is. >> jane, this reminds me -- >> i -- >> go ahead, jane. >> no. i was going to say i think john's total light. they were just alarmed at the numbers when they saw them in the latest fec filings. you get to 7 or 8 to 1 is the ratio for conservative group fund-raising in the super-pacs against what the liberals have in their kitties. they looked at those numbers and thought they better put out a message, which is send in those big checks. >> jane, do you stee any alternative choice mere for the practical politician in the president's position trying to get a 51% victory in november? any choice other than in effect giving the nod to super-pacs to help them out? >> no.
i think it's kind of a ridiculous thing to accuse them of being hypocritical. they're playing by the rules of 2012 and the rules were not the rules pa obama want upped. they're the rules supreme court set in place. it would be ridiculous not to play by the rules. they're right that it would be unilateral disarmament and they'll he not up, you know, without the funds they need to compete. it's a whole new landscape out there. >> go ahead, john. >> we had a clear precedent for the decision the president made today by his decision in taet to go outside the public financing system in the general election and raise as much money as he possibly could. he raised $750 million in 2008. he's not likely to get that billion dollar figure, but super-pacs are one way to make up for a difficult fund-raising environment and get the president in a stronger position. >> john harwood and sorry, jane, we're out of time for the
segment. jane mayer for the new yorker. thank you both for joining us tonight. >> great to be with you. >> coming up, the man who's been arguing the liberal angle on television longer than of us doesn't like the obama administration's position on requiring religious employers to provide contraception coverage in their employees' health plans. mark sheels joins me now. later, how the susan g. komen foundation can begin to fix its image problem with one simple strategy. the truth. they haven't tried that yet. that's in the rewrite. and later, the couple who forced cal's proposition 8 into the courts where it has now been declared unconstitutional. they will join us.
republicans don't want a campaign against the president on foreign policy. they know that president obama is absolutely unbeatable on that front with huge favorable margins over the republicans in all polls on foreign policy. they want to go after president obama on social conservative issues, and now they think the president has given them one. campaign ammunition, the kind of campaign ammunition that they think they need by requiring religious employers, especially catholic employers, to provide
contraception coverage in their health care plans for their employees. my next guest, who's been a liberal democrat longer than most of you have, thinks the president has made a big mistake. mark sheels will join us next to tell us why. the susan g. komen foundation may now be trying to do the right thing, but it's still not coming close to try to tell the truth. that's in tonight's rewrite. and later, the couple who went to court in california to challenge proposition 8, which has now been declared unconstitutional. that's thanks to them.
i'm just distressed as i watch our president trying to infringe upon those rights, the first amendment of the constitution provides the right to worship in the way of our own choice. just this last week this same administration said that churches in the institutions they run, such as schools and adoption agencies, hospitals,
that they have to provide for their employees free of charge contraceptives, morning after bills, in other words, abortive pills and the like at cost. think what that does to people in faiths that do not share those views. this is a violation of conscience. >> that was mitt romney last night in colorado trying to make a campaign issue out of a provision in the health care reform law that has been interpreted by kathleen sebelius to require all health care plans to offer coverage for birth control. here was david axelrod's response this morning on "morning joe." >> we have great respect for the work that these institutions do. they're important elements of our country. they serve many, many americans, and we want to -- we certainly don't want to abridge anyone's religious freedom so we're looking for a way to move forward that both guarantees women that basic, pooeventive
care they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions. >> axelrod did not offer an adamant defense of the administration's position that religious employers would be required to provide birth control in their health care plans. in fact, he seemed to leave the door open to some sort of negotiated compromise in the future. >> we want to resolve it in an appropriate way, and we're going to do that. the real question is how do we get together and resolve this in a way that respects the concerns that have been raised but also assures women across this country they have the pooeventive care they need. >> that provoked this question to jay carney today at the white house press briefing. >> you were asked last week if there's a debate within the administration about reconsidering, and you said, no, the decision has been made.
does that absolutely remain the case, no reconsideration? >> it does, but i think it is important to remember what was clearly stated when this policy decision was announced, and that is that we will be working with those organizations and individuals who have concerns about the implementation of this rule. >> ten years before msnbc even existed, the lone voice of the left on american television was mark sheels who has been participating in a left/right dialogue on pbs's "news hour" since 1987. before becoming a nationally syndicated columnist, he was a political operative for two of the greatest liberal icons of the 20th century, bobby kennedy and senator george mcgovern who ran the most liberal campaign for president as a nominee of the democratic party that this country has ever seen. friday night on the news hour on pbs, he had this to say about
the obama administration's decision that will require catholic institutions to provide contraceptive coverage in health care plans for their employees. >> the fallout is cataclysmic for the white house and for the president. >> joining me now is mark sheels. mark, thanks very much for joining me tonight. >> good to be with you, lawrence. >> don't go on and on. we can't talk all night like on pbs, because we have commercials here, mark, okay? we have to get to a commercial eventually. tell us -- a lot of our viewers haven't heard the case you're making about why this is cataclysmic for the president. talk about it on policy grounds and talk about it on political grounds. >> okay. first on policy grounds. it's an incredibly narrow constructionist definition of religion. it basically says to the catholic church that your mission and the catholic
church's mission which is expressed from matthew 25 is to serve those living in the outskirts of hope who aren't you by need not by creed. in other words, you help those who don't belong to your parish, who don't belong to your sanctuary, who don't share your faith. this definition says you're a religious institution if you only employ your own people of your faith you and only serve people of your own faith. this is a repudiation at the fundamental level of what the christian message is what the catholic mission has been and i think what catholics take greatest prize in which is sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry and taking care of those who are strangers and alone. to me that is just a violation of what religion has been at our best in our country. there is no anti-slavery movement in this country without the methodist church and quakers. there's no anti-war movement in
this country without religious underpinning and no civil rights movement without the reverent martin luther king and shuttleworth and divinty students and ministers who put their bodies on the line. to me, this is -- it's just violative of what we hold dear. in political terms it's an act of incredible sensitivity especially of people and father larry schneider of catholic charities and serve 10 1/2 million people and the sister of the catholic health association who stood up to many of the most conservative bishops and endorsed the president's health care bill and supported it the at political risk. it's just turning the back on them and turn the back on what the president himself has said time and again. to me it's just dumb, bad policy, bad politics and bad
precedent. >> mark, catholics stopped being an interesting subset in the polling decades ago when it turns out that catholics basically have exactly the same views as the population as a whole framplt, they tend to support abortion rights in exactly the same numbers in the general population. the same thing with child. the discussion is not about the contraception provision in the president's health care plan, but forcing it to be applied specifically to catholic employers while the catholic church preaches against the use of contraception, however medieval that may sound to many people, as it does to me. it is a catholic teaching that i absolutely do not accept or agree with. but it is a catholic teaching, and so that's what makes this so difficult. the polls indicate that providing contraception in the health care plan is a majority -- has majority
support, but forcing religious institutions, catholic institutions to provide it does not have majority support. that gets only 49% support of all americans, 46% oppose it. actually, more catholics support it than the general population do. when you say catholic voters only 45% of catholic voters support that, and there is the political problem going into this re-election, isn't it, mark? when you take a position that is only supported and it's a very close-cut thing, only supported by at most 49% of the population, highly controversial, that seems to be a very risky proposition to be taking into an election. >> well, it is, lawrence. to be bluntly practical about it, we're talking about states like ohio, particularly the cincinnati area, barack obama carried hamilton county, which
is cincinnati, being the first democrat to do that in more than a generation. we're talking about lack ka wan na county in pennsylvania, and scranton. they're not looking anywhere near that in 2012. in michigan, in wisconsin, you know, it's really just sticking it in the eye of catholics. saying what you believe, what your creed is, what your mission is is unimportant, and that you must swallow that or stop doing what you -- what defined you as a catholic church. >> it sounds like david axelrod is interested in getting a compromise. mark, welcome to the world of commercials every three or four minutes. i have to go to one of these horrible commercials. thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you lawrence. >> coming up the susan g. komen
for the cure foundation the rewriting. the president of planned parenthood, cecile richards, joined me. how comfortable are you now with where planned parenthood stands with the komen foundation going forward. not just on meeting the commitments that had been pledged but going forward into the future years? >> i feel very good, lawrence. you're right, this has been a long week, but we feel very good about the relationship with the komen foundation. obviously, very grateful that they've changed their minds about working with planned parenthood and already at the local level across the country, komen foundation folks and planned parenthood and docs and clinicians are working together to find ways to increase and expand breast cancer screenings for women. so it's a good day. >> the ever diplomatic cecile richards was followed by the daily beast reporter michelle goldberg and my first question to michelle was about karen
handel. a former candidate for governor in georgia who pledged during that campaign to defund planned parenthood and used her position of vice president of public policy at the komen foundation to push planned parenthood into what became the disastrous public relations nightmare of defunding planned parenthood. michelle, we saw resignations last week at the komen foundation. now the question is, are there going to be firings? what happens next, and can handel survive? >> i think that there should be firings, although clearly when you look at a lot of the reporting out of the komen foundation, they still don't seem to get it. they still seem to have thought they could do this in a nonpolitical way that nobody would notice they would cut off planned parenthood under the guise of this new rule about investigations. they still seem to feel somewhat victimized. i think if handel resigned that
would do a lot to mend the fences of the many, many women and men who have been big supporters of komen and who have just felt so incredibly betrayed by the way this organization ostensibly devoted to women's health has seemed to step forward to justify some of the most radical attacks on women's health. >> and 12 hours later there was this. >> this breaking news just in to us. an official with the susan couple men for the cure handed over her resignation. she quit over funding for planned parenthood. her name is karen handel. >> we have a story we did a lot of work on in recent days. karen handel, who was the vp for public policy at susan g. komen foundation, has resigned from her position. >> this just in. karen handel the vice president of susan g. komen for the cure
foundation has just resigned. >> karen then ran to what she surely thought would be the safety of fox news to tell her story, but even fox news had trouble accepting her spin. >> it didn't smell right. it didn't pass the smell test. it seemed like planned parenthood was indeed the targeted organization and why not say we have a problem with funding this organization? >> you know, i think the congressional investigation along with the various state investigations, those were a factor in the decision, but make no mistake about it. it was a bigger picture than that. there is a granting criteria, and you know, i'm not going to get into too much on the internal aspects of things. this organization had a right to make what it felt was the best decision for the mission, for the mission. i think everyone can agree that if you have a grantee where there's this type of controversy surrounding it, komen was doing its level-best to move to neutral ground, and i will say i
was asked to look at options for doing that, some alternatives to do that. i was asked to do that. i looked at it and i did. >> it wasn't your idea, however, you're saying? >> i'm saying that this is long an issue for komen dealing with the controversies of planned parenthood. >> before you got there? >> notice that karen handel in effect refused to answer the question. was defunding planned parenthood your idea? the reason she can't answer that question honestly is she at least for now appears to be keeping her story straight with nancy brinker, the founder and ceo of the komen foundation who the day before the komen foundation reversed its decision had this exchange with our own andrea mitchell. >> why hire a key staff person who is so strongly, fiercely identified against planned parenthood, one of our grantees? >> let me just for the record tell you karen did not have anything to do with this decision. >> that's right. you heard correctly.
that was the head of the komen foundation saying that her vice president for policy had nothing to do with policy. the only way for the komen foundation to save its sinking ship is to start telling the truth when faced with questions like this. >> can you tell us, karen, you know, when susan g. komen reversed its decision last week, they were kind of vague about the reasons. what happened? why did they reverse themselves? >> look, i think you can just see the pressure that was mounting around, and you know, i'm going to always be a professional. imt not going to go into those details. i think you can ask komen that. >> okay, komen, it's on you. tell us the truth about how you made this decision in the first place and exactly what role karen handel made in that decision to defund planned parenthood. then tell us the truth about how you reversed that decision, and then tell us the truth about
country and particularly in a place that i suspect maybe in massachusetts, they were heard particularly loud tonight. tonight was not just a victory for us, but tonight was a victory for the voices of our party, conservatives and tea party people who are out there every single day in the vineyards building the conservative movement in this country and building a voice for free dpdom in this land. thank you. there's probably another person who maybe is listening to your cheers here tonight also, and that might be at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. you you better start listening to the voice of the people.
i won't be surprised if he wasn't listening. has he ever listened to the voice of america before? why? he thinks he knows better and is smarter than you. he thinks he's someone who is a privileged person who should be able it to rule over all of you. we have a different message for him. let's go look at the record. if you look at when it came to the wall street bailouts, did the president of the united states listen to you when it came to bailing out the big banks? why? because he thought he knew better. he and his friends on wall street knew better than what was good for this country. when it came to the problems
that were being confronted on obama care, when the health care system in this country, that president obama when he was p pushing forward his radical health care ideas listen to tell us american people? why? because he thinks he knows better how to run your lives and manage your health care. when it comes to the environment, did the president of the united states listen to the american people, or did he push a radical cap and trade agenda that would crush the energy and manufacturing sector of the economy? did he listen to you? no, because he thinks he knows better. >> that's rick santorum speaking to his supporters in missouri tonight after his victories in the missouri primary and the minnesota caucus, but we will not let rick santorum prevent chris perry and sandy spear from speaking. they are the couple who brought the challenge to proposition 8 to federal court in california.
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on