♪ i is i am john heilman. >> and i am mark halperin. with all respect to bush reading more treats. tonight on the show, we are going to interview the biggest clinical figure in the same-sex political figure, a chief, and later, we will put on david axelrod through a very important obstacle course but first, jeb bush gave a very presidential performance today in tallahassee, where he talked about school choice and also about the state's role in tough standards and he gave teachers

in particular a very vocal shellacking. >> they are to protect the economic interests of adults. that should not come as a surprise to people, so a monopoly that does not have choice is an easier path for them to achieve their objectives . while i am understanding that an respectful of it, it is wrong. in the twitter universe, there are some heads exploding right now. i can feel it. [laughter] >> i like that video. and since he decided to run for president, does jeb bush have in his arsenal and up to neutralize the critics he aces on the grassroots and the level of the common core? >> his critics are going to be the fiercest. he is not going to neutralize them. they are going to hate him, but he can neutralize this argument. i think it is the smallest one. it is a powerful argument, and this union bashing will work to

help him. >> this education reform record better than any conservative and with people like chris christie and others adding their voice being on the offense on common core, i think they are setting themselves up for a huge blowback. when jeb bush starts going on the offense confronted directly, he is going to be able to say, "here is what i did on education." there is a reason why common core exists. you say the obama administration screwed up if you are a republican. you can say all of those things. it will be powerful. it will be embedded in a powerful economic message that i think way overshadows -- >> a broader point. again, he is not an invulnerable candidate. people throw the phrase around. these other candidates are brushing up on policy. they are trying to learn how to talk about issues. this is a guy who can toggle at

any issue that comes across the desk of a big state governor with fluidity. >> to your specialty because you know. he can be very strong on it. all right, speaking of jeb bush let's pay -- play a game called who is on your payroll. recently they have done what on the internet. a, referred to slubt. b, he wrote about gay men at the gym. c he made provocative comments about martin luther king junior, or d all of the above. >> yes, it is d all of the above. >> putting presidential candidates already in political danger. >> 16 candidates trying to hire a lot of people for their pacs and a responsible campaign was in vetting operations. you do not bring on somebody to the campaign unless you vet them.

this is an amateurish move. this is an example. they are trying to hire new people. not just the old, but new people who have not been in politics and new people and politics have not worried about what their twitter feed says. greg's things like axelrod are on twitter, but these younger people have been on twitter. they have been blogging. they have been living their lives in public. so vetting them is all the harder, but this new age of technology is just going to be really complicated and will require more scrutiny. >> we asked the bush administration about the latest things that came over, that martin luther king gives you pause and we have not heard back yet. again, i will say it is expensive and time-consuming. ellery clinton is going to get the same thing. everybody you put on a board everybody you get a check to, it is expensive, and the temptation

is to not do it thoroughly. >> also, the culture has coarsened. not to excuse this, but the culture has coarsened. there is no young operative out there who has not said or done intentionally embarrassing things, and in many cases now, they have done them on twitter. >> not any republicans jumping on it yet, though i am sure they would like to jump on jeb bush. >> likely, this guy is not a campaign manager or anything. >> but the reality is it shows you that jeb bush and hillary clinton are going to have more scrutiny for the rest of the year. a lot of people will have episodic scrutiny, but jeb bush bad judgment. if they hired the guy they did not know worse judgment. >> and hiring a guy who is a tech guru, and you would think of all of the people who had familiarity with what he put on my -- >> all right, later on the show we will put david axelrod

through an obstacle course. the chief justice of the alabama supreme court, the man at the center over the same-sex marriage issue, he will join us live from alabama right after this. ♪

♪ >> they say that all politics is local, and, boy, is that true and joining us now is a judge you talks about not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples even though a judge has said it is legal. chief justice, thanks for coming on the show. >> thank you. nice to be with you, sir. >> we want to ask you about history, a bit. you're being compared to george wallace, who stood up against the federal government on immigration. is george wallace and inspiration to you and the struggle you are going through? >> no, this is not anything to

do about race or the color of one's skin. we don't discriminate in alabama. this is about marriage, and we don't discriminate there either. all persons have the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex according to the constitution of alabama, and that is what people do ask that maybe 1%. >> mr. chief justice i am curious. alabama is constantly dealing with orders from federal courts and federal president and the supreme court precedent, and i am curious why you are resisting this one in particular. >> well this one, in particular, violates the federal rules of procedure, federal rule 55 of the federal courts. i am not opposing federal courts. i am saying if they have to stick within the bounds of their own federal rules, and the court of alabama is not bound to follow a decision of a federal

district judge when that federal court has not been in a case before that federal judge greer there is simply no authority for that, and even a federal judge recognized that in a recent order regarding a contempt citation of a court judge. >> there, in light of the comments you made, would you talk about what the constitution means to you then? >> yes, sir, i can. the constitution of the laws of the united states, and with trainees -- treaties made shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state should be bound thereby. anything contrary notwithstanding. what that means is between the two systems, you have the state system and the federal system. the state system is different because it has the constitution above it between that and the united states --

>> there, if i could? i am sorry. i understand in this case, it is the minority opinion, and the supreme court said, justice scalia and justice thomas, and understand you think they deviated. normally, there would be a day on what the court ruled, but there is a federal court that has ruled about what the law should be in your state and you seem to say it is ok to disregard that. >> it is not only ok, there is no rule that you must regard it in the federal courts and the state court have equal authority to interpret the constitution. under our rules today in the united states. were example, i will quote to you from a case in 1993. i will quote justice thomas. in our federal system the interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in which the circuit the trial

court is located. and then justice william rehnquist, in 1974, although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal court holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as a highly persuasive. this is the opinion of the united states supreme court in a california case in 2013. the federal courts do not bind the california supreme court when it decides a federal constitutional question. >> following up on that if the supreme court, as you know is hearing a gay marriage case this spring, if the u.s. supreme court rules that gay marriage is constitutional and therefore the law of the land, sometime this spring or summer, what would that do to your posture with respect to the supremacy clause, and what will you do in alabama if that is the case? >> the supreme court authority is the only authority arbiter of a difference of opinion

between federal and state courts. it would live state courts, but i would submit to you that nothing in the constitution of the united states gives the power or authority of the supreme court or any federal court to reinvent the definition of marriage. that definition belongs to the people. >> to be clear, you are saying if the u.s. supreme court rules in favor and says gay marriage is constitutional, you will then allow gay marriages in alabama or not. >> i will not allow gay marriage anywhere. i will not change my opinion on the definition of marriage. their opinion would bind the courts of alabama. >> if that happened, and a federal court found in contempt and sent you to jail, would you go? >> for what? thinking about something? i think i would go. >> would you? you would go to jail? >> they cannot rule your conscience. that is clear in law.

that is what the first amendment is all about. >> mr. justice, very interesting. >> i said the state courts would be bound. >> there is great interest in you as a person, as has been in the past when you were involved in controversy. with your personal views, if somebody you knew was day and invited you to their wedding, would you attend? >> i have had many friends who are homosexual. i have treated people just like other people. this is not about how i treat evil or how i go to a wedding or marriage or anything. it is about the cost to shoot of alabama and the constitution of the united states and the civic leave the sanctity of marriage amendment to our alabama constitution. >> so you would not be reluctant virtually to go to a same-sex wedding, then? is that right? >> i would not go to a same-sex wedding. >> why not? >> i said i would treat people fairly. that is not what i believe is

the definition of marriage in our country, and what i believe is not what i am basing my opinions on. what i am basing my opinion on is the constitution of alabama. that is simple. >> you have got people in your state now in a very chaotic situation. some people are performing and the counties are performing same-sex weddings, and some are not. how do you deal with the fact that there are people in your state who love each other and want to get married, and a federal judge has said they should be allowed to, and yet they are not. how do you feel that should go? >> people can love each other and live with each other, but to get married in the state of alabama, you have to go by the constitution of alabama that has been passed and which forbids same-sex marriage. >> mr. chief justice, the supreme court passed a ruling in one case saying that interracial marriages were constitutional. it took until 2002 to take some of the other laws off the books. do you think that amount of time

after the supreme court ruled and those laws remained on the books that the states should have continued to enforce those laws? >> no, those were overturned by the supreme court of the united states, and we recognized that after 1960 seven, but we also recognized in 1967 what the supreme court said about marriage. they said it was the right of every free man and woman to enter into the institution of marriage as a write in the pursuit of happiness, and that referred back to the declaration of independence, which stated that we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unavailable -- in alienable rights, and among them are life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. it was attached to a right given by god, and that is an unalienable right. court can take that definition away from the people.

>> would you prefer a system of law where god' is law trumps federal and state law or federal and state law trumped up us to be as gods of law? >> well, if you look at the organic law of the country, would you say the declaration of independence is law? question. answer. would you say the declaration is law? >> no, it is not. >> i don't hear an answer. when you go to the united states coated today, and you find it listed as organic law, the cuss all law must have a beginning. all rights must have an origin and that determines where rights come from and who gives them and what the government role is which is to secure those rights. >> thank you. >> mr. chief justice, thank you very much. when we come back, we get in line for the david axelrod promotional tour, and then we

take you back in time. we will be right that. ♪

>> there has been a lot of talk lately about "axers," and that is about david axelrod, and he is here to talk about his new book, the story of the life and times of david axelrod in politics and journalism. we will put this on the shelf and say it is a memoir about the politics of our time, but it is also, as i said, about your life. this is your life plus an obstacle course. >> what my life has been. >> so first, we have right here -- >> what do you call this? >> begins gulbis a type writer. we will load up the paper. do you know how to work this? load it up. this is an obstacle course, so we have to go fast. the first thing we would do is i will give you a situation, and i want you to write a lead, ok?

>> ok. we will do it began. >> ok, i will write you the facts. the cubs are about to play the white sox in game seven of the world series. the starting pitcher, and there are accusations of rigging the game in the white sox clubhouse. what is the lead up to that? oh man. you are a hunt and pecker. >> yes. ok. >> all done? >> he is becoming an artiste. >> give that to me. pull that out in dramatic newspaper fashion. >> i don't know if you can read it. >> white sox scandal allegations of cheating have once again marred the world series. >> very good. all right, one more. get that in there. the shorter though. this outcome you're going to write a headline. >> you know, this is why we don't have typewriters anymore. but go ahead. >> he are the fax.

donald trump has bought the willis tower, and it is getting renamed again, but nobody knows what the name is going to be. i have to say this is a professional journalist, like no hesitation. you done? you got it? he is still working on it. all right. >> the donald trump's willis tower. >> all right. >> and you stand right here. >> i will come around. >> ok. >> this is your life. we know one of the most important institutions in your life is a deli in chicago called manny's, and we are in new york and do not have a manny's. so we went to a deli stop, and there is also something in your book about being defensive for some of your reputation about having stuff all over your pants and shirts and ties, and the goal here is for you to take

three bites of this sandwich without getting anything on your clothing. >> yes, i have got several stops after this, guys. >> three types. there he go. all right there is one. >> on his hand, but technically not on his clothing. this is your life. the clock is still moving. there is a little bit on his face, but again, the clothing is spotless. all right. and now this is your life. >> that is very, very good. >> and we moved over to the pictorial part of this. we are going to show you a picture, and you're going to see a little dialogue here, and you're going to have to respond just in the moment. this is your life, david axelrod. here we go. in character. >> oh, really?

>> we should tell people what we are referring to. >> this was a meeting that i had with john edwards when i was working with him as his media consultant in 2004. there was a great deal of friction within the campaign. i was up in new hampshire at a focus group, and i got a message that senator and words was in town and wanted to meet with me, and this was his opening line and all of it was true except for the "you are still our guy." [laughter] >> you worked for rod blagojevich and a lot of people. is this the worst client you worked with? >> no, you know what? john edwards was personally decent to me. i never thought of him as a bad guy. >> what was the worst client you ever worked for? >> the worst client i ever worked for. that is a hard question, because you forget the pain and it is hard to remember, so -- i don't

know how to answer that. >> you don't have a clear answer for the worst candidate's spouse you have ever worked for? >> elizabeth edwards who commune or, god rest her soul was a very, very hard person for me to deal with. >> fast forward a little bit to another presidential cycle. >> what would you say to that guy? what would you say? >> what happened is we lost the new hampshire primary as the art suggests be dashed. . we were up eight, and robert gibbs, the press secretary, and i, we went up to the room, and we knocked on the door because we wanted to share the news with him alone, and he came out in the hallway, and we said, i think he said, it looks like we're going to be a little bit short, and he said what

happened? >> and you said? >> well, there was a lot of movement. in the last day, but the thing i most remember about it was him sort of smiling, and he leaned against the wall and said, this is going to go on for a while, isn't it? and, of course, we were on the longest in nominating struggle in the history of american politics. >> he was right about that. this is the last one. here it is. what would you say to this guy right here? >> i would say, where did you get that big, dark mustache? the thing looks like an inchworm. [laughter] on my lip. >> this story ran in chicago magazine with the headline "ha tchetman: the rise of david axelrod." how did you get the name "hatchetman"? >> that was the worst, but it said he looks like an unmade

bed, says his mother. this was not my favorite piece and the guy who wrote it who has also passed away since then every time i encountered him, he would see me coming down the street, and he would cross to the other side, so i think he knew how i felt about the piece. i had to dispel the hatchet man idea in his head. >> thanks again. and congratulations on the book. it is called "the believer" and thanks for their royal deluxe. and, david again thanks. >> good to be here. ♪

>> david axelrod was here, and in addition to his obstacle course, we had more and there

was a video. you can find that scintillatingng video on bloomberg.com. >> sayonara. ♪

♪ >> hello, i am pimm fox, and this is what i am taking stock of on this tuesday, february 10, 2015. greece and germany drawing battle lines, germany playing down expectations of a positive outcome at their upcoming meeting, and greece affirms it wants to move away from its they'll out agreement, and u.k. chancellor of the ishaq or -- can't -- chancellor of the ishaq or -- exchequer makes comments. and tensions remain. we are told in an exclusive