>> this week on the journal ehe editorial report. the g.o.p. candidates square off in the last debate before the iowa caucuses, was it a game changer? >> with polls tightening the two frontrunners, the private business experience. the closer look at newt gingrich's dealing with freddie mac and mitt romney's time with bayne capital, how big a vulnerability will they be in a general election? >> welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot.

they squared off in a debate. and showing newt gingrich, mitt romney and ron paul, and the others tried to make a final impression on iowa voters. >> i kind of like these debates, and i hope obama and i debate a lot and i'll get there early and we'll get it on and talk about our differences which are great. i tell you, i hope i am the tim tebow of the iowa caucuses. >> i think that people, neil, are coming around to finding that i mean the consistent conservative in in race. >> they're coming around to find that i'm not going to pander. i'm not going to contort myself into a pretzel to please any audience i'm in front of and i'm not going to sign those silly pledges and now what else i'm not going to show up at a donald trump doe bait. >> paul: so did they succeed? joining the panel, wall street

journal columnest dan hittinger-- did it change the contours of the race? >> i don't think so paul, i mean, i believe that the race is now between newt gingrich and mitt romney with ron paul probably playing the role of a spoiler. the others simply didn't perform strongly enough. they would have had to knock it out of the part. that said, rick perry can stay in this race, unlike the others, he does have money and money matters. he gave up a pretty credible performance and didn't blow himself up. but i think at this point it's pretty much congealing around romney and gingrich. >> paul: dorothy. >> yes, i think that's true, but i think that they all show something definitive about themselves. it's fascinating. you did see that santorum is innately depressed and you can

see it from the lack of fight and compared especially to michelle who went at it like the energizer bunny and couldn't be stopped and you see huntsman who is in a realm all by himself talking about transactional matters and what. >> paul: hey, i like the flat tax that he passed in utah and think his tax reform plan is pretty darn good. >> there is he' a big prom every time a politician says, i'm not going to pander, you go, oh. >> michele bachmann had a pretty good debate. the second debate in a row i think she punched above her weight. and newt gingrich's weakest moment. debate was responding to michele bachmann's charges over freddie mac. and so, i think she exposed some vulnerabilities there in the frontrunners. you're right, by and large the frontrunners pretty much laid off one another and let the second tier candidates go after them. >> and i want today deal with those questions separately

michele bachmann did attack, but did she make the case for herself? >> she needs strategically not to knock din grinch down and move on past iowa, she has to do well in iowa. >> i don't think so, it's been very odd to me that bachmann, santorum and huntsman, the way that they come out debate after debate and disorganizationed in the theme. >> she says she's the only conservative. >> so what? the american people are upset about several things, 9% unemployment, an economy that's dead in the water and whether their taxes are going to be raised or not. none of those subjects really came up in in debate. and so, they're-- santorum and bachmann and huntsman are trying to present other reasons why they should be reported. you have to connect with concerns of the american

people. >> how well did gingrich defend themselves. >> i think they he defended himself. as well as he could have. believe me, this was watched away by the second half that have debate and you could tell when michelle was at her fiery hot best. the tepid response from the audience was quite obvious to me, those are not the issues raising. assume that you hear gingrich talking i think his best moment was the pipeline. >> paul: the keystone pipeline. >> the keystone stuff he had everything to boil down everything from the left wing radical to the president'sen people are unemployment. >> i think gingrich had a very strong debate. i mean, i wish he would get over himself. he compared himself to thomas jefferson, abraham lincoln, fdr. that was only in the first. (laughter) >> i want to listen to a bite of ron paul talking about iran. >> for you to say that there's some scientific evidence and some people arguing that maybe

in a year they might have a weapon, there's a lot more saying they don't have it, there's no u.n. evidence of that happening. you know what i really fear about what's happening here, it's another iraq coming, it's war propaganda going on and arguing to me the greatest danger that we will have a president that will overreact. >> paul: jason, give him credit for consistency, he hits that line every time, is that a winner politicalically. >> no, that's exactly what disqualifies him from becoming nominee, but ron paul gave one of the most interesting responses of the night and it was a nonresponse. when asked he will eventually support. if he'll support the eventual nominee shall the republican nominee, he did not answer that question and i think that scares a lot of the republican establishment because it means he's leaving open the door to a third party run which could cause a lo the of problems. >> if romney-- i mean, if ron paul does well

in iowa is this disqualifying. >> he has support. >> he has support, but so do many of the leaders we've gone to war with, consistency? they're consistent. what are they consistent about? if you looked at ron paul, you heard, especially when he goes on a bit, the bubble that he's in. more intense the emotions, the less-- >> all right, we will watch. when we come back, newt gingrich and mitt romney trade attacks over their time in private business. who experiences a greater political

>> well, newt gingrich and mitt romney have been fighting for much of the week over time in the private sector, with romney calling on gingrich to return the 1.6 million dollars he made consulting for

mortgage giant freddie mac. in thursday night's debate. michele bachmann, among others, joined in. >> evidence is that speak are gingrich took 1.6 million dollars. you don't need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to still be i ins lens peddling with those in washington d.c. to get them to do your bidding and the bidding is to keep the began degr grand owes freddie mac going. >> we're joined by astandpoint editorial page editor, and mary, was bachmann attack fair? >> fair and a direct hit. for a guy running for outsider shall the tea party candidate, the anti-establishment guy, i mean, newt gingrich's

activities with freddie mac are damning, and i think he should be be more straight forward. to claim that he was a consultant who was acting as a historian for freddie mac? that lowers his credibility and i think she was-- it was well within her rights to go after him on that. >> all right, let's hear gingrich's response? >> i will state unequivocally for every person watching tonight, i have never once changed my positions because of any kind of payment because the truth is, i was a national figure who's doing just fine, doing a whole variety of things, including writing best selling books, making speeches, and the fact is, i only chose to work with people whose values i shared and having people have a chance to buy a house is a value i believe still is important in america. >> paul: so, james, affordable housing he's basically saying i was in favor of affordable housing and freddie mac was

for affordable housing and share their values and i was on their payroll. >> it got worse, channelling barney frank and how the sponsored enterprises were valuable at promoting home ownership was a good idea. as if the financial crisis never happened. and as far as the first explanation that he was acting as a historian, i'm sure there are a the lot of historians around the country where to learn, there's now 30 grand a month retainer watching for them in washington d.c. and the point is he's right at the moment. he was teaching freddie mac how to avoid reform just as we were heading to the mortgage-- >> he says he urged them to reform. part of his message. >> he said that and then it came out. their old publictations, 2007. >> freddie mac's-- >> where he's basically lauding the general model of this kind of government funded-- >> on that point i want to get the quote from that period just to buttress james' point here, i would be cautious

about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself, end quote. he was referring to freddie mac and fannie mae. >> paul, we could sit here for a couple of hours trying it nail down exactly what his position was on freddie and fannie, because he just, he keeps changing this, for newt is the equivalent of mitt romney's massachusetts mandate. these two guys will not stand down from what is one of their key vulnerabilities. you can imagine once the campaign gets going and the romney campaign will probably do this, running ad commercials with ominous black and white images of newt saying one thing after another to try to explain his position. and it all ads up to, you were a washington insider, defending one of the most indefensible institutions in the city. >> and here is my-- part of his defense is look, i was a private consultant. this was not while i was in congress and i was entitled to make a buck and to go around and work for companies who

were willing to pay me based on my past position and my stature and ability to give them strategic advice. what's wrong with a private guy making a dollar? >> yes, the tea party is looking for somebody who rejects that, he can't say at the same time he was part of it and he thinks it's a bad way for washington to operate. on top of that, this is not an isolated incident. he has his lobbying he did for the ethanol industry. >> he would say, no, he never lobbied for them. never formally lobbied. i know there's a technical definition. >> i stand corrected he was a consultant and he recommended mandates for health care, he's got a track record of looking for big government intervention when he thinks it's right. it's not what the tea party is looking for in a president. >> james, what does this tell us about his philosophy of government? >> well, it tells us it's very

flexible and remember the revolution in 1994, a lot of conservatives justly appreciate him for that, but you realize as time goes on and especially when there's a financial incentive, his ideology is flexible. every politician who goes off and sets up a big lobbying shop probably tells himself he's an entrepreneur and he's not. this is trading on government. >> okay. james, when we come back we'll take a closer look at mitt romney's private business record and will his time at bain can't be an asset or a liability in a general election

>> i would just say that if governor romney would like to give back all the money he's

earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees, that i would be glad to then listen to him. >> paul: that was newt gingrich earlier this wook attacking mitt romney over his time at bayne capital, the private equity firm he led for 15 years and gingrich walked those comments back telling iowa public television thursday he regrets taking a shot at romney's private business record, but how big a political liability will romney's time at bayne be in the general election? james first. gingrich's attack fair? >> unfair, unfair, and going with the hollywood, the stereo type of business people that they sort of exist and take pleasure from closing down companies and firing them and raiding their pension funds, it's especially unfair in this case. what mitt romney did and he kind of pioneered this model in the private equity business, he had a team of management companies that would buy companies and fix

and resell them. no question sometimes people go got laid off. >> what they also did was fund new upstart companies and he talks about staples and should, and this began at one location outside of boston and his funding basically built it into a national chain, but others, technology companies and gardner group and-- >> let's hear how romney defended himself during the debate. >> i think the president is going to level the same attack and he's going to go after me and say in businesses that you've invested in they didn't all succeed, some fail and some people lay people off. and we invested in over a hundred businesses and added tens of thousands of jobs. in the real world, that the president has not lived in, i actually think he doesn't understand that not every business succeeds. >> all right. mary, how effective was that as a response? >> it was extremely effective for two reasons, one, you notice that mitt romney did not anything about newt

gingrich there, he only talked about the president which i think was brilliant. but, also, i think, that basically with bayne capital wag doing was get to the heart of capitalism the heart of the way the american economy works and should work. and you know, companies that are not profitable shouldn't be kept alive and they should go under and thus creative destruction and new companies rise up from that and if you don't let the economy do that, you're not going to have a healthy prosperous society. >> one of the things we didn't get to, part of mitt romney's response he compared what the president did at general motors and said the fix of general motors had to layoff people as well. but-- >> close dealerships. >> right, close dealerships, does that mean that mitt romney essentially conceded that the general motors bailout worked? >> he might well be. i think he's trying to make a comparison how things work in the real world and i have to agree with mary, i was very encouraged by romney's answer.

i had a lot of concern that he simply wasn't going to step up the attacks on bayne and he's beginning to develop a response and that's good. having said that, i think it's a huge vulnerability for him, for better or worse, it's too bad, but bayne involved huge of apartments of money it's financial engineering and it's going to be very possible for the obama campaign to make it look on television like something evil. and he has to be prepared for that. >> paul: on that point i think we're going to know before, if romney is the nominee, before the campaign is over every one of the pem who lost their jobs up close and personal by name. they're going to be visiting your home. >> absolutely. mitt romney is going to have to defend it and he's got a good story to tell, it's not financial engineering or trading of exotic securities, the first fund at bayne was 37 million dollars generally small investments and often

small companies and companies across various sectors and it's a good story if he's able to tell it. if his practical election argument is, i'm the guy in private business who knows how to create jobs, the obama campaign will say no you don't you destroyed as many jobs as you created and underline that argument. doesn't romney have to take the argument above just how many jobs he create today an almost philosophical level and moral level and to get to your point about here is why the private sector model is better than government growth? >> of course he does and it was only the beginning of that. it was a step one towards doing that and he has to do that more aggressively and like you say, do it philosophically, he wins that argument. i don't think that-- first of all, i don't think that there's any evidence that he destroyed more jobs than he created. but, secondly, i mean, this is going to be an election about how the u.s. economy should be be structured. so, that's fundamentally he's

right in the right spot. >> we don't have much time, dan, but newt gingrich may have done him a favor by forcing him to respond to this early. >> he did do him a favor. obama issing go to do it in spades when he campaigns against romney. and just as mary said, the american economy going into the future not the past. >> paul: we have to take one more break and when we come back, hits and p@?ñm ñoy÷ó

. >> jamie: iment time for hits and misses of the week, jason. >> this is a mess for attorney general eric holder who gave a special on voter i.d., supposedly suppressed minority turnout in indiana and georgia where the laws have passed. afterward minor increased and you would think that the attorney general would be most important about valid integrity which is what it's

about. >> dorothy. >> a miss to secretary of state clinton for holding the organization of islamic agencies in washington this week, which was designed to threaten essentially and to criminalize perhaps any defensive speech against muslims. for hosting this farce and failing to stand up against religion-- clinton and her agents u most-- >> dan. >> a hit for guys who want to build the biggest airplanes, rutten and paul allen says he's going to put up 200 million dollars po build planes to put up stop light and this is the wright brothers, aen we need that. >> paul: could be better than nasa. this is this edition of the journal editor ral report,

thanks to my panel and i'm paul gigot. we hope to see you right here next week. . >> on fox news watch. >> i hope i am the tim tebow of the iowa caucuses. >> and the spy drone brought down and he says pretty please? you've got to be kidding. >> i'm a serious candidate for the president of the united states. >> anybody up here could probably beat obama. >> i'm concerned about not appearing to be zany. >> a last chance to win over voters before the iowa caucuses. how did the political press respond and who is their pick to win. the g.o.p. contest has been making news for months. new political polls revealing new poll leaders and

unleashing a flurry of media attacks. has coverage of the candidate helped or hurt their efforts. >> hello-- >> president obama doing his best to attack more press as well, giving speeches and interviews to 60 minutes. >> i think it's possible. >> time magazine picked its person of the year. is this choice evidence of a liberal media agenda? when it comes to liberal agendas, abc saddled up with a left wing and media partner, is that a shocker? and speaking of nbc, chelsea clinton joins the ranks of the peacock network. on the panel this week, writer and fox news contributor, judy miller. and jim pinkerton contributing editor american conservative magazine and talk radio news service, ellen ratner. i'm jon scott, fox news watch is on right now.

>> the president cannot figure out that it's-- i'm using mild words here. utterly irrational to say i'm now going to veto a middle class tax cut to protect left wing environmental extremist ins san francisco so that we're going to kill american jobs, weaken american energy, make us more vulnerable to the iranians and did so in a way that makes sense to no rational american. >> and president obama's decision to suspend work on keystone pipeline. mr. gingrich had the center podium on thursday night and had that position, jim, because he was the front runner in the debate. he was taking shots from all sides, as apparently the leading contender now. he didn't talk any shots from the conservative press to say nothing of the liberal press, editors of national review wrote, we think it's important to urge republicans to have the good sense to reject a

hasty marriage to gingrich which would risk dissolving in acrimony. how did that play? >> i think it put a dent in gingrich. that's for sure. and he was good in the debates. i think that, you know, the media as a whole, are torn. on the one hand they love to see republicans ripping each other up because they do at the debates and rather have obama get softball questions like on 60 minutes. on the other hand when gingrich talks like that and gingrich makes it clear that the xl pipeline americans, it comes through and television has the power to americans. >> and it tends to focus on the candidates who really go after each other, but when the candidates go after president obama on the oil pipeline or iran, for instance, that doesn't get much coverage.

>> for now, the horse race is between the g.o.p. field. that's what people tend to watch because we're looking at who is going to be the standard bearer of the republican party. i was amazed how strong the performances were, just gingrich, to withstand at that kind of pummelling from the left and as jim pointed out, especially from the right, the conservative establishment just hates him. look at peggy noonen calling him a human hand grenade and other things people said about him. yet, he was unflappable, strong and romney on message, it was an amazing performance. >>, but there are indications that the hammering he's taken in the media as well as on stage has hurt his poll numbers? >> and time will tell as we continue on with this election and it's going to tell if something else should happen to come up with another candidate in terms of doing something or saying something, but in terms of the media, i think, all of -- when it comes to republicans, especially.

they can't pick and choose what media outlets at that they can really go to. and on the other hand with obama he's able to go on 60 minutes like you mentioned and get the softball questions and there's no pushback and there's no challenge and he go 0s programs like 60 minutes. >> is any press good press. the republican candidates have been getting all kinds of attention on late night talk shows on comedy shows, et cetera. >> and we used to talk about earned media. they don't have to earn it, it's just right there. and you know, i kind of think it's like a host disease, where, i mean, the media parasite and the host, et cetera. we want coverage and it's interesting because there was a pew report that they did, saying in terms of interest, in terms of stories, 24% were devoted to the presidential election, when we try and talk radio, they even talk about budget and people want it talk about the horse race. you cannot get them off the topic and in that way. the media is feeding this and

the candidates are feeding the media. >> and mitt romney was taking it on all sides as well. also a front runner and the number two candidate at this point. here is something that was heard on mismanbc. >> keep merck, a central theme of the kkk in the 1920's a rallying cry for the group's intimidation against blacks, gays and jews, the progressive blog, america blog was the first to catch on to that. >> chris mathews came on later and said it was irresponsible and incendiary of us to do this and showed appalling lack of judgment. the question is how does something like that that kkk comparison make it to air at all. >> it's an interesting question and interesting what the discipline factor is. what steps will msnbc include in suspending or firing

somebody. in the world of google if i say i believe in america, you can probably find some horrible person said that, too, if the candidates can can now get stung on fairly innocent phrases and, but for msnbc to immediately call it kkk and-- >> ron paul got quite a bit of time in the debate, but claims he is ignored by the media. is he? does he have a point? >> no, i don't think he's being ignored. i think he's getting a lot of coverage in the mainstream media and especially among people who share his libertarian views. i think his problem is that most of his party disagrees with him in those positions and you can see that reflected in michele bachmann's extremely aggressive approach to his, example position on iran. >> quick question about the coverage of the president's speech at fort bragg where he talks about the iraq war. >> oh, well. i'm sorry, in terms of-- >> well, just, just the media coverage of the end of the war

and also, that 60 minutes interview where the president compared himself favorably to let's see, lbj, fdr and even lincoln. >> well, right. and you know, he'd been doing the comparison and not really focusing on the economy and what's going on. what he's done that has been detrimental to the economy, but as for ending of the war and pulling out the troops, you know, early on, i don't really think there was a real good concrete plan with the war. but, i am glad the troops are coming home, but hope it's something that the generals want on the ground to happen. >> julie: i think we're all glad they're coming home. we have to take a break. at first if you'd like your daily dose of media stories, get your website, the daily bias bash. what was time magazine thinking when they made this pick for person of the year. . >> time magazine makes its pick for person of the year and it's not anyone you may

have picked. is it time for time to get a grip? and nbc news announce as plan to team up with other news sources, and the collaboration gives a whole new meaning to liberal slant.

>> first, kate middleton, the duchess of cambridge. steve jobs, congressman paul ryan, admiral william mccraven who led special forces team who killed osama bin laden. and representative gabby giffords who survived a gunshot wound to the head. nup of these people made the list to be time magazine's person of the year. time's final pick, the professor. so, go figure. what, what's your reaction, jud judy? >> it's an appropriate choice. when i think of the events and the arab spring meant to the

middle east and to american policy in the middle east and what it's going to mean and i see the way we've all changed for our conversation because of the 99% and the occupy wall street people. i think it was appropriate and it was also a little, you know, out of the usual suspects. >> and i guess my question is, is it right to lump the occupy wall street folks in with the people who are leading those protests in the middle east? >> i think that's a good point. i think that the conflation between the people who overturn dictators in the middle east and a bunch of, well, you know, fill in the blank, and-- >> fill in the blank, jim? >> and i declare, you decide. (laughter) >> i think it's shows the media put so many chips on the protests and they genuinely thought this was the beginning of the age of aquarius and from the-- newt gingrich or whoever, and

i just, it was appalling, just to make-- the protester per se is appropriate? >> ellen, why did time magazine not pick the tea party protester? >> i don't know why they didn't. i can't speak for time magazine. there's a plus and minus and what news wrote. wrote that the tea party did foreshadow the current protests on wall street and they're right. and then they're wrong because they basically said the protesters had nothing to do with it, 99% had moved right into the mex con and that's been met. >> and i agree with your point. why didn't they pick the tea party movement. the tea party movement had a plan and an agenda to reduce government. when you're talking about the middle east, and they want to celebrate the protesting tyrants, excuse me. greece is a result of the entitlement programs they were getting, what they were protesting about. and occupy wall street, what

is their message. we don't know. >> and that's why they don't report it, and a few wise guys ask them what do you think. and it's smash patriarchy and liberate animals and stuff, and they say what they think occupy wall street thinks and which is-- >> and and if you look the-- look at their newspapers. >> and people getting arrested, that's nothing to celebrate. >> i collect these things and i have occupy boston and i have the occupy new york, and they're very clear about what they believe in. i don't think they're unclear at all. >> and in other words, the general, general theme of inequal and justice in america is sticking, whether or not somebody like it. >> one did not speak, when they're blocking delivery and foods to the homeless shelter and poor children in oregon, like that, and that part of the movement to me as anything else. >> all right, time for another break. if you see something that you feel shows evidence of media bias, he e-mail us, news watch@foxnews.com.

up next, nbc news partners with another media outlet and the devil here is in the details. . >> nbc news makes news when they announce a new plan to include the news for other news sources. and some of that news is not news, but rather, agenda driven muck. and chelsea clinton makes her big debut with brian williams. how 'd

>> last week nbc announced a tv station it owns and operates will work with nonprofit news organizations to beef up content and cut costs. and one of those is pro publica, the brainchild of

herbert and marion sanders and pumped millions into the project and heavy supporters of the democratic party and its candidates and they've founded a number of liberal enterprises. the sandlers are members of george soros', a group that wants to push to the left. and some say hit pieces given to cash strapped media organizations at no cost. ellen, i'm going to start with you. do you see a problem there. >> first of all, i think it's so dishonest to say pro publica is going with the soros, it's an alliance meets twice a year and just like the monday meeting is here and the tuesday meeting is in washington d.c., that's ridiculous. number two, what i think is really it go is that this very disingenuous, because, how many people-- yes, they are he' taking content from pro publicament how many people take the

journalists take quote, unquote, content, from the press releases and other people build the stories from there, everybody is borrowing from everybody else and let's just face it. >> jim, let's start with two points. one, the media as they laid off all of their investigative operations are desperate for anyone to come along and hand them the story and they can have it free, who wouldn't? and i think the the fact that every time you turn on the tv and see some journalism school professional being interviewed or a form of editor or formerly for profit to the nonprofit world is happening and the fact the sandlers are a part of what a fellow named matt fine, call the conversation, which is a group of liberal billionaires the last ten years have been-- since the 2000 election when bush won have been trying to buy their way into power through the democrats and the sandlers who gave 247 million to progressive causes,

according to matthew madden are very much a part of that. playing games, doesn't matter. there's a movement here and it's identifiable and you can look at the-- >> okay, lel me about the monday meeting that happens here in new york and the tuesday meeting-- >> can you imagine the brothers giving money to a meeting in partner with abc and backlash. >> ach he been to the monday meeting and now what, they are exactly the same thing. >> i think the problem is disappearance of money for investigative reporting and more power to pro publica if it does that reporting and and pulitzer prizes for work done on doctors taking money from the pharmaceutical companies and in-- we need money for investigative reporting. >> we need it on the right and

need it on the left. >> it's known that pulitzer prize fellow liberals, it's no denying that pro publica leans left. >> that's right. >> so what, the koch brothers and-- >> of course this is a capitalist environment in which now there is he' a premium on money for investigative reporting and people are going to get it wherever they can and promote their views, so what. >> julie: moving on, have you seen this show? >> dearborn is a whole other world. being in dearborn has a lot of us practice our faith without losing our sense of american patriotism. that's a snippet of "all american muslim", a new reality program about muslims living this this country on t.l.c. a conservative group in florida called it propaganda and forced sponsors to pull their ads and lowe's company

did that saying "all american muslim" has become a lightning rod for people to voice complaints. following this, companies removed advertising. and lowe's made the decision to discontinue our advertising on december 5. and a lot jumped on lowe's for pulling advertising. >> lowe's is about selling hammers for consumers. and double standard, disney refuses to air "the path to 9/11" based on a commissioned report from the 9/11 attacks, they refused to air it and only aired it once and won't sell the rights to the movie. so let's talk about media bias, that's one substantial media bias. >> julie: . >> we have to take one more break and chelsea clinton back in the the news in a somewhat different role.

>> jon: chelsea clinton who once shied away from the media make her debut with brian williams. then on tuesday came the reviews. "washington post", what was surprising to see on monday night's show how someone can be on tv in a prominent way and display very little charisma. one other

wrote... from the "new york times," there are plenty of ways to publicize worthy causes besides becoming a television newscaster. but there were others. ron reagan, jr. co-hosted a name on msnbc and also joined the ballet to pursue a lifelong dream. jennifer hager, another former first correspondent is a correspondent for nbc. >> they are being way too tough. it will take hear while to get up to speed. >> isn't that what markets are for? >> he is a celebrity person just like jena bush. there is absolutely nothing wrong and they are being as mean as a snake. >> she would not do interviews, her mother and now it's payback

with that. >> i agree with jim and hank stewart from wh