consequential events will not be overtly discussed. there's the surface event, the sort of headline and the important thing that is below the surface. the first of these is something being done by texas governor rick perry. he's hosting a gala lobbyist fund-raiser tonight at the hotel in washington, d.c. the word lobbyist exists because of the willard hotel. the willard is close to the white house. in the late 1800s people trying to get favors done in d.c. would hang out in the opulent lobby of the hotel waiting for politicians or cabinet officers or the president to come by that hotel so they could schmooze that person. the willard hotel lobbyists gave the lobby profession its name. that's the legend. which the willard hotel itself enthusiasticallymoperry constit campaign is describing as his washington kickoff for his presidential run. nbc's michael isikoff obtained an invitation to the event, it lists a 28 member host committee.

at least 28 of the people on the host committee are lobbyists and all people had to agree in order to get their names on this invitation tonight to give rick perry's campaign 10,000 bucks. on the one hand, this will be a nice night to rick perry. he'll go to a nice hotel that gave lobbyists their name in the first place and clear $280,000 bucks for his campaign. that will pad his fund-raising numbers nicely for when he has to turn them in on friday. on the surface this is good news for governor rick perry of texas. the thing that will go unsaid, however, the thing perhaps roiling beneath that calm service is what else nbc has been able to report about tonight's perry event. "a d.c. lobbying source tells nbc the host committee for

perry's fund-raiser tonight remains a list in flux because organizers have had trouble nailing down commitment from other top lobbyists they hoped to include. the problem reflects new doubts about perry both because of his stumbling debate performance last week and questions about whether he will have the staying power to make it through the primary gauntlet." says the d.c. lobbyist who had been courted by organizers of the event and who is now spilling the beans about it to nbc's michael isikoff. this is sort of trouble for rick perry. what does rick perry supposedly have going for him as a candidate? seems really conservative. all the other republican candidates have taken ten notches out of him on that one supposed to be very charismatic. third, the most importantly, in the way we do politics now, rick perry is supposed to be a hand over fist fund-raiser. the idea, sure, mitt romney personally is a zillionaire but

all the zillionaires are supposed to want to give their money to someone like rick perry, but not tonight. that's going on in u.s. politics tonight where the headline that's going to be happening overtly at the event is not the most important thing about that event. the other big thing going on right now tonight in politics as we speak, where the true importance of the event will not be overtly spoken of, is this. this is the podium that at any minute, in any minute now, will be hosting republican governor chris christie of new jersey. chris christie is the governor of new jersey, he's the sitting governor of a state that is on the east coast and that means frankly he has no official reason for being at this podium which is at the reagan library in southern california, but there he is expected to be any moment. this has been a real grass is always greener year for republican presidential

candidates. the republican with the most and best buzz has consistently been whoever is not in the race but might someday get in. chris christie has enjoyed putting himself in the position to be asked over and over and over again if he is running and before tonight he has consistently said, no, no, no, no, i couldn't possibly, thank you for asking, please ask again, but no. tonight, even though his aides are telling reporters he has no intention of declaring that he definitely is going to be running for president, the reason everybody is paying so much attention to this speech he's giving in california tonight is because there is word that tonight may be the night that chris christie -- well, he doesn't exactly say yes, but tonight may be the night he stops saying no. and, yeah, that does sound kind of gross. that's beltway politics for you. that does seem to be what's happening. we're told to watch not necessarily for a statement in the speech, itself, but for the way he answers questions immediately after the speech. these two political events happening simultaneously in u.s. politics tonight are related to each other. the renewed speculation about

governor christie is in part because of rick perry's little problem tonight in d.c. as lobbyists and big money donors are start to spill the beans and some say they're not so sure about rick perry, lobbyists and really, really, really big money donors are coming out of the proverbial closet for their support of chris christie. folks like paul singer, personal investment guru, schwab. mosbacher. and drum roll, please, the richest man in all of new york, david koch of the famous koch brothers. we've known for some time the koch brothers are big fans of christie. he was a guest of the koch brothers at a summit outside of vail, colorado. they set up loud speakers on the periphery of the event to broadcast white noise, to broadcast static so nobody could

listen in on the event. here's some of what they're apparently hoping to keep quiet. this is reportedly david koch praising governor chris christie. >> five months ago we met in my new york city office and spoke -- just the two of us -- for about two hours. at the end of our conversation, i said to myself, i'm really impressed and inspired by this man. he is my kind of guy. who knows? with his anonymous success in reforming new jersey, some day we might see him on a larger stage where god knows he is desperately needed. >> zillionaires like david koch who at one time were hoping to keep their chris christie light under a bushel are now apparently according to the press this week willing to be named as chris christie supporters. politico.com reporting that some would be christie supporters -- not necessarily for their enthusiasm for barack obama and joe biden but because explicitly

they were turned off by sarah palin running as john mccain's running mate. it would make sense why the palin phobic donors wouldn't want to support rick perry. why wouldn't they support chris christie? substantively when you look at the things they support, there's not much daylight between chris christie and mitt romney. they're offering the same things roughly speaking on the most important policy issues. maybe it's not a matter of substance. maybe it's a matter of style. >> you don't send your children to public schools. you send them to private schools. so i was wondering why you think it's fair to be cutting school funding to public schools? >> what's her name? >> what's her name, guys? real quick. the governor's talking. what is it? >> gale, first off, it's none of your business. i don't ask you where you send your kids to school. don't bother me about where i send mine. i as governor am responsible for every child in this state, not just my own. the decisions i make is to try

to improve the educational opportunities of every child in this state. so with all due respect, gale, it's none of your business. >> you're not compensating me for my education and you're not compensating me for my experience. >> you know what, then you don't have to do it. i mean, the simple fact of the matter is -- >> teachers -- teachers do it because they love it. >> the simple fact of the matter is this. >> teachers do it because they love it. that's the only reason i do it. >> you know, tom, you must be the thinnest skinned guy in america. you think that's a confrontational tone, then you should really see me when i'm pissed. let's start with this. i sat here, stood here and very respectfully listened to you. if what you want to do is put on a show and giggle every time i talk, then i have no interest in answering your question. if you'd like to conduct a respectful conversation, i'm happy to do it. if not, go sit down and i'll answer the next question. what's your choice. >> the most important thing about the videos is where you get them from.

these are the sort of videos posted online by chris christie. it's somebody's job who works for the governor's office in new jersey to post videos online of the governor being rude to constituents. when republicans talk about chris christie's charisma, this is what they're talking about. this is not like, the downside, the rough side, the abrasive side of his personality. this is what they're marketing about him as his charisma, what chris christie is marketing about himself on the national stage. >> people are coming on to youtube and where other media outlets are seeing town halls and like the back and forth. i'm not one of those politicians that thinks because i'm in public office i have to be nice all the time. if you're not nice to me, i'm not going to be nice to you. >> maybe this is the contrast republicans want to draw this year. maybe this is the emotional distinction between the democrats and republicans this year. after last week's republican debate in florida, the one

moment that a fox news focus group bristled about -- specifically governor perry's line that anybody who opposed that policy doesn't have a heart. according to frank luntz, his product can focus group nearly turned their dials off the axles at the have a heart line from rick perry. the most hated line of the night by any candidate and republican focus group's most hated line of all the republican debates so far. have a heart. no. maybe that's the mood we're in right now. both president obama and vice president biden have been commenting in recent days about members of the audience at republican debates doing stuff like booing a gay soldier in iraq, applauding a high number of executions in texas and cheering for letting uninsured people die without getting needed medical care. maybe that is the mood the republican electorate is in now for electing their candidate. maybe chris christie's style

fits that mood. contrast that with president obama getting called the antichrist by a heckler last night in los angeles. nothing specific here about the antichrist heckle. what's specific and perhaps nationally important is the spectacularly un-chris christie way in which the president responded to the guy screaming at him that he's the antichrist. did you see what the president did after the guy screamed the antichrist stuff? this is what happened right after the heckler was removed from the audience. watch. >> is that his jacket? is that his jacket? is that his jacket? i think the young man may have left his jacket. so make sure that he gets his jacket. oh, that's yours. hold on, hold on, hold on. it's hers. and i think somebody's car keys are in there, too. we're having all kinds of confusion here. oh, goodness gracious. there you go.

all right. i wasn't sure. don't leave your jacket around like that. >> maybe we can get the guy's parking validated, too. are we sure -- we can take -- has somebody made sure that young man has crossed the street, the crosswalk, is he okay? if it's obama versus christie on the emotional level does it come down to that contrast? joining us now, nicolle wallace, white house communications director under george w. bush and senior adviser to mccain/palin campaign. the secret to her novel "18 acres" is called "it's classified." and in "it's classified." nicolle wallace, thank you so much for joining us tonight. did i give away too much there? >> it's perfect. >> joining us tonight, steve schmidt, senior campaign strategist of the mccain/palin campaign. manager of arnold schwarzenegger's '06 re-election campaign and former assistant to president george w. bush. thanks for being here.

>> how did you do this? two of us here to pick on? one wasn't fair. >> one of us is going to be struck by lightning at the end of this discussion. i can tell you. yeah, having two republicans here and on the night that chris christie might stop saying, no, i feel like i'm sort of crossing fingers. i don't know what's going to happen. on chris christie, he's about to start his speech at the reagan library. the word on the street, which is usually wrong, is that this is the day he stops saying no. even if he doesn't explicitly say yes. would chris christie joining the race, do either of you think that would change the race because he'd become a plausible front-runner? >> i think absolutely. i think that he jumps right away to the front tier in the race. he's going to be a very formidable candidate if he got in the race. he's going to be able to raise the resources necessary to communicate a message. there's a reality here is that he's been an extraordinarily effective governor of an incredibly dysfunctional state. and i think one of the untold stories in american politics is

the two most successful governors in the country, the governor from new york, andrew cuomo and the republican from new jersey chris christie. chris christie gets a lot of the attention because of the national implications if he runs or not. but he's been a very effective governor. i think that people are craving somebody who can take the fight to the president. who can communicate clearly and chris christie fits that bill. >> i think, of course, i think there are other people who would look at more liberal governors and say they're doing stuff under the radar but not getting national attention because nobody's looking for liberal governors to be running now. i think if he tries to run on his record it raises this issue of whether or not his crusade against the unions in new jersey is the kind of thing that can be nationalized into a winning message. we've seen that in wisconsin, we've seen that in ohio, we've seen that in florida. we've seen that with all these republican governors. chris christie nationally marketed it. do republicans really want to win on we hate unions? >> look, i think it's more problematic than simply christie

has to go out there and stop saying no. i think that this entire dysfunctional dating that the party has done by continuing to disparage the guys who are on the field -- running for president is excruciating. i mean, anyone who does it on either side is to be heralded for getting in the arena. he hasn't stepped in that arena yet. i think it will come back to bite the republican party in the butt that they have continued to lust after all the guys who are not interested in running. it's like always lusting after the guy who isn't available emotionally or otherwise. it's unhealthy and i think it's going to come an in a year when republicans are united in opposition to the obama agenda in a way that's far more wholesome for them to run on than the kinds of things you talked about.

there are some elements in the right that we shouldn't be proud of and shouldn't be animating our presidential politics. but our opposition to obama's agenda and his record on the economy is one that can unite, that gives us an opportunity to win back independents who are truly up for grabs in the way they haven't been since the year 2000. i think this constant lusting after the guys that are ambivalent about running is a dangerous game. >> so are you saying that in the disparaging of the people who are already running, you're talking about republicans piling on their own candidates? >> exactly. i think, you know, obviously perry hasn't impressed people in his time as a late entry into the race. that's legitimate. to look at the rest of the field, to look at huntsman who's an impressive intellect and a guy that's certainly to be respected, with something to say about international affairs and otherwise and look at romney and this field and say, nah, none of them will do and run out and be looking for someone who has expressed over and over again not just ambivalence of running for president but his

disinterest in running for the white house is a dangerous game. i think it will come back to hurt republicans if christie doesn't get in and win. >> steve, let me do something counterintuitive and ask you about nicolle wallace's book. >> it's a great book. >> this book, a person treated sensitively as a person who has mental illness issues ends up getting to be vice president because we have a political process that allows that to happen. there is a very rigorous process for choosing a vice president in this country. the overall process is supposed to sort of weed out people who shouldn't be qualified to hold that office. do you think our nominating process actually does adequately test people for whether or not they're going to be good at being president? >> i do believe the nominating process for president is an excruciating process, as nicolle

described. the presidential campaign strips away the artifices. you're fully revealed for who you are in front of the american people. i believe that. i think you've seen that in recent years on the democratic side and on the republican side. so i think as you go through this process, the american people see you for who you are. there have been failures in the vice presidential vetting process. i was involved in one of them. i think both parties have had failures in the vetting process. john edwards clearly and, you know, and the nominee in 2008. and i think, you know, there is substantial room for improvement about how the vice president is selected. it's a process that is marked by fundamentally a lack of transparency in the selection. it's marked by, you know, tactical considerations. it's too political. it's about how do we step out of bounds, get a couple points

here, reshape the race? the first and foremost consideration should be is this person qualified to be the commander in chief? because there are plenty of examples in the history of the country when the vice president's been called on to take the oath of office. and i think if you look back at, you know, the last couple years of american politics, both on the republican side, but also on the democratic said, there's been deficiencies in that area. >> in terms of not to get -- not to put you guys on the spot too much, but if chris christie tonight at the reagan library -- he just started speaking. if he does not get in or says really i know there's a renewed speculation but really i'm not getting in, the last person on the sidelines who could conceivably get in before the filing deadlines start piling up is sarah palin. most people think she's not going to run. would either of you -- what would either of you say to sarah palin getting in the race? i have a feeling neither of you would support her as a candidate. what would you say? >> further, i don't think she'd take either of our calls. >> i don't think she'd be calling you to run.

>> you know, i think that if she were to step back in the arena, she'd have to -- she'd have to play by the normal conventions. i think that will enrage her base of supporters. the truth is the times are too dire to run as the man or woman for the right or the left. i think that was the difficult lesson obama learned and the price he's paying for pushing an agenda that appealed maybe too much. to the left. people don't like that. >> the left do not feel like they've gotten a lot. >> he has a constitution to govern the whole country and missed an opportunity to do so with his policies. my advice for anyone, particularly for her -- she has a whole nest of problems that would, you know, that she'd have to confront. the first one would be to resist her most partisan and most polarizing instincts. that would make her the wrong candidate for the moment. >> does she have anything to offer beyond that? >> look, you know, i was inspired by her to write a book about someone who was kookoo for cocoa puffs. don't ask me. >> the difference between the

two, he was an accomplished governor with a stellar record. you know, at the end of the day, when you give consideration to her, she's known by 100% of republican primary voters and you look at some of the new polling out today. republicans overwhelmingly do not want to see her in the race. if she gets in the race, her poll numbers are in the second or somewhere between the second and third tier of the candidates. she's not going to be the republican nominee. if she runs and she's in a space somewhere between jon huntsman and herman cain right now. certainly not -- her entry wouldn't make this a three-person race. if he doesn't get into this race, a remains really a two-person race at this point between perry, between romney, with jon huntsman gaining altitude in new hampshire. >> governor palin, if you're looking for phone numbers for steve schmidt or nicolle wallace, you can't get them from me. nicolle wallace, author of the

new novel "it's classified" which is good and i'm not just saying that because she's here. steve schmidt. thank you for joining us. i appreciate you coming in to talk. if you're a fugitive from the law, your time as a free person statistically speaking is winding down. it is a bad year for people on the lam. some incredible news about that today coming up. when i got my medicare card, i realized i needed an aarp... medicare supplement insurance card, too. medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. in fact, it only pays up to 80% of your part b expenses. if you're already on or eligible for medicare, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses... not paid by medicare part b. that can save you up to thousands of dollars.

these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans... exclusively endorsed by aarp. when you call now, you'll get this free information kit... and guide to understanding medicare, i can keep my own doctor and choose my own hospital. and i don't need a referral to see a specialist. as with all medicare supplement plans, and help pay for what medicare doesn't. call this toll-free number now...

all right. so you're in the car, it is not a real car. it's a video game car. you're playing burnout paradise. you are pure liquid flowing through a city of pixels. unexpectedly this city of pickles has billboards in it everywhere, billboards carrying this message, early voting has begun. voteforchange.com with barack obama's face on the billboard. that's a campaign ad in the video game. in the 2008 presidential race, the obama campaign, being the first presidential campaign to advertise inside video games. at the time it seemed strange, certainly forward thinking. what mattered to the obama campaign was the message it was getting out to people playing the games in states that had early voting. the message was early voting has begun. that's what the campaign cared about. getting people to the polls in states that let you cast a ballot early. among voters who actually went to the polls on election day in

2008, john mccain and sarah palin won the state of florida. by nearly five points. the mccain/palin ticket carried the day. but if you look at the results from that election you will see florida is blue. obama and biden won florida. that's because even though people who voted on election day mostly voted republican in florida, obama and biden won big among people who voted early. and that's a big part of why obama and biden are in the white house now. flash forward to 2010, when republicans whomped democrats in the midterm elections. republicans now control more state legislatures than at any time since 1952. what have republicans done with their new power in the states? in florida they've decided to crack down on early voting. florida republicans made it so they can cut the state's early voting time in half. also in georgia, republicans there have cut georgia early voting by more than half. and wisconsin they cut the time for absentee voting in half so you get less time to vote.

you have to jump through more hoops at the polls. at the beginning of this year georgia and indiana required you to show a photo i.d. to cast a ballot. republicans in five more states including wisconsin passed laws saying you can't vote unless you show i.d. you did not used to have to show and frankly not all people have. across the nation elected republicans are been hard at work making it harder to vote wherever they can, however they can. republicans in maine, for example, this year passed a law ending same day registration in the state. mainers can no longer register and vote on the same day as they have been able to since the early '70s. today, a maine group that's working to get same-day registration back pointed out that governor la page, himself and nine other elected maine republicans themselves registered to vote immediately before elections. the thing they just made illegal. saying it somehow made maine's elections unsafe. it's not fit for others and has to be outlawed but it's okay for them? in south carolina, nikki haley signed a law making it harder to vote in south carolina. 200,000 people in her state,

200,000 south carolinians do not have the photo i.d. that will be required to have your ballot cast and counted on election day in south carolina. and in colorado, the republican secretary of state there is suing denver, suing the city and county of denver over voting. in the elections this november, this upcoming november in denver county, pretty much the only way to vote is by mailing in a ballot. that's the way it works. the county mails you a ballot, you fill it out and mail it in. the republican secretary of state in colorado is suing to force denver to mail ballots only to people who voted in 2010. hmmm. which you'll remember was a huge year for republicans and republican turnout. if you didn't vote in that election and haven't answered a follow-up postcard from the county, the republican secretary of state in colorado is suing to keep denver from mailing you a ballot to vote this time around. so it's a lot harder for you to participate in the next election. we have been reporting on this all year long on this broad and sustained effort by republicans in the states to make it harder to vote.

the question has been whether there would be any kind of response by national democrats. today there is one. it comes in the great state of ohio. where new republican governor john kasich signed a bill this year that would cut the time for early voting in half and cut absentee voting by almost as much. today the re-election campaign for president obama announced it would join the fight for a citizens repeal of john kasich's make it harder to vote bill. the obama re-election national field director sending out an e-mail saying "at a time when we should be expanding the number of people voting, there are some in ohio trying to shrink it." it's pure politics. the obama campaign telling people in ohio that it will help get the 230,000 signatures needed to put that make it harder to vote law on the ballot so it can be repealed. the deadline for signing the petition to get it on the ballot is thursday. the day after tomorrow. joining us now in studio, senator sherrod brown, democrat from the great state of ohio. senator brown served two terms as ohio secretary of state from 1983 to 1990.

it's great to see you. >> great to be back. thank you. >> the obama campaign jumping on this drive to get enough signatured by the end of the week to put ohio's new voting law on the ballot. how is the campaign helping out? and do you think ohio needs the help here? >> well, we always welcome the help from -- these are mostly activists, citizen activists, people that have volunteered for the obama campaign in the past. this is a huge volunteer effort. people from all corners of the state. signatures from 88 counties. anybody who wants to sign in ohio who hasn't yet, call the headquarters. there are petitioners in every county. they can find you or you can find them. they've never done it in this much of an orchestrated way to roll back voting rights. make no mistake, that's what they're doing, they're rolling back voting. every presidential year they try something. they've stationed people at the

polls that look like off duty -- they look like police officers to intimidate people. they've challenged voters. they've had secretaries of state that have issued as in ohio a few years ago to issue all kinds of conflicting regulations. they have called people on the phone saying the polls close at a different time. they play these games because republicans sometimes win elections by depressing turnout. it's really un-american and really does in so many ways it undercuts our values and in ohio this year there's been an assault on voter rights. there's been -- from the legislature and the governor. assault on worker rights. assault on women's rights. and really unraveling from these radicals in the legislature. unraveling what there was consensus about. we in this country have had a consensus around medicare and student loan and pell grants and voting rights and collective bargaining rights and women's rights. and these radicals want to unravel all of that. it's a state by state effort, the likes of which we've never seen.

>> ohio is going to have a chance to vote again in 2012 like the rest of the country. ohio voted very republican in 2010. do you sense when you look at the activism that's happened in ohio since the 2010 election, do you sense that ohio is changing its mind, that the republicans that were elected and the agenda they have pursued since they've taken over in ohio is not what people expected? >> absolutely. the campaign in 2010 was about lost jobs. they blamed the 400,000 lost jobs to the governor, governor strickland. that was not fair. politics often isn't. as soon as they left office they went after collecting bargaining rights, women's rights, voting rights and rolling back what was once a consensus in our state and country. if you look at governor kasich's polling numbers, if you look at the number of petitions that were submitted a couple months ago to repeal, to do the referendum on the collective bargaining repeal, we needed 250,000, roughly, signatures.

we turned in about 1.3 million. to the point the secretary of state's office, when the boxes of petitions were brought in had to bring in a structural engineer to make sure the floor could support the weight of the petitions. that's what activism has been. i've never seen anything in my state where this many people are upset and this many people are engaged in the political process who never were before. >> watching what you were describing there in ohio, watching things like that happen in places like wisconsin and other places where there's been real mobilization over the past year, year and a half, it makes me wonder not about whether or not people in the states are capable of good activist organizing. boy, they're impressive when they put their minds to it. it makes me wonder whether or not national democrats, whether the democratic party and its sort of controlling forces in washington takes power from those things. is able to channel that sort of activist example and energy into national results. >> well, i think that's a very

good question. i look forward to going back to the democratic senate caucus the day after we win on the referendum on collective bargaining and say, look what it means when you don't move to the middle and stand for nothing but you really do say what side you're on. that's when democrats win elections. when we stand for something. it's not left, right. it's whose side are you on? you contrast what we believe with what they believe. we're doing that in collective bargain, on voters rights, on women's rights. i think -- it's certainly the right thing substantively and it pays off politically. when i'm on the ballot next year the voters are going to see a clear choice between me and the ultraconservative that will run against me, the anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-worker right winger that will be my opponent. voters who are independents like candidates that do that. that actually stand for something. stand for jobs. stand for better -- for fair trade, not free trade. all the kinds of things that i know you've talked about on this

show that really do energize voters. >> senator sherrod brown, democrat of ohio served two terms as ohio's secretary of state and is therefore uniquely qualified to discuss this stuff with me tonight. senator brown, thanks for coming in. attention, longtime notorious fugitives from justice, a., thanks for watching, b., whatever bunker or compound or remote mountain shack you've been hiding out in, have a plan b. ready and a go bag packed. statistically speaking, 2011 is not your year. details ahead.

on monday november 16th, 1987, the ohio state university fired its football coach. a man named earl bruce. earl bruce played football for ohio state. he loved ohio state. up until that moment mr. bruce had been extremely successful in nine years coaching at ohio state. ohio state was sort of having a bad year in 1987. five wins, four losses and one tie. that record was not good enough and the administration abruptly fired the coach. five days ahead of the game with michigan, one of the greatest rivalries in the country, they fire their coach. they're infuriated by this decision. the expression of public anger took the form of one of those college sports moments that makes our executive, bill wolf cry at meetings when he tries to explain them. hours after coach earl bruce was

fired, 150 members of the ohio state marching band marched to earl bruce's house and serenaded their old devastated coach with ohio state fight songs. ♪ the whole state of michigan ♪ we're from ohio >> coach earl bruce was not a man who wants to reveal his emotions.open with the band on his lawn. five days later ohio state traveled to michigan and somehow beat their arch rivals and the buckeye players carried coach earl bruce off the field on their shoulders. serenading leads to weeping, leads to upset victory and redemption. earl bruce's week in november 1987 was the standard in which tearful marching band stories must, must be judged. the best thing in the world is right up there with it. it's maybe even as good. best new thing in the world today coming up at the end of the show.

so i took my heartburn pill and some antacids. we're having mexican tonight, so another pill then? unless we eat later, then pill later? if i get a snack now, pill now? skip the snack, pill later... late dinner, pill now? aghh i've got heartburn in my head. [ male announcer ] stop the madness of treating frequent heartburn. it's simple with prilosec otc. one pill a day. twenty-four hours. zero heartburn. no heartburn in the first place. great.

a lot of airport security measures are the result of specific security breaches in the past. taking off your shoes, for example, that became a new

future of airport security when this man richard reid tried to turn his grody shoes into grody shoe bombs in 2001. richard reid achieved making us think harder about what socks we're wearing while we're traveling since everybody in line with us at security sees our socks now. we also can't take more than three ounce containers of liquids or gels in our carry on bags when we fly anymore. british authorities uncovered a plot in 2006 to bomb u.s. bound planes using liquid explosives. christmas day 2009, the would be underwear bomber got law enforcement thinking more seriously about travelers' underwear and the dangerous things people could hide in their skivvies and ta-da, the full body scanner which was already in existence became very, very popular at airports around the country. the transportation security administration just purchased 300 more of them. the most basic baggage screening which feels like it's been around forever was the result of a giant security breach. it started with a prison break.

a man named george wright escaped from the bay side state prison in new jersey in the year 1970. mr. wright stole the warden's car and drove it to detroit where he successfully evaded law enforcement for two years. in part reportedly while working as a model. after two years in detroit, george wright and five accomplices were able to hijack a delta air lines flight departing from the detroit airport. back then, bags were not screened and so mr. wright dressed up as a priest, smuggled a gun on to the plane in a hollowed out bible. seriously. george wright and other hijackers held 88 people hostage on the plane. they flew the plane to miami and demanded $1 million ransom and got the ransom in return for releasing the hostages and had fbi agents bring them the $1 million while dress the only in bathing suits so the hijackers could be more sure the fbi guys were not carrying guns. see unbelievably, the hijacking and hostage staking worked.

after refueling in boston george wright and the others flew to algeria. the president of algeria welcomed them after relieve them of their $1 million ransom and let them stay in the country. over the years the accomplices were rounded up and arrested in various countries. george wright escaped capture. because you remain on the lam for years or decades doesn't mean the agencies one day stopped looking for you. agents may retire. you as a wanted man or woman, you stay wanted. this year, i don't know why, this year has been a very bad year for the wanted and a very good year for the people charged with hunting them down. osama bin laden, for example, on may 1st, navy s.e.a.l.s including members of the elite s.e.a.l. team 6 raided bin laden's compound in pakistan and killed the fbi's most wanted fugitive. later that month, captured after 16 years in hiding living in

serbia under an assumed name. he's proved responsible for the massacre in 1995 and he's at the hague facing genocide charges. getting him meant there was one more fugitive wanted for bosnian war crimes. at one point there were 161 of these guys out standing. by may of this year one was left wanted on the list. in july they got him, too. goren. he apparently ran out of money. after seven years on the lam. they caught him when he was trying to sell a stolen painting. this one. portrait of a man. if that wasn't enough, this summer the fbi got the guy they wanted most after osama bin laden, a guy by the name of whitey bulger. wanted for 19 murders. wanted for 16 years. they caught him in california. and then today to top that all off, george wright. george wright on the run for 41 years. the fbi, u.s. marshals and officials from the new jersey department of corrections tracked wright to portugal when

he tried contacting family in the u.s. portuguese authorities arrested him. he's been held without bail. osama bin laden, the last two serbian war crime suspects, whitey bulger and george wright wanted for 40 years. bad use for fugitives. good year for fugitive finders.

at the start of tonight's show we put a live picture of a podium at a stage at the reagan library in california where governor christie gaf a boil plate speech about president reagan. why some many cameras? the whole national media was tl to find out what governor christie would say after his prepared remarks. after a lot of renewed rumor he was getting in this week and after a lot of very, very, very rich republican donors came out of the closet this week and said they wanted him into the race, the first question to him was not about whether he was running. the first question was on immigration and education. the second question was, dude, are you running? here's how that went. >> governor christie, you're known as a straight shooter, one not playing games. can you tell us what's going on

here? are you reconsidering, or are you still not? >> listen, i have to tell you the truth. you folks are incredible disappointment as an audience. the fact that that took the second question. shows you people are off your game. that is not american exceptionalism. listen, i really am succinct about this. i saw something great today on the political website, and i don't mean to advertise for politico. they put 1:53 of my answers strung back to back to back together on the question of running for the presidency. everyone go to the politico.com. it's on the front page.

i'm not going to bore you with it now. click on it. those are the answers. next question. >> new jersey republican governor chris christie tonight not saying no, but saying to listen to somewhere else where he's on tape saying no. the politico piece is tape of him saying no over and over again. do we have that? >> but you is talking about that should be on the ticket in 2012 to run for the white house. you say. >> no way. >> going to run? >> nope, not going to happen. >> you're still saying categorically not running? >> no. >> chris christie referring people to that montage tonight, meaning it's still no. which means i lost a bet with the rachel maddow show staff, and i have to buy everybody tacos tomorrow. damn it.

the best new thing in the world today is the best tomorrow. because chris christie took too long to say he wasn't running for president this year. new jersey governor christie in the faye of renewed rumors and new doubts with rick perry and new public pleading from named republican billionaires saying they want him to run, chris christie asked tonight if if he was going to get in the race, referred the question of a montage on politico.com. the best new things in the world delayed until tomorrow. renewed speculation delayed until his next speech. put to rest. new jersey governor chris christie once again addresses speculation of a 2012 presidential run. day in court. michael jackson's personal