when my employees are happy, my customers are happy. vo: earn pointr things you're already buying. call 1-800-now-open to find out how the gold card can serve your business. . . we have breaking news this hour out of washington where congressional negotiators faced a midnight deadline to keep the lights on in the federal government. without a spending agreement today, at least a temporary one, we once against faced the prospect of a government shutdown. it's the third time we've come to the last minute government shut down precipice since republicans won control of the house of representatives and installed ohio republican congressman john boehner as house speaker. late tonight a deal appears to have been reached. the multipart deal includes the overall spending bill for the government as well as a short-term extension of a cut in payroll taxes. a cut in payroll taxes that americans have enjoyed for the last year.

had that not been extended, every american who gets paid by paycheck would have seen a pretty substantial increase in your taxes. come january 1st. the deal today also reportedly includes a short-term extension of unemployment insurance benefits for americans who are out of work. each of those policies has major economic implications for the whole country. unemployment benefits are thought to be among the most stimulative dollars the government can spend through any policy. even just on the payroll tax, itself, had that been allowed to expire, estimates of the ding that would have caused to the economy ranged as high as 1.5% of the entire gdp. barclays said if the payroll tax was not extended, they'd revise their statement for the quarterly growth next quarter, revise it from 2.5% economic growth down to 1% because of the payroll tax. breaking news tonight out of washington, a deal has been reached in congress to keep

funding the federal government. to stop unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut from expiring. we're also told, we're also told in terms of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits thing, it is only a very short, temporary extension. it is not a full year. it is not even half a year. in fact, it is only two months. further, because republicans in congress have been disinclined toward keeping that payroll tax cut going, because republicans were sort of meh on that idea, even though they want to be known as the lower taxes party, republicans insisted on adding other things that they wanted to this agreement in exchange for the terrible, awful, horrible vote they would have to take to keep middle class americans' taxes from going up in two weeks. among the things they added was a provision related to the keystone excel pipeline. that's a pipeline that runs through the ogallala aqua fer in the high plains.

the idea of a pipeline running the country has unnervedcrucial all sorts of people in that rt of the country. including farmers, including the very republican nebraska state legislature, and that state's very republican governor. as well as lots of protesters from all over the country who made their concerns about that pipeline known at the white house and elsewhere over the course of this year. the white house last month decided that pipeline decision needed measure time. needed more time for environmental review and other reasons. the white house declared last month the decision on the pipeline would be put off until after the 2012 election. now, when congressional republicans threatened to force the keystone pipeline decision into the payroll tax negotiations somehow, the white house responded by saying, that would not be acceptable. the white house responded by saying they would veto any such extraneous thing being tacked on to the payroll tax question. well tonight, word that included in the deal passed is language

to get rid of the pupline delay, language that would force the president to make a decision on the keystone pipeline permit within 60 days. since the white house already said that isn't enough time to properly review this pipeline idea, presumably what has just been agreed to in congress just means that president obama will decide on the permit and decide no. it's not enough time. we're not going to go ahead with it. that said, the word presumably is a dangerous place to be hanging out in. when you're in a breaking news reported deal situation like we are in tonight on this news from congress. so for clarification and help, we go now to kristin welker, nbc news white house correspondent. kristin, thanks for joining us on late notice tonight. appreciate your help on this. >> absolutely. thanks for having me, rachel. >> let me ask you first if i got anything wrong there in explaining what we know what's been arrived at tonight. i fully expect i got something wrong there. >> you got everything right. the one thing i'd add, i've been speaking to my sources over at

the house. they say, look, they're not saying there is a deal yet for them. they want to introduce this to their members before they sign off on this. we expect the senate to vote on this on saturday. if the house does approve this, rachel, it could be voted on as early as monday. so the house, the white house -- or the senate, i should say, and the white house right now, saying there is a deal and they're ready to move forward, but members of the house saying we need to show it to the folks here before we're ready to sign off on it. rachel? >> what exactly is the provision that is related to the keystone pipeline? obviously, that's transactionally important here because the white house had threatened to veto if that had been tacked on to the payroll tax extension. what kind of constraint is implied by this language we know that's been agreed to so far? >> rachel, as you point out, this has been a huge lightning rod, this issue. basically the language says that under this bill it would basically tell the

administration to grant a permit to move forward with the keystone pipeline within 60 days. here's the catch. the white house is saying it doesn't mandate that the keystone pipeline get built. the language says if the president decides this is not in the national interest of the country, that he can say, i'm not going to move forward with this. the republicans essentially trying to make the buck stop with the president. as you point out, the state department is going to say, we don't have enough time to review this, so our answer is no. but the white house tonight saying that their language has softened on this a bit for that reason. because it doesn't mandate that the keystone pipeline get built. rachel? >> it sort of seems like, i mean, i don't want to put words in the white house's mouth here, but it seems to me like if somebody forced me to make a decision, and the only thing they can force me to is make a decision on something i already said, i need more time to look into to make sure it's safe, that's a very easy decision to make. sign this bill they agree to and immediately say, and i'm saying no to keystone, thanks for

forcing me to do it. is the white house signaling what they will do if they're forced into this decision? >> well, again, they're basically saying the state department will come to the conclusion that 60 days is not enough time to review the keystone pipeline. what's interesting, though, as you point out, rachel, white house -- the president about two weeks ago was pretty adamant in saying he would reject a bill that included this. white house officials saying this is pure ideology. it doesn't belong in the extension of the payroll tax cut. but today we were in the briefing. their language softened a bit during the briefing. and tonight apparently the argument is that because this bill doesn't mandate, doesn't actually require the keystone pipeline to be built, that the white house is saying okay. they're basically saying, this is a fight we're willing to have. we in two months will just say, we're not going to move forward with this because there's not enough time to review it. interestingly, rachel, environmentalists are coming

forward and saying the white house backtracked, they're disappointed. we're already seeing some of that ire come to the surface. >> kristin welker, nbc white house correspondent. thank you for helping us figure this out tonight. it's been a hard one to watch. we appreciate your time. >> thanks. i will say if there is a decision made on this, if the president does decide to sign this with the keystone language in there, environmentalists may be angry that the veto didn't happen that he was promising, but if the result of this whole process is that the president just says no to that pipeline instead of saying i'll decide on it in 20123, i can't imagine people are still going to stay angry about that outcome from an environmental perspective. i will also say democrats are probably not all that bummed out to have the opportunity to keep fighting about the payroll tax extension which they believe is great politics. and to have the opportunity to force republicans to vote on that again. to say yes to a president barack obama endorsed lower tax rate for middle class people again in two months? i would imagine that democrats

are excited about that outcome. at this point, it's still a deal in progress. we're going have to watch to see what happens. still to come, the return of everyone's favorite mad at the he double hockey sticks, lose the election republican bombshell candidate. now he's getting involved in the presidential race. oh, goody. that's next.

america, meet mitt romney. i mean, rick lazio.

rick lazio was a republican member of congress representing the great state of new york from 1993 to 2001. rick lazio was not a high-profile member of congress. he served in various positions. he was the assistant majority leader for a time as well as the deputy majority whip. even though rick lazio was never exactly mr. excitement, he did manage to put together a solid resume for himself in the house which he tried to parlay into a run for the united states senate in the year 2000. that's where little rick lazio ran into the political juggernaut that was the former first lady, hillary clinton. rick lazio just kind of blew it in that race. there was nothing, i mean, technically wrong with him as a candidate, at least on paper. he was a boilerplate establishment republican with a reasonable record. but it really just didn't work at all. at times it was even awkward or creepy. in the end, he got just absolutely crushed. hillary clinton beat him by 12 points on election day in the year 2000. there's one thing you might remember about that race. it's probably this famously

off-putting moment where mr. lazio awkwardly, creepily invaded the personal space of hillary clinton during a nationally televised debate broadcast here on msnbc. >> let's get this deal done right now. right here. here it is. let's sign it. it's a new york freedom from soft money pact. i signed it. we can sit down together, get the media in here, make sure it's an ironclad deal. i'm happy to abide by anything we all agree on. let's get it done now. let's not give anymore wiggle room. >> mrs. clinton, you want to respond? >> yes, i certainly do. you know, i -- i admire that. that was a wonderful performance. >> i want you to sign it. >> you did it very well. >> i'm not asking you to admire it. i'm asking you to sign it. >> i'd be happy to when you give me the sign letters. >> right here, sign it right now. >> we'll shake on this. >> i want your signature. everyone wants to see you signing something you said you were for. i'm for it. i haven't done it.

you've been violating it. stand up and do something important for america. while america is looking at new york. show leadership. it goes to trust and character. >> that was basically it for rick lazio in that campaign. good-bye creepy in my space lazio, hello senator clinton. lazio, god bless him, couldn't go away. he had put in his time in the republican party. he was seen as a generally respectable middle of the road sober choice as a politician and always the guy in the republican party in new york state who you thought maybe his time was about to come. the next guy in line. maybe he ought to get the next job. in 2009, when that next job came up, rick lazio gave it another shot in new york. this time he ran for governor of new york. again, he was seen as the obvious candidate for the republican party. he was the next in line. he was the mainstream guy. he was kind of supposed to be the republican nominee. he's not exactly exciting but rick lazio, he's a known quantity. best of all, he was up against this guy, crazy carl paladino, a candidate who was very

energizing to at least parts of the republican base. but who absolutely horrified the republican party establishment. and for good reason. carl paladino brought with him into that campaign a raft of personal baggage that brought up all sorts of ethics issues for us even trying to cover it. like, for example, the racist and crude e-mails that he liked to forward around to his buddies. pornographic, bestiality, racist -- policy positions like sending welfare recipients to live in prisons where they would receive personal hygiene training from carl. what was the result of that election between carl and rick, carl paladino and rick lazio? the result of that is newt gingrich -- i mean, carl paladino won and by a lot. carl paladino beat lazio in the republican primary by a 24-point margin. when carl paladino came out today from wherever he lives now

and offered his endorsement of newt gingrich for politician, when carl paladino said, quote, i'm a newt gingrich guy, it rang true it more than a direct way. even more than newt gingrich and his baggage and the put the poor kids to work cleaning toilets stuff, more than mr. gingrich might be like mr. paladino, it has to be noted in this analogy, mitt romney is a lot like rick lazio, who built a solid resume in the republican party as an elected official, ran for senate and didn't win, perennial candidate for office, looks the part of the mainstream politician, there's nothing wrong with him yet he does not inspire enthusiasm. there's a sort of awkwardness about him at times. general failure to thrive about him as a politician. he's the guy seen as being next in line and seems like he ought to have worked his way up to whatever the next political job is. getting into a republican primary in this era, sometimes means that guys like rick lazio and mitt romney sort of i'm next in line guys, they run up against forces of nature like

carl paladino and newt gingrich. and the way republican voters have been inclined to american politics for the last few years, what were the results again of the carl paladino/rick lazio primary? carl paladino, 62, to rick lazio's 38. yeah. that wasn't the end of the story, though. the important point here is carl paladino did steamroll rick lazio and earned him the privilege of running in the general election against a democrat. in the general election against the democrat, carl paladino got steamrolled himself, worse. paladino lost to andrew cuomo, the democrat, by 30 full points. he lost in the general election by a bigger margin than the huge margin in which he crushed lazio in the primary. they're excited about the prospect of carl paladino, i mean newt gingrich, winning the republican presidential nomination this year. newt gingrich's poll numbers seem to be stalling a bit, there has not been a game changing performance of any kind at last night's republican debate in iowa.

the hopes of gingrich files and frankly liberals everywhere he might be able to sustain his seemingly now fading surge against mitt romney, those hopes were bolstered yesterday by news from politico.com that a zillioniare casino magnate might be about to give newt gingrich's side $20 million to play with. $20 million. that's roughly triple the amount of money newt gingrich raised in his entire campaign so far. he's going to get it in one check from one guy. sheldon addleson since walked that back saying he won't do it or won't necessarily give gingrich $20 million but is saying he hasn't come to a decision to specifically do it for that specific amount yet. that walkback was probably heartening news for the romney campaign today. romney campaign was also excited today to announce the endorsement of the republican governor of south carolina, nikki haley. >> today is the day i'm throwing

all of my support behind mit romney for president. >> that endorsement is particularly important because a self-proclaimed moderate mormon, former massachusetts governor, is exactly the kind of candidate who is thought of as having no chance in a republican primary in south carolina. newt gingrich, himself, said that he's not banking on doing well in iowa or new hampshire but his firewall is south carolina. for mitt romney to lock up the south carolina governor, on the surface that's a great thing for mr. romney. because nothing is simple or conclusive in this most awesome of all republican primaries this year, it should be noted nikki haley's approval rating is 36%, down there with rick snyder and rick scott and super, super unpopular republican governors. south carolinians do not seem to like her very much. plus she's in the middle of a scandal right now over not turning over really damning e-mails about a million dollar

federal grant in her state. e-mails that have been made public but she's had no explanation. her endorsement of mitt romney today led to a huge backlash among south carolina conservative republican tea party types. so mitt romney got her endorsement. that will be awesome if she isn't impeached over the e-mail thing by the time of the south carolina primary or isn't forced to change her mind by the tea partyers getting so mad at her about the endorsement. it's hard to escape the fact mitt romney is the rick lazio of 2012. on paper he ought to have this thing wrapped up. and maybe he does. maybe he's inevitable. there's something beyond what a candidate is like on paper. there's something about a candidate's intangibles that can sometimes defeat every other rational on-paper, tangible thing about them. here's one. >> medicaid. you wonder what medicaid is. those that are not into all this government stuff. you know, i have to admit, i didn't know the differences between these things before i got into government. i got into it and understood medicaid is the health care

program for the poor by in large. >> that's mitt romney trying to be folksy. this darn government stuff, i don't get it. i'm not a government guy. medicaid? i didn't even learn about what that was until just recently. i don't know anything about this dumb government health care -- that may be folksy, it is not at all true. mitt romney brags now about spending the 1970s as a consultant to a health care company. in 1983, romney described himself as having done a top to bottom intensive q tip by q tip cost analysis of all the income and outlays at a hospital in morristown, new jersey. 1989, mitt romney led bain capital through a purchase of a $300 million hospital company that derived half of its income from medicare and medicaid. we're suppose to believe he never looked into what they were? he's telling a folksy story he's to seem authentic about how he doesn't understand the darned health care stuff until a bunch of years later when he had to learn about it because he was

running for senate and it was bad governmenty types who made him pay attention to it. he would have preferred to stay on the porch picking his banjo and eating cracklings, shooting varmits. when he told them he didn't understand the medicaid stuff until after he did multimillion dollar deals on companies that involve medicaid, that's not a cardinal political sin. that isn't him saying he'd been brainwashed in asia like his dad said when he was running for president. it wasn't something that cut and dry. something like this and the repeated incidents of things like this from mitt romney may be just as damning and just as finite. when mitt romney talks, people don't believe him. everything works on paper but the parts don't add up to the sum of anything. you don't believe he believes what he's saying. you believe he's telling you what you want to hear. and in a normal republican

electorate, a rick lazio, bob dole type guy like mitt romney can win. you're next in line, you get to win. in a normal year with a normal electorate, republicans do that. this year, this is not a normal republican electorate. >> if we've learned anything tonight is that new yorkers are as mad as hell. and we're not going to take it anymore. [ male announcer ] all over the world, there's a battery that's relied on to help bring children holiday joy,

and while it doesn't travel by sleigh or reindeer, it does get around... in fact, every year duracell sends loads of batteries to the mattel children's hospital, u.c.l.a. of course, children here and everywhere don't really think about which battery makes their toy run... but, still... you'd never want to disappoint. duracell. trusted everywhere.

joining us now is wayne slater, senior political writer for "the dallas morning news." mr. slater traveled around iowa these past few weeks following the republican candidates on campaign trail. he's headed back to iowa in a couple days. wayne, good to have you with us here tonight. thanks for being here. >> great to be with you, rachel. >> i wanted to check in with you. i know you've been out there and were in touch with the internal dynamics between the candidates. do you think that mitt romney is earning any new converts at this point? no, not at all? >> not many. >> okay. >> he basically is, from what i've learned talking to folks, he's staying pretty much where he is. that's where he's been the whole time. there is this surge now for newt gingrich, one part of the party. i don't think that romney is really doing much. there's an interesting dynamic out there. and unlike four years ago and two years ago with the rise of the tea party, where people were kind of excited and interested, i have a sense that people don't like anybody.

they don't like obama, but they don't like mitt. they don't like rick. they don't particularly like rick santorum. they don't like anybody out there. it's as if the tea party has produced a group of folks, none of whom are acceptable, and folks i talk to in places like western iowa wonder, is this what all our effort was about? >> do you think that the electorate is in its dissatisfaction that you were describing there, do you think the electorate is angry in the same way that we saw republican electorate in new york state in 2010 that picked carl paladino to be the republican nominee for governor? he wasn't much qualified but horrified a lot of the establishment. >> that's a wonderful comparison you you've drawn with lazio and paladino. i think the difference this year is that two years ago with the

rise of the tea party, there was a certain dark element to it but also an exuberance. it was like mickey and judy were going to the barn to put on a show. this year i think there is kind of more dispektic quality among the voters looking at the field. they don't want to put on a show in the barn, they don't want to build something. they want to burn the barn down. i get a sense that like two years ago, people didn't like obama. and early on. they want to beat obama on the republican side. it's more than that now. they don't want to just beat obama. they want to beat up obama. there is a kind of really dyspeptic move there that i think is a product of sort of the continued economic distress in the country, but also the fact that this is the field that the republican party has come up after all that sweat and equity. >> do you think that that emotional content in the

electorate that you're describing is something that is consistent between iowa and the rest of the country? i mean, in previous years we have seen iowa pick people like mike huckabee which is an interesting thing about iowa but has absolutely no effect on the presidential race at all. the real race gets started after huckabee thing is done with. do you think iowa is going to be representational this year or do you think they will sort of stand alone? >> so far it's not been representational. look at who won the straw poll. michele bachmann. look who's in the lead right now in iowa. it appears. newt gingrich. is this really -- who's going to do very well in iowa this year, ron paul. if ron paul beats newt gingrich, then iowa doesn't really represent anything in terms of really the direction of the republican party i think. i don't think we're going to know much until south carolina and frankly by the time we get to florida, i think you're going to see the more complex electorates, groups within the republican party. at that point, the teavangelicals, evangelicals and

tea party types may have understood gingrich is not their guy and will coalesce around romney. we'll see. >> wayne slater for "the dallas morning news." good luck in iowa. tell them i said hi. see you again soon. >> see you soon. it's friday. we have not done a cocktail moment in a couple fridays but we'll do one tonight. it will cure what ails you. i know what it is. it's a folk medicine thing i designed specifically for congress tonight, but i think it might be of help to you, too. cocktail moment coming up. this new at&t 4g lte is fast. did you hear sam... ...got promoted to director? so 12 seconds ago. we should get him a present. thanks for the gift basket.

you're welcome. you're welcome. did you see hr just sent out new... ...office rules? cause you're currently in violation of 6 of them. oh yeah, baby? ...and 7. did you guys hear that fred is leaving? so 30 seconds ago. [ noisemakers blow ] [ both ] we'll miss you! oh, facecake! there's some leftover cake. [ male announcer ] the new htc vivid. stay a step ahead with at&t 4g lte, with speeds up to 10x faster than 3g. ♪ but my nose is still runny. [ male announcer ] truth is, dayquil doesn't treat that. really? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus fights your worst cold symptoms, plus it relieves your runny nose. [ deep breath] awesome. [ male announcer ] yes, it is. that's the cold truth! [ male announcer ] yes, it is. when you're a sports photographer, things can get out of control pretty quickly. so i like control in the rest of my life... especially my finances. that's why i have slate, with blueprint. i can make a plan to pay off big stuff faster... or avoid interest on everyday things. that saves me money. with slate from chase, i'm always in control.

financially, anyway. get slate with blueprint and save money. call 855-get-slate today. i wish my patients could see what i see. ♪ that over time, having high cholesterol plus diabetes... or high blood pressure... or family history of early heart disease... can put them at increased risk for plaque buildup. and they'd see that it's more important to get their cholesterol where their doctor wants. and why for these patients, when diet and exercise alone aren't enough, i prescribe crestor. adding crestor lowers bad cholesterol by up to 52%. and is also proven to slow plaque buildup. [ female announcer ] crestor is not right for everyone. like people with liver disease...

or women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. simple blood tests will check for liver problems. tell your doctor about other medicines you're taking. or if you have muscle pain or weakness. that could be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. is your cholesterol where your doctor wants? ask your doctor if crestor is right for you. [ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astra zeneca may be able to help. this is madison, you know, full of the '60s liberals. let them protest. it's not going to affect us. as long as we go back to our homes and the majority of people are telling you the right thing, let them protest all they want. that's my gut reaction. i think it's actually good. they're constant, and nothing happens. sooner or later, the media stops finding them interesting. >> well, not the liberal bastards on msnbc.

>> oh, yeah, but who watches that. >> welcome, everyone, who watches the liberal bastards on msnbc. that was republican governor scott walker of wisconsin speaking with someone he thought was conservative billionaire david koch. governor walker looked out and said, what the heck, it's madison, let them protest all they want. protest, everyone, even protest me. scott walker. governor walker changed his mind about the protest. changed it quickly. the website buffalobeast posted a reporting of the fake prank david koch call on february 23rd. by the middle of march, this was the scene as police cleared the capitol. >> efforts started to coalesce to recall governor walker. he started to say maybe protesting should not happen so much after all. under a new set of rules that took effect in wisconsin today, the state will require protesters in groups of four or

more to get a permit three days ahead of time before showing up in a state building. if the state decides the event requires extra security, whatever that means, the state will now charge protesters $50 per hour per police officer. walker administration unveiled a few exceptions to this new law. they say families and lobbyist will not need a permit under the new rules to turn up at a state building. families and lobbyists are exempt. mom, dad and kids, if they're more than four week and oppose governor walker's policies will not need a permit to show up in the capitol and say so. also lobbyists. lobbyists don't need a permit. lobbyists in a group larger than four don't need a permit to show up when everybody else does. what do you call a group of lobbyists? a haley barbour of lobbyists? a gaggle of geese, a grovel of lobbyists?

i don't know. another funny exception to governor walker's new rules, these guys, the solidarity singers show up in the capitol in wisconsin every day at noon and sing. they sing for union rights and for economic justice. singers announced they would not seek this new permit that the governor said they had to be required to get. and governor walker caved. his administration said today that it will work with the solidarity singers and will not arrest them. that's mighty nice of them. 300 of these solidarity singers showed up today. governor walker apparently decided he will not endorse the law for these people. or for anybody else. he'd be too embarrassed to haul away for peaceably assembling. or for lobbyists. wisconsin is still stuck with new regulations on protests. the protests notably continue. that's because protests work. look, i have been to street protests in my day. i know everybody derides street protests, right? they laugh at demonstrations and

at demonstrators and people chanting in groups. three-word chants! three-word chants! if protests did not do anything, you would not see politicians like scott walker tying themselves into pretzels trying to stop protests and stop rules against protests they've been inclined to force when it comes to enforcement they might find too embarrassing to carry out. if protests did not work, you'd not see this from nevada county, california, an hour's drive from sacramento, which means it's out in the middle of nowhere, no offense. this is occupy nevada county marching for economic justice really in the middle of nowhere. it's a lot like the occupy movement everywhere. with the gloriously and insistently vague demands that make the movement so hard to pin down and frankly so hard to stop. rise up against the corrupti. fellow americans. they also sometimes, though, get specific. occupy nevada held a protest outside the courthouse a week or

so ago when they learned a dozen homes were being auctioned off in a single day. funny thing happens when you start calling for everybody to support fellow americans. those fellow americans start calling you on the phone when they need help. on wednesday night this week, around 10:00 at night, a man named steven maryweather called occupy nevada county and said he was about to get kicked out of his home the next day at 6:00 in the morning. before dawn the next day, five occupiers arrived at his house. it was dark, it was cold. and snowing a little. mr. maryweather has a tenant, single mom with four kids who was sick, up all night packing. she had nowhere to go. the locksmith began changing locks when the occupiers began negotiating with the sheriff and the man who was there from the bank. the woman in purple here, the

reverend sharon delgato talked to the sheriff who told her to talk to the real estate broker. she appealed to him on the basis of the humanity. the occupiers got the eviction delayed until after the holidays. which gives everybody more time to get ready. mr. maryweather is in the middle with the bright white santa claus beard who looks happy to be there. he told us, quote, it was so cool, the people didn't know me and they came out to help me. it was such a neighborly thing. it was also i think kind of radical. joining me, max ramo, a veteran of foreclosure defenses and co-founder of a movement called take back the land. max, thank you for joining us. it's nice to have you here with us. >> thank you. >> can you explain the strategic idea of showing up to stop an individual foreclosure? is it an act of direct intervention to buy people more time? is it a political statement? is it both? >> i think it is both. it, of course, the immediate thing it does is buys people more time because we're able to physically prevent the eviction from happening.

in many instances. at least we're forcing the police and the city to consider whether or not they want to use resources to create another vacant home in their community. while people are actively opposing that. on the other hand, however, we are reimagining our society and reimagining our world. we are saying we could organize a society in a way where human beings are protected rather than banks being protected. in a real way, we're implementing our own public policy, the public policy people think the government should be implementing but is not because it's at the control of corporations. >> by going out and doing that bodily, showing up and doing it in person, is it dangerous? i mean, you are in many cases dealing with a sheriff or somebody else from law enforcement who is charged with carrying this sort of thing out. in many cases you're in the middle of people who are in a very emotional situation on both sides of it. and it's confrontational. is it dangerous?

>> well, i think anyone who watched the occupy wall street protests, anyone who watched what happened in madison in may of this year, knows there's some inherent danger. however, you really can't gain anything significant particularly in this time and with the forces who want to keep things the way they are. without coming under some level of danger. so people are going to get arrested. in the civil rights movement, people were arrested. and there are people who are not going to get arrested, people who should not get arrested and stay out of harm's way. but if we bring enough people and we do it frequently enough, and if the media does its job, then i think it's significantly reduces the amount of danger as it were. even if people were to face arrests, they would not face physical harm. hopefully. >> my sense for a perspective of somebody who's an observer of the events, somebody who reports on it, there is a lot of increased interest in doing the kind of thing you have been doing for a long time. a lot of people's attention who have been intrigued by or involved in or inspired by the occupy movement are starting to

think about doing foreclosure defense. does that -- i imagine you think that's a good thing because it's something you've. been working on for a long time. i wonder if you sense you're going to get an influx of people who have never done it before who are going to start doing it. do you wonder people about doing it right or jeopardizing the work you've done already? >> i'm not worried about jeopardizing the work. we do think it has to be done right. i think there are several issues which inside of the movement we need to properly delineate. for example, taking over a home, vacant home or doing an eviction defense, that's primarily for public space use. like if you want to have meetings there or open space meetings there. that is different than like happened in many of the occupies, for example, whether it is an open field or in a home, it is different than protecting someone's home, protecting human beings and their right to live somewhere. so there is a difference between the two. we just need to understand the difference and move accordingly. >> max rameau, co-founder of

take back the land. i want to have a longer conversation with you about this with more time to spread out. i have a lot more questions for you. would you mind coming back on the show sometime soon? >> i'd love to do that. >> thanks very much. thanks for being with us tonight. just ahead on the cocktail moment, there's a cocktail moment. that's coming up. [ male announcer ] all over the world, there's a battery that's relied on to help bring children holiday joy. of course, children don't really think about which battery makes their toy run, but, still, you'd never want to disappoint. duracell. trusted everywhere.

no, i wouldn't use that single miles credit card. hey, aren't you... shhh. i'm researching a role. today's special... the capital one venture card. you earn double miles on every purchase. impressive. chalk is a lost medium. if you're not earning double miles... you're settling for half. was that really necessary? [ male announcer ] get the venture card at capitalone.com and earn double miles on every purchase every day. what's in your wallet? cover for me. i have an audition.

let's say you are a felon. let's just say, for example, you've killed people. you've killed people, went to prison, served your time and now you're out. federal law in this country says you may not legally buy a gun. without getting into the nitty-gritty, our federal laws are supposed to keep felons like you or people with a history of severe mental illness from purchasing guns. those laws don't always work, but that's what they're supposed to do. a felon tries to buy a gun anyway, from a federally licensed firearms dealer like a gun shop, that dealer has to run a background check on you. you're a felon, you will fail that background check. however, if you're buying a gun not from a federally licensed dealer but just from a guy, somebody who took out an ad on a site like armslist.com or gunslisting.org or craigslist, the private person you're buying your gun on craigslist isn't responsible for background checking you. they can sell you a gun but don't have to check your background, you felon. if the private person has reason to believe you would fail a background check, it becomes illegal for them to sell you the gun.

you can think of it as an honor system. an honor system for convicted murderers. if we as a country have agreed that felons give up their right to purchase a gun, do we agree this is a reasonable way to enforce that law? the honor system for felons and people with severe mental illness. if you ask the gun rights people about this honor system for felons, if you ask the nra about closing this loophole, making private sellers have to check to see if they are selling it to i afelon, the nra says that's a solution in search of a problem. there is no problem of people selling guns to people who couldn't pass background checks. this week, michael bloomberg released a report from a new york city undercover investigation into how people buy their guns online. city investigators pose td as people looking to buy guns from online websites.

in the course of investigating the purpose, they admitted they couldn't pass a background check. the law is, if you the seller has reason to believe that the customer couldn't pass a background check, it is illegal for you to make the sale. listen how this goes. >> so no paperwork or anything? >> no, no, no, no -- just as long as you're like a kentucky resident, i don't care. >> okay. yeah, no background checks, right? >> that's good, because i probably couldn't pass one. yeah, $400 cash? >> yeah. i'll take $400 cash. >> you're not like a licensed guy, are you? >> no. >> okay. so no background checks or anything like that? >> no, i'm just a private person. >> that's good, because i couldn't probably pass one. >> yeah. i probably couldn't either.

>> you know, you're talking my language there, fred. i like that. >> yes. >> so there ain't going to be no background checks or nothing like that then? >> it's your problem if it's not legal for you to buy it. that's how that works here in tennessee. >> i probably couldn't pass one. >> well, you shouldn't tell me that, though. that's okay. i don't know all the letters of the law, but i'm pretty sure if somebody said i can't pass a background check, you are not supposed to give it to them but it's okay. i would. >> new york city investigators tried to buy guns from 125 sellers in 14 states. 62% of the times, the private sellers agreed to sell a gun to somebody who said he couldn't pass a background check. according to new york city, this is the airtight legal process by which 40% of guns are sold in this country. 40% of guns are sold through

private sellers. how good of a job do you feel the background is doing making sure felons don't buy guns if it is on the honor system 40% of the time. same goes for people who have a history of severe mental illness. we count on them to hold up their end of the honor system. the nra says there is no problem here. among the many things they are out of touch with, you can count the views of their own members. when reporters asked if they favored closing the other big background check loophole, asked them if they favored background checks for people guying guns at gun shows, 52% of them said we should. the nra said we shouldn't. they are surrounded by a fact force field. a force field that is inpen et trabl. it is a force field that even their members are not inside with them. if you think convicted fell lons, convicted murderers, mentally ill people should be allowed to buy guns, we should debate that.

if you think the laws we have got now are keeping those people were buying guns, you are high or you work for the nra and that's who dominates the discussion of gun rights in this country, which is why that discussion usually makes no sense. this was the gulf's best tourism season in years. all because so many people came to louisiana... they came to see us in florida... make that alabama... make that mississippi. the best part of the gulf is wherever you choose... and now is a great time to discover it. this year millions of people did. we set all kinds of records. next year we're out to do even better. so come on down to louisiana... florida... alabama... mississippi. we can't wait to see you. brought to you by bp and all of us who call the gulf home.

of course, neither do i. solution? td ameritrade mobile trader. i can enter trades on the run. even futures and 4x. complex options, done.

[ cellphone rings ] thank you. live streaming audio. advanced charts. look at that. all right here. wherever "here" happens to be. mobile trading from td ameritrade. number one in online equity trades. plus get up to $600 when you open an account.

cocktail moment. tiz the season for a whole lot of stuff we don't usually do, holiday parties, decorating, tral, doing extra work to cover for your coworkers traveling, hosting parties and spending money we don't have. there is a lot of stuff we do around the holidays we don't usually do. that can be awesome but stressful, when you don't get enough time to do all the holiday stuff you have to do. consider, for example, our congress. they thought they would be home by now.

nevertheless, republican senators held a post 6:00 p.m. friday night news conference to talk about the deals they are working on and more work is expected to come this weekend. the holiday season is nice and a lot of extra work. that does mean stress. if you are like me, that stress sometimes means not sleeping. so tonight's cocktail moment is a holiday appropriate cocktail i like to think of as the poor man's ambien or the drunk man's ambien. it is called a whiskey skin. a hot drink. a variation. i am turning on the kettle since it is a hot drink. it is a variation on a drink called the hot tottie. there is something wrong going in america and everybody is tried to make hot buttered rum. don't do that. hot buttered rum is disgusting even if you don't do that. do a hot tottie or this instead. this is from david wondrich's book called "imbibe."

you set the water to boil and a heat-proof mug and he calls for about a teaspoon of should goer. you can use white sugar or sugar in the raw, depending on what you like. then, you want a long thin piece of lemon peel. if you are following the recipe properly, you want it to be as long as you can. following the recipe properly. you just want to drop the lemon peel in there. nice and thin. you don't want too much pitt on there. if you are like me, my variation is you want as much as of the lemon oil as you can. you use the sugar as an abrasive and try to get the lemon peel and should go your ground up in there. lots of lemon oil. then, two ounces of good scotch. you want a nice single malt. a nice pety one if you can like an ila. this is an arbeg, scotch. scotch, two