>> a lot of people eat so people never think of them as a sexual being. not your case. not your case. >> the record at this point -- >> you never know, things change. this is an interesting thing. maybe that's why i need to lose weight. >> the happy part. >> noah kass, that'll do it for us. i'm dylan ratigan. happy new year to you. and chris matthews up right now. can midamerica ever be mitt's america? let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews at the armory in manchester, new hampshire, where in just five days now, this state will hold its first in the country primary. leading off tonight, we are the 75%. that's the 75% of republicans who have never supported mitt romney, didn't vote for him on

tuesday in iowa, and don't want him as their nominee. they've signed the abm treaty, if you will, anyone but mitt. but who? rick santorum? how well will santorum have to do in new hampshire next tuesday to become a real challenger? the warhead. could he become the warhead of the abm crowd? the good news for santorum is he's peaked at just the right time, before he could be hit by his rivals, vetted by the media. the bad news, there's time now. just who is this deeply conservative republican who won twice in blue state pennsylvania before getting clobbered by 18 points? plus, when president obama appointed richard cordray as head of the new consumer financial protection bureau, he essentially had five words for congressional republicans. like it or lump it. the president's feisty new attitude has as much to do with politics as anything else. he'd love a fight. and what two republican presidential candidates have managed to get themselveses into a silly twitter war? that's in the "hardball sideshow" tonight.

let me finish tonight with the conservative church tent of the far right opening its flaps to catholics. we start with the 75% who have never supported mitt romney. "time" magazine's mark halperin is msnbc's senior political analyst and jonathan martin is politico's senior political reporter. and here it is. remember last month's cover of "time" magazine? well, there on the left was a picture of romney asking, "why don't they like me?" well, this month's cover, on the right-hand side, the headline "so now they like me." mark halperin, will you explicate that cover. does that mean they do or we're still asking? do they like him? >> we're still asking, but they like him enough that he won iowa. there were ways to argue that there was not a big accomplishment. >> eight votes. >> won only by eight. spent a lot of money there, super pac spent a lot of money, but he won. and i think some of the people who are playing down his chances now are suggesting that he's

under a lot of pressure is early wins matter more than late wins. delegation accumulation is not what matters now, although he's stronger long-term than anybody else, he's going to win some states early, it looks like, maybe the first four. and i think these other candidates like gingrich today told me he thinks he can still be stopped at that point. i'm not so sure that's true. >> that's an amazing bold assessment. do you think it's within the realm of real possibility he has won iowa by eight points, eight votes. he could clearly win next week here. he's a strong favorite here next tuesday. he could win in south carolina and in florida. he could roll the table. >> i think he could. and i think if you asked me to bet on an individual outcome, not a prediction, but one outcome, that's the one i'd bet on today. >> let's, for purposes of "hardball," let's look at another option. jonathan, looking down the next few days, what has to happen for that to be -- for that to be knocked off the table. for him to have his streak broken? does someone have to do well enough up here next tuesday to come in second and roll into south carolina, and would that person be his main challenger in south carolina, the one who

comes in second here? i need an answer. would the person who comes in here second next tuesday night be his main challenger in south carolina? >> yes. here's why. that's the easiest answer. santorum, based on his iowa win, catches fire in the next five days. he's getting a ton of free media coverage. we're covering him all the time. he has great debates on saturday and sunday. he roars into second place, maybe gets into the 20s here, and he still loses to romney, but he's a solid second. and it's clear that he's become the conservative alternative. then in south carolina, perry has collapsed, newt has collapsed. he beats romney squarely in south carolina. and at that point, you've got a romney/santorum race going to florida. >> i'll go back to you, following that option. which is a more interesting option to me, obviously, because it keeps this game going, let's be honest about it, and it keeps them fighting with each other. for rick santorum to capitalize on a strong second place here

next tuesday, does he need for newt gingrich to say, okay, i'm really going to be an ally now, of santorum? does he need that to happen to win in south carolina? >> not necessarily. i think romney must -- jonathan's scenario, i think, has to include romney making a mistake or two. perhaps in these debates. not just other people doing well. romney hasn't lifted a finger to go after santorum. no super pac money's been spent on him. so if we get down to south carolina and romney's threatened by rick santorum because he's had a strong showing here, i think they'll go have more. look, i'd like contest too, i'd like the voters to decide, i don't want to pre-judge any of it. but the contest shows that romney's vulnerable. and i don't know that he is. >> let's look at the numbers now and see where they have to go from here to get tight and interesting. the new hampshire tracking poll taken on tuesday and wednesday shows romney leading with 41% of the vote, are ron paul well behind in second place with 18

points. santorum, gingrich, and huntsman are all way back in single digits. so this is an early poll, coming right out of this, jonathan. it seems to me what's going to have to happen for this to be interesting, check me on this is, romney will get 35, at least, but if he's held to the 30s, and as you say, santorum pulls into the 20s, so it's 35/25, that's a big night for santorum, right? >> that's probably the best-case scenario for santorum. i think mark's right. i think romney's rivals need some luck. they need romney, neither a debate or on the trail, something to happen for him, to him, rather, for him to fade. >> in south carolina? >> it can be here or in south carolina. >> you guys watched him as closely as i did. i was trailing him around in the parking lot out there in iowa. this guy is so careful now, first of all, he won't fall into any trap you set for him. he won't speak french, obviously, in public. >> you tried that. >> i tried that. >> i couldn't even get him to speak pig latin. >>i icxnay on that.

so here we go. i watched him sign autographs. he signs it each letter. it's not like colin powell where he writes "colin" with a "c" across the line. this guy is meticulously self-controlled. if he is that self-controlled with little things like that, he will be tricked into a gag line by a reporter? >> i think it's possible, but unlikely. keep in mind, interesting things have happened in the final days in new hampshire over the years. the stories are legion. one more point, there are 11 days between the new hampshire primary and the south carolina primary. to mark's point, if santorum does get into the 20s here and romney falls short of 40 and the romney super pac re romney super pac realizes that romney is threat, they have 12 days oafter them. >> romney has been going after santorum. last night telling new hampshire voters not to buy into the argument that romney's the most electable candidate. let's listen. >> i love this issue.

that i hear all the time. oh, the certain candidate is the most electable. what would give you that impression? when has that candidate ever run as a conservative? gotten any votes? never. so why would you assume that he's the most electable? is it because he raises the most money? don't buy the media hype. don't buy the lie that you have to be a moderate -- >> so it's the media fault again. i love the way they turn this around. it's always the media's fault. the gingrich campaign is up with a new ad. this is gingrich going after romney's economic policy. here's gingrich going after romney. let's watch. >> romney's economic plan, timid. parts of it virtually identical to obama's failed policy. timid won't create jobs and timid certainly won't defeat barack obama. newt gingrich's bold leadership balanced the budget, reformed welfare, helped create millions of new jobs. the gingrich jobs plan, a powerful plan for growing our

economy and creating jobs. rebuilding the american we love with bold conservative leadership. >> i'm newt gingrich and i approve this message. >> you know, that seems almost off message for newt, because he's so much involved in the interrail fisticuffs now with romney. it's so personal, and here's an objective case for newt gingrich, when, in fact, all you hear from him is, screw romney. >> i think it's a decent ad, but i don't think there's enough points behind it. it's not on boston tv. there's not enough points behind it to drive a message. >> repeat performances? >> right. i thought i could say stuff like points on "hardball"? >> no. >> no, okay. romney is really benefiting, i think, the messages they have -- romney has everything. he has tons of money. these people don't have opposition research to say, here's something new about romney. all this stuff, new hampshire voters have heard this stuff all year. >> i was struck by something new the other day, which is that the

massachusetts health care plan does include coverage for abortion services, which did surprise a lot of us. >> that's a good example. i'm not sure new hampshire's the best place to try to win-w that fight compared to iowa or south carolina. but they're all trying to drive a message against romney now. they didn't do it in new hampshire. today, gingrich was asked about son toe santorum, but he was a junior pan. santorum's asked about it, he shoots back at gingrich. they've still fighting each other, because they've got to get over each other to become the alternative. >> everybody says the only way santorum pulls into second, the 25% he's got to get up here, is to take votes to gingrich. so although they may end up allies, they're not allies now. >> and the biggest ally for newt in the state is the "union leader" paper, and if you grab it today on the front page, you see an editorial advocates for newt and against romney. >> even the front page tilted towards gingrich, i thought. that left-hand side stuff.

i'm sorry, i don't want to criticize the paper, but i thought it showed its hand there. >> the editorial certainly did on the front page. that's not helpful for santorum. his success is predicates on a gingrich collapse. >> the way romney keeps his leadership without getting boring, he continues to turn every question from every reporter like us as an attack on obama. avoid being boring. >> one of his huge advantages has been and remains, he's seen as the most electable. republicans who aren't wildly enthusiastic for him, polls show he's our best bet to beat obama. if you can be nominated running on your general election mental, that's the place to be. >> but he can't just say, i'm the most electable over and over, he'll become boring. what he stands for is, i'll take the fight to president obama, over and over again. >> the words he's using now will

be the words he's going to be using on labor day of this year. >> let's take a look. here he is, governor romney, he doesn't seem to be intimated by the attacks coming from his own side. here he is on cbs just yesterday. let's listen. >> i've got broad shoulders. i know that when you get in a campaign, there's a big target on you. obviously, it's a small target compared to what's going to come from the democratic national committee and barack obama. they've already begun attacking me. i'm not too worried about that. let the attacks come. i think the american people are going to focus on whether or not i've got the skills to lead the country. >> isn't he being grand? as the rabbi once said, he who gave me burdens also gave me shoulders. and i was thinking, what a grand statement for him to make. i've got the shoulders to take these attacks on my back. i've got the little attack target from the right, but a bigger one coming from obama. >> you know, our colleagues in the last 24 hours, because we want to race and because romney is a big target, have gone after romney. he was at an event yet, you can read a thousand story picking it

apart. >> wait a minute. not everybody has gone after -- excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. let's take a look at the "time" magazine cover, your outfit. this isn't exactly an attack on romney. this is almost a statement -- i know you didn't write it -- >> i shouldn't say everybody. >> but "time" is still supporting the idea that this guy might have it. >> that's the place to be today as a snapshot. the romney operation is strong and the message that he's running on, he's going to be well rested for the debate. i bet he does more debate prep than anybody else. because they're being careful. they're meticulous. >> all right, the odds spreading over in dublin are about 90. is that a smart bet? it's that good for romney? >> give me a good scenario where he's not the nominee. >> jonathan? >> i wouldn't bet -- >> $10 to $1? >> as mark said, it's hard to see a scenario right now where he doesn't ultimately win this thing. he still could trip along the way. there's no question.

i think south carolina could still present some challenges for him. >> i wonder if he's a better politician or just more cautious and he has a lead. he may not be as smart as his numbers right now. >> chris, as mark said, he's the only candidate in this race running a high-level, sophisticated, national campaign. he's the only one. >> that matters. there are candidates in this race right now who think they're going to be the nominee who aren't even get on the ballot in major states. >> as they said in that great movie "the verdict," it's the long road that has no tarn, that's turn. coming up, is rick santorum in the anti-romney conservatives. is he one of them? or is he the latest republican to just peak and then just fade? he hasn't fated yet. and this sunday, the big "meet the press" debate. the republican presidential candidates debate in concord. and starting at 10:30 eastern, join me for post-debate coverage, the only place you can get it, and analysis. you're watching "hardball" from the manchester armory, five days before the new hampshire primary. [ male announcer ] is zero worth nothing?

♪ imagine zero pollutants in our environment. or zero dependency on foreign oil. ♪ this is why we at nissan built a car inspired by zero. because zero is worth everything. the zero gas, 100% electric nissan leaf. innovation for the planet. innovation for all. ♪ feel the power my young friend. mmm! [ male announcer ] for unsurpassed fruit and veggie nutrition... v8 v-fusion. could've had a v8.

welcome back to "hardball." after rick santorum's strong showing in iowa tuesday, people are asking whether he is the anti-romney alternative. many conservatives have been hoping to find or whether he's just the latest candidate to peak and then collapse. can santorum stand up to the national scrutiny that's coming his way? he has yet to be truly vetted. let's look at his record. robert traynham is the comcast washington bureau chief. he served as an aide to santorum for ten years. and dana milbank is, of course, the swashbuckling columnist for "the washington post." robert, thank you for joining us. and you really know him. i want to talk about some issues about how conservative he is on issues. in september, rick santorum raised eyebrows with comments about birth control. birth control, not abortion. he told a blogger, "one of the things i will talk about that no president has talked about before is i think the dangers of contraception in this country.

it's not okay. it's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." well, last night bill o'reilly asked him about his views on contraception. let's listen. >> you say that the states should have the right to ban some contraception. that's right off the bat going to be a big one. >> well, the states have the right to do a lot of things. that doesn't mean they should do it. someone asked me if the states have the right to do it. yes, they have the right to do it. they shouldn't do it. i wouldn't vote for it if they did, but that doesn't mean they have the right to do it. as you know, bill, you're a catholic, catholic church teaches that contraception -- >> i know, but -- >> -- so when i was asked the question on contraception, i said i didn't support it. >> well, actually, i think bill o'reilly's right about the view of the average catholic churchman. here's the question, dana, here's a guy who believes that the supreme court decision, the griswald decision, the famous

one that basically opened the door to roe v. wade basically said that states can't outlaw -- you can't say that no condoms can be sold in drugstores. it's an individual privacy right. here's a guy saying it's not a privacy right. this guy goes past robert bork here. >> oh, sure. we've got abortion to -- >> condoms, iuds, everything. >> there's widespread support and moral support. no one had any idea, really, what rick santorum was, because we were focused on all the other people. i've been following him on and off for two decades now. so i have a pretty good sense as to why this kind of conservatism doesn't really hold up here. to speak about birth control that way, to use the phrase "man on dog" in a discussion about gay people in america, these things are so far out of the realm. >> robert, i do think it's off-base for him to go to bill o'reilly and say, you're a fellow catholic, you should have

my views on this, when, in fact, we're talking about constitutional decisions, not about theological or moral decisions. he takes the moral and theological and puts it right there confronting the constitutional question of whether a woman or a male has the right to buy birth control devices. explain that why he would think like that? or does he think like that? >> two things, first and foremost, i'm not a spokesman, so i can't to get too much inside of his head. but knowing rick the way i know him, i think what he said there with bill o'reilly is like, look, i am for branning partial birth abortion, i am adamantly pro-life -- >> that's not what they were talking about. robert, you're wrong. they weren't talking about that. they weren't talking about abortion at all. they were talking about contraception. stick to the subject. where does he stand? does he think you can outlaw contraception under the constitution. does he believe that? >> chris, that was my next point, if i could finish -- >> no, begin, not finish. is he against birth control legally? is he talking about it's okay to

legalize it, to ban it? does he believe that? >> i don't know the answer to that question. i know what he just said, that's a state's right issue, if i had to vote on that, i would vote know. but he said, as a catholic, my catholic teaching has told me that the pill is a no-no, thus in the process, rick santorum is saying that, that that should not be allowed in the public square pap i thi square. i think that's what he was trying to say. >> no, he's saying my religion should trump issues of the constitution. he's saying, bill o'reilly, we're of the same religion, therefore we should deny a woman's constitutional right to buy birth control. isn't that what he said? >> i don't think he said that. >> he just did. he thinks we should have a theocracy. here's rick santorum opposing the lawrence v. texas decision that struck down any sodomy laws. here he is early this year defending his initial opposition, which he was criticized heavily for. let's watch.

>> i said, if the supreme court says that you have the right to consensual sexual activity, then you have the right to incest, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to all of these other sexual variations. and so the gay community said, he's comparing gay sex to incest and polygamy, how dare he do this. and they have gone out on a, i would argue, a jihad against rick santorum since then. >> okay. i'll give you first shot at that, robert. what do you think he's saying there? >> i think what he's saying is, is that there's not a right to privacy under the constitution, and thus in the process, if you don't have the right to do certain things in your home. from a legal standpoint, he's kind of right. i mean, the word "privacy" is nowhere in the constitution. however, and let me be very clear about this, chris. i am a gay person. i am openly gay and i am right. i believe i have the right under the constitution, this is me speaking here, to obviously fall in love and be with whomever i

choose too. >> where's he on that? where's santorum on that? on what you just said? >> i'm sorry? >> where's santorum on what you just said? did he agree with your right to do what you just said? to have your own orientation and to act on it? >> i believe senator santorum believes in that. where we disagree with is he believes, obviously, i should not have the right to marry, and i fundamentally disagree with him on that. >> no, doesn't he go further and say that you should not be allowed to be gay in any actual way? >> oh, absolutely not. >> doesn't he say that, pretty much? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. >> he says you have a right to your identity, but not to your behavior. >> well, you need to ask rick santorum about that. but i've worked for him for ten years. i was openly out to him. i never, ever heard him say anything remotely like that at all. >> so he's never come out against gay basic sexual behavior? he's never had a problem with that? >> again, you have to ask him specifically, but i've never, ever heard him say anything like that. and let me be very clear about this, because this is something that's very personal to me. if, in fact, i ever heard him

say anything like that, if in fact i ever thought he thought that, i would never work for him. this is ridiculous. this is absolutely ridiculous. >> you're in a good position, robert, to explicate him on television. i'm glad you're a guest. you seem to agree that he has constitutional differences with liberals, obviously, on the right to privacy. he's more with judge bjork on that. you argue that he's not anti-gay in terms of identity. where is his disagreement with the gay community? why do they really go after him all the time? what's the issue there? >> because he speaks very passionately about the fact that he believes that gays and lesbians should not marry. he believes in the sanctity of marriage. he believes that marriage should be defined by one man and one woman. and that's, obviously, something that runs counter to folks that are like me, that happen to fall in love with someone of the same sex. that is a major, major disagreement that a lot of gays and lesbians feel towards senator santorum. >> does he believe that people like you have a right to serve the country with open orientation? >> when you say serve the country, do you mean in the military? >> yes. don't ask, don't tell, where's he on that? >> i don't know the answer to

that. i don't know the answer to that. >> you don't know. i thought you might. let me go back to -- let's take another issue, the hawkish position -- we don't have time. what do you make of all of this? is this going to become an issue with him and the other conservatives? >> of course it is. and robert is saying his boss was a decent man who didn't discriminate against him, and that's well and good, but what we're talking about as a country has always been out there. it's a big government issue, government can constrain and direct the morals of the people. whether that was the faith-based initiative, welfare reform, teri schiavo and gay rights. there's a whole, long list of this where he says, governments should be able to tell people what sort of moral behavior is acceptable and is not. that's really not something that's in the mainstream of our debate right now. >> well, i feel -- >> can i respond? >> your turn. >> senator santorum, when i worked for him, he would use your argument, mark, and say, wait a minute, the government does have a responsibility from a moral standpoint to sometimes tell us when we're wrong. he makes that example when it

comes to slavery. he makes that example when it comes to the persecution of african-americans during the civil rights movement. so there's been many atimes, and this is what the senator would say, many atimes when the government had the right and should have the right to intervene in telling us that we were wrong in terms of how we were living our life from society's standpoint. >> let me point out what i think. you have your personal relationship with him, robert, which i value. personal terms tell you things that you don't get from public statements. but the public statements are clear. he just said for bill o'reilly, he thinks it's all right for the state to outlaw the purchase of birth control devices. to me, that's the government going into people's private lives that they shouldn't. he also is very clear on the fact he thinks it's okay to outlaw what he calls sodomy. fine, but that's a very invasive federal policy or state policy. allow the government to come in and say, you can't have sexual acts between people of the same sex. that is a very invasive public policy. and we ought to know this about the guy. these are serious issues and they really do offend a lot of

americans. anyway, thank you, dana, and thank you, robert. we'll have these arguments. up next, there's a twitter war, i don't know how important it is, going on between ron paul and jon huntsman. i don't think they're the two more important candidates, but they're having a little bit of a kerfuffle. you're watching "hardball" from the armory in manchester, new hampshire, only on msnbc. [ male announcer ] every day, thousands of people are choosing advil. i'm keith baraka and i'm a firefighter. and it's very physically demanding. if i'm sore i'm not at my best. advil is my go-to. it's my number one pain reliever.

[ male announcer ] make the switch. take action. take advil. [ male announcer ] make the switch. when bp made a commitment to the gulf, we knew it would take time, but we were determined to see it through. today, while our work continues, i want to update you on the progress: bp has set aside 20 billion dollars to fund economic and environmental recovery. we're paying for all spill- related clean-up costs. and we've established a 500 million dollar fund so independent scientists can study the gulf's wildlife and environment for ten years. thousands of environmental samples from across the gulf have been analyzed by independent labs under the direction of the us coast guard. i'm glad to report all beaches and waters are open for everyone to enjoy. and the economy is showing progress with many areas on the gulf coast having their best tourism seasons in years. i was born here, i'm still here and so is bp. we're committed to the gulf

for everyone who loves it, and everyone who calls it home. ♪ where the sun never goes out ♪ ♪ and the sky is deep and blue ♪ ♪ won't you take me american flight 280 to miami is now ready for boarding. ♪ there with you fly without putting your life on pause.

be yourself. nonstop. american airlines. back to "hardball" now for the side show. first up, no hard feelings. that may have come as a surprise when mitt romney scored the endorsement of john mccain earlier this week. they weren't exactly on the best of terms during the 2008 race. mccain may not be harboring a grudge, but he still took the opportunity to joke, if you will, about romney's marginal win in iowa and their 2008 face-off during romney's own town hall last night.

let's listen. >> i thought that was a pretty good conference for a guy who like romney, who comes to you on an hour and a half's sleep. by the way, mitt was an enormous help to me in my campaign and i'll always be grateful for it. after i lost, i slept like a baby. sleep two hours, wake up and cry, sleep two hours, wake up -- >> well, he's much more lighthearted this time around, obviously. that's for sure. need a reminder? here's a video that hit the home-page of a pro-gingrich super pac just after the endorsement of mccain by romney brought to us by team mccain in the last election cycle. let's watch a portion of it. >> i believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. i will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and i am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.

>> you will not see me wavering on that or be a multiple choice. >> you can go back to youtube and see what i said in 1994. i never said i was pro-choice. >> the obama camp might take a look at the bit of news clips. next up, pointing fingers. some confusion on tuesday night when jon huntsman became the unlikely target of a tweet from ron paul. during the iowa caucus vote, the tweet said, quote, "we found your one iowa voter. you might want to call him and say thanks." there's a jab that served absolutely no purpose. later on, paul explained that the tweet was put out by a joke by his staffers. you think huntsman was amused by the pettiness of it all? he answered that one during an interview last night. >> you think he would have learned the peril of ghost-written subject matter by now. but, i have to tell you, at the end of the day, i actually found it to be pretty humorous.

you've got to have a little bit of levity and humor in this business or you'll go crazy. just tell dr. paul that i owe him a tweet in return and he should be expecting one some time soon. >> well, no doubt that was a reference to those racially charged newsletters that came out under paul's name back in the '90s. wow. anyway, up next, we're going to get into the kerfuffle over president obama's recess appointment of richard cordray, next. no doubt fthe president's lookig for a fight, but it's a fight he thinks he can win. is he right? the "hardball" strategists join us next. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc. [ male announcer ] cranberry juice? wake up! ♪ that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm [ male announcer ] for half the calories -- plus veggie nutrition.

could've had a v8. the two trains and a bus rider. the "i'll sleep when it's done" academic. for 80 years, we've been inspired by you. and we've been honored to walk with you to help you get where you want to be. ♪ because your moment is now. let nothing stand in your way. learn more at keller.edu.

i'm amanda drury with your cnbc market wrap. the dow wins the day down by three points. the s&p, up three and change. the nasdaq, the leader today up by 21. some retailers posted strong

sales this holiday season. others lagged, but overall sales rose 3.5% last month, slightly below last year's level. among the standouts, limited, nordstrom's, and macy's. elsewhere, mortgage rates are starting the new year at record lows. according to freddie mac, the average rate for a 30-year loan is 3.91% this week. on the unemployment front, applications for first-time jobless claims fell last week. they dropped 15,000 to 372,000. that is down 11% from the same time last year. we're going to know more about the hiring environment when we get the december employment report, the payrolls number tomorrow morning. and the service sector saw growth last month according to a group of purchasing managers. the index of nonmanufacturing activity rose to 52.6 in december. that is a level which indicates expansion. a level above 50 always indicates expansion. that is it from cnbc, we are first in business worldwide. now it's back to "hardball."

welcome back to "hardball." we've spent most of the show tonight talking about the republican versus republican fight, but ultimately, the winner is going to take on the guy living at 1600 pennsylvania avenue, whose team is watching everything, waiting and scheming. so let's bring in the "hardball" strategist for the first time in 2012 to talk about how the president might be gaming the big race coming up. joining me now is democratic strategist steve mcmahon and republican strategist todd harris. gentleman, i'm looking for sharp insight in this new year. the bar -- the standard has risen now. i want acute understanding of what's coming here. first of all, let's get the bowling shirts on right now. i know, steve, you're for the president. and i want to find, todd, are you now with romney? is this something we can say on the air? where are you with romney? >> no, i'm not working for any candidate. i will say i think mitt romney's

got the best chance of all the republicans to beat president obama, but i'm, you know, but i'm not working for him. >> okay, well, that said, let's take a look at the head-to-head matchups with the top tier of president obama up against president obama, tied with mitt romney. basically, the president meets newt gingrich rahandedly by nin points. beats ron paul by eight points. there hasn't been enough polling on president obama. and rick santorum, head to head. so given all that, including the shocking fact, todd, that ron paul's within eight points of president obama, which is an amazing revolting development as we used to say, what do you make of that right now? does that tell you really that romney is the strongest on your side? >> well, that's something -- i don't think most people need a poll to come to that conclusion. what it tells me is a couple things. number one, this is going to be an extraordinarily close race. ron paul has a fervent base of support, but the fact is, a good

chunk of his beliefs are outside the mainstream of the average american voter, and the fact that he is within eight points shows you how truly polarized this electorate's going to be. it's going to be a close race and probably going to be a nasty one. >> you know, that's amazing, steve, the fact that ron paul, a man who clearly is outside the mainstream, not that he's wrong, but that he's outside the mainstream, is at least on this poll doing as well as bob dole did, running against bill clinton, back in 96, 41 points. how do you explain the fact that there's an automatically strong 40-plus vote percentage for any of the serious republican challengers? >> i think todd's right, this is a very polarized electorate, even right now, 11 or 12 months away from the actual election. and what you're going to see is a very, very divisive kind of race. the president is shoring up his race. you saw that in the appointment of cordray today. and i think the republicans are sorting this thing out. but the 41%npaul is just the nu of people who will vote against president obama, regardless of

who the nominee is. i think ron paul shows you what the base or the floor for a republican candidate is. and -- >> it's a good floor. >> right now mitt romney shows you what the ceiling is. this is the going to be fought right in that one or two or three or four-point range. the good news for the white house is they've got a lot of ways to get there. >> i think i disagree with you. do you think that's right, todd, that the floor is down at 41 and the ceiling's around 45. >> i'm sorry, chris. >> your thoughts on the eventual nominee that faces president obama, will he or she start with 45? is there any way they could get less? >> no, i think that's where they start. i'm sure steve would love for the ceiling to be 45, but it's not going to be. someone is going to win this race with 51% of the vote. >> no, i agree with that. i'm sorry, what i meant was, right now, you see mitt romney, not pulling ahead of the president. you don't see any republican pulling ahead of the president. there's a 41 floor for the republican party. if ron paul were the nominee, he might get 41, probably would, but he wouldn't get 45.

he certainly wouldn't get 48, and he definitely wouldn't get 50. the same is true for a number of the other candidates that have been paraded out by the republicans this year. >> i get the sense, todd, that the guy that probably will be your nominee, looks like romney down the road, will earn it. is willing to do anything to win. the campaign he ran in iowa was ferocious, it was effective, it destroyed his opponent, and maybe knocked him out of the game altogether. he did it with super pac money and never put his signature on it. is that a look at the coming war, was that like the spanish civil war giving us a preview of world war ii, the kind of battle it's going to be on both sides? vicious, negative attacks, launched by separate, supposedly independent super pacs? >> i think it's going to look more like world war iii. this is going to be the broadcast tv equivalent of global thermal nuclear war. the only difference in 2012 is that neither of the actual campaigns are going to be the ones with their fingers on the button.

both sides are going to have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on negative campaign. the obama campaign, you know, first campaign ever to break the billion-dollar mark -- >> and highly negative, and highly pretending to be independent. the same question to you, quickly, steve. i noticed that axelrod, david axelrod, did not rule out running a very negative campaign against whoever the republican is. >> it's going to be a very negative campaign, and mitt romney is going to have to explain his record and, you know, it's going to be a negative campaign. it's going to be a negative campaign on both sides. i don't think that's a surprise to anybody. >> there's just no path for the white house to get re-elected without going scorched earth, because they've got to turn this campaign into a referendum on their opponent. mitt romney or whoever our nominee is is going to make this a referendum on the last four years and the economy. the white house is going to try to do the exact opposite. >> do you agree with that? >> no, if it's a referendum, the president running against himself -- >> that's right. >> he's going to make it into a

choice. and he's going to make it also into an education process about mitt romney's record and the fact he's been just about everywhere on just about every issue. and you cannot count on this person to represent your values, to fight for you, and that will become clear, as it did in massachusetts, when -- >> you just said it in a nice way. steve, you said it in a nice way, it's going to be a campaign of what we call comparison ads after comparison ads, and some of them won't even be comparisons, they will just be outright negative, and they won't benefit from the "i am barack obama and i paid for this ads with tthis ad," you won't hear that. up next, a top romney supporter in this state, the former governor and the former chief of staff to the first president bush, the great, if you will, john sununu's going to join me to talk about what looks to be the headline. by the way, i'm going to be at the barnes & noble here up in manchester this sunday afternoon signing copies of my new book "jack kennedy: elusive hero," it's been at the top of "the new

york times" best seller look for nine weeks. it's an important book for political people, in the middle of this campaign. this is "hardball" from the armory in manchester, new hampshire, just five days from the big primary up here. jenna shared her recipe with sharon, who emailed it to emily, who sent it to cindy, who wondered why her soup wasn't quite the same. the recipe's not the recipe... ohhh. [ female announcer ] ...without swanson. the broth cooks trust most when making soup. mmmm! [ female announcer ] the secret is swanson. if you took the top down on a crossover? if there were buttons for this? wouldn't it be cool if your car could handle the kids... ♪ ...and the nurburgring? or what if you built a car in tennessee

that could change the world? yeah, that would be cool. nissan. innovation for today. innovation for tomorrow. innovation for all. ♪

welcome back to "hardball." i want to say something to correct something earlier that i said, and i want to clarify now, because i was right, of course. not always, but i was right this time. rick santorum said back in 2003, april 23rd, in fact, associated press, i'm reading from it, a quote from santorum, "i have no problem with homosexuality, i have a problem with homosexual acts." so robert traynham was on before, he was probably not

familiar with that, but i was, and that's what we're talking about tonight. we'll see if it's still his position now. anyway, the right wing in the republican party, and in particular, newt gingrich is coming after mitt romney right now. one item it also provides for a member of planned parenthood to sit on a payment advisory board. that should be red meat for the right. jaw sunshine sunshine was supporting mitt romney. you're a powerful fellow up here. why bush? i'm sorry -- why romney. i get them mixed up. >> because i'm very partial to conservative republican governors that have experience in running a government like a state. he stood for life when he zitoed the bill that was going to change the definition of life. he stood up against the supreme court's decision on gay

marriage, and kept massachusetts out of the greenhouse initiative. >> he delayed he was pro-choice. >> and when he was governor and had something to think about what it meant, spent a lot of people on the ethics side, people on the science side, he came to the conclusion that he could not let that legislation -- >> so don't go by what he promises in a campaign? >> what you ought to go by is his record as he took his oath of governor. >> i believe every person should take responsibility, regardless of their means, to take care of themselves. that's the president's position, governor romney's position, are you with him on that? >> is the position was massachusetts had a very special situation, with only about 7% or 8% uninsured. the majority of them probably

falling in the category you have, and the state having a tax on everyone else to pay for those that could afford insurance and chose not to pay their bills. that's a particular situation. the rest of the states may not be like that. >> but the individual mandate was okay with you in massachusetts? >> if it's done by the state. not by the federal government. >> so a states' rights issue. >> that's correct. >> so the principle doesn't bother you? >> no, the gold standard. >> unlike most conservatives, you have a memory. the president's idea is coming from the heritage foundation, because they talked about it at a state level. the president didn't bother raiding it the second page. >> he saw it as a laboratory. >> he didn't read the second page. >> does it bother you the mismountains health care plan provided funding from the state organized plan for abortion services. >> say that again. >> the plan which mitt romney sold and signed in massachusetts

provided for coverage of abortion services. >> no, it didn't. it provided for health care -- >> including -- >> the abortion services provision in there is a result of a 1981 supreme court decision and a 1997 massachusetts supreme court decision that says anytime you spend federal money on anything in health, that anybody receives that benefit has to have abortion services. it was not in the law. >> well, it's not in the obama plan. it does not provide for abortion services. how can that be the constitutional rule of the condition? because the obama plan honors the hyde amendment which prohibits any federal funding. >> and even with that, the obama administration is passing regulations, which is forcing catholic hospitals -- >> you're slipping, sliding away from the issue. >> no, no, no. >> does the massachusetts plan provide for abortion services, yes or no. >> no, the health care plan that was passed does not. the massachusetts supreme court requires it.

there's a difference. >> the plan complies with the law. okay. let's go. romney, let me ask you about santorum. he seems to have the appeal of sort of a regular middle-class, blue-collar guy, hi grandfather came from italy escape muse lynni's rule, it almost sounds like the pat buchanan view, where i come from, too, very much patriotic, very much live free and die, will they come out for him against romney? >> i don't think senator santorum has been up hoo here enough for people to know him. he deserves to be congratulated for spending a year in iowa and doing as well as he did, but i think what he -- what he lacks up here is a structure to do it and frankly a message that resonates. i think governor romney's message of being an executive resonates more. >> if he holds romney below 40 points, does he win? >> who? >> santorum.

>> no. >> you won't give me my bar, but 25/35, that's the bar. whether we return, 35/25 is a win for santorum. head me finish with the conservative church tent is actually opening its tent flaps to roman catholics. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. ♪ with a free-credit-score-dot-com ♪ ♪ app that he had ♪ downloaded it in the himalayas ♪ ♪ while meditating like a true playa ♪ ♪ now when he's surfing down in chile'a ♪ ♪ he can see when his score is in danger ♪ ♪ if you're a mobile type on the go ♪ ♪ i suggest you take a tip from my bro ♪ ♪ and download the app that lets you know ♪ ♪ at free-credit-score-dot-com now let's go. ♪ vo: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com™.

prego?! but i've been buying ragu for years. [ thinking ] i wonder what other questionable choices i've made? [ '80s dance music plays ] [ sighs ] [ male announcer ] choose taste. choose prego.

let me finish tonight with this. a half century agent bigotry in this country had a somewhat

different face. a lot of protestant minister held a meeting in washington, d.c. to stop a certain candidate to try to top the presidency. that was john for example kennedy. he was roman catholic. there's a word out that a group of conservative christians are holding a similar meeting. the concern at least on the surface is that mitt romney is not a conservative. not a true one. what's interesting is the two rival candidates that the conservative christian group in texas is endorsing, one would assume, are rick santorum and newt gingrich, either of whom, it's fair to assume it's likely candidates to unite that 75% electorate that's unhappy with the questionable politics of mitt romney. this is progress. 352 years ago the keepers of traditional american flamesment to keep the gates guarded against a roman catholic.