be in that posion john mccain was in four years ago tonight, but he's not. at least not yet. not with this big night tonight for rick santorum. our msnbc coverage of themsnbc republican presidential primaries continues now. have a great night. breaking news. it's 1:00 a.m. on the east coast and mitt romney's winning streak in the race to be the republican presidential nominee has been broken. broken tonight by rick santorum. he's knocked romney out of the top spot tonight. and let's get the very latest election results from msnbc's lynn berry. lynn? >> all right, lawrence, thanks so much. here are the results from the contests tonight. now, we are still receiving results in colorado. but with 48% of the vote tallied, mitt romney and rick santorum are virtually neck and neck. santorum has 38%. romney is at 36%. that's followed by newt gingrich and ron paul, both in the teens.

now, the other races in minnesota, nbc news declares rick santorum, the projected winner of the minnesota republican caucuses. nbc news also projects that in the minnesota caucuses, santorum will be followed by ron paul in second place and mitt romney in third place. newt gingrich is in fourth. to the missouri republican primary, nbc news declares rick santorum the projected winner with 99% reporting. rick santorum has 55% of the vote. coming in behind santorum is mitt romney in second place with 25% of the vote. ron paul in third with 12%. and 4% in the uncommitted category. newt gingrich was not on the ballot in missouri. now, missouri was the only primary of the night and is nonbinding. that's because the missouri republican party will caucus later this year and will allocate delegates during their convention. now, big night for rick santorum. he did speak to his supporters

tonight in st. charles, missouri. take a listen. >> conservatism is alive and well in missouri and minnesota! tonight was not just a victory for us, but tonight was a victory for the voices of our party. conservatives and tea party people. there's probably another person who maybe is listening to your cheers here tonight also. and that might be at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. ladies and gentlemen, i don't stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to mitt romney. i stand here to be the conservative alternative to barack obama. tonight we had an opportunity to see what a campaign looks like. when one candidate isn't outspent 5 or 10-1. americans respond because i do care about not 99% or 95%. i care about the very rich and the very poor. i care about 100% of america.

>> now, we are just learning nbc news is saying that according to the state party chair, rick santorum is the apparent winner in colorado. this just coming into us. and joining me now are political columnist solon.com, steve cornacky and political analyst and former dnc communications director karen finney. karen, just learning nbc news saying that the apparent winner in colorado is rick santorum. this is a little bit of a surprise here. >> yeah. >> what does this mean for the romney campaign? >> well, it means that the romney campaign is going to have to rewrite their talking points and their spin because they were, throughout the day, trying to downplay the significance of what -- of today, given that many of these contests are not delegate-awarding contests. but i think if you take a look not just at the where that

santorum won but where he won, he not only won in the very conservative parts of a number of these states, but he also seems to have done well in some of the -- more of the urban areas, if you will. romney didn't do nearly as well as he did last time. overall turnout was pretty low. but i think this is a big night for rick santorum to make an argument that certainly when newt isn't there, he's the one that conservatives want to rally around, and that could help him raise money going into super tuesday. >> ari, that point that, you know, in 2008, romney took colorado pretty significantly, what's changed here? you know, we heard santorum reference the tea party, the conservatives in his speech. we have a poll saying how well he's done in the last two days. this poll being done by the democratic affiliated polling company, ppp, that he has the support of the tea partiers, the evangelicals, those describing themselves as very conservative, a narrative that we're hearing consistently, romney has not won the hearts of these conservatives. santorum fills that void.

so how much of that was a factor tonight? >> i think it was a big factor in colorado according to projections by "the new york times." romney's overall take is about 60% of last cycle. these are republican voters who know romney. they remember him running. they've watched him on the national stage. they've seen him create some problems for himself. you had the audio there of rick santorum talking about the 100% of the country, which was a knock against mitt romney's recent gaffe in talking about how he doesn't care about certain percents of the country, the 5% that he called very poor and then tried to walk it back. and the conservatives there, i think, are having a real question about whether romney is getting stronger or weaker. he obviously looks weaker tonight. and the other thing you can look at is there's been about 412 counties reported total. now, this place that we are, 1:00 a.m. here on the east coast. 412 counties in the entire race cumulative. and mitt romney's only come up with about 72 of them. so his other big problem beyond the optics is there isn't a

geographic breadth for him. he is looking like somewhat of an urban upper middle-class republican candidate, and that's got to give his advisers some pause tonight. >> and steve, one of the strategies that seems to be working for santorum, he's been focusing on social issues and a little bit of what ari was talking about is that proving to work for him? >> well, sure, it is. and obviously, to the extent that it is, he'll benefit from the fact that the news is now dominated by all of a sudden by social issues. you know, the gay marriage ruling today, contraception, things like that. but i think the other factor that's important to point out here is there was limited polling in all three of these states. but there was a poll from ppp that came out last night that found that in all three of the states that voted today, among republican voters, the favorable rating for santorum was over 70%. and that is vastly better than the favorable score in any of those states for romney or gingrich. so what happened here in the last few weeks is that gingrich and romney really went after each other aggressively, personally, viciously.

and it's sort of a classic phenomenon in politics, it drove up their negative ratings for both of them. and i think it allowed santorum to sort of play the above-the-fray role and slip past them. the interesting thing here is santorum comes out of tonight suddenly, i think he could at least eclipse gingrich as sort of the consensus conservative alternative to romney. the pattern that sort of prev l prevailed so far is that every time somebody steps forward to play that role, the romney campaign wakes up and attacks that person viciously. so that's what santorum is in for in the days and weeks ahead. he's now probably going to get the treatment that gingrich has been getting for the last few weeks. the question is will the favorable ratings hold, or is he going to take the next fall? >> karen, let's talk about those favorable ratings. we had that ppp poll where it showed santorum's personal favorability was over 70% in all three states. let's compare that to romney and gingrich. where romney had 47%

favorability, gingrich, 47% favorable. 48% unfavorable. what does this mean for gingrich going forward? is this sending a real message to him that santorum can take all three of these states, although he is the apparent winner in colorado, what is this going to mean for gingrich? >> well, for newt gingrich, i don't think it means anything because he doesn't really listen to anyone but the talk going on inside of his head. and i actually mean that quite seriously. he's made it very clear that his goal is to stay in. now, the challenge that gingrich will have, again, going back to what is it going to take moving forward? money. so the challenge is, you know, santorum now has a very good narrative that he can go to some of the larger donors and make his case for why he should be the guy to take on romney and then try to then take on president obama. gingrich's argument for that is getting, you know, he's only won south carolina. so that becomes a much more difficult argument for him to make. he's trying to say hey, let me

stay until super tuesday. there's a lot of southern states. and i should do well there. but here's the thing. if you're trying to make an argument to donors and to supporters, you want to be able to say, which romney was hoping to be able to say, i've won among conservatives. i've won among, you know, in the south, in the northeast, in the midwest. santorum now has a much stronger argument to make. one thing to note, santorum was making the argument earlier that because there wasn't as much negative advertising spent against him, here's what happens when we're able to just campaign on the issues, which i find it interesting and ironic, listening to the republicans kind of whine about the spending when they're the ones that wanted citizens united and this spending and campaign. >> ari, real quick, mitt romney's campaign today, they were really saying they're focussed on what's ahead where delegates are at stake. what does this mean going forward for him? >> if you're a campaign that got

their clock cleaned the way this he did, they don't want to focus on tonight. they are lucky the media grades these things on a curve. iowa, a small state with nonbinding delegates is treated as this phenomenally important event. and some of these states are not. that's the peculiarity of the system. the romney campaign will go hard and negative at santorum. he is a person who lost his last race. you don't usually go from losing a senate seat to winning the presidency. he's got some very extreme social views, weird-sounding social views even by the standards of this very conservative republican primary. and the last point i'll make, as we are running out of time, is that, look, rick santorum also campaigned on the ground in these states. he did eight visits in minnesota. he did nine visits in colorado, okay? he's been out there. romney in both of the states i just mentioned did one visit. so the romney campaign's got to figure out whether they can keep skipping these states they don't like or actually get on the ground and do campaigning or

they'll be in trouble. >> steve, ari and karen, thank you all so much for joining me tonight. let's just recap what was a big night for rick santorum. he is the apparent winner of all three contests tonight. santorum, the apparent winner in colorado. with mitt romney in second. in minnesota, nbc projecting santorum wins followed by paul and romney in third and gingrich in fourth. in missouri, santorum won 55% of the vote with romney in second place with 25%. let's send you back now to lawrence. he has a look at what else is ahead on "the last word." >> lynn berry, thanks for the update. coming up, if you can't beat them, join them. president obama signs off on super pacs backing his re-election. and later, the contraception coverage mandate by the obama administration. mark scheels joins me, and don't be surprised if he says a few things you might not agree with. and later, we'll be joined by the couple whose case overturned proposition 8 today

in california. and in the rewrite tonight, the susan g. komen foundation had a big resignation today, but the komen team still has not resigned themselves to telling us the truth.

the question to ask yourself is, can i really vote for a man

who's running for president of the united states who ties his dog to the roof of his car? >> millions of americans out of work. foreclosures are at record levels.

thanks to a supreme court decision called citizens united, they are being helped along this year by special interest groups

that are spending unlimited amounts of money on attack ads without ever disclosing who's behind all these attack ads. you don't know. it could be the oil industry. it could be the insurance industry. it could even be foreign-owned corporations. that's not just a threat to democrats. that's a threat to our democracy. >> that was president obama back in october 2010. today the obama re-election campaign officials confirmed that the president personally signed off on his campaign's decision to encourage democratic donors to contribute money to pro-obama super pacs. >> the president's views of the influence of the citizen s unitd decision haven't changed. he strongly opposed it. i think you can define that that this is a decision that was carefully considered by the fact that it's february of 2012.

and you've already seen, in the republican party, how much money is being raised by these organizations. the campaign has made clear that they cannot unilaterally disarm in a circumstance like this. >> you're seeing on your screen, as i am, that rick santorum is the winner of minnesota, according to nbc news projections at this point. we're going to stay with our coverage here of the super pac story and come back to any election results that will update any of the information that we have there. rush limbaugh interpreted the president's new position on super pacs this way. >> it's because they don't have this billion dollars. they don't have nearly the amount of campaign dollars they've wanted everybody to believe. we've got to win. winning. we have to win. so if it takes super pacs to win, then we'll do super pacs. it's that simple. we'll do whatever it takes to

win. we're not being hypocrites. well, there's two sets of rules out there now. the other side's doing super pacs. we're going to do super pacs. the other side never said they opposed them. >> joining me now, cnbc chief washington correspondent and "new york times" political writer, john harwood. her latest article appears in this week's issue of "the new yorker." thank you both for joining me tonight. i just want to take a look at the results in minnesota now with rick santorum being called the winner there. john harwood, this seems to be the night that the santorum campaign was able to stay alive. >> absolutely, they are. and as your guests were discussing a few moments ago, it's pretty embarrassing for mitt romney to have numbers this week against somebody like santorum who, yes, he's keeping his campaign alive, but he hasn't exactly been thriving in

the contests up to now in nevada or in florida or in south carolina, for that matter. and for rick santorum to get up off the mat and really clean mitt romney's clock in missouri and minnesota has got to be concerning to the romney campaign. >> jane, you've been studying the romney campaign and the romney campaign's attack dog who you've written about this week in "the new yorker." they tried to downplay these results today as if absolutely nothing was happening. there's nothing to pay attention to here. but here he is, the presumed front-runner, in a party that once they know who their presumed nominee is, the republican voters have a way of getting on board with that. these republican voters are extremely resistant to their front-runner. >> well, you know, also, one of the things that's going on is that each of these candidates have their own super pacs with their own billionaires behind them. santorum's got foster freese, financier, behind him. and in some ways, these super pacs are prolonging the race by

keeping candidates who might have been just happening to give up at a certain point earlier if they didn't have the money, a chance to keep going. so you're seeing another result of the money, i think, also here. >> john harwood, what are we seeing in the president's position on super pacs? and my first question to you, john, about this is why are we seeing it? why did the president feel compelled to let it be known publicly that yes, he acknowledges that the super pac created for him last year that we all know about, he actually would be happy to see people contribute to that? why not just let the word go out in the more -- that put less of a focus on some sense of inconsistency in the president's position? >> well, because that's what they did in 2011. and the money didn't exactly come rolling in over the transom. if you compare how much priorities usa action and other democratic-associated super pacs

raised, it was a fraction of what crossroads gps, what karl rove and ed gillespie and other republicans, kind of a shadow rnc has raised. and limbaugh was right. they want to win the election. people talk about chicago-style politics. if there's one defining characteristic of barack obama and anybody else who runs for national office is they want to win. and so they were serious about not unilaterally disarming. the only thing wrong in that clip you played from limbaugh is he said, well, the opponents didn't say they opposed super pacs. mitt romney said he doesn't like them either. he'd like to get rid of all the limits and get rid of limited donations. barack obama has decided when he gets to that general election, he's going to maximize his ability to compete with romney or whoever the republican nominee is. >> jane maier, this reminds me -- go ahead, jane. >> no, i was just going to say, i think john's totally right. they were just alarmed at the numbers when they saw them at the latest fec filings.

if you break it down, you get to something like 7 or 8-1 is the ratio for conservative group fund-raising in the super pacs against what the liberals have, you know, in their kitty. they took a look at those numbers and they thought they'd better put out a message, i think, which is send in those big checks. >> jane, do you see any alternative choice here for a practical politician in the president's position trying to get a 51% victory in november? any choice other than, in effect, giving the nod to super pacs to help them out? >> no. i mean, and i think it's kind of a ridiculous thing to accuse them of being hypocritical. they're playing by the rules of 2012, and the rules were not the rules that obama wanted. they're the rules that the supreme court set in place, a conservative majority on the supreme court. and it would be ridiculous not to play by the rules. i mean, they're right that it

would be unilateral disarmament and, you know, without the funds, they need to compete. it's a whole new landscape out there. >> go ahead, john. >> lawrence, we had a clear precedent for the decision the president made today by his decision in 2008 to go outside the public financing system in the general election and raise as much money as he possibly could. he ended up raising $750 million in 2008. he is not likely to get to that billion-dollar figure, but super pacs are one way to make up for a difficult fund-raising environment and get the president in a stronger position. >> cnbc's chief washington correspondent, and sorry, jane, we're out of time for this segment. jane mayer of "the new yorker," thank you both for joining us tonight. >> great to be with you. coming up, the man who's been arguing the liberal angle on television longer than any of us doesn't like the obama administration's position on requiring religious employers to

provide contraception coverage in their employees' health plans. mark scheels joins me next. and later, how the susan g. komen foundation can begin to fix its image problem with one simple strategy. the truth. they haven't tried that yet. that's in "the rewrite." and later, the couple who forced california's proposition 8 into the courts where it has now been declared unconstitutional. they will join us.

republicans don't want to campaign against the president on foreign policy. they know president obama is absolutely unbeatable on that front with huge favorable margins. president obama on social conservative issues. and now they think the president has given them one. campaign ammunition, the kind of campaign ammunition that they think they need by requiring religious employers, especially catholic employers, to provide contraception coverage in their health care plans for their employees. my next guest who's been a liberal democrat longer than most of you have thinks the president has made a big mistake. mark shields will join us next to tell us why. and the susan g. komen foundation may now be trying to

do the right thing. but it is still not coming close to trying to tell the truth. that's in tonight's "rewrite." and later, the couple who went to court in california to challenge proposition 8 which has now been declared unconstitutional. thanks to them.

i'm just distressed as i watch -- as i watch our president try and infringe upon those rights. the first amendment of the constitution provides the right to worship in the way of our own choice. just this last week, this same administration said that churches in the institutions they run such as schools and let's say adoption agencies, hospitals, that they have to provide for their employees free of charge contraceptives, morning-after pills. in other words, abortive pills and the like at no cost. think what that does to people in faiths that do not share those views. this is a violation of conscience. >> that was mitt romney last night in colorado, trying to

make a campaign issue out of a provision in president obama's health care reform law that has now been interpreted by health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius to require all health care plans to offer coverage for birth control. here was david axelrod's response this morning on "morning joe." >> we have great respect for the work that these institutions do. they're important elements of our country. they serve many, many americans, and we want to -- and we certainly don't want to abridge anyone's religious freedom. so we're going to look for a way to move forward that both guarantees women that basic preventive care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions. >> axelrod did not offer an adamant defense of the administration's position that even religious employers would be required to provide birth control in their health care plans. in fact, he seemed to leave the

door open to some sort of negotiated compromise in the future. >> we want to resolve it in an appropriate way. and we're going to do that. the real question is how do we get together and resolve this in a way that respects the concerns that have been raised, but also assures women across this country that they're going to have the preventive care that they need. >> that provoked this question to jay carney today at the white house press briefing. >> you were asked last week if there's a debate within the administration about reconsidering, and you promptly said no, the decision has been made. does that absolutely remain the case, no reconsideration? >> it does, but i think it is important to remember what was clearly stated when this policy decision was announced, and that is that we will be working with those organizations and individuals who have concerns about the implementation of this rule.

>> ten years before msnbc even existed, the lone voice of the left on american television was mark shields who has been participating in a left/right dialogue on pbs's "news hour." he was a political operative for two of the greatest liberal icons of the 20th century, bobby kennedy and senator george mcgovern who ran the most liberal campaign for president as a nominee of the democratic party that this country has ever seen. friday night on the "news hour" on pbs, he had this to say about the obama administration's decision that will require catholic institutions to provide contraceptive coverage in health care plans for their employees. >> the fallout is cataclysmic for the white house and for the president. >> joining me now is mark

shields. mark, thanks very much for joining me tonight. >> good to be with you, lawrence. >> now, listen. don't go on and on. we can't talk all night like on pbs because we have commercials here, mark, okay? we're going to have to get to a commercial eventually. tell us -- a lot of our viewers here haven't really heard the case that you're making about why this is cataclysmic for the president. talk about it on policy grounds and talk about it on political grounds. >> okay. first on policy grounds. it's an incredibly narrow constructionist definition of religion. what it basically says to the catholic church that your mission, the catholic church's mission, which is expressed from matthew 25, is to serve, to serve those living on the outskirts of hope who aren't you by need, not by creed. in other words, you help those who don't belong to your parish, who don't belong to your sauour sanctuary who don't share your

faith. if you only employ your own people of your faith and you only serve people of your own faith. so, i mean, this is a repudiation at the fundamental level of what the christian krissage is and what the catholic mission has been and i think what catholics take greatest pride in, which is sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry and taking care of those who are strangers and alone. and to me, that is just a violation of what religion has been and the best in our country. there is no anti-slavery movement in this country without the methodist church, without quakers. there is no anti-war movement in this country without religious underpinning. there's no civil rights movement without the reverend martin luther king, the reverend fred shuttlesworth and divinity students and nuns and priests and ministers who put their bodies on the line. so to me, this is -- it's just violatative of what we hold

dear. in political terms, it's just an act of incredible insensitivity, especially to people like father john jenkins, and father larry snider of catholic charities that serves 10.5 million people. the sister of the catholic health association who stood up to many of the most conservative bishops and endorsed the president's health care bill and supported it at political risk. it's just turning the back on them and turning the back on what the president himself has said time and again to archbishop dolan in a private meeting. just to me, it's just dumb -- bad policy, bad politics, bad pre precedent. >> and mark, catholics stopped being an interesting subset in our polling decades ago, when it turns out catholics have basically the same views as the population as a whole. for example, they tend to support abortion rights in exactly the same numbers as the general population. maybe one or two points higher.

same thing with contraception. the discussion here is not about the contraception provision in the president's health care plan. but forcing it to be applied specifically to catholic employers while the catholic church preaches against the use of contraception, however medieval that may sound to many people, as it does to me, and it is a catholic teaching that i absolutely don't accept or agree with, but it is a catholic teaching. and so that's what makes this so difficult. polls indicate that providing contraception in the health care plan is a majority -- has majority support, but forcing religious institutions, catholic institutions, to provide it does not have majority support. that gets only 49% support of all americans. 46% oppose it. actually, more catholics support it than the general population do. but when you say catholic

voters, only 45% of catholic voters support that. and there is the political problem going intosmark? that when you're taking a position that is only supported -- and it's a very close-cut thing -- it's only supported by at most 49% of the population highly controversial, that seems to be a very risky proposition to be taking into an election. >> well, it is, lawrence. i mean, to be bluntly practical about it, i mean, we're talking about states like ohio, particularly in the cincinnati area, barack obama carried hamilton county, which is cincinnati, the first democrat to do that in more than a generation. we're talking about lackawanna county in pennsylvania, scranton, which they won 63-36. they're not looking anywhere near that in 2012. in michigan, in wisconsin, you know, it's really just sticking

it in the eye of catholics. i mean, saying what you believe, what your creed is, what your mission is is unimportant and that you must swallow that or stop doing what defines you as a catholic church. >> well, it sounds like david axelrod is interested in reopening something and getting some kind of compromise. mark, welcome to the world of commercials every three or four minutes. i now have to go to one of these horrible commercials. i wish we could go on and on. nationally syndicated columnist mark shields, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you, lawrence. coming up, the susan g. komen foundation may be trying to do the right thing by accepting the resignation of their vp for public policy and maybe even forcing that resignation, but they still are not trying to tell the truth. that's next in "the rewrite."

last night on this program we discussed the susan g. komen for the cure foundation's rewriting of its decision to defund planned parenthood. the president of planned parenthood, is parenthood, cecile richards, joined me. how confident are you going forward? not just meaning the commitments that had already been pledged,

but going forward into the future years? >> i feel very good, lawrence, and you're right, this has been a long week, but we feel very good about our relationship with the komen foundation, obviously very grateful that they've changed their minds about working with planned parenthood. and already at the local level across the country, komen foundation folks and planned parenthood docs and doctors and clinicians are working together to find ways in which we can increase and expand breast cancer screenings for women. so it's a good day. >> the ever-diplomatic cecile richard was followed by the daily beast reporter michelle goldberg. and my first question to michelle was about karen handeh, a former republican candidate for governor in georgia who pledged during that campaign to defund planned parenthood and who reportedly used her position of vice president of public policy at the komen foundation to push planned parenthood into what became the disastrous public relations nightmare of defunding planned parenthood.

michelle, we saw resignations last week at the komen foundation. now the question is, are there going to be firings? what happens next, and can handel survive? >> i mean, i think that there should be firings, although clearly when you look at a lot of the reporting coming out of the komen foundation, they still don't seem to get it. they still seem to have thought that they could do this in a nonpolitical way that nobody was going to notice that they were going to cut off planned parenthood under the guise of this new rule about investigations. and they still seem to feel somewhat victimized. i mean, i think if handel resigned, that would do a lot to mend the fences of the many, many women and men who have been big supporters of komen and who have just felt so incredibly betrayed by the way this organization devoted to women's health has seemed to step forward to justify some of the most radical attacks on women's

health. >> and 12 hours later, there was this. >> this breaking news just in to us. official with the susan g. komen for the cure has handed over her resignation. she quit over that planned parenthood brouhaha over funding for them. her name is karen handel. >> we've got fox news alert for you on a story that we did a lot of work on in recent days. karen handel who was the vp for public policy at susan g. komen foundation has resigned from her position. >> this just in, karen handel, vice president of susan g. komen for the cure foundation, has just resigned. >> karen handel then ran to what she surely thought would be the safety of fox news to tell her story. but even fox news had trouble accepting her spin. >> it didn't smell right. it didn't pass the smell test. it seemed like planned parenthood was indeed the targeted organization. why not just come out and say we

have a problem with funding this organization? >> you know, i think the congressional investigation along with the various date investigations, those were a factor in the decision. but make no mistake about it, it was a bigger picture than that. there is a granting criteria. i'm not going to get into too much on the internal aspects of things, but, you know, this organization had a right to make what it felt was the best decision for the mission, for the mission. and i think everyone can agree that if you have a grantee where there's this type of controversy surrounding it, komen was doing its level best to move to neutral ground. and i will say, i was asked to look at options for doing that, some alternatives to do that. i was asked to do that. i looked at it and i did. >> it wasn't your idea, however, you're saying? >> i'm saying that this was long an issue for komen, dealing with the controversies of planned parenthood. >> before you got there. >> notice that karen handel, in

effect, refused to answer the question. was defunding planned parenthood your idea? the reason she can't answer that question honestly is that she, at least for now, appears to be keeping her story straight with nancy brinker, the founder and ceo of the komen foundation who the day before the komen foundation reversed its decision had this exchange with our own andrea mitchell. >> why hire a key staff person who is so strongly fiercely identified against planned parenthood one of your grantees? >> well, let me just, for the record, telling, karen did not have anything to do with this decision. >> that's right. you heard correctly. that was the head of the komen foundation saying that her vice president for policy had nothing to do with policy. the only way for the komen foundation to save its sinking ship is to start telling the truth when faced with questions like this. >> can you tell us, karen, you

know, when susan g. komen reversed its decision last week, they were kind of vague about the reasons. what happened? why did they reverse themselves? >> look, i think you can just see the pressure that was mounting around and, you know, i'm going to always be a professional. i'm not going to go into those details. i think you can ask komen that. >> okay, komen. it's on you. tell us the truth about how you made this decision in the first place and exactly what role karen handel played in that decision, the decision to defund planned parenthood. then tell us the truth about how you reversed that decision. then tell us the truth about whether karen handel really resigned or was offered the chance to resign before she was going to be fired. the future of the komen foundation, the flow of charitable contributions that support it depends on the komen foundation finally telling the truth for a change.

we're going to go to st. charles, missouri, to listen to rick santorum's victory speech to his supporters tonight. let's listen. >> your votes today were not just heard loud and wide across the state of missouri and minnesota, but they were heard loud and louder all across this country. and particularly in a place that i suspect maybe in massachusetts, they were heard particularly loud tonight. tonight was not just a victory for us, but tonight was a

victory for the voices of our party, conservatives and tea party people, who are out there every single day in the vineyards building the conservative movement in this country, building the base of the republican party, and building a voice for freedom in this land. thank you. there's probably another person who maybe -- maybe is listening to your cheers here tonight also, and that might be at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. you'd better start learning to the voice of the people. but then again, i wouldn't be surprised if he isn't listening. why would you think he would be listening now? has he ever listened to the voice of america before? no. why?

because he thinks he knows better. he thinks he's smarter than you. he thinks he's someone who is a privileged person who should be able to rule over all of you. but we have a different message for him. he's someone who, well, let's just go look at the record. if you look at when it came to the wall street bailouts, did the president of the united states listen to you when it came to bailing out the big banks? why? because he thought he just knew better, he and his friends on wall street knew better than what was good for this country. when it came to the problems that were being confronted on obama care, when the health care system in this country, did president, when he was pushing forward his radical health care ideas, listen to the american people? why? because he thinks he knows better, how to run your lives and manage your health care.

when it comes to the environment, did the president of the united states listen to the american people, or did he push a radical cap and trade agenda that would crush the energy and manufacturing sector of the economy? did he listen to you? no because he thinks he knows better. >> that's rick santorum speaking to his supporters in missouri tonight after his victories in the missouri primary and the minnesota caucus, but we will not let rick santorum prevent chris perry and sandy spear from speaking. they are the couple who brought the challenge to proposition 8 to federal court in california. they won today. they got it declared uninstitutional. i'm going to talk to chris and sandy. we will post this interview online, or we will run it on the show tomorrow night. chris and sandy are going to really get the last word tonight. good