this sunday, the immigration debate roils the presidential race. both sides court hispanic voters. this morning my lead guest is at the center of that debate. he's also top in mind these days as mitt romney searches for a running mate. >> mark yo rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process. >> we've asked the junior senator from florida, author of the book, "an american son," marco rubio. also the executive privilege standoff between house republicans and the white house. is there more here than just political theater? the man leading the fight against the attorney general is here this morning. chairman darrell issa joins the roundtable. we'll talk about that, and break down other key topics in the presidential race. the veepstakes for romney. the fund-raising edge. and immigration politics. some key voices are here, former democratic governor of new

mexico, bill richardson. nbc's andrea mitchell. and politico's jonathan martin. >> good morning. a lot of focus here this morning on the week ahead in washington. it's going to be a crucial week. all eyes on the supreme court. two big decisions. the biggest, of course, the health care decision. will the president's health reform law stand up or be struck down by the supreme court? also on the topic of immigration, the law in arizona. seen as a pretty aggressive law to crack down on illegal immigration, that will be decided as early as tomorrow. so a lot to get to. and of course the big question will be what will the political impact be on this presidential campaign? joining me now, the republican senator of florida, author of the new book "an american son," marco rubio. senator, great to have you back on the program. >> thank you. >> i want to start with what's on top of the news here. s arizona immigration law. as you know, critics say this is tantamount to racial profiling.

law enforcement has the ability to pull somebody over if they think they're an illegal immigrant they can demand their papers. if the supreme court upholds that law does that make you uncomfortable? >> well, and actually i'm glad you asked me about that because i zbrapled with this issue during my campaign and i talked about it in the book that you just showed on-screen there. when it was first introduced it made me very uncomfortable. but then i learned more about what was happening. first of all they made a slight change to it that specifically prohibited that sort of activity that you've outlined as a concern. and then i understand a little better about what arizona faces and the unique aspects of arizona as compared to florida. arizona has an all-out border problem there that's not just about immigration. it's about security. and its legislate your, frustrated with inaction from the federal level, reacted with this law. what i said repeatedly is i believe arizona has a right too pass that bill. i understand why they did it. but i don't think it's a national model. and i don't think other states should follow suit. for example i don't want to see a law like that in florida. but it's important to remind ourselves that what the supreme court analyzes is the constitutionality of the law. and i do believe that arizona has a constitutional right to do this. but i think ultimately the blame

for those kinds of laws falls on the shoulders of federal officials and the federal government for not doing its proper role in enforcing immigration laws. >> here's the big issue. you know, and i know you grapple with this, you do in the book, as well. we have up to 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. what are we going to do with those immigrants if we want to crack down on illegal immigration? in your view of the world, can any illegal immigrant become legal in the united states without first going home? >> well, again, that's the complexity of this issue. and as i outline in the book and i've talked about repeatedly in recent days, immigration is not a black or white issue. it's not a yes or no issue. it is complicated because it has a deep, human element, because human beings who find themselves here undocumented but for the vast majority of them they're here in search of a better life and opportunities for their children. on the other hand, the united states can't be the only country in the world that doesn't enforce its immigration laws. in fact the united states today is the most generous country in the world on immigration. 1 million people a year come here illegally -- legally.

there's no other country in the world that comes close to that. so your question goes to what do we do with the folks that are here -- >> all right, so what's the answer? >> the answer is three-fold. numb brer one, we've got to win the confidence of the american people. it's a sequential approach. you can't just say we're going to deal with the 12 million people right up front. first you've got to win the confidence of the american people that the federal government is serious about enforcing our immigration laws. and that's why i think border security and e-verify so so important. >> deportations are up under president obama. you said he dropped the ball. >> it's not about deportation. it's about enforcing the law. an electronic verification system where employers have the security of knowing the people they hire are legally here protects the american worker. and by the way, is good for the immigrant so they're not being explo exploited. also the border security element, which has improved. but it needs to continue to improve. then, i think we need to modernize. the second step is to modernize our legal ill grags system. one of the things we don't talk about enough is in my opinion the single greatest contributor to illegal immigration is a broken legal immigration system. i think if you do those two things, then the plight of 12 million or 9 million or whatever

the number is, it becomes easier to guy with. it won't become easy. but it will become easier if you have the confidence -- >> you get into these issues as any legislator does, and it's the final step that's the hardest. who can become legal? what is amnesty? and that's why this question is so crucial. can anyone become legal who is here illegally without first going home? >> well, we've talked about, for example in the case of the kids. and i began to work on an idea, a few months ago, that hopefully one day will be reality. and that is what do you do -- how do you accommodate kids that came here at a very young age, through no fault of their own, have grown up in this country, graduate high school, want to go to college and be a part of our future and find themselves here undocumented through no fault of their own. we began to create an approach and will continue to work on an approach. >> this is what is known as the dream act. >> well, the dream act, i don't support. the dream act is a different piece of legislation -- >> it was your version of that legislation. >> an alternative to it. we need to accommodate these kids. but italy, here's where the

balance comes into play. yes, we need to be compassionate towards 9 or 12, whatever the number of people. these are human beings and they are here because they're looking for a better life. but we also can't do anything that encourages illegal immigration in the future. here's the other point that i think no one ever talks about, what about all these people, including many latino, hispanic, from latin america, who are waiting to come here legally, who have done all the paperwork -- >> senator -- >> what do we say to them? >> i'm not able to get a definitive answer from you. which is, can anyone become legal without first going home? this is going to be the brass tacks question here when you get to immigration reform. >> but again, that all -- the answer to that question depends on the environment in which it's being answered. and in this current environment, in this current environment the options that we have available today to deal with 12 million people is very limited because people are frustrated that our immigration laws are not being enforced and we don't have a functional legal immigration system that people can avail themselves of even if they did go back home. >> the latest thing that's happened is the president took action, unilaterally, his homeland -- secretary of homeland security gave guidance

to her local agencies saying, they should be worked -- waivers, not necessarily passive citizenship but waivers for children of illegal immigrants, the president speaking this week at a national association of latino elected an appointed officials said this -- >> we should have passed the dream act a long time ago. it was written by members of both parties. when it came up for a vote, a year and a half ago, republicans in congress blocked it. the bill hadn't changed. the need hadn't changed. the only thing that had changed was politics. >> and isn't the president right? you're not even comfortable saying what you would do about a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants 40 are here, even the children of illegal immigrants, because this is such a tough issue in the republican party, over what is, quote/unquote, amnesty? >> well, again, that's not an accurate assessment. because the first thing i will say is i have talked specifically about approach to these kids. the dream act is too broad. i said that repeatedly during my

campaign. it doesn't just help the kids, it in a very short order could lead to these kids bringing in multiple relatives. it could lead to millions of other people immigrating through this process. it goes back to the balance that i talk about. we need to be compassionate. but we also can't do something that encourages illegal immigration in the future. i think the dream act as they have written it would do that. >> what the president did, you didn't like the way he did it. you wanted legislation. but substantively you agree with what the president did? >> even substantively. it's a short-term fix for a long-term problem. what it does is injects election year politics into an issue that will never be solved as long as it's a political one. i am convinced after a year and a half here in washington and in the senate, that for some people, i wouldn't say many, or all, but for many -- i would just say too many people this issue is more valuable unresolved. for them they'd rather have the immigration -- >> but you didn't -- you had a chance to put forward the bill. you didn't advance the legislation. why not force democrats to vote on this? >> because we're -- voice on immigration. first of all we have developed the idea in enough detail that people knew what was in it and were able, when i first

announced the idea immediately democrats on the left criticized me. the same people who are now applauding the president for doing something similar. but, and that exposes the hypocrisy behind it. legislation like this, if you are a responsible policymaker you don't just rush out a piece of legislation that impacts the lives of potentially 800,000 people that deeply affects the immigration laws of this country. you have to be careful. you have to have answers to every question. if i rush out a piece of legislation that's not ready. if i don't have every answer to every question that's going to be raised about the bill, it loses yesterdayibility. i will continue to approach it as a responsible policymaker. if i wanted a talking point, something to use in november elections, we would have cobbled something together and rolled it out. >> here's the reality, you support a candidate, mitt romney, who talked about self-deportation during the campaign, had to run hard to the right here on illegal immigration. said at one point that he would veto the dream act. and the reality is that he's far behind president obama among latino voters. you write this in your book, "an american son," about canada. i begin to wonder if some of the

people who seem sew disparaging about immigrants would be just as worked up if most of them were coming from canada. you suggest a level of racism here toward illegal immigrants. how much of a problem is the republican party have on this issue? >> first of all, that assumes all these voices are republicans. the enormous vast and overwhelming majority of republicans are supporters of legal immigration. are compassionate to the plight of legal immigrants but understand that -- of illegal immigrants, but understand that america cannot be the only country in the world that doesn't enforce its immigration laws. and by the way, again, i repeat what about the 30, 40, 50 million people that are waiting to immigrate to the u.s. whose relatives come to my offices for example, some of them, asking for help to expedite that process. what do i tell them? come illegally, it's cheaper and quicker? i think no one talks about them. and this is, again, it's not a simple issue and the dream act is too broad. there is an alternative that's better. it's what we were working on, what i had hoped to work on outside of politics to be able to elevate the issue beyond the give and take of electoral

politics. obviously that's not going to happen unfortunately this year because now the issue has been politicized by the president. >> romney's got a big disadvantage, you would agree with that among latino voters? >> again i think we need to remember that there's some historic factors in play. there are also a large number of hispanic voters in this country ha happen to be liberal democrats who happen to be lifelong democrats. they're not going to change their position and decide to vote for mitt romney now because he won't change his position on immigration or not. we need to realize this say long-term effort for the republican party to ensure that our message of limited government and free enterprise is accessible to a group of americans that happen to be of hispanic descent. >> how about the supreme court, the big decision is health care. several different scenarios there. how important is this going to be, do you think, ultimately, in the race, if they strike it down, or if they uphold it or if they strike down part of it? where do we go from here? >> irrespective of what happens with the supreme court decision, which again is going to decide on the basis of the constitution, the supreme court is deciding is whether the law is constitutional. not whether it's a good idea or

not. i think the debate about how to approach our health insurance problem in america will continue. because the health care laws currently structured is discouraging job creation, and expansion of business in america. and so that issue will continue to be faced if the law is upheld. and if the law is overturned republicans, hopefully if we have the majority and president romney, are going to have to come up with an alternative, a way to replace what obama care does. >> would you like to see insurance guaranteed for people with pre-existing conditions? >> i think i talked about the way to handle that, for example. people that are difficult to ensure is through high risk pools. there are ways to do that. what i would like to see is a vibrant, private insurance market where individuals can buy insurance from any company that will sell it to them with the same tax treatment as their employers get, where companies can pool together with other companies to buy this insurance, where the consumer is in charge of health insurance, not just the employer structure that we have in place today. >> let me ask you a question about the economy, and the fiscal cliff that's coming here in washington. some big decisions about whether we're going to balance the budget. would you use any money from

closing tax loopholes, any new revenue that's come into the government, would you use any of that, to pay down the debt? >> no one is in dispute that we need more revenue. the question is how do you generate? and that's the fault -- >> my question is, would you use any of it to pay down the debt? >> i would use revenue from growth. when you talk about -- >> that wasn't my question. any closing loopholes, because you know what i'm getting at, which is this idea of the tax pledge. you consider this raising taxes if you use -- if you close the loophole, you get new revenue to the government, you use part of it to pay down debt, maybe the majority of it to bring down tax rates. >> but i reject the premise of that. i think that's a false choice. >> other republicans in the senate don't think it's a false choice. >> i think it's a false choice rand here's why. i think the issue here is growth. that's a good thing that i think both parties are redid itting about. we know what this election is partially about, both parties agree that what we need is growth in america. it is the single biggest way, it's the best way to solve our debt problems, our unemployment problems, now the debate is about how we generate growth. and the reason why i oppose tax

increases is because i think they hurt growth. i think it's destructive to growth. but i think if we do tax reform, which would involve flattening the tax code, getting rid of certain exemptions that are in place today, you can do that in a revenue neutral way in the first year but that would generate growth and growth would generate revenue and you have to have the fiscal discipline to use that revenue to pay down the debt, i think both is the only way to solve the problem and i think tax increases would hurt growth. >> let me ask you about your political standing. here's a surprise, i'm not going to ask you if you're going to be mitt romney's running mate. i'm not going to ask you that question. what i'm going to do instead is simply play this piece of tape from your last appearance here in may. if your party comes to you and says, look, you can focus on florida, but in the fall of next year, we really need you on the fixate if we're going to carry florida, are you saying there's no way you'll consider it or do it? >> i won't consider it. i don't want to be the vice president of the united states. i want to be a senator. and i want to be a senator from flap >> so under no circumstances would you serve on the ticket in 2012?

>> no, i'm not going to be on the ticket. >> under no circumstances? >> under no circumstances. >> senator do you stand by that answer? >> i thought you told me you'd burn the tape. >> do you stand by that? >> i'm not discussing the vice presidential process anymore. i made the decision two months ago not to discuss it any further. i think, by the way, other people that have been speculated about are doing the exact same thing and wisely so. i think governor romney -- >> i'm just asking you do you stand by that statement? >> i'm not discussing the vice presidential -- >> you're not going to say whether that's still operable or not? you said under no circumstances and yet you're obviously providing material to be vetted so if it was under no circumstances why allow yourself to be vetted? save them time and money. >> i can tell you dive inively i am confident that knit romney is going to make a great selection for vice president. >> here's a headline in ap about some of the issues you write about in your book, some mistakes you say you made, senator rubio raises his profile, will issues from his past hold back his gop rising star? there's been talk about use of a party credit card, your friendship with david rivera as a congressman from florida,

who's still being investigated, was investigated by the state. is there anything there from your past you think is a liability politically? >> you know, i think your opponents more than anything are a leeability. as he speak there are bloggers standing by their computers and fact checkers wanting to use any word i say in the future. that's one of the things i discuss in the book is how everything you do in politics, even if you may think it doesn't look bad, will be put together and packaged in the worst possible way in the future. and be viewed through a lens very different from the way at the time that you're doing it. so, what i talk about in the book is i have made decisions in the past that if i had a chance to do differently i would. you raise the credit card issue. you know, at the end of the day, i have a good explanation for all of that. but that doesn't mean that's the way it's going to be covered and that's not the way it's going to be portrayed. there's a lesson there that in politics, especially the higher you go, perception is often reality and you have to be sensitive to that when you're involved -- >> you hire people to kind of go through your record to make sure there's nothing embarrassing. are you confident at this point that there's nothing that will emerge about your path to politics and personally that would be either embarrassing to you politically or if you were

to be on the ticket with mitt romney that would cause a problem? >> again, on all that stuff i wrote a book that i thought was a very honest appraisal of where i am and where i've been and the decisions i made. the reason why i did it is pretty simple. there are other people out there that are may age, 30s at the time i was making this decision, maybe they're in politics, maybe they're in business and maybe there are lessons to be learned from that. i've made good decisions, like everybody else i've made bad decisions. i've learned from my bad decisions, i've always learned from our mistakes. i wouldn't overblow them but i think it's important to point those out. >> interesting what a lot of people may not have realized is you were a mormon when you were younger as your family was mormon, and you've written about and others have that you start of instigated the change to get out of the mormon church and become catholic. what brought that on? why did you move away from the mormon church? >> a couple things. i think it was important to point out i was 8 years old at the time our family went into the church and as i talked about in the book my mom, we moved to las vegas and she was looking for a wholesome environment to raise our family. one of the things that i know when people think of wholesome environments and the family, las vegas doesn't come to mind.

but it was a much smaller town back then. and outside of the strip obviously. and we have family members, still do, that were very involved in the lds church and my mom was a big admirer of the family friendly environment it created. as i discuss in the book that's why she moved us there. gut for spiritual reasons when i was about 12 years old i started feeling called back to the catholic church. it was nothing against the mormon church, it was just this calling that happened twice in my life. one of the aspects that i explore in the book is my faith journey and i hope people will enjoy reading about that, as well. >> there's so many similarities between you and president obama in terms of your political rise. >> hopefully in book sales, too. >> well, you've written a book like he did. your askenltz, as rapid as it is, has to be remarkable and i'm sure you've looked to president obama, i realize you differ ideologically but what do you learn positively and negligentively from his very fast rise and your own as you go through it? >> i discuss this in other interviews and a little bit in the book. i think like all americans, his kansas's in 2008 was a historic

one. i deeply disagreed with him on policy. but i understood the historic nature of his candidacy and i understood politically how well organized they ran that campaign. i mean, just in terms of being a practitioner of politics. you watch the way they conducted that campaign, with admiration. even though it was a very strong disagreement about the policy positions that he took and have taken. i can tell you that when i was thinking about running for the senate, it was -- i studied his senate run when he was in third place. i mean, he was not supposed to be the nominee for his party in illinois. and i felt that someone like that, can run and win in illinois, then someone like me can win in florida. but look, i think the one thing about the president that to me is personally disappointing, and i obviously don't know the president very well, is i thought in 2008, irrespective of where he stood on issues, he had a very unique opportunity to elevate american politics above kind of the normal fray where it had been before. i think he's abandoned that. i think he has now become just like everybody else in this town, where politics is about divide and conquer as opposed to hope and change. >> are you ambitious enough to

believe that you can become the first latino president? >> you know i don't ever -- what i've really done and i hope the book captures is i've deliberately not tried to ever view any position i have as a springboard for another position. i think it's a recipe for self-destruction. what i do believe is that if i do a good job in the senate, if i'm a serious policymaker, if i take my time to put forward bills as opposed to bumper sticker solutions, like i've tried to do with this immigration issue, then i they six years from now i'll have a lot of opportunities to do different things. in politics, outside of politics. . my experience has been that if you do a good job at your job, you'll have other opportunities, including some you'd never expected. >> i tried to save the toughest for last. we have our own vetting process here as we try to get to know you better and help the american people get to know you better and going through your book and understanding your interests in music, in rap, in hip-hop, the critical question is, east coast or west coast? biggie smalls or tupac, which is it? >> i was more of a west coast fan i guess during that time. you know, that distinction has gone away now. we have our own miami-based --

>> we're the same. >> i was more of a west coast guy. they'll probably hurt me on the east coast. >> all right. one last question. i'm thinking about basketball. >> yeah. >> i'm wondering in florida today, who would get more votes, obama, romney, or lebron james? >> i think -- well in miami, probably lebron james. like everywhere else in america, unfortunately, there's still a lot of hate going on for lebron and the heat. but, tough pill to swallow for them. >> you can't be from florida and still deal with ohio. >> that's exactly right. >> senator rubio, thanks very much. >> thank you. >> happy to have you here. we're going to come back with our political roundtable. a lot to talk about including the fight over fast and furious. the oversight committee and eric holder, this fight over executive privilege between republicans and the white house. the man leading the charge behind the investigation chair of the house oversight committee congressman darrell issa is going to join the roundtable. along with former new mexico governor and presidential candidate bill richardson. politico's jonathan martin and nbc's andrea mitchell. roundtable is coming up after this. [ male announcer ] considering all your mouth goes through,

do you really think brushing is enough to keep it clean? while brushing misses germs in 75% of your mouth, listerine cleans virtually your entire mouth. so take your oral health to a whole new level. listerine... power to your mouth.

we're going to get some reaction to senator rubio. also the executive privilege fight between house republicans and the white house. more on that and a lot

we are back now with our political roundtable. joining me senior political reporter for politico, jonathan martin is here. nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. former democratic governor of new mexico, bill richardson. and the chair of the house oversight and government committee congressman darrell issa. chairman issa i want to start with you. the standoff between your committee, you personally, with the attorney general, and now the white house over executive privilege. bottom line, is there an agreement here that you can reach? or are you going to a full house consent vote? >> well, there is a standoff but it's not something we aim to have. we'd like to get the documents. they're very specific documents in many cases where we've been given under oath testimony about e-mails, and memos, correspondence. and we'd like to have those. they don't involve executive privilege. pretty clear they're communications about

post-february 4th cover-ups by the justice department. you know, there was 10 months in which they said there were no guns walking, until they said oh, yes there was and they retracted the february 4th letter to senator grassley. that's what we liekd to have. if we can have those documents we can postpone or cancel the contempt. >> the underlying problem here is a policy where federal agents allowed gun walking. so they didn't arrest purchasers of illegal guns they let them go back into mexico. ultimately those guns got into circulation, were used to kill two federal agents. that was the underlying program. that program which started under the previous administration, has gone away. >> no, no, it didn't. >> it didn't go away? >> there was something under the previous administration, a couple of programs, wide receiver was one that they mention a lot. started and stopped. canceled and found to be flawed under the bush era, never got to president bush or the attorney general -- >> but there were indictments? >> there were indictments at the u.s. attorney, the republican u.s. attorney said we can't go

forward, this is too flawed a tactic. it was shut down. lanny brewer -- >> head of the criminal division. >> right. head of the criminal division, began those prosecutions over and at the same time fast and furious began. there really was a recognition by the previous administration that this was the wrong thing to do, and it was shut down. it was started back up in this administration. at this point, what we want to do is make sure that no administration starts or stops it again. >> but the documents you're after are not about the program itself. they're about how the justice department responded to you, what they were saying about you, and your committee, and the attorney general's testimony. if you got everything you wanted, what do you think it would prove? >> you know, brian terry's mother wants the truth. >> one of the agents killed. >> both the ranking member mr. cummings and myself promised to get the truth. we got a lie. we got a cover-up. but more importantly, five different times we had the key people involved in front of a deposition, private deposition

with republican and democratic counsel and the administration's handlers, lawyers, said don't answer. don't answer. don't answer. we need answers. we can't have answers when people take the fifth. we can't have answers when the justice department instructs witnesses not to answer questions. and more importantly, i think the american people understand, if the administration lies, the people who tell untruths to the administration, and then cover it up for ten months, have to be held accountable. that's not executive privilege. you don't have the privilege to lie to the american people. >> what -- what the white house is saying it's a fishing expedition, it's so score political points, it's all theater. what can you prove if you get everything you want? >> well, first of all, what we know is on a couple of occasions, specific testimony about memos and e-mails that were sent, we're looking for those. those are in our discovery. what we really want to know is why did it take ten months, and what were they covering up? because from this ten months we go backwards to find out the

important thing, who at justice, up and down the chain, authorized this, and allowed it to continue? remember, brian terry was killed 18 months ago. we're not just talking about february 4th. we're talking about the three months after he was killed and the months leading up to it. the investigation has to, one, hold people responsible. two, make sure it doesn't happen again. and the second part is what we're all about. >> governor, you think the white house ought to try to find some accommodation here? >> i think both sides need to find an accommodation. but with all due respect to the congressman this strikes me as political. the administration has provided 7,600 documents. there's been 11 congressional hearings. people want the congress to deal with jobs. they want them to deal with 1 million construction jobs that are going to expire unless they act. they're going to need to deal with the course of 7 million student loans that are going to go up unless the congress acts. i think the attorney general has

done a very good job. i mean i commend him for what he's done on challenging the arizona immigration law. on what he's done with a number of other inquiries. voting rights suppression that is happening around the country. i think there's a little bit of political payback. >> but, bill -- >> -- but nixon opened up china. he created the epa and osha. there were a lot of good things that happened. in this case, the attorney general has given 80,000 documents to the inspector general, and of the 7,600 documents that we received, some 6 them we didn't ask for, they're not pertinent, and many of them are completely redacted, completely black pages. so let's understand, we want answers. >> i want to get in here because i want to talk about the politics of this, as well. jonathan there is tension here among republicans. the chairman wants to move forward. there's a lot of other republicans who say, hey, this is not the focus here we want in an election year. >> truth, the house leadership would say they'd rather talk about jobs, every single day

from now until election day. but the fact is, in the house, there is a strong bloc of conservatives that have prompted speaker boehner to sort of bend here and he's having to pursue this issue. look, i don't think they want to do this. i don't think governor romney wants to pursue this. they want to focus entirely on jobs and the economy, on president obama, from now until election day. but it's a testament to the chairman, and the conservative rank and the house gop that this is happening. >> jonathan, you know the tuesday group, the most moderate republicans have come up to me time and time again about this, and it's not a fight we want. it's not what we want to be on. yes, we want to be on jobs and the economy. the data act passed unanimously out of the house, and died in the senate, it would bring greater transparency and save money. we have those issues we're working on. some fights you pick. this wasn't one. some fights come to you and you have to do what you have to do. in this case, you have all the republicans, moderate and conservative, saying we don't

want to do this, but we will do it. and you'll have a lot of democrats voting with us. >> andrea mitchell, where are we? >> well, what you heard from the chairman here from chairman issa is that nixon did some things that were good. that is the analogy, and by invoking executive privilege, the white house has now bought in to the sort of symbolic confrontation, the constitutional confrontation that the white house did not initially want. but they think that they can win because, as governor richardson said, they think the people care more about the economy. it is a distraction. it is politics. large in washington, according to most people. but i think that this is going to play out. you're going to have this vote on the house floor. and the irony is, of course, that it will be up to the justice department, whether or not to prosecute. you're not going -- it's going to go to the court. i think that chairman issa can agree with that. it's going to go to the courts and you're not going to have a resolution before the election. >> we have about three minutes left. scharm i'm going to ask you to take off the newsmaker hat and put on the analyst hat.

i want to react to senator rubio and the immigration politics of this week. governor richardson, it was striking to me that you have both senator rubio but also mitt romney really straddling this issue of immigration. not answering the hard questions that a lot of people want to address saying when are we going to get to a comprehensive solution, something that has eluded president obama to president bush as well? >> well, senator rubio, very articulate, first time i've ever met him. however, he has not taken a definitive position on -- he's against the dream act. which allows immigrant kids to go in the military, college, and get a break. >> get citizenship. >> he's against comprehensive immigration, that, you asked him the 12 million immigrants that are here, what happens to them? under the obama plan, under certain conditions, the president has pushed for comprehensive immigration. he's pushed for a dream act that's been republican filibusters, republican opposition. the president has appointed hundreds of nominees in

important positions. and then lastly, the president's done a good job in creating j jobs. what you have now is an increase in almost 2 million hispanic jobs in the last 27 months. there's been also an increase in the payroll tax cut, close to 25 million hispanics got a tax cut. his initiatives towards educati education, high-tech jobs. you know the thing that bothers me in this debate, most think that hispanic immigration issues are really landscaping, those are honorable jobs. but what we're talking about is future technology. we're talking about future doctors, business leaders. that's the new emerging latino community. >> jonathan, first and then andrea. in terms of how senator rubio's positioning himself. what struck you about today? >> oh, how cautious he is on this issue. just like governor romney is. they don't want to talk about what the elephant in the room is, and that is what do you do with the 12 million illegal immigrants who are here in country right now. do they have to go back to their

countries first before they get some degree of amnesty? governor romney has said all week he's going to propose a long-term solution. that's kind of his preferred choice of words, long-term solution. but what does that mean? does that mean mass deportations or some form of conditional amnesty? we don't know because they won't say. and by that they say, well, because on their right flank they're facing heat from border hawks in their own party. >> you're in california -- >> and -- whose votes they need. >> can any illegal immigrant become legal without first leaving the country? >> yes. but, understand that since 1986, when ronald reagan fought to fix this on a bipartisan basis, granted amnesty, put in new, tougher rules to keep it from happening again, the system has failed. since the '90s, in california, we have seen it fail, fail, fail. republicans have an obligation to deal with 12 million people that are here in a broken system. a system that was, in fact, broken and that's part of why they're here. at the same time, fool me once,

shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. we have to make sure that whatever the comprehensive reform is, it has real teeth, and be verified. we can't go through this again. >> the whole point, though, is that the reason why mitt romney and marco rubio are being so ambiguous about it is because, as jonathan just pointed out, there are pitfalls on all sides. there are no easy answers. two days before the president announced his temporary solution, temporary fix, marco rubio was telling a group of supporters how he was going to propose a dream act modification, but the president did the end run around him and the fact is that he had never discussed that with mitt romney. they wanted that deniability built in because they did not want to paint the candidate down on it and marco rubio doesn't want to be pinned down on it. the fact is now the president has preempted it and he can't even introduce his own legislation. >> i'm going to get a break.

we'll talk more about this. and also talk about how this vig ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [ transforming sounds ] [ male announcer ] transformers. the ride.

ride it at universal studios hollywood. we're back now with more from our roundtable. all the talk about marco rubio has certainly intensified the speculation about who mitt romney will choose as his running mate and why, after all, this decision matters. romney's recent five-day bus tour through six swing states is a chance for the candidate himself to test drive a parade of potential running mates. >> let's decide this one for mitt romney!

>> many of them also on hand this weekend for his high dollar donor retreat in park city, utah. but it is rubio getting a lot of attention. so much so, the candidate felt the need to insist he is on the list. >> there are only two people in this country who know who are being vetted, and who are not. and that's beth myers and myself. marco rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process. >> karen hughes advised then-governor bush on his search for a number two. >> this is the political equivalent of a colonoscopy. they're searching every inch of a candidate's life. of their past. and they would prefer that they're able to do that out of the glare of publicity. >> beyond rubio, it's former minnesota governor pym pawlenty getting a lot more attention this week. former governor with strong appeal to working-class voters, who, above all, would do no harm. it's an appeal that focuses speculation, as well, on ohio senator rob portman, who could help romney double down on a call to balance the budget.

this week reports also emerged saying budget chairman paul ryan, a celebrated fiscal conservative, has formally begun the vetting process. >> yes, they're looking for someone who brings something that adds, generally not only to your ability on the campaign trail, but more importantly i think to your ability to governor effectively once you're elected president. >> the big question is what message does romney want to send with his vice presidential pick? does he play it safe, or go for a game changer? there are lessons from 2008, when maverick senator mccain plucked sarah palin, a little-known governor of also ka, out of obscurity. but insiders say that has become a cautionary tale. leaving the romney campaign more apt to make a conventional choice for the number two spot. >> thanks, guys. >> so, there it is. discuss. governor richardson, you've been in this position before. now, think of it from mitt romney's position, what is the message he wants to send? >> well, i think he is so behind with latino voters, that if i were advising him, which he won't take that advice, is that

he go with rubio. because rubio will help him in florida. and you then have a chance in some of those states like colorado, and nevada, new mexico, arizona, with a high proportion of latino voters. i don't think it's going to be enough, even if he picks rubio, because the president has a very good record with his pan ink voters. but i think if he goes with some of the traditional choices that are out there, and i know many of them, they're good candidates, the opportunity with this sleeping giant of the hispanic community that is just explo exploding, is not going to be there. and rubio is an attractive guy. if he picks him i don't think he can still win those states, but -- >> andrea, what do you think? >> what about the first, do no harm theory, which is someone who has been around. wonder what darrell issa thinks about this. >> i want to be on the selection committee. that seems to be the way to do

it. >> assuming you're not on the list and haven't been vetted because we haven't heard about you. in that context what about tim pawlenty, what about rob portman who would seem to be the front-runners if you're going to pick a safe candidate who is not going to hurt. >> 2008 more than ever tells us be ready to be president on day one, and make sure there's no question you're ready to be president on day one. and that favors governors, it favors people who've been on the scene longer. you know, jonathan, i did a panel discussion with steve schmidt, who of course, ran mccain's campaign and he said we won't be the last campaign to make a vp choice for politically expedient reasons but we'll be the last campaign to do it for awhile. >> right. exactly. >> and that is the prevailing theory. >> i think the congressman meant, what the romney folks are looking at, that is who can step into the job if the president is incapability of doing it. that's also governor romney. he's a management consultant. i think if he is still in the game, and it looks like he's going to be, come august, he's

going to make a sort of staid, traditional pick, talking about tim pawlenty, rob portman, perhaps paul ryan. i was talking to some sources in utah this weekend, the biggest buzz out there is for condi rice. now she's not going to be the pick for a variety of reasons. but it just goes to show, at least among donors and gop elite that there's still a sort of search for that star power. >> but in the end, it's who can bring you the most votes. who can bring you a state that you don't have? >> but that's the old wisdom. >> that really is the old wisdom. >> no, bill, i think it's a great reason to say marco rubio but it's not a great reason to pick a president. a vice president. the vice president should be picked based on, do no harm. and based on job one being, you can take over for the president. >> -- about marco rubio and the unique role he has in american politics that governor romney would sort of spurn his own fight club rules, talk about

fight club, in a matter of hours would say, yes, he, in fact, is being vetted. that's a remarkable testament to rubio's place. >> we don't know if it's true or not. >> we don't know if it's true. >> he said it. >> but why wouldn't they look at him? you'd be crazy not too. >> -- hispanic community. >> the net needs to be cast very broad. there's no question you need to be prepared because ultimately your number one choice could falter at the end. the late jack kemp was once the absolutely going to be the vp and at the end he wasn't. i think you have to look and you have to realize that this is a you a'nique position where you go from being president and chairman of the board, and ceo, and chief operating officer, and if you're not there, the vice president who has a nondescript job has to come in and do all of it. >> i have a question about paul ryan. chairman of the budget committee. like marco wrub yo, same age, 41 years old, a big future ahead of him in the republican party.

the question is whether a guy like paul ryan is a little too incendiary, would the left be able to really go to work on him because of his views about medicare, because of his budget? do you think romney says boy he's attractive, but he'd just be too much of a lightning rod? >> well i hope that governor romney looks at what paul ryan and others have said, and not what the political left has said about them. that's part of the consideration. >> well he has. he's embraced a lot of what he says. >> right, exactly. if you look at paul ryan, he's the person that took on the president in that famous republican gathering where the president said you guys have no ideas, and he said well wait a second, i gave you this, what about this? and the president had to back down and say, well, yes, those are some very good budget ideas. this is a person of substance that i served with in the house, i'm very proud to serve with, who has a lot of great ideas. if he's not the vice president, he still is one of the people on the short list for key cabinet positions, and omb, and these kinds of positions. and that's one of the reasons you cast the net is you're looking at people like bill

richardson who might or might not be the vp, but also might or might not -- >> i don't think mitt romney is going to choose bill. >> well, he's got to have one democrat in the administration. can you be transportation, governor? >> you will not serve? >> in the end, this election is going to be so close. i think the president wins it very narrowly in those southwest states. you know, all this do no harm, who's going to be the best vp, ready to be president, you know, i'd love that. that's a civics class statement. but in the end, it's how can i win, and eke out a narrow victory? and i think governor romney is going to have to find a game changer. >> so who is obama going to pick for vice president, then, to do that? >> he's got a good one. he's got the vice president. >> they already made the lawn signs. they can't change that now. >> biden is strong, he's strong in pennsylvania. he's strong with middle-class voters. >> i want to come back, talk about the big health care decision that's coming down, it will be part of our round the

decision that's coming down, it will be part of our round the table dis if you made a list of countries from around the world... decision that's coming down, it will be part of our round the table dis ...with the best math scores. ...the united states would be on that list. in 25th place. let's raise academic standards across the nation. let's get back to the head of the class. let's solve this. do you really think brushing is enough to keep it clean? while brushing misses germs in 75% of your mouth, listerine® cleans virtually your entire mouth. so take your oral health to a whole new level. listerine®... power to your mouth™.

and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? [ meows ] or if a tree falls on your car and no one's around to answer your call, do you make a sound? the answer is probably "yes"

[ growling ] and "like a howler monkey." unless you're calling esurance. they have live humans on the phones to help 24/7. so you might make different sounds, like happy human sounds. esurance. insurance for the modern world. click or call.

final moments with our roundtable. i wish we had a second hour today there's so much news. we want to go round the table quickly. in politics, first up, what's coming down the pike this week. the supreme court and health care. here with talking points memo, the blog this morning, here's a headline, obama care supporters at odds over post-supreme court strategy. andrea, high stakes stuff this week. it's going to have a big impact on the race. >> you know, either way, if the mandate is thrown out by the supreme court this week, the left and liberal supporters of the president say they're going to make it a huge issue. any way you look at it, it is a huge defeat for this administration. this is the signature policy of the president. >> let's review. they can uphold, they could strike down. they could strike down the individual mandate or they could strike that down plus that severability argument where they strike down things like guaranteeing that insurance companies have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. this is what speaker boehner said this week in a memo to republicans about what happens when the supreme court acts.

he said, no one knows what the court will decide. but if the court strikes down all or part of the president's health care law, there will be no spiking of the ball. republicans are focused on the economy, we will not celebrate at a time when millions of our fellow americans remain out of work. well, congressman, there's no question that republicans will make this a part of the fall choice. >> well, if they strike down the entire bill then some of the things that we all agreed on should be dealt with will be first and foremost. >> pre-existing conditions? >> pre-existing conditions. >> keeping young people on their parents until 26? >> well, an age to be determined, and a status to be determined. but absolutely. there will be a need, a bipartisan need for a group of us, particularly those on ways and means to get together and say, okay, what is it we can cobble together from what we do agree on with our democratic colleagues, and put back in. because, all along we said, real problems, this isn't the solution. if this goes away, we still have to start dealing with the problems. >> governor, i'm told, by the way, that the white house expects as early as tomorrow it could add a wednesday session to announce it, or, of course, on

thursday. just for those planning their viewing at home. what do you say about all this? >> well, i think it's a huge defeat if the supreme court strikes any part down, even just the individual mandate to the american people. just this week, several million kids got their health insurance. i think there's going to be a real uproar against a politicized supreme court. you know, here they're making political decisions. this is a clear constitutional issue. the interstate commerce clause of the congress dictates that this can happen. it's got to energize the democratic base. and that is important. for the president -- >> that's the only upside that i can see here if it is struck down that finally progressives who have been grumbling quite a bit about president obama could find something to rally around if it is struck down. but andrea's right. there's no question, this is one more issue where the president will have been rebuked, talked about, the credit rating of the country, being downgraded. the president's signature first time accomplishment, being struck down by the court.

this were a rebuke to a sitting president it's symbolically in that way it would be hurtful to his chances. >> next item has to do with the remaking of mitt romney as we get into the general election. we've seen lots of examples of this. romney as we learned from rock center is out there playing practical jokes on the press corps, going on to the campaign bus, having a little bit of fun. you know, not only, you know, baking cakes, his sons are appearing on conan, we have kind of a recasting of his image a little bit. the next item i want to get some comment there, his son on conan this week, the next item has to do with fund-raising and i want to get andrea to weigh in on this. the reality is that mitt romney has a pretty commanding lead from last month in terms of how much he is raising. he has become so prolific in this area. why does it matter? >> it matters because the television ads, these web ads, the whole organization, it matters hugely, and you know, president obama, barack obama as a candidate ran circles around john mccain, who abided by limits. now what you see is this huge amount of money.

mitt romney raised money in private equity. this is what the -- he knows very well how to do. we see it in utah. he knows how to make that appeal and deal with donors and donor maintenance. >> if you ask david axelrod the top obama strategist what he's worried about, he will tell you the first thing he's worried about is money. what the super pacs are doing and they're going to, i think, on the gop side of the race, much more money now than democrats were going for. >> we're going to leave it there. >> but he has more money in the bank. brohm has a commanding lead in money to begin with. >> and the president has a small -- >> all right. we've got to go. mitt romney -- >> they're going to keep talking. that's all for today. we'll be back next week. happy birthday to two of