has gun safety lost? let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. is the entire answer to what happened in newtown, connecticut, going to be, sorry about that, but we're not going to do anything about gun safety? nothing. wouldn't it have been smarter politics for the president to have gotten out front on gun safety right after the newtown horror? he knew what the problem was, what the solution had to be. the killer used an assault rifle. ban them. the killer used 30-round magazines. ban them.

the killer was a nut. enforce background checks. why do we all need a study? why did the president think it was smart to use up time to give the nra time? why didn't he strike while the iron was hot? why do i ask this all now? because right now looks very iffy that the congress is going to do anything. not a ban on assault rifles, not a ban on 30-round clips, not even tougher background checks. we all know why. it will take 60 votes in the senate to even bring up a vote on gun safety. there's good reason to believe there aren't 60 votes to vote on gun safety. got it? i ask, shouldn't the president have gotten out early and stayed out there until something got passed? let's get to it with former pennsylvania governor, ed rendell and u.s. congressman from maryland, elijah cummings. governor rendell, what do you think about all this time that's passed since newtown? who's been winning the fight? the nra or the gun safety folk? >> well, we were winning the fight for the first couple of months, but the tide seems to have turned as the momentum was lost a little bit. i think, chris, the president's doing a pretty good job rekindling that momentum, and

the key here, to me, still remains getting a vote on the floor. if we can get a vote on the floor, we can win. i mean, you know, for example -- >> you know the numbers. it takes 60. 60 votes. >> right. >> in the senate. >> 60. we're going to be out on tuesday, mayor nutter and myself and gun control advocates. we're going to be out in front of senator toomey's office in philadelphia. we're going to ask toomey not to vote yes on any of these measures. we're going to say, the victims deserve a vote, senator. we're asking you to vote to end the filibuster. what's pat toomey going to do? if he's worried about the philadelphia suburbs for his re-election, he ought to vote to end the filibuster. and there are republicans, congressmen, senators, all over the country who have to worry about that. and how can you tell the people of newtown or any other tragedy that they're not even going to get a vote? that's despicable. >> i get the feeling he's involved in a same-sex political

marriage with wayne lapierre. political marriage. i don't think he's going to -- i mean, i'm sorry, tick off wayne lapierre. your thoughts, congressman, because i really worry now. i look at this 60 vote thing, this ultimatum for people like ted cruz down in texas. it's not going to hurt him. he could be mr. gunman down there. it's not going to hurt him at all. he could be jesse james in texas is fine with him down there. 60 votes. you have to get all the democrats, five republicans and not lose any of the guys from out west in the democratic party. >> chris, i do think it's going to be difficult, but i don't think it's impossible. i agree with the governor. we really need to get this to a vote. keep in mind the legislation that we have in the house on the house side, my bill, the gun trafficking bill, has bipartisan involvement. that's a good thing. and -- >> if they ever vote on it. mr. cummings, you know the business. it looks like the senate is not going to vote on anything on gun

safety. it takes 60 votes. that means the house and boehner can hide like groundhogs. they don't have to come out above the ground. they can hide down there and say the senate didn't vote, why should we? >> i think that would be a damn shame. as i said today at a press conference, we've got a situation. if we cannot act now, chris, when we have 20 young children murdered, i mean, the question is, i think this needs to be a wake-up call. sandy hook should have been a wake-up call for all of us. for our society. we're going to allow this to happen. the thing that bothers me most is i know sandy hook presented to us what should have been a transformative moment. and if we fail, chris, it can only get worse. i hate to see what the new norm is with regard to gun safety. >> i agree. your gun trafficking provision was one that seemed like a given a month ago. now it's in peril. the "washington post" reported today "another provision that garnered bipartisan support,

making gun trafficking a federal crime, could be gutted if republican lawmakers accept new language being circulated by the national rifle association." so having beaten back the prospects of an assault weapon back to zero, practically, having beaten back the chances again to zero of a 30-round clip, to zero, of a ban on that, i really think they've almost killed the idea of stronger background checks. they're now going for their fourth target which we thought was untouchable which is you can't have secondhand sales to crooks basically and killers. where do you think you stand on that? what are your odds of getting a vote now? >> i still believe we'll get a vote on that. i got to tell you, the only people that should be against this is criminals and those who want to sell guns to criminals. and law enforcement is 100% behind it. the american people, most american people think we already have a gun trafficking law which we don't. and so hopefully -- i haven't given up, chris. and i refuse to give up because

i believe that we have a duty to our children and to our society to do better. and i think we will. >> i agree. i'm with you, congressman. let me go to the governor. explain this to the people who don't really get states like pennsylvania. sort of a purple state. more of a democratic state when it comes to president. but it's purple. how can you have a 90% support for something like stronger background checks and have a guy like toomey, who is rational, he's a conservative guy, but he's rational. why would he rationally think, i got to worry more about 30%, 40% who are gun people, second amendment people, year round, rather than 90% of people who are part-time gun safety people? how about answering the question? >> yeah, but it's irrational because pat toomey is not going to lose that 30% to any democrat. he doesn't have to worry about them. most of that 30% believes in background checks. most of that 30% believes in representative cummings' bill. gosh, the nra for years stood with me and said we need tougher

law enforcement. a gun trafficking bill is tougher law enforcement. it's federal penalties for straw purchasers. it's exactly what we need. where are they now? they're frauds. pat toomey if he's smart, i still believe he is, chris, he's going to look and say, people of pennsylvania, even nra members, are for background checks. why would he take the risk? >> where's the club for growth? >> the club for growth is out of this issue. i think it's out of this issue. >> i hope so. let me go to something the public seems to agree on. mr. cummings, you've taken a moderate approach to this, center left, or centrist anyway. look at this. here's wayne lapierre's answer to school safety. it's following the newtown massacre, of course. here's what he said. unfortunately, for people who are for gun safety, this seems to be getting more attention and support than a lot of the stuff that even the polls show should pass. >> the only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. the only thing that stops a bad

guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. i call on congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation. and to do it now. >> the nra today, asa hutchinson, echoed lapierre's argument that the only way to stop gun violence is with more guns. he announced an nra funded plan for, quote, school safety. here's asa hutchinson. >> we also have prepared for the first time that i'm aware of a model training program for selected and designated armed school personnel. now, this is probably the one item that catches everybody's attention. >> and it should. in the "washington post"/abc poll shows there is considerable support for armed guards in schools. this is one of those interesting polls.

more typical of politics. 50% support armed guards in school. 48% oppose. mr. cummings, what do you think about that? i mean, sometimes -- i just drove by a local public el meptry school in d.c. this morning. there was a squad car out. i said, that's okay. that's a good thing. i understand why that squad car is parked there. is that a good thing or not, the police are there during school time? >> i think putting more guns, putting guns in schools i don't think is necessarily a good idea. on the other hand, if local jurisdictions want to protect their children that way, fine. the question is, are we creating a false sense of security, number one? number two, who can afford it? i mean, we're cutting back on everything. we're even cutting back on teachers. >> what's wrong with a squad car, the cop, the policeman, he's inside, he's got his handgun, he may have more firepower in the car if something goes wrong? or better yet if a nut goes by, a bad guy goes by, he sees that car, i think i'll go somewhere else. why would have a guy go in there with a gun if he sees a policeman there with a gun? >> keep in mind, chris, you're talking about schools.

we're having problems with gun safety in shopping malls, movies, all sorts of places. what i've said on this is that if -- like i said, if folk wanted to do that, fine. i don't want that to be a distraction and act as if that's going to resolve our issues. there are a lot more issues than that. and so hopefully, you know, they'll go forward with their plan, but i got to tell you, most jurisdictions probably won't be able to afford to have the guard anyway. >> well, greg sergeant of the "washington post" reports today that democrats hope to pressure senator john mccain into supporting expanded background checks and it turns out mccain did voice support for expanded background checks back when he ran in 2000. remember that moderate mccain who was running for president back there against w.? sergeant writes the spot was unearthed by a democrat. let's watch john mccain, the gun safety man. >> i'm john mccain, with some

straight talk. convicted felons have been able to buy and sell thousands of guns at gun shows because of a loophole in the law. many were later used in crimes. that's wrong. >> governor, can we win this fight with archaeology like that? digging up old tapes from the -- the sacred scrolls, if you will? >> maybe, chris. but, you know, i think representative cummings hit on a very important point. we can't let that nra bill be a distraction. we can't let people say, well, i voted to do something about gun safety, i voted to make our schools safer. first of all, it doesn't work. in columbine, one of the worst tragedies in the history of this country, there was an armed guard on the school grounds. it didn't help a bit because those armed guards who carry pistols, maybe a glock, are going to be outgunned by these mad men all the time because we don't do anything about assault rifles or high capacity magazines. look, the fight isn't over. it isn't over. and we can win this if we can get it to the floor. we've got to put their feet to

the fire. we have to go to pat meehan, fitzpatrick fitzpatrick, gerlach can be dent, runyon -- >> if you get toomey tomorrow, we're going to ring that bell for you, governor. if you get pat toomey to turn out to cloture tomorrow, we'll announce it first thing. >> there are people like me all over the country. we're not giving up. we're not giving up. i know the representative is not giving up. we're going to force these guys to sign discharge positions, force these guys to vote against filibuster. i believe we still have a chance. >> just don't endorse him if he does do it, okay, governor? >> please don't. >> just kidding. i don't think you'll do that no matter what he does. you'll end -- hit him with a rubber hose before you'll do that. thank you. >> absolutely. >> thank you, governor rendell and congressman elijah cummings. i respect tremendously what you're trying to. i see the uphill fight. coming up, should the president of the united states be out there? for us, should he be leading the fight on gun safety? not bloomberg, not biden. libya was over there. newtown is here. this is no time to lead from behind. also, republicans in three

states are pushing bills to eliminate sex ed for teens. against sex education. republicans are making it harder for some women to have abortion in certain states, they're making it more likely for teens to get pregnant. duh. what's causing the north korean dictator to rattle his guns and act so scary? christian radio host rick wile says it's all about gay marriage here. boy, does he connect the dots. finally, let me finish tonight with how the country needs a leader on gun safety. i'm on that rant tonight. this is "hardball." the place for politics. after all these years. but your erectile dysfunction - you know,that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure.

do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial. wow. here comes another one. mark kirk of illinois has become the second republican senator to back marriage equality. did it today. senator kirk announced his support following ohio's, actually rob portman. kirk said in a statement "same sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. our time on this earth is limited. i know that better than most." he's been unhealthy. "life comes down to who you love and who loves you back." he said government has no place in the middle.

that is so well said. three more democratic senators announced their support for marriage equality. kay hagan of north carolina, tom carper of delaware, and pennsylvania's bob casey who called me about it yesterday. it's a big deal for him. and we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." president obama won a resounding victory over mitt romney last november ushering in a second term with a promise was always there to tackle the issues important to the country. lately i keep feeling his absence. i mean the president's absence. i don't see him demanding debate over the gun issue, don't see him on the front pages or leading the evening news. is this strategic on his part? does he believe his all-out support would endanger gun safety, for example? well, his lack of engagement certainly isn't helping that fight. stephanie cutter served in the obama white house and was the deputy campaign manager for his re-election campaign. i told her a minute ago today, i think like a lot of people in the campaign did fantastic work. when you win, everybody did fantastic work. and sam stein is the political

editor and white house correspondent. he is really tough. this guy is a solid, tough journalist. i don't think you lean forward enough but that's all right. let's talk about the president's role. you and i can -- you're a publicity person. you understand communications. there are times when the president's on the front page. i was working for tip for those years and would say i don't have to be on the front page every day. so we know when you're there. lately, since -- the last three or four months, the president's not been out there. bloomberg's been out there, biden's been out there. let's talk gun safety. why hasn't the president been consistently hard charging since newtown on guns? >> chris, i think he has. >> out front. >> out front. you saw last thursday the event he did at the white house. >> every day i get up and read the papers. >> he's in colorado tomorrow. >> stephanie, i read the papers every day. i watch the news. >> we can't control what people put on their front pages. it did make some front pages last week. he has talked about gun safety and curbing gun violence since the newtown tragedy. the state of the union. the inaugural address. half dozen events.

he's traveling to colorado tomorrow, traveling to connecticut next week. >> why do i, who has an appetite for obama, who would like to see him out front being our nation's leader, not just a head of the country, but the actual leader on big left/right fights like gun safety -- i want to ask you a strategic question then go to sam. has he calculated he is too left? he's not the right guy to do gun safety? biden is a better guy because he's a regular guy, a street guy, not a big liberal in his image. why did he put biden out front? >> i think he put biden out front in terms of coming up with a proposal so that that in-depth work could have been done. >> sam, you didn't have to have an in-depth study to know the problem was assault weapons. the guy used assault weapons to kill those kids. you didn't need an in-depth study to find out 30-round clips were a problem. he used 30-round clips. you didn't have to go digging for a month or two to find out we need better background checks when a nut was doing the shooting. so everything was handed to him in the first headline of what to do. he comes back months later with exactly what he should have

started with and common sense would have told him to do it. all the meanwhile, wayne lapierre raising money, getting together, starting his storming of the castle. now i'm beginning to think wayne lapierre has the upper hand here. it scares me the united states senate may not even vote on this issue. your thoughts. >> there's two types of drama we have to consider. one of the reasons they did this so study period was so they could get all the stakeholders on the same page. they knew they weren't going to get the nra. for instance, the sportsmen, hunters, the police. >> dh they have. >> they wanted them all on the same page. >> the educators. >> i think that's contributed to why you have some of these prosupposeales polling so well. they failed to take into account on the hill you have a totally different drama playing out in which a lot of republican members including some of the conservative democratic members aren't listening to those polls. >> they don't want to vote on this. >> they don't want to vote on this. >> let me go back to you, stephanie. let's talk about the issue of the president. >> let me make one point to you about the vice president. >> 60 votes. how are you going to get 60 votes? harry reid who's a better vote counter than any of us couldn't get 40 for the assault weapons

ban. the new standard is 60. they're 20-some short on gun safety. >> number one, the vice president is out in front of this because he actually authored the last crime bill that passed congress. >> the '60s. >> no, '94. >> oh, the '94. i'm sorry. >> come on. he has a lot of credibility on this and he has a lot of sway in the senate in getting this done. number two, they're not 20 votes short on the background check. every day there's somebody else coming out for a national background check. everybody wants a bipartisan deal. they're continuing to work on it. >> how many do they got? >> the truth is right now they're probably 60 votes short if you look -- >> 16 short? >> they're short of 60 votes. >> how short? >> they need about five more people. they're going to work with tom coburn. we have a story going up tonight, tom coburn has been made the linchpin. of this whole ordeal. >> i don't think they'll have a vote. >> i think they'll have a vote. >> up and down vote -- >> a tape right now of what you said. you say there will be a vote, i say there won't.

>> there will be a vote. you'll look at the bill and say is this an effectual bill. is this going to have impact? >> i think this is going downhill. >> if we don't have a vote, look at who is not voting for cloture. there are dozens of members, mostly republican members, who aren't willing to stand up to the nra. >> that's the problem, because -- >> is some of this for 2014? is there a calculation, obama, on issues like immigration, where maybe he's better off by losing these votes because he thinks he builds him a head of steam to get back the house in 2014? >> it's not about obama in 2014. it's about the mark pryor's of the world in 2014. mark pryor was on a radio show today talking about his opposition to the assault weapons ban. proudly. >> he told bloomberg to bug off, too. >> for him he feels he's better protected by being an antagonist of gun policy. i think immigration which you reference is a whole nother ball game. in that case, the white house is cognizant if they touch this piece of legislation, it could very well blow up the whole enterprise. >> i think that is strategic. >> yes. they've let the senate basically handle it. the house has their own thing as well. they basically said, do you thing, we're not going to bug

you, we'll have something there in case something blows up. but that is a strategic decision by the administration to not have its fingerprints on it. >> they can get 60 on immigration, can't they? >> i don't know. >> i think so. i think so. >> i'm more bullish on immigration. >> there's a lot of momentum behind immigration. >> i think so, too. what about what sam just said, that the president may have strategically decided it's better to rubio and lindsey graham and the inside guys, chuck schumer is so smart, that they figure out how they get the coalition together. don't put the obama brand on it at this point because it's better -- remember what reagan said? it's amazing how much you get done if you don't care whose name gets on it, who gets credit for it. maybe this one time he'll get credit historically but not out front. >> i think the administration is working with the senate to come up with a bill. you know, he speaks about this publicly. he did spanish language interviews last week. >> he hasn't -- stephanie, stephanie, he hasn't introduced a bill. >> he has a framework that's been out there.

>> is he out front or hoping the senator will do it? >> look, i hope we want a bipartisan bill in the senate so it gets done. however that gets done -- >> you're not answering my question. you think the president should lead on the issue or let the senate? >> i'm not considering he's not leading. i think the fact the president is not doing an event every single day doesn't mean -- >> let's get back to our reporter. it's always good to concede when you're wrong. i think you're going to get immigration reform. not necessarily a really good bill that's going to work, by the way. i went through the whole simpson thing. when you make everybody happy, the farm owners get happy, business guys are happy, the labor unions go along with it. in the end it doesn't work. it's just another phony bill. we don't need more phony bills. >> yes. i think the broader question you're getting at is one of legislative strategy and how the obama administration is doing it in the second term. the first term there was emphasis on the inside game, especially on health care reform. they've realized they can't necessarily push congress around. especially with the 60 vote threshold in the senate. >> last question. do you think rubio is playing this thing straight or playing

it at the last minute to pull out and say i'm the enemy of the immigration bill, therefore becoming the leader of the right and winning the nomination for president? what's his game? >> i don't have any inside track into marco rubio. what i think he's doing -- forgive me for saying this, but slightly responsible. he can't cut a back room deal. if he cuts a back room deal he will get killed. it will mean a whole bunch of people -- get close to a deal. go out there and see if you can sell it to the fringes of your party. that's what i think he's doing right now. >> you think he wants to sell that positively? >> that's a really good question. >> can you win on the republican side being open to legalization from the undocumented? can you win without argument? >> it's interesting because the proponents of reform are really bullish, not when marco rubio got out in front but convinced the sean hannitys of the world, to say, okay. maybe we need a pathway to citizenship. if the sean hannitys of the world continue to say it through this process and don't turn it, i do think marco rubio can make it out alive. >> the sean hannity test. >> marco rubio cuts a deal without talking to them first, he gets killed. >> my brother was in the navy. post world war -- spy in the navy. take it to the guy who's the

least sbejts guy on the ship. say, do you understand this order? if he did, he said, post it. that's the sean hannity rule. thank you, stephanie cutter, sam stein. it's the navy rule. if the simplest guy can understand it. up next, more trouble for the republican party's re-branding effort. this is "hardball." the place for politics. [ heart beating, monitor beeping ] woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this?

[ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen.

ha! back to "hardball." now to the sideshow. first up, jon stewart went after egypt's president mohamed morsi for his government's recent detention of a popular political comedian with his own television show. for stewart the attack hit a little close to home. let's listen. >> is there anything else he may have done here, perhaps concerning the president, himself? >> this show mocked him when he was awarded an honorary degree in pakistan and also took aim at the president's less than fluent english.

>> that was my entire career for eight years. do you have any idea? that's all i did. >> love that first amendment. anyway, next, more trouble for the whole republican party re-branding effort. last month cpac delivered a pr nightmare when a panel that asked conservatives, are you sick and tired of being called a racist and you know you're not one, was interrupted by an audience member who had a rather sympathetic view of the whole slavery thing. there's some more slavery defense out there. this time coming from georgia. april, if you didn't know it, marks that state's official confederate heritage and history month. according to to the daily beast, a press release from the georgia division of the sons of confederate veterans says its goal is to clear up misconceptions about the old south. "so much is portrayed by hollywood today that georgia and the south were evil, when in reality the south was the most peaceful, rural and christian part of america before war and

reconstruction destroyed the pas churl way of life here." a guy named ray mcberry, told the news site the reality of what slavery was really like has been distorted. mr. mcbarry. "the way that the slavery was in the old south is not in keeping with the way it has been portrayed." all i can say is gone with the wind is the most beloved movie ever about the south. it was vastly pro-southern. until "django" came along, they mostly pretty darn nostalgic about the antebellum south. what is causing north korea to be the big noise? one radio host last week explained. gay marriage. >> i don't know if anybody's -- i know they're not, they're just not putting it together. hey, you've got this happening over here and you've got this happening over here. could the two be connected?

could our slide in immorality be what is unleashing this mad man over here in asia to punish us? >> could your words be connected to a brain? why hadn't you thought of that? somehow something this crazy guy, this right winger, dictator over in north korea has something to do with gay marriage here? i didn't see the connection. by the way, if the idea of blaming gays for an international crisis sparks deja vu with you, remember this episode just a few days after the terror attacks of september 11th. this is jerry falwell and pat robertson, pointing their fingers at who they really thought deserved blame. let's watch them. >> i really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the aclu, people for the american way, all of them who tried to secularize america, i point the finger in their face and say, you helped this happen.

>> i totally concur. >> wow, i totally concur. finally, here's a video you've got to see. last night jay leno and jimmy fallon poked fun at all those rumors in the papers about their late night shows. let's take a look. tonight, tonight, who's gonna host tonight is it gonna be jimmy or jay tonight, tonight, where will they tape "tonight"? in new york, will it stay in l.a.? tonight, tonight, my ratings were all right 20 years and i'm still in first place tonight, tonight, who cares who hosts "tonight" we both just want our

life the next day >> i got to go, jay. >> you have a good show, jimmy. >> i will. and jay? >> yeah? >> thanks. >> makes me happy. makes me happy. two great guys. two very funny guys. up next, republicans aren't content with strict new laws against abortion. now they're after sex ed. they're going after sex ed. you're watching "hardball." the place for politics.

welcome back to "hardball." some republican-led state legislators out there have been pretty strict on aborks laws over the past several months. we've been covering that. now they're stepping up. more. gop lawmakers in texas, arkansas, north dakota. think of those states. texas, arkansas, north dakota, trying to restrict access to sex ed. sex education programs, in particularly those associated with planned parenthood. in north dakota republicans trying to block a $1.2 million federal grant that would provide

sex ed counseling services to at risk teens. in arkansas lawmakers are considering a bill that would defund an hiv and std, sexually transmitted disease program, because planned parenthood administers. in texas republicans are proposing a bill that would stop planned parenthood from distributing sex ed materials to students. elizabeth nash tells the "huffington post," "for a couple years we've been dealing with attempts to defund planned parenthood but now we're seeing that potentially expand to these sex education programs that give phines the education they need to prevent pregnancy." lauren ashbush is with the daily download. let me go to you, lauren. i do think women should get the first say on this to put it lightly. what do you think is going on with the old problem when men don't get pregnant, women do? women get pregnant when they want to get pregnant, they get pregnant when they don't want to get pregnant. sometimes when they don't want to get pregnant, they can live with that.

sometimes they get pregnant when they don't want to, they're 15 years old. whatever. they've had 16 kids already. whatever. whatever the situation is, planned parenthood playing the roll of helping them get through that, helping them deal if it does happen or doesn't happen. they're there to make sure they make rational decision. why would any state legislature want to have them bug out at this point? >> because they don't back abortion and planned parenthood advocates abortion. that's why. in this case, in particular, however -- >> what do you mean advocates abortion? >> advocates it, means saying, here's a pamphlet, here's your choice. you can have an abortion. >> is that advocating it? >> it is making the information available. >> that's different. >> i don't know about that. i think if you are saying to someone, here is a choice and here is a choice, you're advocating both positions. >> you think they're handing them out like travel brochures? >> you don't know what they do. have you ever had an abortion? i mean, they come in -- >> i don't think advocating is right. i think helping the person have an opportunity to make decisions is different than advocating. >> okay.

if they're helping to make -- >> i thought they were distributing birth control devices, birth control information. so a young girl who doesn't want to get pregnant won't. isn't that what they do? >> i think we were talking about sex education, right? >> sex education, avoiding getting pregnant. >> sex education is educating teens about, especially in this case, homeless kids, about what they can do and how they should do it. >> is it teaching them how to get pregnant or how not to get pregnant? >> i think it's teaching them how not to get pregnant, chris. >> right. then you're on my page. go ahead. >> absolutely, i think -- >> that's why they call it planned parenthood. >> it's planned parenthood. there's more to this than meets the eye. that's been the rub for a lot of conservatives is what you were just saying. about the advocacy. whether or not there is true advocacy. however you define it. whether or not there is in the process of educating you about contraception, for example, that the abortion piece is a part of that. that's where all of this boils down. look, states can do what they

want to do with respect to planned parent funding, particularly for states funding planned parenthood. where i have a problem in this particular case is the not affording a homeless child, a child who's in the system, the state-run juvenile system, for example, to have access to information that could protect their lives, that could be beneficial to them in some way. you have it in parochial schools, sex education. you have it in public schools. sex education. >> what is planned parenthood denying -- what knowledge do they deny to kids? >> i'm not saying they are denying it. what i'm saying, for hose who are trying to get at planned parenthood through cutting off funding of sex education programs, that that opens up a door that i don't think we really need to open up. there's one thing to say we

don't like your promoting abortion, advocating abortion. but there's something very different to say that we don't want to inform a child who's on the street, living on the street, who doesn't have access to an educational facility -- >> or to parents. >> or to parents or to some structure. >> i want to get back to you, because you're a woman. a girl is 15 or 16 years old, may not have good parents. >> or they're gone. >> she may think you only get pregnant 1 out of 100 times. she may have all kinds of ideas. about how safe it is to have unprotected sex. is it better to have someone come in she can talk with, say, you know, the odds are pretty good at your age of having a baby if you have sex a lot. you're going to get a baby and that's going to happen. >> i'm all about education. >> if you don't want a baby, don't act like you're not going to get one because you're going to get one. isn't that useful? >> i think republicans what they need to do is choose. they need to choose, is abortion more important or contraception more important to them as an issue, right? right now you can't have it both ways in this society. >> thank you. >> they are trying to have it

both ways in this society. i'm not saying that -- i'm not stating a position either way, but i think that you have to understand from a political point of view -- >> and common sense, too. >> -- that you can't. >> as a political party, i think that's a very good division there. as a political party, you have to be able to advocate, you know -- you can be still pro-life, but advocate for responsible behavior, advocate for -- >> if you're pro-life, you would technically be for -- >> yeah. >> i'm wondering -- let's go back to the reboot. is the republican party smart to have this once again heavily visible program on this front. actually being known as the party that doesn't like sex ed? >> no. >> you think that's a healthy position to be in? >> i think all of this coming on the heels of the reboot, again, further exacerbates the problem. >> they didn't get the message. >> it makes people look mean spirited. republicans look mean spirited. you're taking something away from kids who are homeless. sfwl it just seems like the scarlet letter to me. just seems like they're looking for somebody, whoa, look at her, she did it. >> if your problem is with planned parenthood, then make that the central argument. and why you have this issue of planned parenthood.

don't nickel and dime, don't cut and slice two programs that have nothing to do with abortion. >> in other words, they're really against planned parenthood because it's involved with abortion, not because it's involved with sex ed. >> right. >> that's what i'm saying. you really talked about the culture issue. they're losing, you're losing on gay marriage. right? >> he's free at last here, by the way. >> free. that's right. you're out. >> it's all good. >> there is no -- >> you're on the same page. the republican party has to choose between being responsible, avoiding unwanted pregnancies by using birth control in many cases or just ignoring that and just be anti-abortion or something. >> bill clinton said it, right, safe, legal. fair. >> i'm with him. i'm with hillary clinton. she said it, too. safe, legal, rare. thank you, lauren ashburn, a good moderate, i thipg think, conservative. somewhere near the middle. thank you, michael steele. >> we'll never know. up next, why washington could be driving us into a bigger economic crisis than the

one we just endured. former reagan budget director david stockman is coming here. i think he's coming to talk about lots here. this guy's got some radical ideas. this is "hardball." the place for politics. weigh you down? as soon as you feel it, try miralax. it works differently than other laxatives. it draws water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. don't wait to feel great. miralax.

well back and forth they go in virginia. what promises to be the hottest race of 2013. the hardball score board. according to a new mary washington poll, terry mcauliffe with a one-point lead over ken cuccinelli. 38%, 37%. a lot of undecideds in that race. look at that. that could go easily either way.

we'll be right back.

we're back. the great day to stock, ronald reagan's budget director, but today, he has harsh lessons to deliver to democrats and republicans. in his new book, everyone from president roosevelt, to reagan, bush and obama are criticized heavily for helping to wreck the country's economy. stop and sees a rogue central bank. too much wall street influence and two political parties at a standstill. all this is leading to a bigger fis fiscal crisis.

we're going to forget about the armageddon. this show's about the next couple of weeks and months. i got to ask you about this. first of all, i think this whole fis fiscal cliff, this whole thing between the two parties is hopeless. why would a republican member of congress and i don't always think like those guys, why would they want to raise taxes to get the joy of screwing people out of medicare and why should a democrat screw the people who are depending on him to get the rich to pay more taxes? neither one seems to work politically, so why is the president pushing it? >> i don't know. it's not going to happen. it's a problem of our government. >> would you vote for either one, if you're a republican, would you vote to raise taxes and make sure they never voted for you? >> yes, i would, because i think it's necessary in the public interest. the problem is, our government

doesn't work. branches, vetoes, divided. you can't make giant mistakes because they're almost impossible to correct. that was a lesson of 1981 with that over the top tax bill. >> so reagan was wrong. why didn't you tell him that? >> i told him that -- >> try to do things that seem reasonable, weren't adding by the summer of '81. defense got totally out of control, the tax cut, you were a member. you were there. >> i was on the other side. was reagan there the whole time? >> yes. early '80s, he obviously was. he had deep convictions. >> but he didn't suffer frommal -- before he left office. >> we had an easy chance to do something on new year's day. i call it the new year's folly. this year. why didn't we let -- show up in 2000, he gets in there by the supreme court. close next. 50/50. he got it. a coin toss would have been a better idea. he gets in there. we have a surplus thanks to clinton. he throws their way. why? >> because he got bad advice. the republican party was on this idea. >> i think george w. went in there, lower, better than his old man politically. >> he had enormous number of advisers, the tax will stimulate

the economy. greenspan, way too much and we he gets in there. we have a surplus thanks to clinton. he throws their way. why? >> because he got bad advice. the republican party was on this idea. >> i think george w. went in there, lower, better than his old man politically. >> he had enormous number of advisers, the tax will stimulate the economy. greenspan, way too much and we ended up, solved the problem by doing more of the same. >> you're kind of a free market, here's my question, all the movies we've seen, said that we had to do something. hank paulson was a hero. he was a god because he bailed out the big, rich banks, the goldman sachs, big financial institutions. you say we didn't have to do that. sink or swim.

everybody watching this show wants to know why we spent all that federal money to bail out the rich guys. you say we didn't have to do that. sink or swim. everybody watching this show wants to know why we spent all that federal money to bail out the rich guys. >> this meltdown was entirely in the canyons of wall street. the banks that were glorified hedge funds had gone down and there were two more to go, goldman and morgan stanley. they should have let them go down. aig was a company quality and the companies were -- >> so, why did they do it? why did the government get involved? >> morgan was going down, they

grew up in the wall street bubble and couldn't imagine a world without goldman sachs. >> is the republican party yours, is your party run by the rich on wall street? >> look, in both parties -- i asked you a simple question. >> the republican party is run by special interest groups and so is the democratic party. >> thank you. the name of your book is " the great deformation." david stockman. i want to get more out of this guy off the show. when we return, let me finish with how the country needs a leader on gun safety. this is the place for politics. mom, i invited justin over for lunch.

good. no, not good. he's a vegetarian and he's going to be here in 20 minutes! don't stress. we can figure this out. [ male announcer ] get the speed to make a great first impression. call today to get u-verse high speed internet for as little as $14.95 a month for 12 months with a one-year price guarantee. this is delicious. ♪ [ male announcer ] save the day in an instant. at&t. ♪

let me finish with this. i believe this is a presidentially-led country. we elect the president to lead. when he leads, things can happen. when he doesn't, things calm down, stay the way they are. if you think our gun laws are good, don't worry, be happy. be happy things are are calm because they are. nothing is going to change. the way things are headed now, the united states congress which represents the whole american people, is not even going to vote on stronger background checks. something nine out of ten of us agree on. nothing is going to be done. this is a sad response, don't you think? to the horror of newtown because nothing is worse to be ignored. when you live, especially when you die. when johnson left washington in