celebrate. ♪ ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker... ♪ membership rallied millions of us on small business saturday to make shopping small, huge. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. after a week of stories on the electronic information u.s. spy agencies collect fueled bay steady drip of anonymous leaks and now the flood gates are open. the latest comes from the new york times. late last night. a report that detailed and national security agencies capacity to collect and store e-mail, another electric ronnic information on a wholesale basis. using new computing methods that turned the nsa puts it into the virtual landlord of the digital assets of americans and foreigners alike.

the nsa's tools for analyze thing data allows the agency to track people's movements electronically. almost anywhere in the world. this came as the guardian newspaper publish ad top secret map illustrate which country is the nsa collected electronic data from in march of this year. according to the guardian map indicates the nsa collected almost 3 billion pieces of data from u.s. computer networks in that period 97 billion pieces of day tag collected worldwide. the countries from which the most data were collected were iran, pakistan and jordan. the latest reports poll a steady drumbeat of stories earlier in the week and the u.s. had gotten a court order, possibly as a routine occurrence, forcing verizon subsidiary to turn over millions of phone records. the nsa and fbi have been secretly gathering e-mails, video, audio chats, pictures and other data for major internet companies and that the president had ordered a list drawn up of potential targets for cyber attacks by the pentagon. even before last night's new

revelations news of the various spy programs have drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. also support from both sides of the aisle. some voicing concern about the security breached leaks represented and others about both privacy concerns and whether administration officials have been forthright with congress about u.s. surveillance activities. on friday, the president defended the administration's secret intelligence gathering. >> i think it is for to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenien inconvenience. we are going have to make choices as a society. what i can say in evaluating the programs they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible rift

activity. >> in an exclusive interview with nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell yesterday, before these latest stories emerged director of national intelligence james clapper said the nsa asked the justice department for a criminal investigation into the leaks. >> let me say that i and everyone in the intelligence community, also citizens, who also care very deeply about our privacy and civil liberties, i certainly do. let me say that at the outset. i think that a lot of what people are reading and seeing in the media is a lot of hyperbole. >> i want to bring in my guest, ginger gibson. liza, co-director of the libterty and national security program. liza, i will start with you. we played the president there. and he made -- the basic case he is making is these programs do

make a difference. there is a balance here and make a difference on the side of preventing terrorist attacks. do you at least acknowledge the possibility that a program -- any of the programs we learned this week could do that? >> well, i will say we have come a long way from the inaugural address in which he said he rejected the false choice between our safety and our values. and now he's saying that we can't -- have to make a choice. we can't have 100% security and 100% privacy. of course in theory there may be instances where there are tradeoffs. the problem here is that there is a balance that struck in the law and -- stuck in the law and what's happen at least with the phone records of americans, appears to go beyond the balance that was struck in the lot and have very little evidence on the other side it that actually is keeping us safer. >> i guess -- josh, maybe that's part of the problem. we have very little evidence because -- in part i would say because of the secret nature of the programs. right? i mean, we -- it may be there is month evidence out there. even if everything was exposed to the full light of day but seems like we have not been

having a full sort of public debate on this just because of the secret nature of all of this. >> i think that's an unfortunate feature when you have -- necessarily have to have some of these deliberation owes kur in secret. you have intelligence committees in both houses of congress and they -- they deal with matters that can't necessarily get us close publicly. the problem is you have these sort of -- behind the scenes fights where you had for a couple of years senator mark udall and senator ron widen basically hinting they weren't happy with the way that this law was being implemented but were not able to air out in public why they were unhappy bit the nature they thought would outrage the public if it were discovered. when have you these things close decisions, where have you some members of the senate say no, these programs are necessary for our safety and sores say they are an overreach not warranted, the public ought to be able to weigh in on those conversations. we don't have a mechanism for them to do that. >> actually what you mentioned -- ron widen, sort of raise alarms about 24 a while ago and sort of -- maybe -- you know, suggest and coded ways because of he had access to

classified information. we had this clip that made -- rounds this week. with james clapper earlier this, before this all came out at a hearing. >> does the nsa collect any data on hundreds of millions of americans? >> no, sir. >> it does not? >> not wittingly. there are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect but not wittingly. >> that was so interesting to watch this week because now that we sort of know the subtext to that conversation, it makes a lot more sense why he was asking the question that way. as a reporter, covering, you know, washington, capitol hill, is it something you were aware of or colleagues were aware of what ron wyden and what udall

was saying? zblshg he said he did everything being leak classified information, trying to hint this was going on. it was clear, you know, rand paul, a number of people sort of have these concerns and voice these concerns. there was a reason that when this news broke the reporters ran to wyden and rand paul. they made the concerns clear. they couldn't give tuesday details. we didn't know the details of what was going on. it was classified information. they held to that. not to say lawmakers do not leak classified information from time to time but did in this instance. so we found out much the same as everyone else did as they tried to hint that this was a problem without saying what was going on. >> we are joined now by the president and ceo of the national urban league and former mayor of new orleans. >> good morning. >> good morning to you. jump into the middle of the conversation. >> yeah. there is a bigger question here. the question is the fourth amendment. the right to privacy. and the balance against security. and -- the way in this the fourth amendment is being eroded, now, everybody wants to

remain safe. and sthaunt be the debate. it is the breadth and scope of this that really caught my attention and -- i think that this closure -- may not entail what they are doing. it is a public debate and disclosure. new technology gives the nsa these awesome powers, ability to really track every american citizen. this is a big discussion. it is a big debate. and it is about public policy and about the constitution and the right to privacy. and i think that it is beyond simple partisanship. >> well, yeah. it is interesting we say bipartisanship is dead. how bipartisanship was the story this week of the reaction in wash. you were saying that -- there is this aspect of safety about whether this stuff keeps us safe. i think that is part of the debate because every time dash or often, i think, when civil liberties questions get polled, the public's reaction, you know, overwhelmingly is to err on the

side of safety. "the new york times" interviewed a student at harvard and asked her about the revelations of the nsa revelations. she said on one hand i think it is extreme lynn vasive. am i surprised? do i think it is right? no. do i think it is necessary? that's where i'm undecided. i have to keep come back to that. there was a little pushback from the government this week where they -- the story was put out there that the -- sort of -- prospective new york city bombing suspect was caught through this prison program, monitoring of foreign e-mail account activity. there was an al qaeda linked e-mail account that maybe was able to be monitored through prison and a dispute about all the specifics here. that's an example when you talk to members of the you, they think of that maybe first of -- when the questions are raised. hey, the new york city subways were not blown up because of something like this. >> sure. if there was a link to a number of al qaeda or suspected member of al qaeda -- that should be

able to be tracked and allowed for that to be able to be tracked. the key is that there needs to be some link to a suspected terrorist or suspected terrorist plot or suspected criminal activity. where we cross the line is when we start doing this dragnet surveillance as under the telephone records program or under the prison program it appears even though the target is supposed to be foreign intelligence, the program is tolerating a massive amount of what they call incidental collection. >> that's the key point to me. i remember we went through this in the torture debate, reminds me of where it is -- not only is torture morally wrong but torture does not get you any material, any information you would not otherwise have. is that the case here? are you confident -- >> a question -- >> between wouldn't be get anything we aren't getting in this program. >> ongoing monitoring of every united states citizen's telephone accounts, who they

call, when they make the call, how long the call is, is an effective tool. the reason why we can't evaluate that is because of the code of silence. the secrecy that surrounds the actions of the nsa, the secret -- secrecy with which the foreign intelligence surveillance court operates. and that's why it is for to have this debate because we don't know. we have to go on faith. we have to say, we trust what our public officials are saying. that these intrusions have in fact, have yielded been pits. i think that that is where we have to push back. we have to push for greater public disclosure because fisa was reform in the 1970s to the abuses of the nsa with respect to u.s. citizens. >> i want to ask about secrecy and disclosure and ask that to former press secretary robert gibbs who is going to join us after this. it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea

and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. i never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side. and make your business dream a reality. there's a reason no one says "easy like monday morning." sundays are the warrior's day to unplug and recharge. what if this feeling could last all week? with centurylink as your trusted partner, it can. our visionary cloud infrastructure and global broadband network free you to focus on what matters. with custom communications solutions and dedicated support, your business can shine all week long.

gives you the ultimate in fresh breath. so you have the courage to jump in... ♪ or make sparks fly. it's the only toothpaste that combines the freshness of scope with the cleaning power of crest. life opens up when you do.

with the cleaning power of crest. thanks, olivia. thank you. so you can make a payment from your cell to almost anyone's phone or email. (speaking french) so you can express your gratitude... in the moment. chase quickpay. so you can.

want to bring in political analyst and former white house press secretary robert gibbs. thanks for joining us. robert, i guess one thing that i was struck by the president said this week this is a debate that he welcomes having. bit does strike me that he didn't really invite this debate in that this stuff is coming out via leaks. not something the white house put out publicly. we were talking about importance of more disclosure so we have that full debate. is that something -- is that a step you think the administration should be pushing for now? it seems like we are getting one day the guardian reports this and the next day "the washington post" that. next day the guardian. should there be a proactive disclosure at this point from the white house? >> well, i don't know how much the white house and intelligence agencies can get into, deep into the operation of every one of these programs. but i do think that you see yesterday that the director of national intelligence put out a statement and a facts sheet to talk about -- i think the

actions around the prism program, the director of national intelligence did an interview with andrea mitchell from nbc in order to explain some of what is going on and in order as you said to have greater transparency. i think we do have to have this debate. we have to understand, you know, how we are protecting privacy but at the same time, how we are ensuring that people that seek to do us harm from outside of this country, how they are operating. >> i have a question on that. if that's all right. this is liza. leaving aside the question of proactive disclosure, we have heard that the nsa has referred the -- whoever it is who -- leaked this information for prosecution and given -- what's happened in this administration, with other leaks, i think we can expect to see a criminal investigation into whoever it is that leaked this information. do you see any tension between the president welcoming the debate and saying these questions of our security versus our privacy, are questions that

need to be debated in public? and then prosecuting the person who put that information out there so we can talk about it? >> well, two separate things. we have -- look, dating back to the patriot act in late 2001 to the re-authorization of fisa in 2005 and 2008. specific aspects of fisa in 2011 and 2012. we have had some very public and should have public debate about what is possible underneath the foreign intelligence surveillance act. now, there are are classified -- there is classified information in the united states. when i was the white house press secretary there was a safe in my office. right? my office was pretty public. if i had top secret information or even information above top secret, classified segmented position, i couldn't keep that on my desk. i had to put that in my safe. cane take that material home at night to read in my house. we have to have a series of laws

around classified information. around top secret information. you can't just be -- can't be passed out like somebody wrote it on the back of a bar napkin. >> just to follow up. it is true -- in general, you know, find that there are leaks that the government isn't happy about but there are also often leaks that the government is behind, aren't there? >> well, yes. let's understand this. maybe -- i want to be clear. anybody that takes a piece of top secret information as a government officials and gives it to somebody who is not cleared by law to see that information, that's in violation of the law. okay. that's different than, say, leaking that, you know, some economic news is good or, you know, some bill is going to be passed because the white house or somebody convinced somebody to support that bill. there is a difference between getting that -- getting out information that is okay to get out, that is not in violation of some segment of the law.

we have a discussion whether or not information in the government is overly classified. in other words, there aren't some aspects of information that shouldn't be secret. right? so -- for instance, it is clear that director clapper at -- national intelligence has declassified or made unclassified aspects of the program so that he can do interviews and so that they can discuss this publicly. but we also have to have a rule of law in the sense that -- i'm not suggesting prosecuting reporters. okay. i'm not -- i'm not suggesting that somebody at "the washington post" should be prosecuted. but there's somebody in the national security -- agency that took a file or power point and handed it to somebody that is not legally able to look at that information. that is a violation of the law. >> robert, this is mark. the question is bash dawes you are a communications expert and very good one that in a case like -- >> thank you. >> in a case like this, would it be advisable for the nsa and

others to -- from time to time disclose the broad parameters of the programs they are undertaking and to inspire some confidence in the public. i think the pressure to leak is because of all of the lack of transparency around fisa and nsa and the fact that they are agencies unknown to the american people. >> yeah. >> well, i do think, look -- i think that maybe one of the offshoots of what we have seen in the last few days is we ought to have a more robust conversation about this. maybe the president should do a longer speech as he did on the drone policy, about why we have some of the programs. look, i will be honest with you. i watched the end of the last segment. where you guys intimated that there is this -- broad huge surveillance of the american people. i think, quite frankly, a little bit of transparency would likely prove that some of those

statements are not entirely accurate. there is data collection and the data is put over in a certain place, but for anybody to look specifically at some of that data requires a separate trip to the foreign intelligence surveillance court, right, 12 judges appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court under probable cause of terrorist activity. so -- simply taking -- simply having this data from verizon or any other telecommunications company is -- you know, you have to talk another step in order to access and sort of drill down, if you will, on that. i have no doubt that the larger question is some greater transparency, again, though, understanding that we want to get as trance paper as people can be to get comfortable with this, or to have a greater understanding but at the same time, let's not tell everybody

that seeks to do us harm and there are certainly those people. let's not tell them how they get around the programs that we have set up in order to see if they are calling into this country to plan something. >> robert, gist -- i want to ask you to take a step back and answer a broader question because you have been with the president for a number of years you are not officially them anymore. you saw them going from candidate to president to being president. a lot of the talk has been about -- well, would candidate obama necessarily have viewed national security questions the same way that the president obama views them. i wondered, did you observe, you know, was there something about going from candidate to president, something about the information that he was suddenly seeing as -- what kind of -- can you tell us about that transition and how that affected and shaped his thinking? >> well, i definitely think that, you know, look, and i was with him at a time that spanned, quite honestly, you know, the -- public declaration of the bush administration's warrantless

wiretapping in 2005 through the campaign in 2007 and then in 2008, so in june of 2008, the president supports the fisa re-authorization that has some improvements in his opinion to how foreign intelligence surveillance was done. i think that probably one of the big things in that that -- caused a lot of consternation with certain elements of his political supporters were telecommunications immunity for having been part of the program in the past. but i definitely think that -- i think it is -- as he has seen more broadly what happens and -- how these programs are conducted, my sense is that he's gotten more comfortable with the safeguards and protections are in place as as well as the necessity to have these programs

operate to keep us -- keep us safe. i think that he's always believed that there has to be a balance and somebody has to, in his words, watch the watchers. and i think that -- as he has seen these programs up close and he said in -- in that 2008 statement on the fisa re-authorization if he were elected president he would work to make sure that the balance of privacy and security was maintained to his like. >> all right. i want to thank robert gibbs. just like being back in the briefing room for minute. we will pick on some of the points we just discussed after this. hide. my bill's due today and i haven't paid yet. you can pay up 'til midnight online or by phone the day it's due. got a witness to verify that? just you. you called me. ok, that checks out. at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card with payment flexibility.

help the gulf recover, andnt to learn from what happenedg goals: so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world. over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor.

our commitment has never been stronger. i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack.

we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. we were talking to robert gibbs about the philosophical transformation of barack obama from candidate to president on these issues. i wonder, in congress, it struck me this week, this was one time. we have a montage that

illustrates this. this was one time that the predictable party lines didn't really hold up. first of all, here's people sort of supportive of the news this week of what the president has been doing. >> i'm a verizon customer. it doesn't bother me one bit for national security administration to have my phone number. because what they are trying to do is find out what terrorist groups we know about and individuals and who they are calling. >> i think the public wants us to keep this country safe, to prevent terrorist attacks. and the only way we can do it is lewin tell generals. and this is one part of that picture. >> within the last few years, this program was used to stop a program -- excuse me. stop a terrorist attack in the united states. we know that. >> we also have the other side of it, the other strange bedfellows. >> i'm appalled. i'm absolutely opposed to the government sifting and sorting

through millions of innocent people's records. >> that have -- a fisa court give a perpetual court order to get telephone records, not only of foreign calls but also domestic calls. i think goes against what this country is founded upon. >> we have the rand paul-john tester lines. what's happening to the partisanship? why sit breaking down on this? >> you see lindsey graham and dianne feinstein agreeing on something, it is an unusual circumstance. what we saw is a trend on the hill hill this week was intel committee members. largely supportive of the program. so we have feinstein and the chair of the senate intel committee. coming out and saying they were okay with this. and these are the people who are getting briefings everyone else isn't getting. her getting to hear all the details and how the program works. the house ranking member of the intel committee and democrat and his response was that it just needs more oversight from them. that they are going to watch the program closely. and so -- it made strange alliances when you have rand paul and dick durbin agreeing on

something. you know you hit an unusual circumstance. but you know, the -- other reported thing here is they stopped briefing. the white house acknowledged stopped briefing entirety of the congress in 2011. feinste feinstein, chambliss, mike rogers, they have been getting briefings more recently on the programs. we saw representative rogers and the rest of congress being critical. >> the -- question for me is why this needed to be secret. robert gibbs said what i think is correct. you know, you need rule of law. you need a system for protecting classified documents. but you will get more respect for that from the press and public if people really believe that when the government is keeping things secret it is doing so for a good reason. this was than information that we are tracking a specific person or about ongoing plot. it is information about a general practice that it does not seem to me to -- would -- fact it is publicly known is going to interfere with the nsa's ability to continue doing this on an ongoing basis. best reason i can see to keep

this secret is it was going to be embarrassing for the government if it was released. so when you have leaks like this, of top secret information that it is -- seems there was not a great national security risk having released, that's the reason that the director of national intelligence was able to release more classified information by declassifying it in order to defend his position on it. it undermines the rule of law. undermines the respect that people ought to have for classified information because it makes people think the government is declassifying things for no good reason. >> when i see the public reaction, too, i hear the line whenever -- again, civil liberties questions come out in the open, you hear people saying, you know, i don't have anything to hide so it does not bother me. again, i wonder how much -- even if all of the parameters were known. >> that may be a lesson -- education on the constitution and the fourth amendment and the right to privacy and how it has been like -- the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, many for constitutional rights, it is an for constitutional

right. a fourth amendment that go earns this. while today it is e-mail and telephone records, according to "the wall street journal" the data mining includes bank transfers, credit card transactions. travel and telephone records. in effect, the nsa, which is designed to ferret out foreign lets is now building, if you will, if all these reports are correct, a dossier on every american citizen. that's the question, that's the debate, and whether this is even designed, whether it is so overbroad that the abuses outweigh the benefits. >> we need a lesson in history, too. i think. that in the past, actually throughout the modern history of this country, information that was collected by law enforcement originally for valid purposes has unfortunately been abused to harass political and needs to interfere with social justice movements and there was a litany of these kinds of abuses that was revealed by the church committee in the 1907s and

unfortunately there has been some evidence that -- more marinesently of things like that happening. what we are seeing in this country is an unmistakable trend where the government is claiming the right to know more and more about the personal information of law abiding americans. at the same time, it is claiming more and more rights to keep its own information secret. and that's backwards in a democracy. people have a right and a need to know what the government is doing. whereas the activities of law abiding americans should be none of the government's business. >> a group of women teamed up this week to make sure a major senate committee hearing didn't feel like 1991. i will explain after this. at farmers we make you smarter about insurance,

because what you dont know can hurt you. what if you didn't know that it's smart to replace washing-machine hoses every five years? what if you didn't know that you might need extra coverage for more expensive items? and what if you didn't know that teen drivers are four times more likely to get into an accident? 'sup the more you know, the better you can plan for what's ahead. talk to farmers and get smarter about your insurance. ♪ we are farmers bum - pa - dum, bum - bum - bum -bum ♪

♪ je t'adore ♪ c'est aujourd'hui ♪ ♪ et toujours ♪ me amour ♪ how about me? [ male announcer ] here's to a life less routine. ♪ and it's un, deux, trois, quatre ♪ ♪ give me some more of that [ male announcer ] the more connected, athletic, seductive lexus rx. ♪ je t'adore, je t'adore, je t'adore ♪ ♪ ♪ s'il vous plait [ male announcer ] this is the pursuit of perfection. this picture got a lot of attention this week because it looked really bad. it is from a senate armed services committee tuesday.

the subject was sexual assault in the military and leaders called to testify were almost all men. 11 men right there at the table. just one woman. you can also see some of the senators, too, in the foreground. again, just about all men. although you can make out claire mccaskill in the far edges of the picture. yeah. it looked bad. it was bad. ask and, yet, it was also kind of good in a way. not the picture but the hearing itself. >> this isn't about sex. this is about assaultive domination and violence. you lost the trust of the men and women who rely on you. not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape because they merged all of these crimes together. >> i just -- think it would be hard to justify not supporting what seems to be basic common sense. >> see what that picture didn't capture is the full makeup of the senate armed services committee. yeah, the chairman is a guy, but

there's also a growing number of women on the committee. seven of them. more than ever before. that was the real story at this week's hearing. one after another, with precision, with intensity, those women grilled the military leaders and gave voice to the victims of sexual assault. it made me think back to another senate committee hearing and infamous hearing back in the fall of 1991. and clarence thomas hearings. the senate judiciary committee held confirmation hearings. it looked like he was going to pass relatively easily. and then came the affidavit. it was leaked to the press. ameet a hill, law professor that worked for thomas, quietly came forward to say thomas, her boss, had made repeated unwelcomed sexual advances. and just like that, the thomas hearings became the hill-thomas hearings. she was called to testify when she sat in the witness chair.

she faced a panel of 14 senators. 14 male senators. some of them were sympathetic to her claims. but others weren't. >> was there my substance in the flat statement that, quote, miss hill was disappointeded and frustrated that mr. thomas did not show any sexual interest in her? >> no, there is not. >> arlen specter, one of the republican members of the committee, was the most adegrees enough going after hill. but heave not alone. when thomas then appeared to rebut hill's claims, the same senators who had been so skeptical of her, so hostile towards her, rolled over for him. here was a woman making serious accusations of sexual harassment and being judged by a panel full of men. there was not a single female voice on that judiciary committee. outside of the committee, outside of the senate, outside of capitol hill, there was

outrage. mostly among -- particularly among women. that outrage made its way to the ballot box in 1992. >> october 11. >> did you conclude that judge thomas was guilty of sexual harassment? >> did this make you as angry as it made me? it is time we do something about the mess in washington. >> as that ad said that was lynn yeakel. sheehan ran to oppose arlen respecter in 1992. when she started her campaign was going nowhere and was barely registering in the polls. but that ad connected with the outrage women and no shortage much men across pennsylvania were feeling. she won the democratic primary and it was a huge upset. and it mirrored what was happening around the country in 1992. when that year began, there were only two women in the united states senate. barbara mikulski. they didn't even have their own bathroom. there had only been 16 women who had served.

many of them were widows that were pinted to fill out the final days, weeks or months to fill out their husband's term. 1992 became known it is a year of the woman. carol moseley-braun beat a sitting senator, alan dixon in a primary in illinois. patty murray, mom in tennis shoe, won a primary in washington. there were two open democratic nominations in california. they went to dianne feinstein and barbara boxer. in the end, lynn yeakel did not make it against specter but when the election was over there were six women in the senate. few months later when kay bailey hutchinson won a special election in texas there were seven. since then, total of 23 more women have made it to the senate. there are 20 serving there today. it is still not a huge number but it is the most ever. and if you ever wonder why it matters, well, armed services committee hearing this week was a good explanation. dysfunction among house republicans are.

[ male announcer ] moving object detection. ♪ blind spot warning. ♪ lane departure warning. safety, down to an art. the nissan altima with safety shield technologies. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪ nissan. innovation that excites. so i have this front porch. but so, my dady empty. is making me these. i said i'd help. ah, so you're going to need some tools of your own. this battery will power over 50 tools. don't worry, i'll show you. in case i forget to say thank you. let's get together. grab some tools. and bring it in on budget. we did good. great job. now what? more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. this ryobi one+drill and impact driver combo kit, now just 99 bucks.

good thing she's got the citi simplicity card. it doesn't charge late fees or a penalty rate, ever. because she's got other things to stress about. ♪ go to citi.com/simplicity to apply. look the samsung galaxy s4. phones it's like what i've got. look how big the screen is! that is big. and, walmart will give you a $50 gift card when you get the phone. sold! get the latest smart phones on t-mobile's nationwide 4g network, and get a $50 gift card. walmart. it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. i never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.

if there is one thing that unites the republicans in house it is obama bashing. the story of the last few years on capitol hill. even as they feud with themselves republicans are able to find common ground criticizing the president over the irs or benghazi or fast and furious. of course, there is his signature achievement obama care. in fact, republicans voted last month to appeal the affordable care act for the 37th time since 2011. what they don't have, we found out this week, from "the washington post," is any coherent strategy even internally among themselves force how to pass immigration reform ordeal with the debt ceiling. ever since january the post reports when speaker boehner passed the fiscal cliff deal with most of his republicans against it the gop, quote, disintegrated to skwabling factions unable to agree on much less execute, some of the most basic government functions. now this threatens to derail immigration reform. until this week, for example, republican congressman labrador of idaho was a key member of the

house' bipartisan gang of eight. negotiating the compromise in immigration reform. he was talking about the need for bipartisan cooperation. >> my perspective has always been as conservatives we immediate to figure out how to get to, yes. if we believe we have a broken immigration system if we believe that we can fix it, if we believe we can do something about enforcing border security and all of the things we have to do, then we have to figure out what things we are willing to do to get to that, to fix those problems. >> late their same day, labrador pulled out of the gang of eight. he cite ad dispute between republicans and democrats over whether legalized immigrants should have access in health care. he said, quote, like most americans, i believe that health care is first and foremost a personal responsibility. while i will month longer be part of the bipartisan group of eight, house negotiator, i will not abandon my efforts to modernize immigration system by securing boarders and creating a workable guest worker program.

i want on bring in joan walsh. amanda turkel from the huffington post. so we will get to immigration in a minute. i think that -- if -- if everybody out there has not already read this "washington post," i recommend going back and looking at it p it explains and captures what's going within the ranks of the republicans in the house. and one thing he has in there i think is -- i didn't fully realize is that if you remember back in january, when you have the customary vote for new speaker at the start of every new congress and we note republicans have the majority and assume john boehner will win and might a few protest votes or something, according to paul cain's reporting, john boehner came very, very close to not having the votes in that first balance scott got passed by four in the end but could have been a lot worse and he gets an interview, i guess, with steve sutherland, republican congressman from florida, conservative who was elected in 2010 who waysically said he was

ready and which colleagues ready to vote against boehner and he read an old testament package the night before about seoul and david and david's decision to spare sol and he read from this we must spare john boehner. we could have had a situation where john boehner was denied the votes to be the speaker of the house this congress. >> that was my favorite passage in the whole article that told him to spare john boehner. we knew that john boehner, there was a chance he wouldn't be speaker and probably would become speaker but might not and would have been incredibly embarrassing for him even if the vote were very close or if he had to go furpth round. but the fact that they had a come to jesus moment the night before. >> so what's that -- i mean, i look at that -- instance and i say that really -- that's informative for how republicans -- republican leadership is going to function for the next two years because if that threat is dangling over

you as john boehner, republican leader from day one, to one bible passageway from losing my job among my fellow republicans, that will make him -- that will impede what he can do, isn't it. >> yeah. it was raul labrador, one of the people that got the protest votes. it was always kind of unlikely that he was going to hang with that gang of eight because he is so far out on the right and they are looking at each other -- in the right wing of the caucus and saying that we don't need immigration reform. we don't care. we are not going to get latino votes. we look at the polling and the more recent polling shows the latinos -- always been the idea that they are pro-gies us and pro-guns and work. maybe they would be pro-republicans. but they are pro-government spending. young latinos are the most pro-choice segment of the electorate and are less conservative on social issues than we have always believed in. there is a kind of -- what people think is a pragmatism saying would we legalize all these people, our base thats idea.

you will have more and more people walking away. >> josh, it just -- it just strikes me, too, when you look at the boehner standing among fellow republicans, what is -- i know you sort of -- have your -- little more distant from the conservative movement than you used to be. you have been in that world and i wonder -- what do think think of outside the beltway when they think of john boehner? >> what "the washington post" makes clear is why john boehner is still speaker. it is a completely unmanageable group and impossible it is a to lead the caucus together. you try get to 218 and don't have that many more members than that in order to pass things by majority vote. you immediate to get people all the way on the conservative end of the party who agree to pass things that are not drastically unpopular. and so you end up being unable to round up those votes and only way for boehner to govern is by billing these coalitions that involve lots of democrats and minority of his own caucus. really for votes. i think that most of the republicans in congress understand that. even if they don't want to vote

for things like the debt ceiling deal and aren't going to want to vote for immigration deal, had understand the logic these things have to and as thought they would come up with a better political strategy than what boehner has. i think he would be challenged and lose the speakership. so that -- i think that what republicans have to think -- i talk more on people that are d.c. establishment type people who i think share john boehner's exasperation with his own caucus. i don't see a lot of dissatisfaction with him strategically in terms of someone thinks that, you know, you can have -- a better way to be speaker over this caucus. i think that the problem is a divide between the establishment and the grassroots over issues like immigration where i think they have the same logic that was laid out there. >> we will pick it up about the prospect for immigration reform in the house next. oh, he's a fighter alright.

since aflac is helping with his expenses while he can't work, he can focus on his recovery. he doesn't have to worry so much about his mortgage, groceries, or even gas bills. kick! kick... feel it! feel it! feel it! nice work! ♪ you got it! you got it! yes! aflac's gonna help take care of his expenses. and us...we're gonna get him back in fighting shape. ♪ [ male announcer ] see what's happening behind the scenes at ducktherapy.com. to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪

yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.

there's something that steve king is the leading immigration reform in the house, building as a vote on immigration reform. i was on the house floor --

house floor thursday. basically it would have deferred action. last year there was news during campaign about president obama basically -- was not quite an executive order but sort of trying to do part of the dream act luann executive order. he put it the floor and got the vote on thursday to defer action on it and here was the tally when they took that vote. you know, 2212 republicans voted yes. six voted no. just about every democrat voted month. three voted yes. steve king put out a statement as soon as this was over and said bipartisan support for my amendment has been the first test of 113th kng in the house of representatives on i am xwrags. my amendment blocks many of the provision dhas are mirrored in the senate's gang of eight bill and if this position holds no amnesty will reach the president's desk. that's -- that's what immigration reform is up against. steve king is the face of the opposition and -- i don't know if you buy it but he is saying this is a test vote and i have the votes. >> yeah. really looks bad for immigration reform because of the dynamic the interest of the house

republican, individual political interest of the house republican members is opposite to the political interest of the gop as a presidential party. they are veering down the road where -- where -- the -- members of congress are going to be safe but they will -- increasingly have no chance of winning presidential elections. this is one of the weirdnesses that our weirdo political system creates that -- these peculiar incentive. >> and this vote came the same day that john boehner put an editorial or op-ed that latinos, we are there for you and working on immigration reform. again, john banker not really control his talking points that's -- gets back to what we were talking about at the beginning there about, you know, john boehner comes that close to losing his speakership in january and knows it is the steve king's like forces in the congress that are the threat to him and king is basically saying -- linking what the

senate has done on immigration to amnesty. anyway, this involves the -- issue of the put between the senate and house potentially involves obama care and marco rub joe a lot and will get into it in a lot more detail next. you have the potential to do more in business. by earning a degree from capella university, you'll have the knowledge to make an impact in your company and take your career to an even greater place. let's get started at capella.edu.

whoa, wait for me! oh no! my mom just cleaned this place! calm down, squishy, this'll be easy to clean. [ female announcer ] swiffer wetjet pads have the scrubbing power of mr. clean magic eraser. they trap and lock away even monstrous messes to make tough cleaning a breeze. now that's clean. wow. scottie! we won! uh-huh, uh-huh. mom?!! [ female announcer ] swiffer gives cleaning a monstrous new meaning. monsters university, in theaters, in 3d. riding the dog like it's a small horse is frowned upon in this establishment! luckily though, ya know, i conceal this bad boy underneath my blanket just so i can get on e-trade. check my investment portfolio, research stocks... wait, why are you taking... oh, i see...solitary.

just a man and his thoughts. and a smartphone... with an e-trade app. ♪ nobody knows... [ male announcer ] e-trade. investing unleashed. we are talking about how republican in-fighting and john boehner needing to watch his back and how it will affect immigration reform which would sort of seem on track a few weeks a guy and not so much now. we are here with john walsh and josh barrow and amanda turkel. i want to keep on the house for a minimum here because the -- a specific issue we had the steve king bill talking about deferred action on -- with obama and dreamers. another issue raised by raul labrador in statement other conservatives raised involves obama care and immigration

reform. i think there's a dispute here about, you know, if have you this path to citizenship that runs for 10, 15 12, 15 years, ends up being would people who are on this path who are meeting the bench marks along the way be eligible for obama care while thoerp that path. that seems to be a stumbling block emerging here. >> it is even worse than that. it is -- there is a long hour where if you present yourself in an emergency room they have to take care of yourself basically. what this would do -- take that away, you turn up -- would be 15 years into your being a good person, you know, obeying all the rules and they can say sorry, you broke your leg. sorry you got in a car crash. good-bye. >> it seems like -- a situation where we talked about what unites republicans here and only thing you can find is bashing obama and that meets a real policy issue because it lets lash -- new way of bashing obama care and merging it with immigration. >> i think that's right. i think there is a real policy issue underlie thing which is

there is some amount of tension between a much more open borders policy and really robust welfare state. part of the way you keep a welfare state affordable is restrict to it residents of the country. if you -- if you just let anybody come to the united states for -- and start collecting any set of benefits, there would be hundreds of millions of people around the world that would want to do had a. that does not mean we can't have a more open border policy and can't have regime for providing various sets of benefits to people who are here and working and paying taxes. but i do think that some amount of tradeoff here where the more you open the borders, especially low-skill workers and people that will have low incomes when they come here there is a negative fiscal effect. >> talking about people that are already here. isn't this debate about people already here and going to be legalize zpd once they get in the cue to be legalized then they can't use any services, i mean, that seems -- >> that is where what we are talking about. then there is going to be as there was in 1980s after the last amnesty, there will be

further illegal immigrants coming to the united states. for the same reasons they have come in the past. people come here for opportunities and we have to have policies dealing with that. i don't think that this is the right approach. >> not a made-up issue. >> you said there will be further immigrants coming to the country illegally. that gets to the heart of the dispute taking price is the senate side now where you have marco rubio, who is -- marco rubio is the key ambassador in the republican side for immigration reform. sort of has been his role. he sent up signals in the last week he wouldn't vote for the bill as it is currently constituted and john cornyn who is up for re-election in 2014, always has to watch his back on the right in texas, border states. john cornyn now is pushing the amendment that would basically require the wall to be complete with -- you know, will's -- guard and people watching it every mile, there's -- also, that -- guarantee that, i think, 90% of the people who get across it somehow are apprehended. so it looks like border security -- it looks like sort of a -- none of the immigration

reform, none of the path to citizenship would be secured unless boarders were met. they are setting impossible standard for triggering the path to citizenship. >> yes. any republicans for a while have been talking about sort of enforce many only or enforcement first. like you said, think it is an impossible standard that many democrats won't go along with. in the senate i don't see that going forward. the house certainly this is going to be very popular which is why raul labrador pulling out of the gang of eight, people wringing their hands over the that. i was skeptical how far the gang of eight would be going in the house. talked to a house democratic member who said have you looked at the makeup of house? this will not go anywhere. i think that is something popular. you will see it being pushinged by republicans more. >> the issue becomes -- the model of getting legislation passed through the house this year is -- this dysfunctional house, get it through to the senate to the -- big overwhelming numbers. bipartisan in the senate. and then it is the house republicans are isolated and the

pressure is on john boehner to at least bring the bill to the floor and 30 republicans can vote yes. democrats vote yes. we have peace and love in the world. i wonder -- rick, you know, if rubio is not onboard with this, or if this becomes a situation where only maybe five or six republicans in the senate sign off and get it through with 61 votes there, model is -- you think the model is functional? >> completely unfunctional. this is part after huge, much bigger problem than this particular bill. we have a situation where the majority of voters have voted to vote for democratic president and democratic sfwhat and democratic house. in most democracies than the party that was supported by the majority of voters would enact the program. we see what happens and if people didn't like it then they would elect the other party the next i'm. under our system, where -- minorities have we have tow powers, essentially, we don't have majority rule, and so everybody gets frustrated.

the system works just barely enough to kind of keep the country surviving but not to make any kind of coherent policy, not to give anybody's ideas as a fair shake. that's how it works. >> the question i -- i read about that this week. what do democrats do in this situation? you know, chuck schumer was coming out and john mccain, too. we need 07 votes and want 70 votes. they are not going get 70 votes. will they get close to 07 votes in the senate? i don't know. the question becomes how bad does the bill have to get to even get 64, 65, 66 votes? a sizable republicans votes. do democrats go along? do they say, okay, we will -- you know, it is not a 15-year path to citizenship. it is a 20. yes, to all of these border control triggers. and agree on a vote for a terrible bill. send it to the house wait gets more terrible and then nancy pelosi is in the position of having a basically to be speaker and pass this terrible immigration reform bill. is that worth it for democrats to do that? how many people will be help -- will will be a cost benefit

tradeoff but how many people will it be -- will be helped by the bill? >> what is the mood mood of democrats? >> i think that you -- you -- may see differences in the house democrats and senate democrats. mine, i think in the senate there is a lot more optimism and will be considering the bill they have a comprehensive bill. in the house what a republicanps want to do is break up the bill and consider each part individually. that's what you have the house judiciary committee chairman wanting to do. i don't think that you would see many democrats want go along with that. house democrats are pretty pessimistic. they know their colleagues and know they don't want to go along with this. it really is depending on the senate to pass something and hopefully they can get enough democrats and few republicans to go along. >> we actually have -- this was bob goodland of this week, judiciary committee republican in the house talking about the idea of hey, if the senate gets its act together and passes something, why doesn't the house just take what that is and abon it and vote on it, this is what he had to say. >> i think it is very clear that the house will not take the

senate bill. there is an effort on the part of those senators to improve the senate bill as it moves to the floor. but it has a long way to go from the house perspective. >> if we get into a situation here where the housing system is working its own way on this, breaking it up and having different -- just -- you know, sort of slow walks in, i wonder at what point are there forces in the republican party, i'm thinking of business specifically, that -- you know, have the power to weigh in and change that and would they be able to use it? >> i think quite possibly. upside of the house breaking the bill up into pieces is if any of them passed and some will be about consensus matters, you will able to pass with wide margins and can send something to conference with the senate bill and get it back to the house. i think that -- i'm still op optimistic of passing an immigration reform bill. the rufl congress is they don't do anything they don't have to do. they have to do a debt ceiling deal and had to do a fiscal cliff deal. they feel like they have though do an immigration deal and you see that in elites in both parties that -- business interests and basically the

whole washington establishment of the republican party really wants them to do an immigration deal. norquist is one of the people that is aggressively pushing for immigration deal to get done on the right. i think that not only does that -- is it a high priority for republican establishment figures, it is also -- that's going to give cover to the individual republican members who vote for the bill. they are going to have institutional support behind them for having done this. i think that it is likely to pass in the same way things like the fiscal cliff deal pass where they will a mine sort of republican support in the house together with democrats. the bill will not be as aggressive as democrats want. i don't think there will be a poison pill like the border security triggers that can never be triggered that john cornyn wants. i still think it is likely it will pass just because the right people in washington really want it to get done. >> i guess the followup question is -- if you are optimistic bears out and it is passed, we started this whole discussion with john boehner getting fiscal cliff done and the same way you are strig and coming a bible verse away from losing the

speakership. if john boehner puts this on the house floor even if republicans want this thing to pass, do you think behind that, that republican universe in the house, jeopardizes john boehner? >> i suppose it could. isn't -- isn't there a threat that the republicans will say they -- will order him not to bring it to the floor and unless a majority of the caucus supports him? >> is there -- >> movement to change the rules of the conference? is that right? where this -- this -- informal idea of the majority of the -- majority would become the formal rule, you have to have a majority support of the majority to invade it. >> where does that stand? anybody know? >> i mean, people have been talking about it for a while. i think a lot of republican was like to but -- john baron does want to. >> whatever power he has. >> i don't see it happening. a lot members of the republican caucus -- are actually grateful for this dynamic, for things that need to pass, pass without them to vote for them. if you had the hastert rule they would not be able to do that. it is what helped them avoid various political distiers and

didn't actually want to run past the debt ceiling. this was the way they were able to do that while -- without having to admit to the conservative base that they were complicit in allowing the debt ceiling to be raised. i don't think that boehner is vulnerable because i don't see who can replace him and what alternative strategy you would use. up can't beat something with nothing. and nobody has a better idea about how to lead this republican party. >> i tell you, i have had an increasingly hard time in sort of the tea party era separating who the real sort of true believer, you know, tea party republicans and who the ones are faking it are. i wondered where that line exactly. >> we used to talk about maybe eric cantor is a threat. eric cantor has everybody mad at him. he wanted to do nice sounding empty -- toothless pieces of legislation like help sick americans or whatever. they all had silly names. he was not allowed to do and put his health boil the floor and tried to. they made him take it back and wound up presiding over the -- >> they got so upset they repealed obama care. >> what -- he has weakened

himself by participate with boehner. i don't think there is anybody obvious or not obvious that could replace boehner at this point. i think the real issue goes back to what rick said. we have this completely paralyzed government and these people who are paralyzing it, they have come to realize that this is their power. they don't need to be a national party anymore. they don't need to win the white house 247. they would like to but in the meantime they can -- everything barack obama and the democrats want do and they tell -- for their constituencies, red constituencies, that's doing that your job. it is not -- it is not obstruction. it is blocking what the socialists usurper in the white house dwoonts. they are fine with it it is only going to get worse. mid terms coming up where the democratic electorate tends to stay home and hope that is not true. you know, there's -- lots of reasons for pessimism about 2014. >> well, on that bright note, i want to thank you.

>> i will never be asked back. >> none of us take a pastry for the road. lucrative democratic party tradition honors a man who one writer has called the most systematic violator of human rights for non-white americans. [ female announcer ] the best thing about this bar

it's not a candy bar. 130 calories 7 grams of protein the new fiber one caramel nut protein bar.

the practice democratic party is holding the big annual fund-raising dinner next saturday night. i took a look at the press release for and it something does not quite seem right. it is not the venue. westin diplomat hotel and convention center in hollywood florida, drove by it on my way do my cousin's wedding a few month ace go. also not the lineup of speakers.

debbie wassermann schultz will be there the chair of the dnc and congresswoman from florida. so will senator ben -- bill nelson. pass julio castro who wowed democrats in charlotte last summer. impressive roster. it does not quite feel right is the name of the event. the jefferson jackson dinner. if you poll politics, democratic politics, you know what a j.j. dinner is. every spring state parties across the country host them and ambitious democratic politicians angled to speak at them. just last night, massachusetts governor deval patrick was there to speak at that dinner. joe biden did one in south carolina last month. another in michigan the month before that. we learned yesterday he schedule s scheduled for virginia's dinner. these i didn'ters are a tradition that goes back well over six decades. in a way their name makes sense. it was thomas jefferson who organized the democratic republican party at the end of the 18th century. quickly became the main

opposition to alexander hamilton in the federalist party and drove the federalists into oblivion and became america's dominant political party. then in 1824 a split. a band of democratic republicans who were philosophically lined with jefferson became the democratic party. nominated andrew jackson for president. only to watch him lose when the election was thrown to the house of representatives. but four years later he tried again and he won. you had andrew jackson, your first democratic president. so, yeah, in a historical sense there is an obvious logic to state democratic parties holding jefferson jackson dinners. the there are also problems. especially when it comes to jackson. as president he passed one most cruel and least humane laws in the american history. it was called the indian removal act of 1830 and it did just what its title said. tens of thousands of native americans living in the southeast were uprooted. point of a bayonet. marched hundreds of miles to what's now oklahoma. thousands die order their way and many more weakened by the

journey and died soon after reaching their destination. history remembers this as the trail of tears. some just call eight death march. jackson claimed the policy was voluntary but not quite how it played out. nor was he just adhering to the norms of his time. it is not as if the whole country was clamoring for forced indian removal in the 1830s. the law was passed over strenuous outrage on to opposition. steve yoda wrote at salon one petition against the indian removal act collected so many signatures, that it stretched 47 yards long. there were also jackson's overall politics. he hated banks and hated factory owners and hated big business. he hated anything he thought was run by elites. his fear of government debt verged on impossible. the panic of 1837 and years of recession. jackson's pop list many was aimed at whites who shared his contempt for elites. in way he was the original tea party hero. but it is democrats today across

the country who honor him and his legacy every spring. just as they honor jefferson whose own views on slavery are being argued and participation in slavery is still being argued. just like jackson jefferson is an odd philosophical fit for today's democratic party, champion of states rights with little interest in a robust federal government. it all serves toil straight how radically the democratic party evolved. look at this map. a map from 2008. barack obama was first elected. it compares that year's vote to the previous presidential election in 2004. when john kerry lost. not surprisingly just about every pocket of the country got bluer. bluer from kerry to obama. look where it didn't. see the red swath there, swath of you could call it great eer appalachia. voters that are descendants in many cases of the voters that rallied around andrew jackson. vote rs were once die-hard

democrats and today they may be gone for the party for good. historical legacies of andrew jackson and especially thomas jefferson are complicated. each was crucial to the formation of the democratic party. each lived in a different time, each led in a very different time. the story of today's democratic party is the story of what has been called the coalition of the asent de acendant. should this democratic party still be holding jefferson-jackson dinners? we will talk about it next.

discover card. how can i help you? oh, you're real? you know i'm real! at discover, we're always here to talk. good, 'cause i don't have time for machines. some companies just don't appreciate the power of conversation! you know, i like you! i like you too! at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card and talk to a real person. but with advair, i'm breathing better. so now i can help make this a great block party. ♪ [ male announcer ] advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help improve your lung function all day.

advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. [ male announcer ] advair diskus fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder. get your first prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com. [ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat more dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better.

♪ can help you do what you do... (girl) w(guy) dive shop.y? (girl) diving lessons. (guy) we should totally do that. (girl ) yeah, right. (guy) i wannna catch a falcon! (girl) we should do that. (guy) i caught a falcon. (guy) you could eat a bug. let's do that. (guy) you know you're eating a bug. (girl) because of the legs. (guy vo) we got a subaru to take us new places. (girl) yeah, it's a hot spring. (guy) we should do that. (guy vo) it did. (man) how's that feel? (guy) fine. (girl) we shouldn't have done that. (guy) no. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. > it is time for democrats to ditch andrew jackson. mary katherine nation i will, playwright and attorney, citizen of the cherokee nation. ricky cole, chairman of the mississippi democratic party. back at the table is mark

mariel, former mayor of neengz. so i guess that actually it occurred before we dive into this, we talk about the jefferson-jackson dinners as a staple of democratic party, great democratic party are. mark, have you attended jefferson-jackson dinners? >> oh, yeah. the day dinner and event in louisiana was a staple of the louisiana democratic party. that probably -- i probably attended several in other states. mainly, i would say in the late '80s and early '90s. >> and -- chairman of the mississippi democratic party, you guys have a jefferson-jackson dinner but add ad name to it as well. >> yes. when i was chairman before in 2002, we changed the name to the jefferson-jackson dinner in recognition of the founding mother of the democratic coalition of mississippi. led the protest in '64 at the national convention. >> have you gone to jefferson-jackson dinners before? >> i have not been to one and

talked to people who organized them. >> i have never been to one. >> neither have i. i'm curious. so -- i wonder, i will start with you, i talked about andrew jackson's legacy on the indian removal act in 18 -- 1830s. it is interesting about sort of his ledge in history because i think that -- that facet of this presidency didn't get as much critical attention in the first, you know, 100, 125 years after he left office that it has gotten in the last generation or two. i wonder, give me your background when you look at someone like andrew jackson and think of him, what do you think about? >> what's interesting you asked that question because for a -- the -- very first few years of my life, andrew jackson was not a president. he was someone i learned about from my grandmother. it was her stories about what my grandfathers did, my grandfathers were john ridge took and took a case to the supreme court in 1832. as a result of those tefrts

supreme court, justice john marshall said the cherokee nation is a soench nation and the state of georgia has to respect the boundaries. my grandmother told me that was a very for story in our family. and so from a very young age i heard that story but i also heard that as soon as the supreme court respected our right to live on our sovereign lands, the president of the united states -- he never used the word president. she just said a man named andrew jackson said that he would not follow the supreme court's decision. and -- you know, you go to school and kind of start to put two and two together, and -- you hear in school a lot of wonderful things about the president. he saved our nation in new orleans and the battle of new orleans and these different things he is remembered for. his movement to ban the requirement of landownership to vote. wonderful things. and at some point -- cane remember when it clicked for me, these are the same people. the man my grandmother talks about and the person everyone else is praising is the same

person. that was a revelation. >> when you hear that, you know, the -- being part of the party that honors andrew jackson in its -- big, you know, dinner every we are, what is your reaction to hearing a story like had a? >> well, the reason we still have jefferson-jackson dinners around the country is probably the same reason thomas jefferson is on the nickel and andrew jackson is on the $20 bills. inertia tradition. heritage being played out with an anglo-saxon bias if you will. i think that it is time for dem droots re-evaluate using these two names and at least -- in the way we did in mississippi, perhaps not you a ban donning the name entirely. but adding a new chapter to history. up can't erase history or study and learn from the mistakes of history. i think that by adding to history in mississippi we pointed out to -- our state to a lot of young generations about -- a lot of people never

heard of miss hamer. i this that adding new chapters as we move along we have would figures from the 19th century and add ad figure from the 20th century. i hope to live long enough to see it add somebody from the 21st. >> mark, what do you make of it? go -- did you ever have any reservations about wow, i don't want to be at a dinner with -- >> these were two -- presidents, very for in the 1800s. but it did have a sense of stale must. that -- a 21st century effort really ought to be talking about elevating, showcasing, if you will, 21st century 20,th century, figures. have you great presidents like franklin roosevelt and -- john kennedy and lyndon johnson whose words -- because of the -- availability of video and are much contemporary figures and give people an opportunity to -- relate to the values that the

democratic party espoused in the 21st century context. i like -- the addition of fannie lou hamer, what they have done in mississippi and it is for to recognize, not to evaluate in -- figures from the 1800s in the 21st sentry context but to recognize that if you are going to evolve, as you say, add new chapters, think of new personalities, new presidents, who in fact, have had a more dramatic impact on the lives of people today than even for figures, historic and legendary figures in the 1800s. >> you get the issue of not evaluating from 18th or 19th century based on the standards we have. that's a constant sort of issue in history and how history is written. i think it is a particularly complicated question when it comes to andrew jackson and -- steve wrote this. we will get to that right after this. you think about risk. i don't like the ups and downs of the market,

but i can't just sit on my cash. i want to be prepared for the long haul. ishares minimum volatility etfs. investments designed for a smoother ride. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.

thank you, missouri democrats. it is my great honor to be with you. >> as massachusetts governor deval patrick -- rising national star in the democratic party and in missouri last might. jefferson-jackson dinner in missouri. an example of this -- that's the sort of event that draws a rising national star. state dinners around the country. talking before the break how to evaluate historical figures from 200 years ago today. when you get to andrew jackson, you wrote about this a little bit, the -- tendency may be to say during his time the attitudes towards non-white groups, attitudes towards native americans were very different. but actually in the -- referenced this. allude to this in the read i did. the debate was fierce over the indian removal act and have a quote. to the obligations to justice change with the color of the

skin. sit one of the prerogatives of the while man may he disregard the dictates of the moral principle. s when an indian shall be concerned? no. the moral questions we think about right now and grapple with right now, they were not -- they got a hearing in the 1830s. andrew jackson heard the moral objections we expressed now and still went ahead and did this. >> that's right. and -- you know, it -- i'm certainly sympathetic to the argument that we cannot judge the historical figures by our own light. i think -- respectable historians. all would say that. however, as you mentioned in your intro, he faced tremendous, ferocious opposition during the 1830s. 85% offing with votes the party cast during the 1830s were -- cast in opposition of indian removal. there was a congressional investigation -- we can get -- go back and look at some of the activities in florida that looked at general -- what general jackson did in his florida campaign when he was general of the southern

department of the u.s. and wiped out many indigenous communities. so -- you know, and -- there was a citizens campaign, too. petition from new york city, 47 yards long. and missionaries, spending time in indian lands and -- trying desperately to -- petition the white house to change the policy. >> i guess the key -- the case that gets made in andrew jackson's defense would be -- the thing i cited he adopted native american child. this is -- he had a personal connection to native americans that way. also, that -- if you looked at the rhetoric of other political leaders of the time like henry clay, basically made a statement that the -- world would be fine if -- if the indians just went away if they just disappeared. the case in sort of -- i guess the best case i have for andrew jackson is the policy had

horrible consequences but intent behind it was let's give native americans practical protection in oklahoma and let's get -- better than having them under sort of state control and in -- in georgia, does -- does that register with you? >> certainly there is -- some of the reasons that are proffered today but i think if you look at what was happening at that time it is clear what the motivation was. in 1827 the cherokee nation pass ad constitution. formed a government just like the federal government here. they had courts. they hadding a legislative branch, executive branch and had a printing press. they had a written language. in fact, at the time of the removal of the cherokee nation, more cherokees were literate than whites living in georgia. in 1827, would years later, in 1829, they discovered gold on cherokee lands. and you also had the expansion of the cotton industry. these were economic motivations. you know the morals took a back seat to what was seen as a way to make money in the state of georgia wanted those lands because they had gold and --

>> that became -- with the native american population cleared out that became the -- slave trade would have -- expanded dramatically. you had cotton. >> right. so -- you know, i think -- you know, president jackson was careful to always term it in these words. he would use, he would say this is going to be better for our native brothers and sisters. we are going -- if we move them to indian territory, what's now oklahoma, they will be better protected. this is for their benefit. it was never, ever for their benefit. it was to expand the cotton industry and to try to take more land for that and more, you know, white farmers. >> i think the bigger question for today is -- which presidents -- which leaders wants to showcase in the 21st century and against the backdrop of the history if you are trying to appeal to an increasingly diverse america, then these sorts of factors, this reconsideration of jackson is indeed relevant. jackson did a lot of for things. but you wonder whether a group of historians today would

consider him one of the ten best president in the united states. whether in the 21st century it is more for to showcase a franklin roosevelt. a john kennedy, lyndon johnson. who really, really -- did things that really affect the contemporary life of 121st century americans. >> does he -- i guess the -- the -- case for what andrew jackson corks should, or does in some way meet the democratic parties, we hear the stories of the last couple of decades sort of -- working class white voters, rural white voters, and -- in that area appalachian area in the south and states like west virginia, kentucky, are used to be democrats and sort of fleeing the democratic party. lot of way these are -- these are literally and culturally the heirs of the jack seasonians. is will still a hope in the dem contractic party we can win these voters back and this is sort of a -- this is a symbol of that effort? or -- >> what does andrew jackson mean to today's democratic party n.

>> probably about 200 years too late to hire a publicist for an crew jackson. accide accident yo pho-- i'm not sure bears a great deal of relevance to politics of his day bear relevance to the politics of today. i think it is a bit of a stretch to draw too many comparison. >> i think that they are relevant in a way i got -- opening, pick it up after this break, i think it is this -- the parties have sorted themselves out in the last few decades, geographically, culturally. part of that has been -- as i said, the heirs of the descendants of the jack seasonians leaving the democratic party. after the 2000 election they were panicking they lost west virginia, kentucky, missouri. they lost the jack seasonians. i want to talk about the -- in that sense, the -- future of the post jack seasonian democratic

party after this. [ male announcer ] everyone has the ability to do something amazing. ♪ some just do it, on a more regular basis. ♪ ♪ in dealerships everywhere. in theaters, june 14th. humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call...

and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

to support strong bones. and the brand most recommended by... my doctor. my gynecologist. my pharmacist. citracal. citracal. [ female announcer ] you trust your doctor. doctors trust citracal.

we have been talking about differences between the old coalition, you you can go back over a century and the new democratic coalition. i think that we had a -- real dramatic illustration of those -- that -- those differences. in the primaries last year, the -- barack obama ran unopposed and won democratic nomination. actually, in that pocket of the country, greater appalachia area, we highlighted earlier, obama actually did worse in 2008 than john kerry did in 2004. barack obama had -- random people that got on the ballot in democratic parties. this is west virginia. west virginia used to be a deep blue state. voted for walter mondale in 1984. democratic primary in west virginia last year. keith judd -- if you don't know keith judd's story a federal inmate in texas. he was -- he is in prison for making threats to the university of new mexico. somehow he got his name on the ballot and against the president of the united states, got 41% of

the vote in west virginia and won counties in west virginia last year. this happened in arkansas. guy named john wolf, lawyer from tennessee got on the balance scott 40% of the vote against barack obama in the primaries. kentucky, uncommitted last year, took 42% of the vote. and so i -- when i raise the jefferson-jackson issue, i'm also talking about sort of -- rural white, low-income voters who used to be such a staple of the democratic coalition in states like that, states like that used to vote democratic and raises the question -- you know, has this new democratic coalition replaced the voters and are they gone from the party for good? >> for a long time had you a democrat -- jacksonian democrats were prior to african-americans and women having the right to vote. it is for to understand, that's an for context the electorate has expanded and changed. my perspective is -- that the rise of social issues has altered the -- thinking and the

political leanings of a lot of what -- one of my -- one my call white rural voters whose economic interests in many respects is more naturally and logically aligned with the policies of the democratic party than the republican party. if you look at the economic profile of many of the voters i think you dash however are going to see a continuing emergence and i think that -- in places like mississippi, my friend to my right has really, really worked hard to try to appeal to bring hose voters back into the democratic fold. but it is not difficult -- >> but it is such a -- i look at the statistics from mississippi. i believe i saw the exit poll from last fall. i believe that among white voters it was like 90-10 for romney. the disparity of racial voting in the deep south especially. >> alabama, mississippi, georgia, south carolina, and to some extent texas. yes the dar country, there is a regional divide. i think race is indeed a factor

somewhere in that mixture and it is hard to put your finger on it. it is very different. barack obama carried a majority of the white, black, latino, native american vote in approximately a dozen states. he won a majority of all and in doing so, he did better than some prior democratic nominees. >> it seems like -- it is a regional pattern. that's what -- the south, deep south, sort of appalachia, that's -- that's what i'm seeing. when i look at the maps, steve, that's -- i just think that -- the jacksonians. >> you know, the -- the question there is -- i mean, if you are trying to attract back white voters that you are talking about, the -- party having lost, you know, when we talk about the -- something like the jefferson-jackson day dinners. if you -- i don't think as ricky mentions, i don't think to the average white voter andrew jackson matters much or means much so that dropping him, i don't think loses much.

for the party. whereas, dropping him, i think, you know, especially given that -- we just went through an election with, you know, where -- barack obama -- president relied on to some degree on a minority support to retain his seat, dropping andrew jackson makes a lot of sense. given that reality because, you know, his legacy i think does -- people associate him with the trail of tears. so i think that -- that -- you gain more by dropping him, i think, among minority voters than do you by -- than you lose with white voters. >> we can work on currency after that, i guess. that's another show and another day. what should we know looking forward? my answers are after this. i said i'd help. ah, so you're going to need some tools of your own. this battery will power over 50 tools. don't worry, i'll show you. in case i forget to say thank you. let's get together.

grab some tools. and bring it in on budget. we did good. great job. now what? more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. this ryobi one+drill and impact driver combo kit, now just 99 bucks. how old is the oldest person you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed much is the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪ [ dog ] we found it together.upbeat ]. on a walk, walk, walk. love to walk. yeah, we found that wonderful thing. and you smiled. and threw it. and i decided i would never, ever leave it anywhere.

because that wonderful, bouncy, roll-around thing... had made you play. and that... had made you smile. [ announcer ] beneful. play. it's good for you.

. so what should we know looking forward? well, we should know to give a warm welcome to the 51st state, north colorado. that is, if a group of weld

county commissioners get their way. the denver post says they're floating proposals to secede from colorado after "the governor and his democrat colleagues in the state have -- cory gardner put it. the governor's office told the post, "background checks on gun sales increasing renewable energy and supporting responsible development of oil and gas are popular with rural and urban voters. not everyone agrees, of course. but we keep trying." . the state of colorado would be the nation's smallest state by far as well as the most hilarious. frank newport, the president of gallup announced that they're fixing the problems that led them to a pre election poll that gave mitt romney 48% and barack obama -- dropping unlisted land lines from phone surveys and undersurveying black and latino voters. even if polls were perfect, they would tell us little about what's possible in the future.

even after the fixes are made, no poll will be perfect. but they're still fun to look at. mitt romney is not mad at chris christie for praising president obama's handling of sandy days before the election. friday, he told neil cavuto it wasn't christy's fault the storm came ashore at a bad time for his campaign. >> the hurricane didn't come at the right time. one of the advantages of incumbency is that when there is an event like that, you get to see the president in a fatherly role and showing people -- gives a little boost to the president's effort. >> romney didn't say when a good time would have been for the deadly hurricane to strike. finally, a mass will be held this morning for martin richard, the youngest victim in the boston marathon bombing. he would have turned nine years old today. both his parents were injured. his 7-year-old sister lost a

leg. after 39 days and 12 surgeries, she was released from the hospital on may 23rd. in a statement that day, the family said while we remain devastated over martin's death and all that's happened, jane's determination is an inspiring strength for the family. if you want more information, visit richard family boston.tumblr.com. want to find out what my guests have going forward. >> this week, we may see a decision by the supreme court on title v of the civil rights act. if, as expected, the supreme court gets rid of title 5, we're going to see increasingly gerrymandered districts, diluting minorities. fewer polling places for minority voters perhaps. new rules and more voter i.d. laws and that's going to -- there's going to be nothing to

stop if indeed they -- nothing to stop this in the states that are under title 5 review now. >> mary? >> president jackson may have succeeded in taking our lands but not our sovereignty. this last march president obama signed into reauthorization the violence against women act, which if you read the bill, it recognizes the inhernts sovereignty of all indian nations to prosecute any individual no matter the race if they come on to indian land and commit violence and abuse. to celebrate, we're doing the reading of a play on june 11th in albuquerque, new mexico. featuring many of the women survivors who shared their stories. including a woman invited to the white house to introduce joe bidden at the signing ceremony. go to the website to find out more. mississippi governor phil

bryant renewed his claim to the title of being the goofiest governor in america earlier this week when he claimed that education in this country began to decline when mothers left the home and went into the workplace. never mind the fact that for 200 years most mothers in mississippi have had to work pretty hard to make a living and in the poorest state in the union, there's still a lot more women who have calluses from hard work on their hands than manicured fingernails. marc? >> we're looking at two decisions of the supreme court which could reverse the hands of time. one is the shelby case which involves section 5, the pre-clarence provision of the voting act and a recent challenge and the fisher case, which involves affirmative action and diversity in higher education. both of these cases are critical cases and will give us a sense of whether this supreme court wants to continue progress or reverse the hands of time. all right. i want to thank steven yoelder,

playwright and attorney, mary katherine nagle. president and ceo of the national urban like marc memorial. thank you for joining us. we'll be back next weekend saturday and sunday at 8:00 eastern time. o up next is melissa harris-perry. connecticut won't release images from the sandy hook elementary school shooting. are they need today motivate political will for change? that's melissa harris-perry. she's up next. we'll see you next week here on up. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪

it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. i never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.

i'm on expert on softball. and tea parties. i'll have more awkward conversations than i'm equipped for, because i'm raising two girls on my own. i'll worry about the economy more than a few times before they're grown. but it's for them, so i've found a way. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. ready to plan for your future? we'll help you get there. help the gulf recover, andnt to learn from what happenedg goals: so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned,

so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world. over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger. this morning, my question -- how much do you really know about drugs? plus, how republicans are stomping on dreams. and black folks on the big screen and behind the cameras. but first, the power of a picture. weighed against the priority of privacy.