two most memorable phrases being 9-9-9 and oops. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "the ed show" with ed schultz starts right now. good evening, americans. welcome to "the ed show" tonight from new york. mayor michael bloomberg's sneak attack on occupy wall street has the 99% on fire. the new york city mayor tried to the new york city mayor tried to block the media from covering the raid, but bloomberg failed. "the ed show" had a producer on scene and you will see her exclusive video right here. this is "the ed show." let's get to work. first oakland. then portland. st. louis. denver. and now new york. >> the final decision to act was mine, and mine alone. >> breaking news on what may be a coordinated national effort to shut down the 99% movement. tonight, laura flanders on the latest from zuccotti park and

van jones on where the 99% movement goes from here. it's the interview everyone is talking about. >> are you denying that you had any inappropriate sexual contact with any of these underage boys? >> yes, i am. >> tonight, a victim's advocate responds to former penn state coaches jerry sandusky and mike mcqueary. newt gingrich is leading nationally and in a four-way tie in iowa. we'll see if hannity can drag him over the finish line. >> and you gave advice to freddie mac and they did not take it? >> that's correct. and herman cain explains his oops moment, with a three-word response. we'll bring it to you. good to have you with us tonight, folks. occupy wall street protesters have returned to lower manhattan this evening. it's been an eventful 24 hours. an early morning raid on the encampment flushed the occupiers out of zuccotti park and the

crackdown may have been part of a national effort. the unexpected raid was accompanied by a media blackout. nobody allowed in. hundreds of uniformed police in riot gear physically removed the occupants of zuccotti park and stopped reporters from getting close to the scene. news helicopters normally flying over the city were prevented from flying in the airspace above the park. this is one of the few shots showing the evacuation as it happened last night. protesters documented the events on their cell phone cameras. several members of the media were arrested. a member of the city council was injured and arrested when he arrived at the scene. now, this morning a manhattan supreme court judge signed a temporary order to allow protesters to return to the park with their tents. the decision then overruled by another supreme court judge saying the city has the right to keep protesters from camping out in the park.

this evening, police sources confirm protesters will be allowed 24/7 access to the park. they can't camp out and they can't bring in equipment, but they are there at this hour. elected officials and labor leaders quickly got behind the 99% on the crackdown. congressman jerry nadler of new york who represents the neighborhood released this statement saying, "the city's actions to shut down occupy wall street last night raise a number of serious civil liberties questions that must be answered." and there's more from labor. afl-cio president richard trumka said "labor organizations stand in solidarity with the protesters. he said the raid was orchestrated by politicians acting on behalf of the 1%. the occupy wall street movement has been committed to peaceful nonviolent action from its inception and it will keep spreading no matter what elected officials tell police to do." that is a big statement. the elected official in question in this city is mayor michael bloomberg who said the raid was

his decision and his decision alone. >> some have argued to allow the protesters to stay in the park indefinitely. others had suggested that we just wait for winter and hope the cold weather drove the protesters away. but inaction was not an option. we could not wait for someone in the park to get killed or to injure another first responder before acting. >> when bloomberg was asked what specific lawless acts prompted the evacuation, he couldn't come up with any. >> there have been a number of everyday small either accusations, which are hard to prove when the police can't even get there to see what's really going on. >> small accusations that are hard to prove? new york city is just the latest in a series of protest crackdowns across the country. it's an orchestrated effort. occupy oakland's protest, they were broken up again yesterday. occupy portland in oregon, protests, they were raided the previous day. over the weekend, movements in salt lake city, denver, st. louis and burlington, vermont,

were also disbanded by law enforcement. the mayor of oakland appeared to imply the crackdowns are being coordinated nationwide during a radio interview with the bbc. >> i was recently on a conference call of 18 cities across the country who had the same situation where it started as a political movement and political encampment ended up being an encampment that was no longer in control of the people who started them. >> any attempt to end the movement hasn't slowed down the 99 percenters. protesters in new york are already back at the original encampment and they say they'll con to stay there. tents or no tents. >> was this a preemptive strike? >> i assume so. but it was really badly calculated. because it's only going to galvanize us. we're only going to be stronger because of this. >> get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think about this tonight. tonight's question. will the raid on zuccotti park strengthen the 99% movement?

text "a" for yes, text "b" for no to 622639. our blog is there at ed.msnbc.com. we'll bring you the results later on in the show. now, what's happening down at zuccotti park? joining me now from the location in lower manhattan is nbc news correspondent mara schiavocampo. mara, good to have you with us tonight. what is happening down there tonight, and what is the mood of the crowd after the raid? >> reporter: ed, right now they're holding a general assembly meeting, which is something they do every night. you may even be able to hear some of the shouts tr them discussing issues. and this is after a very emotional day. a lot of ups and downs today. after the raid early this morning, people were very upset, they were frankly angry, feeling they had been mistreated and treated unfairly, especially after they were denied access to the park after the temporary court order had been issued saying they should be allowed back into the park and back in with all of their belongings, their sleeping bags, their camping equipment, and the like. but despite that we know now the city decided to keep them out

all day waiting for a final ruling on that. when the ruling came down the crowd was joyous, which is counterintuitive because they lost in court, they did not get what they wanted. and i asked somebody about that, i said why are you so happy about this development now, and he said it was because they were being allowed back into the park. what he said to me is that we are a movement that thrives on resilience. and so the fact that things didn't go their way wasn't what they toexed on. what they focused on is the fact that they are still here. before you came to me, there was a man walking back and forth saying we're still here, we're still here. that's what they're focused on, trying to determine what their next moves will be. >> mara, they said they will search people entering the park. are the protesters being searched tonight? >> reporter: yeah, ed, i want to show you something if i can. if you can look over my right shoulder you can see a group of gentlemen here wearing some yellow vests with some reflective patches on them. this is actually a checkpoint to get into the park. and so they are searching people right now. they have flashlights. it's kind of like when you go into a nightclub and they shine

the flashlight into your bag to make sure you're not bringing anything in that you're not supposed to be. so they are doing that. and the things that they're looking for are the things that the protesters are not supposed to be bringing into the park. sleeping bags, personal belongings, any type of camping equipment. the things that would allow them to set up an encampment here in the way that they have been for the last two months. >> nbc's mara schiavocampo. thank you, appreciate it. one of our producers, arianna jones, was in lower manhattan last night, and these are the scenes that she caught on her camera. arianna, good to have you with us. tell bus what you saw down there. what was the mood of the crowd? how intense was it? >> when i got down there, i couldn't get within a two-block radi radius. they'd already formed kind of a police barricade. they were all in riot gear. they were pushing all the people that weren't still defending the actual park itself, they were pushing them back, basically saying we weren't even allowed on the sidewalks, it was a pedestrian area, you risked being arrested. people were pretty upset. there were people crying. but i was actually impressed

with how organized the chaos was. i mean, the police presence was pretty heavy. there were hundreds and hundreds of police. but they still managed to get messages out. they would use the people's mike. and over the bull horizon of the police, you know, giving orders to the people the people themselves were forming, you know, different plans on where to go next. >> now, you did not identify yourself as a member of the media. >> no, i did not. i had already heard from a few people that had been there that they tried to use their credentials and they were turned away as if they didn't really matter. >> i mean, the police made it clear, they were there, going to do some business. >> yeah. the riot gear alone made it pretty obvious. they were not standing down. >> and the mood of the people when this was happening, were they saying this isn't going to stop us? >> a lot of people claimed to be speaking for the ga, the general assembly. a few of the people said, it's been the park, that that was not what's important, it's the movement itself. so they weren't really deterred by the fact that the space was gone. i mean, obviously as mara said it's a rallying cry. a lot of people took it as it's

just another thing to strengthen it. >> were you nervous for your safety? >> yeah, i mean, obviously the crowds were getting a little bit -- it was very tense, obviously, but i wasn't worried in the areas that i stayed a little bit further away just to avoid that. but there were definitely some confrontations going on, some arrests. >> arianna jones. great work. thank you. now let's turn to van jones, president and co-founder of rebuildthedream.com. and laura flanders with us. host of free speech tv and author of "at the tea party." great to have you both with us. van jones, do these raids strengthen the movement nationwide? i mean, clearly, with the voice of the mayor on that bbc interview really spilling the beans that they've been in contact with 18 different cities about how to handle this. what's happening here? >> well, first of all, they're going to coordinate it, they should be coordinating to try to get jobs for young people, they should be coordinating to try to solve the problems that the occupations are pointing out, not making the occupations be the main problem. but you mark my words. they are going to regret having done this.

because the harder you hit this movement, the harder it bounces back. this movement is going to continue to develop. you're going to see people now occupying banks, in terms of nonviolently protesting the banking system. you're going to see people occupying abandon schools, opening up free schools for people. >> so this will strengthen the movement, you think? >> it will strengthen the movement. when they try to wipe this out, they're just going to spread it around. november 17th, the day after tomorrow, november17th.org, that will be the two-month anniversary of the occupation of wall street. there are going to be 300 protests all across the country already planned. now those are going to be massive. >> laura, what do you make of the media blackout, how orchestrated it's been? >> i don't know about orchestrated. but it wasn't very effective. what the occupy movement has shown is with their media they can get the word out. before we move on to what good things this may have done for the movement, and i think van is absolutely right, there was a new york city councilman taken away from the occupy wall street site in zuccotti park with his head bleeding early this morning.

the use of force from coast to coast is a target of these protests, and it is part of the conversation that is being started here, that is central to this movement. from oakland to new york. that said, van is absolutely right. i mean, there were people at zuccotti park today saying they're wondering if maybe someone's been occupying the mayor's office, because to do this action two days before a national day of -- an international, actually, day of action with student protests in spain and germany and france as well as here is just insane and great for the movement. >> here's mayor bloomberg on the press. let's listen. >> the police department routinely keeps members of the press off to the side when they're in the middle of a police action. it's to prevent situations from getting worse and to protect the members of the press who have the same rights as everybody else. >> van, do you buy that? and is this the template for how they're going to handle these crowds?

>> i mean, i think that it's despicable and disgusting to have a mayor of a city that's based on free speech and free expression, the whole economy of new york in terms of the creativity, pretending that this is something normal. it is completely abnormal to have zero press access. maybe you limit it a little bit. but with the helicopters, they're afraid somebody's going to fall out of the helicopter? this is totally ridiculous. >> this is an example of how the protesters have been characterized on fox news. >> they have literally separate tents because of rapes. we had a murder. there's a plan out, i read earlier today, that they're literally now trying -- there's bomb threats. >> laura, you worry about the narrative sticking to the protests like that? >> there is no question here that what is being attempted by some in the media and some in the police force is to evict an idea, but it cannot be done. you cannot evict an idea whose time has come and the idea that we need a new conversation in this country about pay to play politics and about an economy

where some are too big to jail, that conversation is off and running and not getting bottled back up. >> van, what do you think about the narrative that fox is trying to develop? >> you know, they have to smear this movement because frankly i think 57% of republicans actually agree with everything these people are saying. and they're terrified that their own base is going to start to stand with the rest of the people. 99% of the tea party should be out there protesting as well because they are suffering economically. >> and, of course -- >> they have to lie and smear this movement. >> and of course, some members of congress and labor, right with them, so this isn't going to end. i agree with both of you on that. van jones, laura flanders. always a pleasure. remember to answer tonight's question there at the bottom of your screen and share your thoughts on twitter @edshow. we want to know what you think. alleged child rapist jerry sandusky claimed his innocence in an interview with bob costas. tonight we will play a large portion of that interview and get reaction from an advocate of victims of child sexual abuse. was newt gingrich a lobbyist

for freddie mac? the former house speaker says no. former freddie mac officials say oh, yes, he was. congressman jim mcdermott will weigh in on that. you're watching "the ed show" on msnbc. stay with us p . you can't pass mom's inspection with lots of pieces left behind. that's why there's charmin ultra strong. its diamondweave texture is soft and more durable so it holds up better. fewer pieces left behind. charmin ultra strong.

coming up on "the ed show," victims groups are responding to jerry sandusky's interview. we'll play you the tape. everybody's talking about it. get reaction. and newt gingrich makes it a four-way tie in iowa. dave weigel is here on the republican field in disarray. and congressman jim mcdermott is going to tell us why his old colleague, speaker of the house gingrich-s pretty much a joke. lots more to come. stay with us.

thanks for joining us tonight here on "the ed show." we're going to play large portions of an interview with alleged child rapist jerry sandusky, who was offered up to nbc news' bob costas by his attorney. very strange. he had been charged with 40 felony counts relating to sexual abuse of a minor. today "the new york times" reports up to ten more suspected victims have come forward. police are working to confirm the new allegations. in last night's interview with bob costas of "rock center," sandusky claimed innocent, but offered a shocking explanation of what happened. >> i say that i am innocent of those charges. >> innocent? completely innocent and falsely accused in every aspect? >> well, i could say that, you know, i have done some of those things. i have horsed around with kids. i have showered after workouts.

i have hugged them and i have touched their leg. without intent of sexual contact, but -- so if you look at it that way, there are things that -- that wouldn't -- you know, would be accurate. >> are you denying that you had any inappropriate sexual contact with any of these underaged boys? >> yes, i am. >> never touched their genitals, never engaged in oral sex? >> right. >> what about mike mcqueary, the grad assistant who in 2002 walked into the shower where he says in specific detail that you were forcibly raping a boy who appeared to be 10 or 11 years old, that his hands were up against the shower wall and he heard rhythmic slap, slap, slapping sounds and he described that as a rape? >> i would say that that's false. >> what would be his motive to

lie? >> you'd have to ask him that. >> what did happen in the shower the night that mike mcqueary happened upon you and the young boy? >> okay. we were showering and horsing around, and he actually turned all the showers on and was actually sliding across the floor. and we were, as i recall, possibly like snapping a towel, horseplay. >> i'm joined by patrick mcdonald tonight, a member of r.a.i.n. the rape, abuse, and incest national network speakers bureau. mr. mcdonald, good to have you with us. i want your impression of what you just heard in part of that interview. >> it's almost not believable, actually, first that he would go on and have that conversation and expect that any rational adult, young adult or certainly adult man or woman, would

believe any aspect to it. at least certainly, i can't -- i can't think of any circumstance whatsoever where an adult male horsing -- you know, calling something horseplay in a shower with an underaged child, where that's something that is acceptable in any place whatsoever. i can't actually fathom why he would talk about it out in the open like that, because none of it is really believable. at least from my perspective. >> is this a pattern that you see in people who are alleged perpetrators? >> well, at least in my experience they don't necessarily think they've done anything wrong. and there certainly is part of the problem, is they don't believe that their behavior has been inappropriate, that their behavior has crossed any reasonable boundary. >> did you hear that in that interview just there? >> from my perspective, sure, i mean, it's very matter of fact

that he's in a shower, at least based on what he just said. he's in a shower with a young boy, engaged in horseplay or snapping towels or whichever. and he does so unapologetically. he does so almost with a sense of matter of fact, well, of course, this is what i did. isn't this what most reasonable adults would do? >> in this next portion of the interview sandusky addresses the incident from 1998. let's listen. >> in 1998 a mother confronts you about taking a shower with her son and inappropriately touching him. two detectives eavesdrop on her conversations with you and you admit that maybe your private parts touched her son. what happened there? >> i can't exactly recall what was said there. in terms of what i did say was

that if he felt that way, then i was wrong. i didn't say to my recollection that i wish i were dead. i was hopeful that we could reconcile things. >> what comes to mind when you hear that explanation, mr. mcdonald? >> again, the belief that you could reconcile anything with a child, or with a parent, after you have seemingly acknowledged that he's touched your genitals or vice versa, whichever it happens to be, that there can be any type of reconciliation or there can be any type of circumstance. >> he said he's not -- >> -- that would allow that to happen. >> and he said in the interview he's not a pedophile. what's your response? >> well, pedophile and childhood sexual abuser, sometimes they're used the same but sometimes they're different. pedophile is typically somebody who they like younger children,

but they don't necessarily act on it, whereas a childhood sexual abuser, they act on it. and sex abuse is not about how you feel about somebody and it's not about sex. childhood sexual abuse or sexual abuse against anybody is about power and control and violence. >> and i want to play another part of the interview when sandusky is asked about football coach joe paterno. here it is. >> did joe paterno at any time ever speak to you directly about your behavior? >> no. >> never? >> no. >> he never asked you about what you might have done? >> no. he never asked you if you needed help, if you needed counseling? >> no, no. >> never expressed disapproval of any kind? >> no. >> that's the part i find absolutely amazing, that he can work with this guy for so many years, be told by his former quarterback and graduate assistant what he saw in the shower, and then paterno not go face to face with sandusky and confront him with it. if that's true, what does it say about paterno?

>> well, it -- it says a lot. which isn't surprising based on the fact that he didn't take it to the next level anyways. whether he had confronted sandusky or not, he still didn't take it to the next step, which is to completely and utterly remove sandusky from any type of environment with children, which means not telling your supervisor. it means calling 911. and sitting on the guy until the police department gets there. that's about the right thing. >> and do you think the university is responsible for a cover-up? >> in my opinion, sure, i do. and that's simply because at some level there's a breakdown of communication and there's a breakdown in terms of action. now, certainly not everybody's involved with that, but i don't think that you've seen the last of the people that had some type of idea that either things were going on, or they really suspected that there might be some type of issue. >> patrick mcdonald, i appreciate your time on this subject tonight. thanks so much. >> thanks. mike mcqueary now claims he did the right thing after he witnessed jerry sandusky

allegedly sodomizing a 10-year-old child. mcqueary speaks with cbs news about the case. four republicans are battling it out in iowa before the caucus. iowa's own michele bachmann is not one of them. the race for the hawkeye state is coming up, with analysis. stay with us.

welcome back to "the ed show." penn state assistant football coach mike mcqueary now claims

he did go to police in the 2002 incident in which jerry sandusky allegedly sodomized a 10-year-old boy. in an e-mail to a former classmate obtained by the "morning call," mcqueary says this. "he did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police." mcqueary writes, "he's getting hammered for handling this the way, or what i thought at the time was right." well, but when questioned by a cbs news reporter, mcqueary offered only this. >> this process has to play out, and i just don't have anything else to say. >> let's turn to mike papantonio, attorney and host of "ring of fire" radio show. mike, good to have you with us tonight. there's a new chapter, like every day, with this story, another sound bite, another interview, another twist. this is now the second e-mail surfacing from the assistant football coach saying that he did try to stop the alleged 2002 rape, but does it really jibe

with the grand jury report? what do you think? >> everybody's lawyered up, ed. they're going to see these stories change just like we're seeing right here. lawyers advising him, build the best case you can right now. but truth is, there's no way a grand jury meets as long as they do, takes testimony and that part of the testimony is simply left out. we would see those e-mails being mentioned in the grand jury testimony. so it's a problem. but you know what? he's getting advised to do that. he's trying to build the best case he can. he's trying to make himself look as good as he can because he was a pathetic failure when it came to doing the right thing. >> what did you make of jerry sandusky's interview with bob costas? wordsmithing the whole thing. what do you make of it? >> from a legal standpoint, it was a train wreck, ed. what it told us is this -- that he's given up the idea of actually trying the case in front of a jury, that he's probably going to enter a plea. i say that because of what happened in that interview. most of the time -- first of all, the interview should have never taken place. we would have expected purely --

language that says, look, i didn't do it, i'm innocent, i did nothing wrong. instead what we saw him do is mix in language that a prosecutor is going to use. he doesn't even have to take the stand, ed. he -- if he goes to trial, this whole interview can be shown as s a party admission, where a jury gets to hear things like the fact that he took showers with the boys. that he horsed around in the shower. that he lifted them up, that he hugged him, that he touched their genitals. all of that comes in, and you join it together, ed, with eyewitness testimony, victim testimony, expert shrink testimony, recorded statements and what we call prior similar acts, a long history of prior similar acts. this guy is toast. and the real question -- >> and mike, what do you make of his attorney offering him up in the interview? >> i think of ineffecttive assistance of counsel, ed. unless this guy said to his attorney, i want to do this, i'm going to do it even if you advise me against it. the discussion about ineffective

assistance of counsel is going to be out there. the testimony last night really caused him harm. >> here's sandusky's lawyer, joe amendola. here it is. >> we expect we're going to have a number of kids. now, how many of those so-called eight kids, we're not sure. but we anticipate we're going to have at least several of those kids come forward and say this never happened, this is me, this is the allegation, it never occurred. >> is this attorney trying to intimidate alleged victims who could possibly come forward to testify? how do you view that? >> you know what, ed, i really don't think so. i really think this attorney is just so far off base. he doesn't have a plan. that's the only thing you can conclude. look, what he did with that interview, ed, actually could interfere with sentencing. if sandusky says, look, i want to enter a plea of no contest, this judge could say, really, let's take a look at what you've said in that interview, let's look at your prior acts, let's

look at all this and what we can conclude is you have no lack of remorse. you're unwilling to admit what you've done. you're willing to place the blame on witnesses and victims and so every time this lawyer takes him further down that road, i am telling you, it's -- it's textbook ineffective assistance of counsel. unless, unless sandusky has said to this attorney, look, i want to do this, i'm going to do this and he's had that fellow sign off on it. it's the craziest thing i've ever seen because it affects the jury trial and it affects the possibility of sentencing. >> mike papantonio. great to have you with us again tonight. thanks so much. why did freddie mac pay newt gingrich $300,000? the answer is next. congressman jim mcdermott will weigh in. the cain train came to a halt when he was asked about libya, but the pizza man isn't letting anything get in the way of his 9-9-9 plan. he's going in the zone. stay with us.

now to politics. republican flavor of the month newt gingrich really went out on a limb at the cnbc debate last week when he said he never worked as a lobbyist for the government-backed mortgage company freddie mac. >> your firm was paid $300,000 by freddie mac in 2006. what did you do for that money? >> are you asking me? >> yes. >> i offered them advice on precisely what they didn't do. i have never done any lobbying. every contract that was written during the period when i was out of the office specifically said i would do no lobbying and i offered advice. and my advice as a historian when they walked in and said to me, we're now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do. i said to them at the time, this is a bubble. this is insane. >> pretty shifty, isn't it? so newt says he was never paid to be a historian. okay. he was paid to be a historian, not a lobbyist.

never been a lobbyist. well, today former freddie mac officials told "bloomberg news" gingrich was hired to build bridges with congressional republicans and convince them not to dismantle the housing firm. now, what's that sound like to you? sounds like lobbying to me. good thing the disgraced former speaker went on fox last night and had his freddie mac lobbying hannitized. >> i wanted you to explain the $300,000 you said you gave to -- freddie mac, that they did not take your advice. >> sure. >> you were not a lobbyist for them? >> i've never been a lobbyist for anybody. in fact, my contracts exclude me from lobbying. i refuse to go back to capitol hill as a lobbyist. i offer strategic advice. i listen to people tell me what their concerns are. and i try to give them advice on how to solve it. >> joining me now, congressman jim mcdermott of washington. great to have you with us tonight. for you veterans in congress, this has got to be pretty good entertainment at this point.

>> well, we've seen the movie before, ed. the way gingrich operates, the first thing he does is attack the press. anybody who's made any accusation. then he dismisses and says i didn't do anything, there's no way i did that. and then he starts to tell a tale as he rewrites history. and that's exactly what he did here. he said, i was not a lobbyist, you're wrong, you guys are attacking me. i was simply a historian there. i was sitting around with them, telling them what was happening, and i gave them no advice. and they paid me $300,000 for it? well, a lot of people would like to be paid $300,000 to sit around and tell stories. that's just nonsense. the whole thing. >> i think the public would like to know, i'd like to know, is gingrich trying to sell republicans on freddie mac back in 2006? >> of course he was. he didn't want them to dismantle it. he didn't want them to have any hearings on it. he didn't want them to examine what was going on there.

or the housing bubble. or all the problems that were ultimately -- that rolled out. everybody -- there were many people who knew there were problems in the housing industry, but nobody wanted to have a public hearing where somebody might come out and testify in public. then the republicans would have had to do something about it. and gingrich didn't want that to happen. >> i tell you what, politically, he seems to be a cat with nine lives. i mean, one of the most recent polls out there, the ppp poll, gingrich is at 28%. he's ahead of romney and cain in the latest polling. how does this affect him politically? i mean, he seems to be able to dodge things. i mean, his answers are pretty smooth and solid, and he speaks with a veteran voice and has experience. and he doesn't have the gaffes that the other candidates on the republican side seem to have. what do you make of all of this, the way it's coming down? >> that's only because the public has forgotten. this guy was the most divisive member of the house of

representatives. he split the republicans and democrats, got the republicans in power, was speaker for four years, and then his own people threw him out after the ethics committee fined him $300,000. now, nobody talks about that, but that's the same thing. when he was accused in the ethics committee, he said, you guys are -- you're attacking me, you liberals. it's awful. and i never did it, i never did any of this stuff. then he paid $300,000 to buy his way out of that situation. and lied to the committee. he told them he wouldn't spin the result in the public, in the press, and that's immediately what he went out and did on a telephone call with his entire leadership. so this guy is not very well known because people have forgotten. but in this campaign if he gets to be the nominee, and i -- i think from obama's point of view he'd be a wonderful one because

we could have a hay day with this guy. this is a guy that was carrying on with a woman while he was accusing bill clinton of all sorts of things. this is -- this is a guy with a long tattered history that people have forgotten. >> congressman jim mcdermott. always a pleasure. thank you for joining us tonight. appreciate your time. next in "psychotalk," herman cain keeps digging himself in a deeper and deeper hole when it comes to foreign policy. he thinks 9-9-9 can get him out of everything. stay with us. now there's no need to hold back. ♪ new revolutionary scope with dualblast technology obliterates strong food odors and kills bad breath germs leaving your breath minty fresh. hey. sorry i'm late, baby. i bet you're starving. [ male announcer ] so there's no trace of evidence... hey, i thought i did the dishes. [ male announcer ] blast away strong food odors and bad breath germs with new scope dualblast. also, try crest complete extra white with scope dualblast.

up next, after stumbling about a question of libya, herman cain tries to expand his 9-9-9 plan for foreign policy. iowa voters can't make up their minds about the republican presidential circus. is it newt, is it mitt, ron paul, the pizza man? they all have a shot at being the next republican to lose to president obama. this is "the ed show" on msnbc. 

and in "psycho talk" tonight, herman cain has spent the last 24 hours trying to spin his way out of a disastrous response to a question about whether he agreed with president obama on libya. >> okay. libya. president obama supported the uprising, correct? just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing. i do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason. nope. that's a different one. got all this stuff twirling around in my head. specifically what are you asking me did i agree or not disagree with obama? >> over a minute of searching for an answer. his campaign said that, well, he was just tired. although we're told herman cain's campaign set up the interview with the editorial board. but herman cain doesn't think he did anything wrong. he brushed off criticism about

libya, the train wreck is what it's called, calling it silly. >> they asked me a question about libya, and i paused so i could gather my thoughts. you know, it's really complimentary when people start documenting my pauses. >> it's the gathering, you know? here's something else we're documenting. last night herman cain told us how he really feels about foreign policy. >> mr. cain, do you think the libya comment reinforced you don't have a thorough understanding of foreign policy? >> let us walk through. >> 9-9-9. >> only a matter of time before 9-9-9 became herman cain's answer to every question. but we've reached it. 9-9-9 isn't even a valid solution to our economic crisis. so responding to a question about foreign policy with 9-9-9 is flat-out silly "psycho talk." republicans have been campaigning against president obama since he took office. they just can't seem to come up with an alternative.

and iowa caucuses are right around the corner. msnbc's dave weigel joins me for the breakdown. stay with us. my contacts are so annoying. they're itchy, dry and uncomfortable. i can't wait to take 'em out, throw 'em away and never see them again. [ male announcer ] know the feeling? get the contacts you've got to see to believe. acuvue® oasys brand contact lenses with hydraclear® plus technology, keeping your eyes exceptionally comfortable all day long. it feels like it disappeared on my eye. [ male announcer ] discover why it's the brand eye doctors trust most for comfort. if you have astigmatism, there's an acuvue® oasys lens for that too,

realigning naturally with every blink. ask your doctor for acuvue® oasys brand.

survey tonight, i asked will the raid on zuccotti park strengthen the 99% movement? 96% of you said yes. 4% of you say no. coming up, herman cain leading in iowa caucus polls so slightly. really it's a four-person race. we'll break it down. msnbc's dave weigel along with my commentary next. stay with us. ppy progressive customers. i plugged in snapshot, and 30 days later, i was saving big on car insurance. i was worried it would be hard to install. but it's really easy. the better i drive, the more i save. i wish our company had something this cool. yeah. you're not... filming this, are you? aw! camera shy. snapshot from progressive. plug into the savings you deserve with snapshot from progressive.

t tl u oua ano emrdmeofthbong a i yen e nndw ..mn suhe othnocab. othrs w,yoowct ha d t eepe ken d n

and finally tonight, we're less than two months away from the iowa caucuses, and the weakness of the republican field, i tell you what, folks, it is on full display. you can't argue with that. it's a four-way dead heat tie in iowa with herman cain barely leading. he's only one point ahead of ron paul. ron paul doesn't get much respect in the debates but he sure polls well out in rural america. mitt romney and newt gingrich are also nipping at the pizza man's heels. all four are within the margin of error. at this point 60% of republican iowa caucusgoers still say they could be persuaded to support somebody else. a-ha. rick perry. republicans have been on a mission to defeat president obama since the first day of office, and they still can't pick anyone to challenge him. they've done all this obstruction, they've had this master plan to stop president

obama, but they have never come up with a solid candidate with a solid track record that doesn't flip all over the place and make goofy comments that would actually come up and give president obama a real run. i know it's going to be tough, but you know what? if they keep going like this, it might be easier for the obama administration than you think. joining me now is dave weigel, msnbc contributor and political reporter for slate.com. what do you make of the events that have taken place as of late? >> well, we all made fun of bill kristol and other republican leaders when they were calling for mitch daniels to save the party or calling for paul ryan to save the party. that was not crazy. they might have seen something coming. this might have been a nostradamus moment for people like kristol. because this is a mess. mitt romney is in the eyes of what's left of the republican establishment, certainly in the eyes of republican pollsters, is an electable candidate who, you know, has advantages over obama that most -- the last few -- the other possible nominees don't

have. and he can't convince this -- about 75% of the republican party to take him seriously, especially in iowa. >> you know, dave, you look at the democrats. john edwards spent almost four years in iowa. chris dodd moved there. hillary clinton had awesome name recognition. but it was the ground game of barack obama and a bunch of youngsters out there working every single county. is newt gingrich, is he working every county? is he going to be able to -- who's got the best ground game in iowa, to your knowledge? >> he's doing better. romney theoretically has something that can be activated. because remember, he got 25% last time. he has a network there that he's worked very diligently, very under the radar as we've all been chasing other candidates. gingrich has staffed up. but the thing about iowa is that the person who spent the most time there is rick santorum. he's visited 99 counties. people who bought the most ads there are michele bachmann, ron paul, rick perry, rick perry super pac. it's -- this is not showing up in the polls. i think what a lot of us are

waiting to see is if the people who've really put the time in there like santorum are going to do better. now -- or if romney has a support base that's not showing up in all the flash of these candidates who rise for two months, then collapse. >> yeah. well, we haven't mentioned rick perry. he's down at 7%. he's got a lot of money. and we should point out that the evangelical christian vote in rural iowa is going to come out in full force. is his 7%, he's down in low numbers, but could that be misleading, with the amount of money that he's got? what do you think? >> well, not terribly, because remember, the thing that really brought him down more than any mistakes that we've all focused on was his immigration position. this has been a very sub rosa issue in iowa. in 2007 it captivated iowa for a couple of months. the tom tancredo insert. did you see the anger about him -- immigration and republicans being too soft on it. george bush being too soft on it. perry is as unthinkable on that issue as anyone else, and

there's just -- you've really -- if you talk to conservatives in iowa, there is a big opening for him. they don't see much of a way for him to crawl out of it. the advantage for everyone else is that if it's gingrich who's rising on this, you know, he -- there is a very long record. he's kind of tried to preempt this. a very long record of newt coalition building that you can attack in the same way. we all come back to romney. he has been vetted on this issue before. the attacks on him on immigration, other things he's been heterodox on. the other things have been aired in the debates and kind of fallen off because they're dull. >> you have gingrich surging in the polls in the last ten days to two weeks. you got three marriages there. the christian coalition folks are not going to go along with that. you've got mitt romney. the mormon issue there. herman cain is polling but now, of course, this latest gaffe with libya ought to signal to the folks in iowa that he's just not ready for primetime. so is there any way that perry could come back? i'll say to you tonight, dave, i

don't think perry's out of the iowa caucus. i really don't. i think it's a goofy state when it comes to how they do this whole thing. he's got a lot of money. he's going to speak their kind of language. and there's been so many mistakes made by others, i'm just not convinced that gingrich is going to be able to continue the surge in iowa. what do you think? >> no, i definitely think you're right that gingrich's advantage has been that we've ignored him for six months. the media's ignored him. activists have ignored him. and there's been an idealized picture of newt gingrich that activists have come to like. one of the advantages he's not going to stop having is he's a really good debater. one thing that's hobbled perry and to a newer extent cain is for all the jokes republicans like to tell about how barack obama can't talk without a teleprompter they get worried about putting somebody up there who fumbles the ball across the stage like perry has. it doesn't go along with the image of obama they have. but gingrich is not going to fade in that respect as fast as some of these other guys. at the sam