>> the comedians get the last word. you can have the last word on-line at our blog and follow my tweets. lastword.msnbc. up next, ""hardball" with chris chatting use. >> up next, casino jack nails newt. this is "hardball". >> good evening. i'm chris matthews in philadelphia. leading off tonight, when jack abramoff calls someone corrupt, take note. his latest shoot himself in the foot moment, dionizing democrats for menning fannie mae and freddie mac when he was taking $2 million for advising it for winning over republican

conservatives on capitol hill. and whom he sweetly said should go to jail joins us. plus, a distorting lie. desperate to save his campaign, rick perry has reverted to a distortion so serious it should whack him like a boomerang. what the president really said. bad news for mitt romney, his health care bill bears no resemblance to obamas. the problem is there is no way to say that because there's the same blanking bill. jonathan gruber goes on to say, mitt, quote, is just laying. and we now know more about jerry sandusky. how allegedly he chose his victims as experts put it, groomed them for his purposes.

we have the latest on that investigation. let me finish with what appears to be the exasperation of both of the country's most alive political moments. the tea party and the occupy wall street movement. we start with newt gingrich's hypocrisy. one has been barney frank who joins us now. congressman frank, it seems to me this is getting more crazy, this defense by newt gingrich. paid a couple million dollars to apparently persuade conservative republicans that freddie mac is a great organization. members of congress and capitol hill. he's saying that is not lobbying. >> well, he's just lying. it is of course lobbying. again, he slipped when he was defending the fee, although he says he can't remember how much. because he said, well, after all i'm former speaker of the house. well, that's an important credential if you're hiring lobbyists. if i understand it it doesn't get you tenure at the yale

history department. it's not a credential. the fact this is really symptomatic to blame us for their mistake. blaming obama for what he inherited from george bush. he is the basic point. fannie mae and freddie mac went unregulated for the 12 years during which the republicans controlled the congress. they ran it from 1995 to 2006. chris dodd and i were the minority. people who think i was secretly advising tom delay on what to do i've got to tell you, if i made a list -- first newt gingrich and tom delay. if tom delay was taking my divide bill clinton wouldn't have been impeached, we wouldn't have gone to iraq and he wouldn't have been accepted to the dance floor. gingrich is clearly there when they are refusing to do any

reform. rank read paulson's book. he talked to me. i was then in the minority but it looked like the democrats might take over. he said accurately he said to me, can we do something about fannie mae and freddie mac if you guys are in the majority? i said yes because i earlier thought they were okay. in 2004 and 2005 i realized i was wrong and too optimistic. in 2007, when i first became the chairman, we passed the bill to control fannie mae and freddie mac. in fact, senator dodd and i got the legislation through. and as a result of the legislation that was ultimately signed in 2008, fannie mae and freddie mac were put into conservatorship. yes, during the period when newt gingrich was first the speaker and then a republican lobbyist, that's when there were no regulations. i was very impressed, though, with how well he was doing

because he said he doesn't remember how much money he got. now, if you don't remember what a single client gave you when it was more than a million and a half dollars five years ago, then things must have been pretty lucrative. >> here's gingrich tonight with a new theme for the afternoon arguing he never pedaled his influence on behalf of freddie mac. let's listen to former speaker as of late this afternoon. >> i did no lobbying of any kind. i did no influence pedaling of any kind. but the truth is if you have the reputation, and i'm not going to use the words because they'll know the story i'm going with this. if you take about what people say about me in the debates and say to yourself, gee, is that a person somebody might have hired for advice, i think it's hard to hire they would hire somebody who is truly dumb. and so i'm happy to tell you i have been a very successful -- i'm not as successful as mitt. >> he's coming off as charles van doren or somebody, somebody

you hired because of their uniquely high i.k. >> he is the highest historian paid in history. this may do a lot for the career path. it's just nonsense. advice about what? if it was advice about what kind of policies to follow, he was very critical of those policies. again, i'm just struck by his ability to say things that clearly make no sense. also, i gather he said the money wasn't paid to him. >> oh, yeah. >> it was paid to the gingrich group. not him. i thought the gingrich group were his wives. i thought that was what -- >> congressman, you're not aware of the new lingo, corporations are people too. here's an interesting reaction to the latest news. jack abramoff, back for rec la

phaeugz, he went to jail for three and a half years on corruption and conspiracy charges. >> don't you mean historian jake abe rop off. >> here he is yesterday in a taping. he admits he crossed the line and acted illegally. he said he wants to sound the alarm about the corruption in our system. on that note, gregory asked about newt's ties to freddie mac. let's listen to this interesting witness, if you will, what he said. >> this is exactly what i'm talking about. people who come to washington who have public service and they cash in on it and use their public service and access to make money. and unfortunately newt gingrich is one of them who has done it. >> he's engaged in the exact kind of corruption that america disdains. the very things that anger the tea party movement and the occupy wall street movement and everybody who is not in a movement and watches washington and says why are these guys getting all this money? why do they become so rich? why do they have these

advantages? unfortunately newt played right into it. >> you call that corruption. that's a heavy charge. >> what is it? it is corruption. >> casino jack sharing the guilt for his lifetime. let me ask if you can explain as a respected legislator, and i mean this, the way they hire big shots who come out of congress or politics generally, they put them in these big law firms or consulting firms. they don't come to the hill and lobby waiting for you outside the chamber but are basically directing their traffic. can you explain how that works with these guys? >> well, sure. first of all, you have the knowledge of how these things work. you know these people. gingrich had been the speaker and left congress -- got driven out by the way he mishandles things including the impeachment of bill clinton for behavior less flagrant than he was involved in at the same time.

these are people that served in leadership with him. tom delay. the leaders of the committee. so you know these people. secondly, you don't have to come and stand in the hall to talk to people. you can call them up. you can meet them at other events. there are all sorts of meetings that people have. it doesn't mean you stand outside the door. but you give people advice on how to deal with these individuals and you talk to them. it is inconceivable there weren't conversations between bill clinton and his aides. he said it was the gingrich group. there were people working with him. they say, gee, newt thinks this and thinks that. again, it's just so clear. and this effort to blame us, the republicans were in charge. newt gingrich for four years as speaker and for eight years after that the people he helped put into leadership. they were the ones who had

control over whether or not there was any regulation of fannie mae and freddie mac. we know people say it should have been regulated. i was originally wrong on that. i came around by 2004. but it was 2006 the company after i was trying to get them regulated newt was getting close to $2 million or over a million and a half. and the notion that he was getting it for advice, if that's the cases the shareholders should have sued for corporate waste. >> and he wasn't out there giving speeches about the need for reforming freddie mac, was he? he said that's what he was thinking. >> he was a well-kept secret. what he was doing is helping formulate the doctrine home ownership. and by the way, i was one of those who said, yes, i want to help low-income people get home but primarily rental housing. i always felt they did the home ownership thing. but newt acknowledges. that was the freddie mac and fannie mae rationale, that home ownership was such a good thing. they cut back the efforts to

provide good rental housing and push them into ownership. he acknowledges he was part of in effort to sell home ownership which is what led people to give loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them and led people who shouldn't have gotten them to ask for them. >> his still opponent, michele bachmann, was quick to jump on the story. here's what she said. let's watch. >> weather former speaker gingrich made $300,000 or $2 million, the point is that he took money to also influence senior republicans to be favorable toward fannie and freddie. while he was taking that money i was fighting against fannie and freddie. >> well, i guess she's not expecting to be nominating him for president next september in tampa. >> or serving in his cabinet. let me say, to make this very clear, it was not -- i know people got mythologyized out of

this. it wasn't until the democrats took over in 2007 that legislative was passed for fannie and freddie. so newt was very successful. as long as there were republicans there, nothing happened. there were disputes among the republicans, between bush and oxley and shelby and the senate. but we worked with paulson. as a result we got a bill passed in the house in 2007, in the senate in 2008. paulson then put them into receivership. and the man who now runs fannie mae and freddie mac -- obama tried to fire him and the senate saved him. he said that since the legislation that we passed, the democrats in 2008 went into effect, there have been no further losses incurred by fannie mae and freddie mac. they have been profitable since then. >> great to have you on. congressman barney frank, thanks for coming on. coming up, republicans are twisting president obama's

words. i would say lying about it. he didn't call americans lazy. we've got the videotape. we're going to show you what the president said and what they're distorting to the point of lying. you're watching "hardball" on msnbc.

this week in wisconsin, the campaign to recall republican governor scott walker got underway. and right now, according to a new poll from wisconsin public radio, wisconsin voters are on board with the recall. 58% of wisconsin voters say governor walker should be removed from office. first it was just 38% who say he should stay. democrats hope the unpopularity of walker along with john kasich and rick scott could give president obama an edge in those three critical states. "buy boo♪

♪ but the second that she shut the door ♪ ♪ girl started blowing up their credit score ♪ ♪ she bought a pizza party for the whole dorm floor ♪ ♪ hundred pounds of makeup at the makeup store ♪ ♪ and a ticket down to spring break in mexico ♪ ♪ but her folks didn't know 'cause her folks didn't go ♪ ♪ to free-credit-score-dot-com hard times for daddy and mom. ♪ v.o.: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com

welcome back to "hardball." republicans have a new attack line against president obama, by distorting his own words. listen to this latest ad from the perry campaign. >> we've been a little bit lazy, i think, over the last couple of decades. >> can you believe that? that's what our president thinks is wrong with america, that americans are lazy? that's pathetic. obama's socialist policies are bankrupting america. we must stop him now. i'm rick perry i approve this message. >> the problem with quoting the president calling the country is lazy is a flat lie. it's a lie. here's what the president here's what he said speaking at the apex last saturday. listen to his words and then decide for yourself whether he saying americans are lazy or u.s. corporations seeking investment from overseas have been lazy in keeping up with the competition. >> i think it's important to remember that the united states

is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world and there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the u.s. as a great opportunity. our stability, our openness, our innovative free market culture. but, you know, we've been a little bit lazy, i think, over the last couple of decades. we've kind of taken for granted that people want to come here and we aren't out there hungry selling america and trying to attract new businesses into america. >> you have to go to the bottom of the ocean to find something that low. that's nothing -- what perry put in that ad about the president saying americans are lazy has nothing to do what you just heard there. michael steele is the former chairman of the republican national committee and a republican strategist. and michael feldman is a democratic strategist. i want to start with michael feldman on this. michael, i've seen some distorting ads before. this one beats them. >> yeah, i mean, he used the word. the word to describe this is pathetic. and when he talks about lazy,

this is a guy -- rick perry had a shot at the nomination, had a real shot at least contesting mitt romney for the nomination. and lazy is a way to describe his campaign. he doesn't prepare for the debates. he can't name the three federal agencies he wants to eliminate. i think oops is the most memorable campaign line for him. this is a desperate ploy. this guy is trying to appeal to a small subsection of the republican party and trying to revive his campaign with these attacks and was called out on it today. >> let me go to michael steele. who's going to believe the fact that the president of the united states called the american people lazy? who's going to believe that anybody did say something like that? >> a lot of people do believe. you say potato, i say potato. i don't know why we're sitting here acting so surprised that a snippet from a sound bite that the president gave is cut into a commercial. you think that's bad? wait until we get to the summer of 2012. what you take between -- any of the guys or gals on our stage on the republican side have said is taken out of context versus what the president has said that's

taken out of context, that's the nature of political commercials and ads and tv. so i don't know where the big deal is here? >> well, let me ask you, do you think that's an honest portrayal of what the president said in any way? >> this is not about honesty, being honest, in the sense that you want to be, you know, sort of altruistic about this, chris. this is hard-core raw politics. and, you know, it's like when i made my comment about afghanistan a year ago as chairman, the dnc took those comments and snipped together a nice little web ad and ran it. so, you know, that's what happens when you put a camera on someone and you take their stream of thought or consciousness and you snip it together to create the image and impression you want for purely political purposes. >> so even though he's not -- so even though he's not talking about like a malaise speech about the american morale or the american inability to compete with foreigners, he's simply

inability realizing they have to get out and hustle to attract investment to the country. you say that's fair game? you say it's fair? >> chris, that was not wholly clear from the entire clip that you played, that he was identifying corporations as being -- he should have said that, then, if that's what he meant. when the sentence starts, "we have been lazy," and the "we," that pronoun doesn't identify a noun, then, yeah, you leave it open to interpretation. >> okay. let's re-run it again. let's take a look at the actual presidential words there. >> yeah, go ahead. >> talking to american ceos. let's listen to this. >> i think it's important to remember that the united states is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world. >> yep. >> and there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the u.s. as a great opportunity. our stability, our openness, our innovative free market culture. but, you know, we've been a

little bit lazy, i think, over the last couple of decades. we've kind of taken for granted, you know, people will want to come here, and we aren't out there hungry, selling america, and trying to attract new businesses into america. >> so the effort by american trade groups to go over there and try to encourage investment in america somehow reflects on the general american character? you think that's the statement the president said? >> chris, that's not wholly clear from the clip. he started off that section you played with "the united states" is the operative subject of that conversation. and then he goes to "we have been lazy," so you make the connection, the united states, we have been lazy. and that's all -- i mean, that's the way the president framed it. so you can interpret it anyway you want. >> okay. let's go back. here's the "national journal," it fact checks the republicans today. the "national journal" is pretty darn nonpartisan, i think we would all agree. he said those words were distorted. "obama used the word lazy to describe american business practices in a conversation

about attracting foreign investments on saturday at the asian pacific economic cooperation summit. his audience was a group of ceos, but some republican presidential candidates would have you believe that he was talking to individuals about their character." so was he speaking about the american character, michael feldman? >> no, of course not. it was very clear from the context. look, this is an act of desperation. none of the other candidates took this whack. rick perry took this whack. >> well, i hate to tell you romney did. you're a little too generous. >> i was going to say. >> no, you're not right, he's too generous in asserting republicans are cleaner on this. it's not just perry. here is mitt romney using the same line of attack against the president at an event earlier this week. >> sometimes i just don't think that president obama understands america. now, i say that because this week or was it last week, he said that americans are lazy. i don't think that describes america. before that, i think it was in

october, he was saying that we have lost our inventiveness and our ambition. and before that, he was saying other disparaging things about america. he was saying that we just weren't working hard enough. >> there you go, patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel. i have to tell you there he is trying to put the old malaise label on a democrat. this is classic republican. you know what's going on here, michael steele, you know the game that's being played here. >> it's never happened before now. he's talking down america. >> knits never happened before. the democrats have never in the annals of modern politics ever run a commercial that's clipped together out of context something that george bush or any republican candidate for office has said. this is the first time this has ever happened. i'm shocked. >> you know, michael -- michael, you remind me of my uncle bill. he was a plumber and a good guy, but every time he heard about somebody left their wife for somebody else or stole some money, he'd say, you know, it's like everything else. that's what you sound like.

you sound my uncle bill. >> this is politics! come on! you like to speak with almost bragadocia about wait jack kennedy operated and it is very clear in your book. he used the tools of politics to convey the message to the base and ultimately to the nation that he needed to convey to win. this is no different than 1960. >> sir, you're getting into the area of sacrilege and i'll have to shut you up. i'm just kidding. let me go to mike feldman. let's talk politics now. can the republicans pay for this? will the president be able to come out -- does he have the tools to turn this against them like a boomerang? can he win by catching them in what looks like a distortion? >> sure. they did today. by the way, the campaign was working very hard today to make sure people had the facts on this. many major news organizations came out and actually played this in context today. >> can they force rick perry to pull it back? can they force mitt romney to pull it back? because if they don't, you can

argue they didn't lose on this. they at least gained some points on this, republicans. >> i would be surprised if they followed this line of attack any further after the beating they took today on this. they were called out on this. >> that's not exactly a victory for the ds. thank you, michael steele, you may be right, about how bad of shape we are in. anyway, thank you, michael feldman, if lying is just okay. >> it's not lying, chris! come on, man, you know it's not lying. >> don't try to interpret me. i think this is a hell of a distortion. anyway, herman cain didn't know china had nukes, he didn't know about neoconservatives, and he couldn't remember what happened to libya this year. now he's added to that sorry resume coming up next in the side show. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc.

as a t ares i'm do li of erhe

back to "hardball." now to the sideshow. first up, shut down. yesterday gop candidate rick perry challenged minority leader nancy pelosi to a debate. on his plan to completely overhaul washington. well, pelosi rsvp'd to the invite today, and as it turns out, she won't be in town. but listen to just how she turned down the texas governor. >> well, he did ask if i could debate here in washington on monday, it is my understanding that such a letter has come in. monday i'm going to be in portland in the morning. i'm going to be visiting some of our labs in california in the afternoon. that's two. i can't remember what the third thing is i'm going to be doing. >> well, i'd call that a rejection. anyway, next up, playing to the crowd, or at least that. what gop candidate herman cain was going for during a campaign appearance in front of a large population of cuban-americans in miami yesterday. >> now, i know we have a lot of small business people here.

now, let me tell you how nueve-nueve-nueve helps the small business person. >> he beefed up his language skills. later in the day, he needed some assistance. >> 11. love it. love it. low-fat? [ speaking in foreign language ] how do you say delicious in cuban? >> mr. cain -- >> right, what language do they speak in cuba again? cuban. there goes another performance to add to the 2012 republican clown show. >> last night i was on "the colbert report" to talk about my book. after discussing john f. kennedy's heroism during world war ii, steven let me know what he was really curious about when it comes to the book. let's listen. >> so he won world war ii.

that part we've established. but why do you say jack kennedy: elusive hero. everybody knows who this guy is. his face is on the 50 cent piece. >> his wife said he was that unforgettable elusive hero. she found him hard to figure out. trying to figure out who he was. he lived his life in compartments. he lived one life with his wife, with his irish mafia, with his elite social buddies. his old college buddies. everything was a different compartment. >> who's the next kennedy? is it gingrich? >> hah! no! >> he always comes out with something wild like that, and something ridiculous, of course. thanks again to the colbert report, that's the name of the show, for having me on. up next, the penn state scandal, new reports about how jerry sandusky allegedly, quote -- this will sicken you -- groomed his victims. the latest on the investigation coming up next. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. stkphao

hello. here's what's happening. occupy wall street protesters showing they're not ready to quit yet stepping up activities across the country tonight. we are seeing large scale demonstrations in new york, chicago, los angeles, portland, houston, even las vegas. hundreds of protesters have already been arrested. many of them for blocking traffic as rush hour got under way. authorities have charged an idaho man with trying to assassinate president obama while firing an automatic rifle at the white house last friday. and gop presidential candidate herman cain has asked for and will be the first of the candidates to get secret service protection starting tonight. his campaign won't say what prompted the request. at least five deaths blamed on tornadoes in the southeastern part of the country brings the total number of people killed by

twisters this year to 553. the second deadliest year on record. and demi moore says she is divorcing ashton kutcher amid rumors of his alleged infidelity. now back to "hardball." can you explain what's going on for you and your family right now? >> i can't go into detail, but i think it will work out. i think it's obvious i tried to do the right thing. >> welcome back to "hardball." that's penn state assistant coach mike mcqueary again answering questions today about the events he allegedly witnessed in a shower between jerry sandusky and a young boy back in 2002. details continue to emerge in this case. "the new york times" reports it was an interpret posting that led investigators to question mcqueary last year about that attack. for the latest, i'm joined by michael isikoff, up in state college, pennsylvania, right now, and kathleen kane, an attorney, who's currently

running for pennsylvania attorney general. first to mike. what's new in this case today? >> reporter: well, more lawyers saying they've got more victims who have come forward of jerry sandusky. it's very hard to verify this at this point. obviously, all the publicity has brought in a flood of phone calls to that hotline, and a flood of phone calls to lawyers who are representing victims and who want to represent victims. but right now, we've got a couple of lawyers come forward just in the last two days, one today, saying they are representing new victims in the case, who have gone to authorities, who are being vetted by authorities. no new charges have been filed against sandusky, so i think we've got to be a little cautious at this point, but that is another indication of how fast moving and expanding the case is.

we also have these new reports, interesting story from "the new york times" today, about the origin of the investigation. one aspect of that, which i can confirm is that some of the records from the second mile that were subpoenaed by investigators are missing. they haven't been able to come up with them. that does raise questions. were records removed relating to jerry sandusky's travels and expenses that might verify some of these allegations? we don't know yet. all we know is that some records are missing. and yet another -- by the way, i should add that the second mile has launched its own investigation into all of this. you put it all together with the san antonio police investigating the alamo, the department of education investigating whether penn state broke the law. penn state investigating, and of course, the attorney general of pennsylvania investigation, you've got five investigations going of this sex abuse scandal

right now. >> let's go to kathleen kane on this one. "the new york times" today outlined an alleged pattern of behavior for the former coach. listen to this. "sandusky engaged on what experts on child predators call grooming behavior. law enforcement officials asserted this month, making his first approach when children were 8 to 12 years old. he tended to choose white boys from homes where there was no father or some difficulty in the family, investigators said. and he drew them in with trips to games and expensive gifts like computers." kathleen, tell me about this grooming. are you familiar with this, where a guy picks out a target for sexual abuse? in this case, some horrible abuse. >> yes. every trained child abuse investigator knows about grooming. it's a very common technique among sexual predators. and what it is is they start first by gifts, they move, then into familiarity with the child, saying, you know, they know their favorite color or their favorite teacher or certain problems that they may be having with someone else at school, then they move into the most heinous phase which is a zone of trust. they basically isolate the child. they make the child feel like no

one else, they can't trust no one else, no one else loves them, no one else cares for them like their attacker, and no one else understands them like the way that they do. now the child is blocked off and basically backed into a corner where that child feels like he has no way out. and there's no one to go to, except consequently enough, their attacker. >> and then they use another pattern, where people like sandusky apparently find ways of putting the focus on the victim rather than their own behavior. here he is describing what he says happened in the shower that night that mcqueary walked in on them during that horrible, at least alleged horrible act going on. let's listen. >> 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 and horseplay. >> okay. what do you make of that, kathleen? >> well, again, they always turn it back on to the child. number one, that the -- no one's going to believe the child, because the child is untrustworthy. but as soon as i heard that interview with bob costas, immediately what runs through any mother's or father's mind is they're picturing now this child sliding across a slippery bathroom floor. my next thought, is, oh, my god, the child's going to fall and bang his head, and why is he doing something like that, he knows that he shouldn't be doing? and that's exactly what the predator is trying to make us do. he's trying to make us put it all back on to the victim and say, that victim shouldn't have been doing those actions, and my god, you know, here's sandusky is ready to save him from falling into the shower and banging his head. but it's a classic technique.

it always comes down into a trial, whether the defendant is telling the truth or whether the victim is telling the truth. and the defendant, the predator counts on us saying, that that child, by the mere nature of being a child is untrustworthy, is bad, will never tell the truth. and here he is as an adult in standing within the university or within his community, and by god, he's the one who will always be telling the truth. it's -- i have seen -- i've prosecuted hundreds of child abuse cases, and i've seen it almost in every single case where the defendant, the child predator, turns it back on to the child. >> i don't know how people defend that kind of behavior, blaming the kid after this apparently horrible incident. thank you, michael isikoff, thank you, kathleen kane. great having both of you on. anyway, up next, mitt romney wants you to think his health care law is nothing like president obama's. but now the m.i.t. adviser who advised both romney and the president says romney's full of, these are exactly the same plans. new evidence the republicans,

worse for romney than anybody else, don't like romney. i'm up here in philadelphia for the father and son dinner at my alma mater. this is "hardball" only on msnbc.

so much for building. republicans in congress are on the verge of killing president obama's plan to build high-speed rail lines around the country. the house votes today and the senate tomorrow on a measure that eliminates any funding specifically for high-speed trains. the president called for $8 billion this year and $53 billion over six years, but republicans have long complained that the plan was too costly. now republicans say they want to focus on high-speed rail in the northeast only, not the national network the president envisioned. we'll be right back. ane emra

me irethbong es msuan.. ououpo

tresehay. l,the.

you just don't have credibility, mitt, when it comes to repealing obama care. your plan was the basis for obama care. your consultants helped obama craft obama care. and to say that you're going to repeal it, you just have no track record on that that we can trust you that you're going to do that. >> so the question is credibility, rick santorum says. this is "hardball." again, that was presidential candidate rick santorum, as i said, taking a hard swipe at mitt romney for hypocrisy on health care. and today in the publication "new york capital," jonathan gruber, an m.i.t. professor, whose ideas made up mitt romney's massachusetts health care overhaul and who helped create obama's health care overhaul said romney's attempts to distinguish between his health care plan and obama's are dishonest. "they're the same blanking bill. he just can't have his cake and

eat it too. basically, you know, it's the same bill. he can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he's just lying." and a new bloomberg poll of republican primary caucusgoers in ohio shows the track record of mitt romney as a flip-flopper has traction. will republicans ever enthusiastically embrace romney as their nominee? ron reagan is a political commentator and ed rollins former campaign manager for michele bachmann. ed, we have new polls out that basically confirm the argument put out. here's the bloomberg poll of likely iowa republican caucusgoers. it shows that voters consider romney qualified to be president, but 48%, just about half, say he will do or say anything to win. and 47% say the same thing. he's a flip-flopper. same thing in new hampshire among likely primary voters. again, a huge majority, 81% say qualified to be president. but among those who trust him to be a good president, 43% say he'll do or say anything to win. 43%, the same number, says he's

a flip-flopper. so creeping towards 50% of republican voters in both yankee new hampshire and christian chif iowa both believe the guy can't be trusted to stick to a position. your view? my view is he was badly damaged in the race before he got elected governor. in massachusetts he ran as a very, very moderate republican. took a lot of positions that obviously people in new hampshire know about. obviously in a tough race last time in the caucus a lot of stuff came out. i think he's been pretty stable and not flip-flopping much at all. he is going to take a lot of heat on romneycare. and the president himself said he based his policy on romney care and someone like howard

dean that knows a lot about it has said it many times to me. we're both teachers at hofstra university. he's got to live with it. >> let's go to ron reagan on this. i think it comes down to this. can you predict this man's position on anything but what predicting the future polls will hold? in other words, does he simply track the future polls of popularity on any given issue in the republican camp? >> well, that's what it seems. it's fair i guess to say that he was damaged in his senate campaigns and his gubernatorial term in massachusetts. but if he was damaged by that, he damaged himself. simply by revealing what he presumably felt at the time about issues like global warming and choice and gay rights and things like that. all of which he has flip-flopped on now that he is running for president in the republican party. this is an extraordinary event we have here, watching this republican party. most republicans don't really like mitt romney. but they're resigning themselves to the fact that he's going to be their nominee because everybody else in the field is frankly just impossible. >> ed rollins, let me go to

that. how many voters in your party tend to vote strategically, in other words, vote for the guy or woman they believe can win the general election whether they prefer that person or not? >> more so this time. usually, there's an ideological bent and some single issues that people vote on. but in this particular case we want to beat obama. and i think most people at this point in time, ron represents a view that i don't disagree with, that we think that romney may end up being the strongest candidate against obama. and certainly some polls show that. it's not over yet. voters haven't cast any votes. but at the end of the day i think a lot of people, conservatives in particular, will basically swallow hard and support him enthusiastically. >> down in tampa when you have your convention you may be there as an observer, whatever role you play, probably an analyst. will they get excited in that hothouse environment with the humidity way up, the temperature, will they get out and scream for mitt romney? is that feasible? >> not in the same way that they would for some of the other candidates. if a mike huckabee would have run, they would have been very enthused about him and it would

have been an interesting race. but at the end of the day they weren't enthused about john mccain in the process last time. >> or bob dole. >> or bob dole. and by the end he was a nominee. you know, everyone's looking, ron, for your father's reincarnation. >> we don't see it there, do we? >> we all see he was a great president but he's bigger than life today, and that's a shadow that very few people can stand in. >> ron reagan jr., three republican candidates in a row, george herbert walker bush, bob dole, and mccain, not one of them they liked. why won't they just do it again? the fourth guy in a row they don't like. >> well, they will. romney is going to be the nominee. but this is incredible. you know, ed is right. the republican voters are saying, look, he's the guy that can run against obama and maybe win, so we should try and get this guy in. but what's the big, you know, bete noir for republicans now? it's obamacare, obamas health care plan, creeping communism. but romney's plan is the same.

so what are they voting for? >> ron, we've got witness ppz and we had one tonight. thank you, ed rollins as always. thank you, ron reagan. when we return, let me finish with the exasperation in this country with the two most vibrant political movements, the tea party, if you will, and certainly occupy wall street. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. [ female announcer ] we are taking new ultra downy with silktouch to the streets. which shirt feels more expensive? i get to touch these guys? oooh, ooh la la. i'm feeling their muscles. yup, yup. this feels great. that one. that one's softer. [ female announcer ] actually, it's the same t-shirt. really? but this one was washed in downy. really? that's why it was softer. it has a real soft velvety feeling. let me try again. [ female announcer ] it's like an upgrade in a bottle. divine. why spend a lot of money when you can just use downy? [ female announcer ] new ultra downy with silktouch, it's an upgrade in a bottle.

let me finish tonight with this.

we're looking tonight at what appears to be the exasperation of the country's most alive political movements. the tea party and occupy wall street. exasperation. it's when a felt need, a passion even, fails to be satisfied. it's when you want something and can't get it. like in the song "can't get no, can't get no satisfaction." but i'm speaking here with dead seriousness about forces that appear to be deadly serious. the one on the right that became a tremendous proven force in the summer of years past and in the occupy wall street movement that has replicated itself across the country. one movement the tea party stands today as totally, are you listening to this, incapable, incompetent, i would say, at selecting a leader, someone fit to run for president. they ain't got one. no, no, no, they ain't got one. they looked at trump, yes trump, and at bachmann, perry and cain, and they're dallying now with newt. but they ain't got one.

not a real leader in sight. in fact, if you look back across the months to the summer of last year, they never have. and that tells you something about the negativity of their cause. they are against. and that's not enough to lead this country. the occupy wall street movement has had a different failure. in some way worse, in some way not. they can't come up with a clear voice, a clear statement that would put the focus where it belongs. wall street. well, that's where they've been right. they've been in sync with the country on where to go. they put the blame on wall street. more to the point, to the clout wall street has with our government down in washington. but even as the occupiers are being pushed from their encampments they failed to speak out in clear terms about what they want done. and that is deadly. that's a deadly failure. demonstrators need most of all to demonstrate, tell us what we need to do. i may surprise some people with this, but both of the movements, right as well as left, had a point, a good point to make. both of them. government is spending too much money. if you mean it's spending more than people are willing to finance in taxes, it's spending 25% of our economy. taxing just 15%. it would seem to most people that that 25 number we spend is almost, almost as out of whack as the 15% in taxes. occupy certainly has a great point to make. both parties rely too much on