>> what do you think of a tree can be? can it be stronger than steel? can the treaty by degradable plastic? can it be fuel for our cars, or clothing, or medicine that fights cancer? with our tree cell technology, we think it can. weyerhaeuser, growing ideas. >> what i say to washington is watch out, and here we come. >> this week on "inside washington," primary voters sent a message. >> i did not vote for any incumbent >> the senate votes to take a broom to wall street. the president's national intelligence director gets the boot. >> barack obama is taking of it

a way that does not have papers. >> a second grader puts the immigration debate on the front burner. >> i have misspoken about my service, and i regret that. >> does toys for tots count as service in vietnam? and another congressional sinner bites the dust. >> i'd let down my wife and my family. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> what can we conclude from this week's primary elections? how about this, is going to be a wild ride in november. joe sestak beat arlen specter in pennsylvania, tea party favorite rand paul frustrated the republican establishment in kentucky, and democrats managed to hold on to congressman jack murtha's seat in the pennsylvania 12th district.

what does this tell us about the conventional wisdom on the 2010 elections, mark? >> don't seek the endorsement of the political establishment, don't run as an insider, and it is better to be younger and newer than older and more familiar. >> if you are a republican, beware the hubris we experienced on january 19 when the republicans won massachusetts. the most important race this week was the one that democrats won by a large margin, a house seat, where the guy ran a local campaign to any republican who thinks is a slam dunk that able in the house is wrong. >> the worst case that an incumbent can be this year is in an election. >> nina? >> try to remember that all of these races, except to the one in the john or the district, were primaries. richard nixon still had the

support of 25% or 30% when he was nearly impeached. there is always a hard-core people who will nominate and do god knows what. >> democrat mark critz beat republican tim burns in pennsylvania, where 63% of the voters cannot stand in nancy pelosi. first, republican tim burns. >> pennsylvania needs jobs and leadership, but the obama- pelosi agenda makes things worse. >> i opposed the health care bill, i am pro-life and pro-gun. >> he ran as a democrat but he sounds like a republican. >> yes, but he was john murtha's top aide. he is a democrat. he won a significantly. >> this is a total canard that

has been used against mark critz. sean hannity was saying it on election night, and other commentators as well, that he ran a pro-life and pro-gun. john murtha, 36 years and the house, was pro-life and pro-gun, against campaign finance. he was a blue-collar democrats, and that is what this fellow went on. he said he would have voted against the health care plans, but how about repealing it? tim burns said "i want to repeal it," and mark critz said no, and mark critz winds. >> when you run a national campaign in this atmosphere, as a republican, you win. that is what happened in massachusetts, virginia, new jersey. those were statewide elections. but remember that in new york, there was a house race, 23, where it was run as a local

election and the democrats won. if you run aground in election as a democrat, you run on the local issues, you do not nationalize it, you stay away from barack obama and nancy pelosi, you can win. that is what republicans have to understand. >> with new york 23, at the difference was that the tea party candidate came in and mess it up for the republicans. as far as what happened in pennsylvania, this is a true blue certified democrat. there was nothing republican about him. his opponent was running against nancy pelosi. nancy pelosi is not an issue. >> the curious thing to me, though, is that the democrats had a great get-out-of-a vote. in arkansas -- get-out-the-vote. in arkansas, things that flips.

blanche lincoln carried the urban areas significantly, and her opponent was supposed to do that carried the rural areas. >> in pennsylvania, voters rejected arlen specter, who used to be a democrat before he became a republican and then a democrat again. joe sestak beat him. >> go back to when we first talked about arlen specter switched, the trouble about whether it the democratic party would accept him. the president, the governor, the mayor of philadelphia -- nonetheless, rank-and-file democrats in pennsylvania never -- accepted never >> specter. >> as a democrat, and he has a record as a republican to show for it. >> is there any truth to the story that the white house offered joe sestak a job to keep him out of the race?

>> yes. -- true. joe sestak is the one who said it happened is he a liar? >> the white house denies it, or they have not confirmed it -- >> not confirming and denying -- no, it made joe sestak for much the man against the machine. the mayor of pittsburgh and the mayor of philadelphia and the entire establishment. arlen specter carried three counties out of 67 -- philadelphia, where the mayor endorsed him, harrisburg, where the governor, ed rendell, is, and the third one is scranton, where his colleague endorsed him. >> don't forget, this the second time he switched parties. he switched as a young man to run as republican district attorney. >> he finally after 30 years exceeded the limits of political

opportunism, even by the standards he has set, and it is really saying a lot. >> now rand paul in kentucky could match mcconnell and the republican establishment tried to portray him as a net case. it did not work. >> no, although he has his own troubles today. he is the bernie sanders of the republican party. bernie sanders is a socialist in vermont votes with democrats. if rand paul ends up in the sand, he will go way out there but a vote with republicans on most issues. >> he told msnbc that he thinks the president ought to get his boot heel off of the bp got that to criticize them this way is unamerican. >> this the problem with his views, when they are exposed this way. when you say the first day after the election that he would not repeal -- that he would not support the civil rights act,

and you are in trouble. the libertarian view is that the government should not do anything, they should just protect the country with the military and police, basically, and maybe some of food safety things, maybe. but they don't want the boot heel of government on a lot of things. >> "i added quickly state that i will not support any efforts to repeal the civil -- unequivocal state that i will not support any efforts to repeal the civil rights act." that is a relief, colby. >> i would have to stay at the counter if he had his way. we know what he said to npr, when he said to rachel maddow -- what he said to rachel maddow. if he had his way, colby king, who was 11 years old at the time, the drug store on 35th pennsylvania avenue, would still have to do what he had to do then, to stand at a lunch counter and not take a seat,

because it is a private establishment, and under ron paul's view, the private establishment has the right to discriminate. notwithstanding what the law says, ron paul, taking the libertarian view -- >> rand paul. >> rand paul, taking the libertarian view, would have me denied access at a restaurant or a theater or any kind of place that serves the public. >> although he says he is personally opposed to discrimination -- >> let us be clear about something else the civil rights bill did. much of the litigation involving the law involved employment discrimination, and people's right to have equal access to jobs and promotions. that would be gone without the civil rights bills. -- without the civil rights bill. companies with huge shareholder bases and tax benefits would still be able to discriminate based on race and gender and

ethnic background. >> i have it on the best authority that rand paul will endorse the emancipation proclamation. [laughter] >> if rand paul and his ilk take over the government, finally -- >> i don't want my silence to be interpreted as support for rand paul. i also support the civil- rights -- there is a reason that libertarians' end up with less than half of 1% in national elections. they have wonderful ideas in the abstract, but it is not useful governing philosophy, and he showed it on day one. >> it is an interesting shotgun wedding between the libertarians and the religious right in the republican party. i don't think it can last, because libertarians in view of the stop sign as an unwelcome government intrusion in our

life, and are basically totally tolerant of same-sex marriage and so forth. once the religious right becomes aware of this, rand paul embraces it, or run away from it, it is going to be politically very shaky. >> libertarian versus tea party, are they not the same thing? >> not at all. >> ron paul at rand paul, the only genuine libertarians at that level of -- >> he belongs to them block stock and barrel -- >> that does not make them libertarian that makes them attractive to him as a candidate -- >> are they still with him on public accommodation? is that tea party position also? >> that is not the issue. that is what makes him a terrible candidate, that he made it the issue gratuitously

because he has no political instincts -- >> will they back away from -- >> it is not an issue. >> it is an issue. of course it is an issue. >> civil rights today is not an active political issue. >> that is his position. to date back his position? does michael steele back his position? >> when you back a candidate, you did not endorse all -- >> the problem with the tea party is this -- it is the movement without a national face our national identity. rand paul has become the face and identity of the tea party. he is the most conspicuous, visible, a prominent figure in the tea party to win statewide office and beat -- >> what about scott brown in massachusetts? >> he had mitt romney's backing -- >> the senate votes on wall

street and the president dom's the spy chief. >> our goal is not to punish banks, but to protect the american people from the kind of people -- upheaveals we have seen. >> this will get into people's pockets, and i'm talking about individuals. >> the senate passed the most sweeping regulation of wall street since the great depression. derivatives, consumer protection, byzantine financial products, and federal regulators could regulate troubled financial institutions. what do you think of this, colby? >> it is better than what we had at the time of the near-crash. frankly, i would like to have seen them have glass-steagall reinstated, separating commercial and investment banks completely. but this is still a lot better than what we had before. >> "the wall street journal"

quotes some analysts saying that the legislation would cut profits to a mental institutions by as much as 20%. - profits to financial institutions by as much as 20%. >> no. i am revamping my position on it. where i put my money now is under the mattress with these people. it is significant legislation, maybe the most significant financial regulation since the great depression. the task of it politically -- the test of a politically is that the republicans did not filibuster. there was no will to filibuster. the republicans were put squarely on the defensive. we will see a i knew barack obama very shortly. this will be barack obama playing harry truman and andrew jackson. he has never played a populist before, but he will make this a populist issue.

>> the rhetoric of the tea party fits right in with the rhetoric of this bill. i know that the rhetoric of the tea party is anti-government, but it is also anti-big institutions bid i don't see them crying that they are making it a less money if there is a few less millions to give in bonuses to executives. >> but this bill is very sweeping, but i think it is able of the dice. the president made a statement that was quite at tea party statement when he announced the vote in which he said that this will guarantee that we will never have a bailout again or a meltdown like we had. that is extremely unclear. this is 1500 pages of regulation of an unbelievably complicated system. the experts i have spoken with think that is going to increase the chances of of bailout. all of this is hard to determine in advance, but the confidence

with which he speaks about how is going to solve our problems and obviate the new meltdown is troubling. nobody knows, and it could do a lot of damage, unintended. >> dennis blair, director of national intelligence -- why did the president lose faith in him, nina? >> by the time we appoint another one, there will have been four directors of national intelligence in five years. when the 9/11 commission recommended, it envisioned a small, lean and mean operation to oversee things. a few hundred people, not over 1500, which they have died. -- have got. the position does not have budget purse strings. you cannot run and oversee an order priorities in the intelligence community if you do not have the power of the purse. this is a position that does not work very well. >> it is a perfect example of

why in financial regulation, you are dealing with unknowns. everybody imagined at the time that we would have this great theoretical structure, dni would be in charge of 16 agencies and the dots would connect. in the real world, it is not how it worked out. it was an extra layer of bureaucracy that did not have authority to add the cia was in a struggle with dni and in the end it won. the same way that homeland security is a new agency that was going to solve our problems, and it has been a disaster. it is a warning of the theoretical reorganizing of a huge structures of society and how it almost always ends up screwed up as a result. >> i don't think that homeland security has proven yet to be a disaster. in this case, they need to find a technocrat, not a big personality to run the operation. >> it has not worked, let's be

very blunt about eight, the dni office. when you left at four in five years, that is a good indication. when you are interviewing somebody's replacement before he is told he is leaving, it is probably not the greatest personnel operation. >> barack obama is taking everybody away that does not have papers. >> well, that is something that we have to work on, right, to make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers, right? >> my mom does not have papers. >> that is the human side of the immigration debate. a little girl is scared to death that the government is going to take her mother away. >> kids say the darnedest things sometimes. this is unrehearsed, obviously,

and immigration would not dare touch her mother at this point but it does highlight a real problem, that kids are sitting around wondering what is going to happen to mom and dad. >> presidents of mexico also say the darnedest things preheat attacks the arizona and -- a w things -- things. he attacks the arizona law, saying it would subject "our people close what i -- all but " our people" to discrimination. if they are his people, why are they in our country. it is audacious to attack our laws on the issue where mexico has not lifted a finger to help us in stemming illegal immigration. >> i cannot get upset about a foreign leader doing a little lecture in when he has done a lot of things and trying to beat

the drug cartels, and our appetite for drugs and our long border together is what facilitates illegal emigration on our side and terrible violence in his country. we lecture other countries all the time but i cannot get upset about it. >> calderon's condemnation of ak-47s circulating everywhere -- he has forfeited any chance of the national rifle association endorsement in his next election. >> drug dealers down there have killed more than 20,000 mexicans. he says to stop selling guns -- >> not to mention that it is our appetite for drugs that facilitates it. >> it is always a powerful -- of course, it is always our fault. these are mexicans who are be heading each other in our streets, and it is our fault? >> they had k alsoilled -- also

killed americans. >> exactly, and that is also our fault. >> the person who does the killing -- absolutely, i stand with you, but there is an appetite for drugs in this country. >> everybody off loads of their guilt on the united states. >> we have learned something very important since the days i have served in vietnam. i will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words andand im -- ajnd impugn my record of service to this country. >> for the record, richard blumenthal did a great job toys for tots with, never served in vietnam.

with this cost him his senate seat? >> yes, it could. is a real problem. there is a real difference in everybody's mind between serving in vietnam and not in vietnam. nobody has forgotten not being in the theater of combat were fellow americans are having their limbs and lives blown off on an hourly basis when any political candidate or individual says "i misspoke," all it does is echo "i did not have sexual relations with that woman." >> i think the word was invented by ron ziegler, and it was the word that had not existed before. it was a way of saying that aa lie is just a contortion of the tongue. it is interesting that in this election, he would assume that in connecticut, this man would

be safe with the democratic seat, and kentucky would be saved as the republican seat. as a result of rand paul winning, kentucky could be a switch, and connecticut could be a switch. >> in his debate, richard blumenthal said, but what i did not serve in vietnam." i am asking you, charles, a former practicing psychiatrist, why does somebody do this? how did this happen? >> i am a psychiatrist in remission. i have no idea. >> he did not misspeak. he lied. he lied, and he lied. that is the issue. >> congressman mark souder, republican of indiana, was man enough to say that he sinned in

having a relationship with a part-time staffer. >> he had a video of this staff were interviewing him about what a great defender of abstinence he was, sexual abstinence. i don't know why anyone would want to not abstain with him. >> he was going to be confronted with this, so he had to do something. >> is there something in the water up there? >> henry kissinger said that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. mark souder is the ultimate test of that, because a george clooney looks like he is not. [laughter] >> i am not going to kick the died when he is discounted -- the guy when he is this down. when you think of all the politicians who drag out the confession, and it ought to be a criminal offense, i give him credit at least on that. >> in the poisonous environment

of washington, d.c., anany personal failure -- >> i would of thought that after the clinton years, in this country, it would not be a major issue, but apparently it is not over. >> it is a problem -- him to >> as of the hypocrisy. it killed eliot spitzer as well. >> see you next week. for a transcript of this broadcast, log on to insidewashington.tv.