>> what do you think a tree can be? can it be stronger than steel? can treat the biodegradable 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.

>> tonight we made history. >> this week on "inside washington," romney makes it two in a row. >> i understand the difference between a venture-capital and vulture capitalism. >> romney it signed a government-mandated health care with taxpayer-funded abortions. >> who is writing the anti- ronnie stuff, the democratic national committee? >> we had a victory for the cause of liberty. >> how does a 76-year-old man become the youth candidate? what is behind the shake-up at the white house? >> i will deeply miss having bill my side at the white house. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> one week after winning the

iowa caucuses by eight votes, mitt romney captured 39% of the vote in new hampshire. his nearest competitor, ron paul, got 22% of the vote. the other candidates, desperate to stop him, have attacked him for his success as a venture capitalist -- these are republicans -- and for creating a model for the obama health care legislation. it does not seem to be working. romney is leading in south carolina and florida, yet he gives many conservatives that the willies. there is a meeting of cultural conservatives this weekend to see if they can find the body else. how did he pull this off, mark? >> he won across the board. protestants, catholics, republicans -- he won. it was a decisive victory. >> and he was elected by how the opposition split. no. 2 is ron paul, who is not

going to win the nomination. huntsman camp out in new hampshire, and he got 1/6 of the vote in a six-man field. >> you have to give him credit. he took a chance by going into iowa late, and eking out a victory there, and then he built this concrete wall for himself in new hampshire. >> he was -- he had home field advantage and he took advantage of it in new hampshire and was a tie in iowa -- that was not a victory, that was a tie, eight- vote margin. >> on election day, at one of manchester, new hampshire's polling places, i asked a nurse why she voted for mitt romney. >> he is the most moderate of the candidates that i have heard. i think he has the best chance

of beating obama. >> best chance of beating obama. nearly half the voters in new hampshire did not decide on their vote until a few days before the primary, nearly 1/5 not until election day, and 1/3 say they are unsatisfied with their choices. i would call that enthusiasm gap. >> absolutely. he does not generate ntc as him wherever he goes, but he is running on -- he does not generate enthusiasm wherever he goes, but he is running on electability. >> but you don't get a personal connection that you get with a bill clinton or ronald reagan -- >> you don't. there is allegedly this enthusiasm about beating obama, but there was only a little bit greater turnout than the there was in the last sort of bush- weary primaries. that is peculiar in this time. >> the former attorney general

of new hampshire, a longtime adviser to republican presidential candidates and every republican in new hampshire, had a very interesting formulation. he said that ordinarily, what happens with voters is their hearts make the decision and the heads follow. he says this year is different, that the heads make the decision, and as you saw in that piece you did, ronnie's ability to win, more moderate, and that their hearts will follow. he has a romney supporter and obviously hopes that is the case. i agree with you, there is not an emotional intensity except with the ron paul. >> how do you beat barack obama if you don't have an emotional connection with your candidate? >> you may not. that is what everybody is worried about. the field is weak, and romney is a weaker-than-usual front runner, particularly, as you say, in constituency,

republicans, who are extremely anti-obama, as we saw in 2010. the turnout in iowa and new hampshire was essentially the same as in 2008, a year when it was not a lot of republican enthusiasm and when it there is a contested primary in iowa and new hampshire, which this time around there wasn't. you would expect all the energy to be on the republican side. it is not a good sign for the general election. >> one thing that new hampshire voters ought to be noted for, and that is that 62% of the catholics who voted in the republican primary last tuesday voted for a mormon, which is rather remarkable. 56% overall of republican voters. the two catholic candidates between them, rick santorum and newt gingrich, got 19% of the vote, which i thought was a blow for tolerance and a testimony to

something good. >> the exit polls indicated that romney and paul split the vote of those earning less than $50,000 a year. south carolina is different. median income is around $42,000, 17% below the poverty line, and in plummet almost 10%. it is a different playing field -- unemployment almost 10%. it is a different playing field. >> but i don't know how that works with party registration. i suspect that among republicans, you have higher income and and the general population, and romney will play well with them. the issue that will dog him in south carolina and the next few primaries is his record with the bain capital. >> does santorum do better in south carolina? >> yes, but at the moment i don't see -- i defer to mark on this, i have not been there, but

i don't see a huge groundswell for him. he did camp out in iowa and it paid off, but he has not camped out in south carolina. even though he has a super pac, is not as big as some of the others. i don't see that happening. >> he is getting some funding -- >> he could come in second. >> new hampshire has been historically unhospitable to candidates with the religious appeal. pat robertson, at even mike huckabee four years ago, and rick santorum this time. south carolina has a strong tradition of cultural and religious conservative voters. the question is, are gingrich, perry, or santorum going to be able to court that constituency -- >> they split it. >> when did success in business

become a political liability? >> i draw the distinction between a leading the company and leaving behind broken families and neighborhoods and a factory that should be there. >> we understood for a long time that the obama people would go after free enterprise. i am a little surprised to see newt gingrich as the first witness for the prosecution. >> gingrich and huntsman have been dialing down the last couple of days. rick perry is calling a vulture capitalist. why are these guys doing obama's work for him? >> desperation. rick perry looks ridiculous making these charges. at least with newt, you can almost believe he believes it. perry looks like he is reading off a script. newt will seize whatever issues at hand -- look at global warming, the mandate.

he is basically undisciplined and i think un principle. this is ahab going after the great white. it is very personal, he has basically admitted that. he could get lucky, he could conceivably succeed with this strategy in south carolina. i think it is unlikely, but it is possible, and it would revive his candidacy. but i think it is a lot more about destroying romney than winning the nomination. i am not sure that newt believes he has any chance of that. >> will that come back to haunt them, this strategy? >> no, it is not. the problem that romney has is that he has made his business career the issue. he has said i am the one who has created jobs. when you make that kind of

assertion, it has to hold up. and when you look at what happened with bain capital, you find winners and losers. romney says it is an attack on free enterprise. it is nothing of the sword. free enterprise is also got a guy with the hot dog stand outside, the person who runs a beauty shop. he did something different. he is in venture-capital, and you need to examine the record of a venture-capital is like mitt romney, how well or how badly they did. some people were helped, some people were hurt as a result. >> here is what andrew sullivan says -- "we have a singular example of someone who made a quarter of a billion dollars by firing the white, middle class and working class in ways that do not seem designed to promote growth and efficiency but merely to enrich bain." >> i think that romney's

business career is analogous to john kerry's military career. he has made it maybe not fair game, but game. the kind of thing that bain capital did, as colby said, had winners and losers -- >> but that is what it is. >> eat is what it is, but many people don't realize that he did not build the company, etc. he is part of a company that comes in and sometimes dismembers these places, moves them even of coast. he will probably be faced with that. and as they pay an entirely different tax rate on profits. nobody focuses on that, because it is not sexy enough, but he pays less money in his tax rate than his secretary -- >> does this argument -- by the

time barack obama comes along, has the argument lost some of its sting because it is going on right now? >> that is the case that sunny republicans are making right now, that light reverend wright was resolved in the primary of 2008 and john mccain did not revisit it, his own decision, in the fall of 2008. i think there is a couple of points here. this opens up a larger debate about the economy. does the economy exist to serve as human beings, or do human beings exist to serve the economy? nina put her finger on something important. when you have people being laid off, whether they are steelworkers or firefighters or nurses, who are paying taxes at a higher rate than mitt romney did, because they pay at the rate of carried interest -- all their income is treated at carry

interest and tax only 15% -- we are going into the time that is historically contradictory. democrats, being the party of the lower classes, have loved nominating candidates, or wellborn and privileged -- fdr, jack kennedy. republicans, to prove they were not the party of the country club, have nominated people who came from humble backgrounds -- ronald reagan, richard nixon. mitt romney is the richest candidate ever nominated for president. that is going to be an issue regardless of how this controversy is resolved. >> is a good bank account a liability, charles? >> it didn't hurt fdr, johnson, or the bushes, who had enough money in the bank. i am not sure, a candidate has really matters -- how much can

it has really matters. what really matters is that romney has to know that when you are a venture-capital is, the democrats are going to hit you on that. what surprises me is that he is attacked by republicans on this, and he doesn't have a good answer. he needs to have an answer. he needs to explain what he does, he needs to explain how it, for example, what he did is analogous to what obama did with the auto companies. in order to save companies in decline, about to go under, you have to slim it down, you have to fire people, you have to close dealerships in order that you save the company and then you grow and expand in the future. he did it with private money, obama did it with your money and mine. it is not that hard to do, but he does not seem to have an answer. >> how does a 76-year-old man get such a youthful following? >> i have youthful ideas.

they know i am concerned about their generation. >> ron paul, election day in manchester. if you attended some of ron paul's events as mark and i have, you can appreciate the intensity of support among younger voters. >> the youth candidate of 2008 was barack obama. the youth candidate of 2012 is definitely ron paul. his phone bank is monitored by veterans. just an intensity -- part of the appeal, make no mistake, is his authenticity. this is a man who says exactly the same thing wherever he is. it does not make any difference if he is behind daddy warbucks or firefighters and blue-collar workers. he gives the same message, and

obviously, it has an appeal. >> charles wrote a whole column about him. >> i am now and act alike. look, it is an interesting phenomenon. -- i am now an acolyte. look, it is an interesting phenomenon. he will not be the nominee and that is why he has gotten less attention. historically speaking, his race to be the most important. he has brought libertarianism out of the wilderness -- these pathetic third-party runs 25 years ago. he is going to end up in tampa where jesse jackson ended up at the democratic conventions in the 1980's, or pat buchanan in 1992, as the guy with the second-most delegates. he will demand changes in policy, and he could demand a primetime speech. if you are the republican candidate, you better start thinking about how he will handle them, because otherwise,

he rents out and runs as a third-party candidate, and the republicans lose before the race even starts. >> i am shaking my head in this sense -- he is not at jesse jackson or pat buchanan who would settle for a stump speech at the convention. he is going to go and pick up delegates along the way said that he can go into the convention with a voice. the voice you will hear is his voice through the platform. the ideas that he will introduce into the platform, you will see where the republican party of 2012 is going to be. he has some ideas that are going to be -- >> do you find yourself sometimes agreeing with him before he goes off the cliff? >> well, yes, sometimes. i sometimes agree with almost everybody. the only reason i think he won't run as a third-party candidate is his son as a career in front of him. his son is in the united states senate, and i don't think he

will that. -- do that. i am not sure that the platform, which can become completely disavowed instantly, will do it. i am not sure what i can it can do for ron paul that will actually -- what i can it can do for ron paul that will actually appease him. >> the turnout was up from 2008, and the reason it was up is ron paul. those participating for the first time -- >> how much of that, a gentleman who have been there, is this being anti-war, isolationist? >> it is all of those things. anti-fed, anti-bailout -- >> and the stoned out constituency. >> something unusual happened

this week. the supreme court came to a unanimous decision, and the issue was religious freedom. tell us about that, nina. >> the court for the first time said that civil rights laws do not apply to ministers of the church or of any church. it was unanimous -- that was surprising. it is more limited in some ways than it sounds, because what the court said -- you know, for a long time, the catholic church and mormons have said that we should not be in court at all, the court does not have any business judging who is a minister and it was not. the court said yes, we do. on the other side, the court said you say somebody is a minister and we agree that at present is the minister, that is it. we will not look into whether this is just a pretext for discrimination the person has

significant religious duties, and there are a whole bunch of actors to evaluate, that person is a minister, and it does not matter if you discriminate against him or her, that is it. >> the woman one worked at a religious school, had a case of narcolepsy, she left, and they would not rehire her. >> but she had trained to become a minister, had that standing and status. they have a right to handle ministers the way they wish. this is what the court said. >> that is exactly the issue, whether the federal government has the right to direct or influence how religious organizations hire or fire clergy. what is amazing is that was unanimous. equally amazing is that the obama administration took the side that lost 9-0. there is no difference between

if the federal government can decide who works in a factory or institution or nonprofit versus a religion paid the counter argument, which everybody on the court agreed with, is that the first amendment treat religious -- religions and churches -- differently from any other association in the country. you have to respect that. whereas the laws that apply to any other association, a church is different. it is amazing that the obama administration argued against it. elena kagan and sam alito concurred in one of the separate entrances. that tells you something. >> first words in the bill of rights -- freedom of religion. >> would have made a difference if she had been driving instructor, or gym teacher?

>> she was. she taught mainly math and science, but in order to get tenure -- ->> she also had a calling, a sort of a vocation. the court said, we are not the ones who will decide what kind of ordination is required. the church decides on its own ordination. the point is that religion is not a threat to government, government is a threat to religion, and that is what the court -- >> it little bit about the construction of what the federal government was doing. the federal government does not decide who can be hired in an institution. that is not what the position was. this is whether you can discriminate against a person in hiring and firing. they took the position that you could not do this. the court found was there was an overriding interest of religion. it is not a matter of saying the

federal government was anti- or trying to make them do something they should not have done. >> some other time we can talk about why federal governments can decide who should be married -- >> that is the question. >> don't have time to shake up at the white house. >> last week, might chief of staff, bill daley, informed me that it was time to leave washington and return to our beloved hometown of chicago. >> what is the back story on this, colby? >> i don't know if there is an intriguing political story. the white house is in full political mode, the president will be out and about. you need somebody in the white house who can keep the trains running, and you don't need a big political operative as your chief of staff. you need somebody who can manage

the operation left behind in washington. >> i don't think it is that simple. i think they brought in bill daley to be the grown-up in the room and a person with business connections, and it didn't work out. the reason is that there is a very insular group of people around the president, and i have always thought -- i thought this with president bush as well -- that that is very poisonous to a presidency. you get too insulated and you only have your little groupies telling you what you want to hear. >> was daley marginalized? >> to a degree he was, and the strategy at the beginning of his tenure was to reach out across the aisle and make yourself more accessible to business groups and republicans. that has been changed dramatically. what ever else, the definition of a chief of staff that bill daley brought to it was somebody with outside experience,

political experience, private sector experience, not unlike and jim baker. jack lew, his successor, is a guy up enormous ability, great depth of knowledge, but doesn't ring to it that same political dimension. >> look, i cannot believe how cynical my colleagues are. you heard the guy. he wants to spend more time with the family. i think that sends everybody says that when they leave a job, there should be a legal requirement that when you take a job in government, you ought to say, "i want to spend less time with my family." [laughter] that should be written into law. >> jonathan alter quotes a former chairman of the committee,nationalmiom, ceett "i am going back to chicago where they stand you in the front." see you next week.

vo:geico, committed to providing service to its auto insurance customers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night.