>> what do you think tree can be? can it be stronger than steel? tenantry be but the -- can a tree the biodegradable plastic, or fuel for our cars, a medicine that fights cancer? with our tree cell technology, we think it can. weyerhaeuser, growing ideas. >> what a night. thank you, illinois.

>> this week on "inside washington," romney wins illinois and receives a saw after endorsement from jeb bush. >> establishment, the money, versus the people. >> they have made it clear that they what medicaid it to wither on the vine. >> if we operate based on political sphere, nothing is ever going to get done -. >> the supreme court will hear arguments on the obama health care law. >> it is the number one reason that barack obama should not be returned to office. >> the nfl comes down hard on at bounty hunters. >> i don't know of any other fraternity where somebody tries to knock out one of his brothers. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

>> is mitt romney finally closing the deal? he won rodrigo and illinois -- he won puerto rico and illinois, he has twice as many delegates as santorum. jeb bush clearly not in love with the guy but he did endorse him it. conservative senator jim demint said it is clear who the nominee will be. when asked how the campaign would proceed if romney wins the nomination, communications director eric fehrnstrom said this. >> you hit the reset button for the fall campaign. it is almost like an etch a sketch. >> that was unfortunate. in a recent study, one of the most frequently used in negative words to describe mitt romney was "flip-flopper."

the campaign seems to be its own worst enemy. when you consider that jeb bush's endorsement was less than a lukewarm and jim demint did not endorse him, you wonder if, as roger simon does, mitt romney is the date you don't show up for. >> a lot of times you stick it out and you find that the guy is more interesting than you thought. other times you look back at the guy 10 or 15 years later and think, thank god i did not show up. >> how does this man fire up the faithful, charles? >> he can't. he has been trying for six years and has not succeeded. he won't. but the fact is that if and when he becomes the nominee, there is no alternative. it is either him or obama. conservatives, republicans,

knowing they have one choice other than obama, will be fired up. not over romney, but the fact he is not obama. >> colby? >> i don't think so. we had truth spoken this week when the guy said that romney is like an etch a sketch. is not there. he will try to move towards the center, but when he does, the right will nail him for it. some republican pros will go along with it, but the base of the party will not let him. he will have problems in the general election if he is the nominee, and it is not guaranteed. what is romney going to do in arkansas, louisiana? there are a lot of states that will go santorum's way.

>> what does he have to do to generate enthusiasm, mark? >> he has to win the nomination and be the alternative to barack obama. he is not going to generate passion, intensity. the problem with the etch a sketch was, quite frankly, that eric fehrnstrom was saying on television what people say in private. richard nixon said you run as hard to the right as you can to win the nomination and then you dash for the middle when you get it. -- especially don't do i you don't tell people, and he did especially don't would you or someone like romney, who has changed his position on gun rights, abortion, and gay rights.

it is not unlike john kerry, i voted for the $87 billion before i voted against it, and george bush at the checkout counter looking at a scanner and saying "my goodness, what is this," confirming the stereotypes that he is out of touch and kerry is inconstant. >> the problem is partly numerical. i hate to be so data-driven. what romney has going for him is that the republican base really loathes obama. but the only way he can win is to turn out that base, not just passively pettithave it vote ort vote. the turnout can be the difference in critical states like ohio between winning or losing.

that is what karl rove it discovered in 2004 t. every time he does more for the base, he loses the middle. >> that was the bush strategy but not the romney strategy. romney in genetically cannot fire it up. he has to go back --romney intrinsically cannot fire it up. he has to go with the fact that we have had three years of obama's rule at they don't want 88 years. the study showed that the positive word from our-- for romney are good, electable. bush -- "now is the time for

republicans to unite behind a romney it and take our message to voters in the fall." >> he wants this over because the longer it drags out, the harder it is for romney. the problem is that romney cannot hold his conservative base and win independents. he cannot do both. >> sure he can. >> the positions on immigration, planned parenthood -- you cannot move to the center with those positions. you cannot do it. >> at what point do santorum and gingrich decides yes a fool's errand? >> gingrich is probably never going to. this is about him. >> rick santorum is in all likelihood looking to a victory,

as we do this friday morning, in louisiana, as well as arkansas, at texas, pennsylvania maybe. he has a slice of the electorate that has been cool to romney. he has evangelical voters. where ever evangelical voters are dominant, he carries. >> not catholic voters. >> he lost catholic voters to romney in illinois. he has lost catholic voters consistently to romney. >> i think it was you who said last week that jerry brown was sort of the analogy to santorum today. he chased clinton all the way to the nomination, winning a lot of late races but not the nomination. it is possible that santorum -- the reason he would do it is to is that this himself as a force

in the party. -- is to establish himself as a force in the party. in the end, he is unlikely to win the nomination. he becomes the logical front runner or at least at strong candidate in the next cycle. >> does romney have to offer him the no. 2 position? >> i don't think that is ever going to happen. santorum said this week that obama would be preferable to romney -- >> i think he is right. [laughter] >> we leave benefits exactly intact as it is today for people in or near retirement. but to keep the commitment of to the seniors, you need to reform for the next generation. >> they do not believe in medicare, and they act upon their beliefs, the republicans do. >> is it about reforming

medicare or a step to letting it wither on the fine? -- the vine? >> it is a political document. he changed his proposal from last year which newt gingrich branded right-wing social engineering at the time. he has performed a political the service to mitt romney. at a time when by a two-one margin of voters believe mitt romney does not believe the needs and problems of people like themselves, an overwhelming majority believe obama does, and an overwhelming majority think, quite 65%, that mitt romney tilts to the rich, he gives a tax break of $150,000 a year to the average millionaire. just your average street corner millionaire . it puts them in a terrible

position at a time when the party is seen as catering to the rich. he gives the democrats an opening. >> charles? >> i have a slightly different interpretation. it is the most -- in fact, the only realistic budget offered by either party. obama offered nothing. last year he offered a budget that the senate, controlled by democrats, rejected 97-0. a budget that is serious about reducing our debt, and it does it for tax reform, which is what reagan did with the tip o'neill in 1986, the most successful piece of legislation in the last quarter-century, and what obama's debt reduction commission had recommended and obama rejected. it the worst the rates but eliminates loopholes, -- it lowers rates but eliminate

loopholes, and those loopholes, $7 out of every $10 of income, go to the top quintile did you change the way the irs is collecting taxes and do it in a rational way that is infinitely more fair. >> it is the budget on paper. that is not happen in reality. it took eight years to do the reagan reform plan. taking away loopholes in theory, but it is not going to work out that way. there are no cuts to defense. for the poor, disabled, a lower middle-class, structural things for the country -- i suspect that is not something people really want. >> anyone who was seriously look at this had said the same thing -- you cannot just have tax cuts, but you also need revenue enhancers.

paul ryan is being true to his principles. this is not a disservice to mitt romney. this is what romney wants to do, too. relying heavily on discretionary spending, falling disproportionately on the poor. increasing military spending, the same old thing -- >> with all due respect, that is completely wrong. when you say there are no revenue enhancers, liberals think that if you cut rates, you cut taxes. in fact, it is revenue neutral. the marginal rates are cut. the revenue enhancers is the elimination of deductions, the loopholes, and the corruption in the budget. you end up as you did in 1986, with the irs not losing a penny but rational lower marginal rates. >> but on the question of what

loopholes should be to be closed, he leaves that to somebody else. >> the house ways and means committee whose jurisdiction it is, not his. >> it is, in fact, $10 trillion in tax cuts for the next 10 years. we extended bush tax cuts in perpetuity under paul ryan. there are no spelled-out elimination of tax expenditures. that would be courageous. are you going to do a home mortgage, charitable deductions? that is where the money is. make one thing absolutely clear about simpson-bowles that charles referenced -- it had as its guiding principle that it would not increase poverty and not -- >> talk about absence of the spine. your guys have not introduced a budget at all, have not done anything on a social security or

tax reform. zero. that is the definition of absence of spying. > -- spine. >> a few blocks from here, they are charging $4.59 for gasoline. the president is feeling the pipeline blues. he went to oklahoma and announced he is backtracking a portion of the keystone pipeline that would go from oklahoma to the gulf coast. >> let's be clear. there is nothing that the president can do to lower the price of gasoline. we know that. >> do voters? >> apparently not. >> as bob dole used to say, you know it, i know it, the american people know it. it is the world market driving the price of oil. you have it disruption in the middle east.

the president finds himself on the hot seat now. on the pipeline question, that you are getti -- he is getting clobbered. >> i keep hearing from the administration how much oil construction has -- how much oil consumption has gone down and there is drilling everywhere. >> gas prices are not rational a great deal of the time -- >> neither are politicians. >> neither are we -- >> there are factors going on and he does not have control over that. i think he made it clear ithat they would approve it at the administration thought they had a deal with officials in nebraska, and it fell apart -- drinkingike clean

water and good water for irrigation purposes. you cannot blame them for that. that is bipartisan. >> the act or for they are worried about is crossed by 25,000 -- aquifer they are worried about is crossed by 25,000 miles of pipeline, enough to go around the world. obama was night hememmed in by republicans on keystone. the state department concluded it was going to be without any danger. he decided he would veto it purely to appease his left. now he is trying to make a ridiculous compromise where he does the pipeline from oklahoma down but there is no canadian oil. lincoln during

the transcontinental railroad but stopping halfway. get done. going to oklahoma texas will carry nothing. >> what is good for oklahoma is good for america. we're talking about two states that are deeply red, nebraska and oklahoma, but the politics go far beyond that. i was confused by the message from the white house this week. what the message was about the pipeline, i missed. gasoline, quite frankly -- i heard republicans say the president could not do anything in the summer 2008, and out democrats say he cannot do anything in 2012. the problem is, people look at the prices and no who is in the white house and it is not good news for a sitting president.

short answer on message, i was against the pipeline before i was for it. >> if the supreme court finds it unconstitutional, barack obama will not be reelected. >> in friday's column, charles says that if the law is upheld, it will fundamentally change the nature of the american social contract. you will be up there by watching it, nina. what are they going to do? >> [laughter] i do not make predictions. most scholars of both political stripes seem to think it will be close but they will uphold it. my husband is a doctor an administrator, and i talked to a lot of folks in this field all the time. the social contract and terms of

medical care is going to change a matter what. -- no matter what. it is very different today than it was 20 years ago, 30 years ago, certainly 50 years ago. we will go into a very different relationship with the medical profession. >> mitt romney in an op-ed in freddie's "usa today" says it is "a dramatic intrusion into our lives." >> romney would know, having done the same thing in massachusetts. lost in this whole discussion is large numbers of uninsured americans are going to be covered by this bill. we are extending health care to people who have never been able to get it. this is a worthy social objective. >> charles does not agree. >> the way it changes the social

contract is if you interpret the commerce clause to allow the government to force an individual to enter into a private contract with a private company, which is the essence of the individual mandate, if you say there are no limits whatsoever to the power of congress -- our system up until now has been that the powers of congress are enumerated and subscribe and everything else is the freedom of the individual. you do this, that means that congress is almighty and the individual can scratch out and area here and there in the spirit of autonomy. that is a fundamental change in how the system works. >> echoed through the corridors of history, from the new deal

and the supreme court in the 1930's. fear of on it again congress is omnipotent congress is an un expressed concerned by the public -- >> they cannot even do a highway bill -- >> but they and spend $4 trillion a year doing that nothing. >> if you are a fan of professional football, we are going to talk about county honor -- bounty hunters. >> we don't condone it with the jets. >> that is the head coach of the new york jets, who have just acquired the devoutly religious tim tebow. broadway joe says it is a publicity stunt, but i digress. [laughter] the league has suspended sean

payton. former defensive coordinator greg williams suspended indefinitely. the nfl said the saints had a fund where players who took opposing players out of the game were given bounties. >> i was really upset with don dan snyder when he did not make greg williams the head coach. now i am patting dan snyder on the backs. i am glad that williams is out of the game for the near future. >> senator durbin is planning hearings -- >> a b i n -- maybe i am a wuss, but the reason i don't like watching football is that it is so brutal, and there is no way all these people are going to survive these injuries.

the nfl has a medical team evaluating head injuries. >> these are incentives -- >> i know that, but when you watch a game, you can see there is a lot of that going on. >> my friends who played big- time college football state look, i.t. has a tough game. people at he -- that is that p -- people get hurt, that is the nature of the game. >> i agree with nina. this is like the piano player in the cathouse. [laughter] if you wanted something to praise and dan snyder for -- >> i am not going at there. >> i would like to know, with the devoutly religious tim tebow -- is there a devoutly secularist quarterback, too?

>> i finally found something on which my liberal colleagues are correct. they stumbled onto the truth. i think this is completely about lawyers and lawsuits. the nfl is looking at billions of dollars of lawsuits over concussions in the past. this is a way to be shocked, shocked, that there's gambling going on. christians and lions in coliseum. the idea that bounty could make it worse is g a lefia