>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and politico, reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> we did it again. >> this week on "inside washington," rick santorum's southern sweet. when will gingrich get the message? >> the elite media's effort to convince the nation that mitt romney is inevitable it just collapsed. >> if i am a weak front runner, what does that make newt gingrich? >> if you give it these guys the keys to the white house, they will bankrupt the middle-class again. >> is there really a war on women? >> we women have a serious

problem with the republican party. >> the massacre in afghanistan. and the new hbo movie "game change." >> i never want to deal with that woman again. >> how true enough to live? >> true enough to make me squirm. >> do you know what the fed is? captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> on super tuesday it, mitt romney inched by rick santorum in ohio, a must-win state in the general election. why oh why did he ever leave ohio? ricmitt romney did windy awlaki : this is an american --

win the awlaki : this is an american samoa. >> in both states, conservative candidates th about 50% of the vote, and if you are the front runner and you keep coming in third, you are not much of a front runner. >> by the way, last night i got more delegates than anybody else. >> absolutely right, he did. did anything change this week, evan, or does romney continue to inch towards the nomination? >> i think he inches towards the nomination. there is an outside chance to does not get there, but it is only an outside chance. >> mark? >> i think he remains the favorite. the problem for the republicans is that this campaign has been corrosive, in the words of republican pollster, and he has

the lowest fare rebel members of any potential nominee in the history of american -- lowest it favorable numbers of any potential nominee in the history of american politics. >> nina? >> my guess, as a member of the elite media, is that he will stagger to the finish line. the elite media two weeks ago said this was going to be an awful period for romney. then he goes and suggests that he might win in them. the loss looks even worse. >> charles? >> i object to your ironic tone n. . don't you know that as samoa goes, so goes the nation? [laughter] he had no business winning either of them. he got almost 1/3 of the vote.

it is gingrich who lost alabama and mississippi and that is the story of the night. >> couldn't this be a lot easier for romney? >> it should be, but the polls on some of this stuff are so over the map. obama's numbers are tanking, 2 big polls, and 2 others don't show that. the republican nominee still should have a real shot at winning. >> in our rush to analyze romney and gingrich, let's give the santorum credit. he went in and underfinanced, undermanned to both of these candidates, and he won. he won 49% of the vote of working women. that kind of throws all of our thinktank politicos into

twitte -- into atwitter. it was a very impressive pair of victories for santorum did give the guy credit for what he has done. >> let's go back to ohio, which the president won in 2008 by 51%. vice president joe biden was out there attacking the republican candidates by name. >> gingrich and romney and santorum, they don't let the facts get in the way. simply stated, we are about promoting the private sector, they are about protecting the privileged sector. >> joe biden loves it, people like him, and if you want to go after the rick santorum vote, he is the guy to do it, i guess. >> one of the weird things about this election is that it two principals, obama and romney, are both cold fish from harvard

law school. we are in a time when everybody, from tea party to occupy wall street, there is this big populist surge. it means that joe biden, who does have some connection to regular folks, will be out there front and center. >> the president was out there talking about gasoline prices, saying there is no quick fix. a gallon for.26 regular this week. >> where are you going for gas? >> how does he get out of that? >> he doesn't. he has boasted that production has gone up. it has nothing to do with him. it has to do with the leasing permits that were issued in the clinton and bush years -- >> it also has to do with iran and at -- >> i am talking about production, not pricing. he has a record on energy, oil,

what he calls the fuels of the past, which is appalling. american lives in the present, it depends on oil, and he and his secretary of energy, chu, have said in the past that we want a dollar, $10 gasoline because it is is a way to conserve. the real problem was keystone. that is so open-and-shut a case. there is no argument against it. everybody in tragically and a sense that he is a guy who does not like oil, -- everybody intrinsically understands that he is a guy who does not like oil. he likes algae, and that is not what america believes in. >> the president's campaign and the dnc are not giving any money to congressional candidates. that is the ultimate in selfishness and disloyalty, and

it also means that should he win reelection, nobody will owe him nothing and he could lose a majority in the senate. i find it the ultimate in small business and cold fishiness. >> it is an interesting point. the white house is driven by the numbers for congress, but 11% favorable, but that is a shortsighted strategy. if you are looking at re- election in january 2013 and looking for friends on capitol hill, they are going. -- going to be scarce. >> let's say there is no clear winner. do we go to a brokered convention? >> when i spoke to my colleagues on the right, which is where i hang out, even though it is highly improbable, it is possible mitt romney will end up short of what he needs. if he is 50 short, he will get

the nomination. if he is 200 short, santorum and gingrich will not handed over, paul does not have enough. what do you do? there is a chance, remote but possible, that the party goes outside interests as somebody who has been on the fence, and my question -- and choose as somebody who has been on offense, and my question, is this a disaster, or would it be electric to have a new candidate at the last minute? >> that is one question to the other is to what the candidate be? >> i like mitch daniels because he is about to die and i am a budget hawk and he will go after the -- he is a budget guy and i am a budget hawk and he will go after the deficit. >> does he have a chris mcdevitt? > -- charisma deficit. >> that is one problem.

the other is that his wife left him and married another guy and came back it how america will react to having a cuckold is a question. >> it is a great screenplay, but let's get one thing straight. if mitt romney is within, i think he will be, 200 votes of the nomination, there is no way he will be deprived. this is somebody who would slog for breakfast in dubuque to dinners in tampa all the way through the process, and now you are going to say, hey, jeb, you want to come in? how about chris christie? paul ryan? "the wall street journal" -- a giant sucking sound every time his name is mentioned. [laughter] if mitt romney cannot get 200 it, he t of

ought to give it up to a teammate his money in hostile takeovers. [laughter] >> i think mark is right, although i cannot say as well or as hilariously. if you are shaking hands with people you like, petrie dishes of disease -- [laughter] eating the worst stuff at the iowa state fair that you would not feed to take a, you will not cede the nomination after this. i think there will end up being whoever is ahead will get eight pit but it i interesting to speculate -- will get 8. it is interesting to speculate am curious, with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,

with that democratic dream to have an outsider or a disaster? >> the only thing going for a last-minute choice like that is that there are two months left in the election. however, the elite media will glom onto this person and everything he has ever done that will be slightly untoward or controversial. he will make gaps. everybody has made gaffes. you have to get used to that. you have to grow into the job. >> evan? >> i think it will be an actor, actually, despite what i said about mitch daniels -- it will be electric, actually, despite what i said about each daniels' problems to people will be watching so closely. >> is there a war on women in this country or is that democratic rhetoric? >> these are things said by

prominent members of the republican party. >> judging by their comments, the gop must have a problem with women. >> that attack ad is part of the democrats' campaign theme. when it comes to health insurance, republicans will make it harder with contraception, abortion, and domestic violence. is it working, mark? >> depends on what numbers you look at. they should be doing better, at they are doing better. barack obama in 2008 carried women voters. republicans seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot. i don't know if it is helping democrats, but not republicans. >> senator lisa murkowski warned it republicans at a caucus luncheon this week that they were really hurting themselves with some of this stuff, and the violence against women act -- >> not just the federal.

in kansas, sen brownback signed a new law, pennsylvania, arizona, they are working on a law that your employer is not required to give you health insurance to cover birth control if he objects on moral or religious grounds. you want some, you have to show him he needed for medical reasons. >> i'm sure they cover viagra, however. >> as well they should! >> it is not the government paying, not the taxpayers paying. you pay for it, or your employer pays for it as part of your employment contract, as it were. >> is this reflected at the polling place? >> no, and that is why all of you talk of the war on women is a classic example of liberal echo chamber elite cuckooing.

in the "new york times" poll on this issue, they found 11% are against the idea that contraception ought to be required in the medical plan if it is against the conscience of the employer. if you ask the question whether a religious institution ought to be required to subsidize contraception, it is 21% against among women, and if it is a religious institution, a catholic hospital, 10%. every one of those in the poll, in hardly a right-wing publication, a majority of americans say you ought not compel anybody who has a religious objection, and particularly anybody -- an institution like a catholic church to provide contraception.

thus, all your talk about how it is hurting women is simply not reflected in the data. >> liberal echo chamber elite cuckooing. >> there is a disconnect here, because there is perception by the democrats that things are turning against women and a political backlash and they are hoping to benefit. at the same time, my old competitor, "time magazine," pointed out that women are about to earned more than men did think about this. we are entering an age where women earned more than men, more go to college than men. you have this split screen. you have these retro politics, taking away contraception from women. on the other hand, women do much better. >> one of the reasons you go to -- ways you go to college and do

well is to control your own reproductive destiny. >> what would you oppose the violence against women act? >> that is absolute stupidity by the republicans. you are going to be explaining that the next six months. to me, the war against women, war against religion, it debases our politics. that whole language, let's car bomb atthe opposition, this john wayne tough guy stuff. to the credit of steve king, archconservative from iowa, and jim moran, democrat from virginia, they offered that medicare not cover and they are to be saluted for that. >> millions of elderly women in america are grateful as hell. >> another phrase to pigeon hole

what women think. >> we ought to move to what is happening in afghanistan. >> we will continue to be tested in the months ahead. this is a war. we will continue to come i am sure, is the incidence of violence of one kind or another. the key is how we respond. >> that is defense secretary leon panetta, it went to afghanistan and visiting with the troops. after an american army sergeant allegedly shot 16 men, women, and children, the urinating on corpses, burning of korans. for the record, this has not been the my lai massacre, but i wonder what the next step is, evan. >> countries don't like to be

occupied. we wouldn't treat the matter how benign, no matter how fine the purpose, countries don't like to be occupied. that is the basic ground truth. having said that, a hasty retreat is not in anybody's interest. i am not sure i.t. is going to work out well in the end >>. suddenly, all indications are that the afghan security forces cannot hold it and the taliban are back in charge. >> what do we do, stay the course? >> it is it clear that the president's policy is in collapse. the president of afghanistan announces he wants american troops out of the countryside and to hunker down in the barracks. the taliban declared they on your interested in negotiations. -- no longer interested in

negotiations. obama has handed them afghanistan on a platter. and the soldiers are disarmed before entering, as a way to not embarrass the afghans, who had to be disarmed, and the reason you have to disarm the afghans is because all trust between american and afghan officials is gone. one problem is that we have a president who escalated the war, it tripled the number of troops, but did not spend an ounce on his own political capital on this. he gave a speech in december 2009, he said nothing about the war for three years, and then he is surprised that americans are not interested in pursuing the war? >> charles -- i mean, mark? >> the republicans that showed themselves to be captains courageous this week. newt gingrich said the war was not doable. rick santorum said we needed to

double down on our resources or get out sooner did the same republicans who criticized obama for the date for withdrawal or mute on president bush setting a date for withdrawal on iraq. what are the objectives now, what is the mission now? and is it worth the american blood and treasure? i don't know anybody who can tell us what the mission is for this point. >> should you have somebody who escalated the war tell us that? >> it seems like you are looking for a way to criticize obama and this is a much more serious issue than that. obviously, nobody has a good answer here. what do you value most? do we look like we cannot be depended on if we leave relative lisa? what -- do we -- if we leave or

relatively soon? what do we do about pakistan? >> the biden plan was not to surge -- >> but we have to find an orderly withdrawal here that has negotiated peace with the taliban and. >> they'll come back. >> what is the point for the taliban and to negotiate at this point? evan is absolutely right about occupation. if the french at stake here for six months, the country would have thrown them out. >> democrats argued for years that the occupation of afghanistan was the war of necessity, not the war of choice. all of a sudden it's not? >> we don't normally reviewed movies here, but i thought "game change" was worth a shot.

>> i haven't even told him that she doesn't know anything. >> you wouldn't listen to us did you never listen to your advisers. >> you are overhauling me with too much information -- overwhelmingly with too much information. >> sarah palin comes off as abortion who does not know much about anything -- as a woman who does not know much about anything to it was the movie unfair? >> it is known as a beet sweetender. someone who is good to you as a source is respected, savvy, insightful. no question that nicole wallace and steve schmidt were enormously helpful to the authors of "game change" and it is reflected in the movie. >> i saw it twice. the first time i saw it, i felt sorry for her, because she was

so clearly over her head and nobody seemed to want to know this before shthey picked her up in the last fifth of the movie, she turns into a bit of a monster. the second time i saw it, i was less sympathetic because she was so self confident. >> charles? >> i have not seen it but i know it is unfair. [laughter] it is at tautology. >> i have not seen it, but i appreciate the beet sweetener notion because it makes the consultants look better than they were. >> here is a total non sequitur. greg smith, an employee of goldman sachs, had an op-ed in "the new york times" about why he was leaving goldman sachs. what did you think of it? >> i was glad to see some young quit for moral reasons, as

opposed to somebody on the way out. this was a 33-year-old guy. i don't believe all the attempts to undermine him. i take him at his word that he bought the place was not what he had joined up to do. >> "i realized it was time to leave when i could no longer looks students in the eye and tell them this was a great place to work." >> this was after lloyd blankfein told us that they do the lord's work. this is a company that sold customers product, a wispy, complicated product, that was designed solely for a hedge fund manager who wants to bet against it. how could you believe anything negative about goldman sachs? >> there is an ethos too much on wall street of being cocky and self-interest and disdainful of clients. to the extent expose is it that, this is useful. but like all things, it is more complicated.

they had a private equity business where it is in their long-term interest to be nice to the clients, and then the traders took over and that is a different proposition. they are just counterparties. the business change. >> from the colleagues of might son, who went into this, i don't get the idea that the work is immoral, just pointless. you make a lot of money, but in the end, it is not that you went into it because you love it is other things like teaching and medicine. that is why a it is rather soulless. >> see you next week.