so far, the outside groups, including one called the american crossroads run by karl rove and ed gillespie, they are taking corporate money based upon the supreme court ruling. they raised $10 million and banging up some of these vulnerable democrats. >> jeanne, who are the corporate donors are. i think i know who one of them is? >> it's hard to tell -- gwen: tell everybody else. >> one we know is target. target jumped into the governor's race in minnesota. they gave $150,000 to a pro-business group called minnesota forward. minnesota forward started running ads for the republican candidate. and the reason they picked him is because he is low taxes and his business record. it was unclear if target knew his social record when they gave the money or not. come to find out, his social record -- his record on social issues is more conservative if not more so than his economic policies. he is anti-gay marriage. and he is stride ent on abortion, he opposes birth control in some cases. and so the target community, which is pretty progressive went nuts. gwen: didn't rupert murdock give a lot of mon

which i deeply respect, by the way, and just so you know, i have the tendency of correspondence with karl rove, who, by the way, responded to an essay that i said to him. he thanked me for sending the very strong essay. i can go on. i'm publishing a book, but that is irrelevant right now. anyway, i have my glasses, but i'm not going to get them out just for the sake of speeding this up. here's a really tough question for you to ponder, and as you wonderful people ponder it, so i again as i am preparing this little essay to read at san francisco city hall again this coming thursday were mental health budget cuts will be discussed. it is a question reasonable people, if they wrestle with it, cannot, i believe, reasonably disagree. the question is -- is america's money more important than america's meaning? pardon me while i go through my kitchen for a tall glass of h 20. i wrote this last night. in the budget debate here in san francisco and in washington, the question of what holds america's most together are meaningful after diaz, public and private, for economic at to be its public and privat

it was karl rove giving his talking points before the 2006 mid terms.t sounded exactly like what the democrats are saying now about the mid terms right ahead. and the republicans got shellacked. chris: when we come back, the big question in week, will democrats have the votes to keep the bush tax cuts for the middle class but not for the wealthiest? be right back. chris: welcome back. to kill the bush tax cuts for the top bracket and save them for families making under $250,000 a year, democrats need to pass a bill. our question this week, will they get 60 votes in the senate this year to make those changes? dan? >> not likely. as tip o'neill, would say all politics is local. and i don't see a democratic incumbent congressman who is fighting for his life believing in a people in his district care very much about this issue. i think president obama loses this one. chris: kim. i think what we're going to see is delay, delay, delay. wait for theem novber elections. wait for the fallout. see how much political capital the democrats have left. chris: perhaps

already raised fifty million bucks will probably never know the details of where that money came from karl rove's glaspie the former r. and c. multis put together a corporation. for a you know a job money on campaigns group and they claim to have very stiff three million dollars appears that ninety seven percent of it so far as come from for billionaires but nonetheless that raises money like crazy you know you saying so do you think that companies are simply going to get smarter about the way they bundle their money to disguise where they're actually putting it if they'll start laundering it basically and there already are so so tom what is this show about you know a company's values does a company have to profess its values or can they just you know throw their money wherever they want to convey is this going to force them to maybe be more stonily behind their values or are they just going to put money everywhere they're going to put money where it's going to get a return on investment as they historically have been. i think the mistake the target made here was pretty money into a single group

joining us is karl rove, now a fox news contributor, and author of "courage and consequence." he was a top adviser to president george bush. i know you're a loyal republican. but put on your objective political strategist hat for a second. is the president right to be out there? and is this the right message for him? >> he's right to be out there raising money for democrats. that's how he can help them. but he's wrong to be out there with the unpresidential sarcasm. and attempting to be the messenger for the democrats. parties lose seats in congress when the presidential approval is below 50%. his approval rating is in the low 40s. this portends a huge wave for the republicans in the fall. and he doesn't make it better for democrats by constantly being on the stage and by attempting to set the tone for the fall, with this sarcastic and negative tone. >> by this time in 22 0006, of course, that was a tough year for republicans. you were in the white house. did you know that the election was gone? >> no. and remember, the elections -- the 2006 election was settled by a relativel

do you get the same sense when you tune in to bill o'reilly or you see laura ingram on fox, of karl rove caller: i am a c-span junkie. in fact, whenever anybody asks me that question, i say i watch c-span. when you watch c-span, what you get is your morning program, you go through the newspapers. on msnbc in the morning, the only highlight "thnew york times" and "the washington post". you go through everything. it is about balance. it is about getting to the core questions that are appearing ily. one thing that i think shows a bias of msbc, and keith olbermann is absolutely offensive in his name calling of people, calling them a stupid or robert gibbswhen does his white house briefing, he is almost doing a stand-up comedy routine there. he is ignoring reporters' questions. he is joking them off. he is not addressing them. chuck todd presses a little further. fleicher,s ari they would been held up as an example of how the administration is not taking it seriously. guest: i want to say good things about savannah, my colleague. i think she and chuck todd make a great team. as journalists, w

karl rove and advising president george w. bush.ut tv is in prime time all this week on c-span t2. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social immediate networking te

host: karl rove rights in today's "wall street journal."o in the comments about change being seen on the gubernatorial level. tallahassee, florida. it dawned on independent line. caller: thank you four mccall and good morning -- thank you for taking my call, and good morning. i have a financial issue that has been on my mind as of late regarding both parties. i am an independent. i have no party affiliation. as of late, it seems that republicans and conservatives both have been drumming against the spending that has been going on by the obama administration. but basically saying none of this stuff has been paid for. i just don't understand how they could say that went under the bush administration, mainly the iraq war, that was not paid for and was run up on the credit. i want to get your guest opinions on how you can't reconcile the spending that went -- how you can reconcile the spending that went on during a republican administration while drumming against the spending going on under the obama administration. thank you. guest: entirely f

do you get the same sense when you tune in to bill o'reilly or you see laura ingram on fox, of karl rove caller: i am a c-span junkie. in fact, whenever anybody asks me that question, i say i watch c-span. when you watch c-span, what you get is your morning program, you go through the newspapers. on msnbc in the morning, the only highlight "the new york times" and "the washington post". you go through everything. it is about balance. it is about getting to the core questions that are appearing daily. one thing that i think shows a bias of msbc, and keith olbermann is absolutely offensive in his name calling of people, calling them a stupid or robert gibbswhen does his white house briefing, he is almost doing a stand-up comedy routine there. he is ignoring reporters' questions. he is joking them off. he is not addressing them. chuck todd presses a little further. fleicher,s ari they would been held up as an example of how the administration is not taking it seriously. guest: i want to say good things about savannah, my colleague. i think she and chuck todd make a great team. as journalist

host: karl rove rights in today's "wall street journal." echo in the comments about change being seen on the gubernatorial level. tallahassee, florida. it dawned on independent line. caller: thank you four mccall and good morning -- thank you for taking my call, and good morning. i have a financial issue that has been on my mind as of late regarding both parties. i am an independent. i have no party affiliation. as of late, it seems that republicans and conservatives both have been drumming against the spending that has been going on by the obama administration. but basically saying none of this stuff has been paid for. i just don't understand how they could say that went under the bush administration, mainly the iraq war, that was not paid for and was run up on the credit. i want to get your guest opinions on how you can't reconcile the spending that went -- how you can reconcile the spending that went on during a republican administration while drumming against the spending going on under the obama administration. thank you. guest: entire