patricia murphy, let me begin with you. is, rising republican, it is just kind of silly. >> it is. it is and it isn't. i think somebody who is more seasoned and is used to delivering major speeches at major times would not have gone for the water. i think really rubio is such a bright shining light for the republican party, but it just feels a little too soon, and last night it looked way too soon. that was just such an amateur mistake and i think it really stepped all over his message, which would have been good if it wasn't marred by his performance there. >> amy, after bobby jindal what do the republicans say to do to get this right? >> i was going to say, it was an improvement over bobby jindal, an improvement over bill clinton if you remember at the 1988 convention where he droned on and on and no one thought he had a political future. i think marco rubio can recover from this moment, but i think we can expect to see this on "saturday night live" on saturday. >> you think? rick newman, you thirsty? final thoughts? >> i

here in atlanta, patricia murphy, contributor to the dailybeast.com. welcome.he first question i want to ask is should ted nugent be at the speech tonight? amy holmes, what do you think? >> sure, why not? we know citizens are often invited to state of the unions to underscore political points. usually the president has folks sitting alongside the first lady so why not have a congress and bring in ted nugent who will underscore an issue, which, by the way, has bipartisan support when it comes to the second amendment. we talked about it on my show quite a bit that you have six democratic senators up for re-election in red states that mitt romney won. and you're seeing that when it comes to, say, the assault weapons ban, you're ghoeting the type of democratic buy-in that the president sort of suggests. >> maybe on universal background checks, but you're right, in terms of -- >> while the suggestion is that ted nugent is somehow extreme or to the right on this issue, he's actually alongside a lot of democrats. >> cornell, what do you think? do you agree with that?

playing with us sirius radio host patricia murphy, and john avlon and sr.for the new york times. welcome to all of you. is joe biden helping or hurting president obama's gun control efforts? uncle joe, there he goes again talking about guns in a way that might make gun rights folks roll their eyes. >> she asks do you believe that banning certain weapons and high capacity magazines will mean that law abiding citizens will then become more of a target to criminals as we will have no way to sufficiently protect ourselves? >> is this parents magazine? >> it is. >> i have it at home and i have never heard anyone from them ask these questions. if you want to protect yourself get a double barrel shotgun. as i told my wife, we live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded. i said, jill, if there's ever a problem, walk out on the ball con knee here, put that double barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. >> just make sure you don't hit anything unless you mean it. oddly, the vice president said these things in an online chat sponsored by parents

republican strategist and msnbc contributoor susan del percio, patricia murphy and morris reid.t's go to the hold-up of chuck hagel's nomination ff secretary of defense nomination. let's listen to harry reid's reaction. >> it's shocking that my republican colleagues would leave the nation without a fully empowered secretary of defense. for the sake of our national security, it's time to put aside this political theater and that's ha it is. it's tragic that they've tided to filibuster this qualified nominee. >> what's your reaction to the senator? and is this bad p.r. for the gop because hagel will eventually gets confirmed anyway. >> it's unfortunate for a whole host of reasons. it is bad p.r. for the republicans. there's no win. he's going to get confirmed. to have it drag on and have bad p.r. doesn't make much sense. but more importantly, for the institution, right now, we're so divided -- the president did win. he deserves his nomination unless there's something so summitly wro ll lly -- fundamen that he shouldn't be confirmed. it was a problem for the gop. i'm not sure why t

cnn contributor and senior writer at espn, patricia murphy, contributor at "the daily beast," will kanenal correspondent. thanks to all of you for being with us today. first "talk back" question, is brinksmanship standard operating procedure in washington? by now you are all too familiar with owl the story goes. the financial disaster looms. congress and the white house play the blame game. and then at the very last minute, a deal miraculously gets done. and with four days until those forced spending cuts, president obama and congress are right back in the same spot. that would be nowhere. today the white house is telling citizens of individual states how those forced spending cuts will affect them, reducing money for everything from cop salaries so funding for hiv tests and early childhood education. here's how the governor of delaware sums up the impact. >> the most frustrating conversation any governor can have these days is when we talk to a business who says, i'd love to hire, but i can't find people with the right skills. so we have resources available for job training. and if tho

now, contributor to "newsweek" and the daily beast, pa tri ma murphy and mother jones staff reporter andy croel. thanks for joining me. patricia, five days until the cuts take effect. does either side have any real incentive to compromise? it seems like there's little common ground here, the president who wants revenues, republicans want only the spending cuts, and never the twain shall meet. >> there does not seem to be any ensi incentive for either side to compromise, and i don't understand that because both sides stand to lose significantly when it comes to going back to voters and explaining how this happened because both sides have their frinlts on this deal. the president did come up with the idea. 70% of republicans voted for it. so nobody is without blame in this situation. i think once you start to see how these sequester start to affect people not in d.c. but around the country, 780% 80% of change, the furloughs will happen outside washington. once people see their neighbors being affected, losing their jobs, security lines longer, people will see the effects of these cuts. there's no benefit to americans in their da