o'donnell starts right now. and lawrence will have for you the first live rundown on tonight's republican debate in arizona. if you missed it or you could not stand it, lawrence is about to bring you all the highlights. stay with us. breaking news. the 20th republican presidential primary debate of the season has just ended in mesa, arizona, and it took 46 minutes to get to this. >> since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why? as you can see -- [ audience booing ] >> it's a very popular question. >> it is a very popular question, in the audience, as we can see. look, we're not going to spend a ton of time on this. >> can i just make a point. >> these guys are giving you some feedback, john. i think they're making it very clear -- >> i want to make two quick points, john. the first is, there is a legitimate question about the

power of the government to impose on religion, activities which any religion opposes. that's legitimate. >> sure is. >> but i just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why barack obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. so let's be clear here. if we're going to have a debate about who the extremist is is on these issues, it is president obama, who as a state senator voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. it is not the republican. >> joining me now are msnbc political analyst howard fineman, msnbc political analyst, john heilemann, of "new york" magazine, and nbc news special correspondent, tom brokaw. tom, going into the debate tonight, rick santorum was trying to protect a national lead in the polls, and most importantly, most immediately, possibly, his lead in michigan.

did you see anything in the dynamics of this debate tonight that you think could effect where those polls are going? >> well, it was a 15-rounder, and they were all standing at the end. obviously, santorum now is going to be the target of opportunity who's going to the movement tonight with ron paul on one side of him and governor romney on the other side. i thought that governor romney had a pretty good night. i don't like to declare winners and losers here, but call balls and strikes. and santorum was spending a lot of time defending his record in the senate by saying, look, i didn't have any other choice but to support arlen specter, you know, as an appropriations bill. a lot of bill was about explaining away positions that he had supported, that on the campaign trail, he opposes. whether that nicked him or not, very hard to know. >> let's listen to one of those explanations. he got dragged into trying to explain his history with earmarks, something that has become something you don't want

to be tainted by in republican politics. let's listen to rick santorum on earmark earmarks. i guess we don't have all of this tape ready right away. howard fineman, the earmark -- now they're telling me we have it. all right, let's listen to rick santorum on earmarks. >> as you know, there's a lot of anger in the base of the party about some of the things that have happened in the past, and the tea party especially. now, earmarks, the pork barrel spending, it's a tiny slice of the budget. i think we all know that. but if you talk to a tea party activist, they think it's an example and a gateway to corruption. senator, you have said there are good earmarks and bad earmarks and you have talked about your earmarks in the past. any that you specifically regret? and why have you criticized -- why do you think the money that went to governor romney for security at the olympics, why was that a bad earmark? >> governor romney asked for that earmark. that's really the point here. he's out there on television ads right now, unfortunately, attacking me for saying that i'm this great earmarker when he not only asked for earmarks for the

salt lake olympics in the order of tens of millions of dollars, sought those earmarks and used them, and he did it as the governor of massachusetts, $300 million or $400 million. he said i would be something like foolish if i didn't try to go out and get federal dollars. so the idea that somehow the earmarks during the time that i was in congress were this thing that drove up spending in washington, d.c. if you actually look at it, as i said before, as a percentage of gdp, actually the deficit -- some of the debt went down. what happened is there was abuse. when abuse happened, i said, we should stop the earmarking process. but i did say there were good earmarks and bad earmarks. we wouldn't have the v-22 osprey, which is the most essential air platform for our marines in particular, in the war against the radical islamists. we wouldn't have it if it wasn't for earmarks. that would have been killed under george bush 41.

dick cheney wanted to kill that. many of us stood up and made sure that was there. congress has a role to play when appropriating money. >> howard, how do you score the earmarks debate? >> i score it as a complete loser for rick santorum. i'd heard from his staff and his spinners over the recent days and weeks about, hey, don't go after us on earmarks, because mitt romney asked for earmarks for salt lake city. so what? if you're an undecided, probably pretty conservative republican primary or caucus voter, and that's how you have to look at this, does rick santorum's long and rather rambling answer on that satisfy your concerns? the answer is no. as tom brokaw pointed out, the whole bodiay agiagy aglanguage debate tonight was really rick santorum on the defensive about his years as a legislator. ironically, as chuck todd has pointed out on the web, where

rick santorum was a team player for the bush family. so he's carrying the weight of some legacy the conservative voters don't really like. and time and again, he had to explain legislative mechanics. he had to say he'd learned his lesson. he had to say he wouldn't vote that way now. i think if rick santorum was looking to consolidate through this event his tenuous grip on the sort of national front-runner status in the race, this event didn't do it for him. >> john heilemann, with an eye on michigan, which is the next place where votes will be counted, mitt romney found himself talking about the auto industry, of course, and the advantages of what he calls managed bankruptcy over what president obama took as action in intervening in the automobile industry. let's listen now to mitt romney on the auto industry. >> go back to -- i think it was 2008, president bush was still in office, and the three chief executive officers in the three

major auto companies got in their private planes and flew to washington and said, please write us a check. i think they wanted $50 billion. and i wrote an op-ed in the paper, and i said, absolutely not. don't write a check for $50 billion. these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy. because they put that money in, the president gave the companies to the uaw, they were part of the reason the companies were in trouble, giving these companies to the uaw was wrong. >> and john, presumably, flying in private planes was wrong in the romney view of the situation. >> absolutely right. lawrence, don't talk about the way that you get back and forth from the east to west coast. look, i think that in michigan, lawrence, you've got a situation that where if rick santorum is going to prevail there, mitt romney has most of the republican establishment lined up on his side. he has some favorite son status -- obviously, he has favorite son status abundance, but that's working for him to some extent. if rick santorum is going to

win, he's got to line up conservatives and tea party voters. the question in this debate, i thought romney was fine in terms of defending that answer by trying to pin the problems on the uaw. i think the question in this debate was, how did rick santorum do in terms of advancing his aims with those two voting groups? and i thought that mitt romney on social conservatism was just as strong tonight as rick santorum. i thought santorum brought his "b" game on even those issues. i think he's been beaten up a little bit this week, and he was not as strong, even on conservative issues, as he has been in the past. and i think on this anti-government stuff that drives the tea party, i think howard's right, not only was he speaking legislative-ese all night, but he's reinforcing the message that moirick santorum in insider and mitt romney is an outsider. that's a message that santorum has to overcome. when he was asked to describe himself in one word, the obvious answer should have been conservative. instead, he said courage.

and that was a missed opportunity. i think that hurts him too. >> i think the other piece of that, lawrence, is that he said "courage" after he had had to explain away all those votes that, in fact, did not show a lot of courage. my guess is that we'll hear some sort of an ad with rick santorum saying, best defined by the word courage, and a whole lineup of the votes that he did for earmarks and other things that he's now apologizing for. >> he would not be the only senator who saw the courage to compromise. tom, iran came up as possibly the only real foreign policy issue that occupied any time in the debate. i want to listen to what rick santorum said about it, because it's actually an echo of what everyone, except, of course, ron paul said about iran. very, very hardline on iran. let's listen to rick santorum. >> we need a new president, or we are going to have a cataclysmic situation with a power that is the most prolific

proliferator of terror in the world, that will be able to do so with impunity, because they will have a nuclear weapon to protect them for whatever they do. it has to be stopped, and this president is not in a position to do that. >> tom, that seemed to be the consensus among the top three candidates tonight. >> yes, and, in fact, governor romney said that if he becomes president, in fact, iran won't have a weapon, but if we re-elect president obama, in fact, they will continue to have a weapon. look, this is a very complicated issue, quite obviously. it's very complex. a lot of people believe these are not ideologues, that the sanctions, in fact, are working against iran. that has russian card had to be played at some point, because he have entree to iran. the israelis, plainly, with good reason, are extraordinarily uncomfortable about it. but at the same time, we have to look at what's going on in pakistan. if you want to look at a center of terrorism, look at the west

border areas of pakistan. this is a country with more than 100 nuclear weapons, extraordinarily disabled -- right now, unstable. and that didn't come up tonight at all. so i think these are issues that are probably not best played out on debate stages, lawrence. >> from where i'm sitting, mitt romney seems to be the most disciplined debate preparer. you can see his homework once these debates start. and tonight, he demonstrated a new card trick in defense of his health care plan in massachusetts. he talked about rick santorum having endorsed him after he had done that, or endorsed him running for president last time around. i want to listen to the new take mitt romney had tonight on what the other candidates call romney care. let's listen to that. >> let's not forget that four years ago, well after romney care was put in place, four years ago, you not only endorsed me, you and laura i thingrahami

said, this guy is a real conservative. the pro-choice senator of pennsylvania, that you supported, and endorsed in a race over pat toomey, he voted for obama care. if you had not supported him, if we had said no to arlen specter, we would not have obama care. so don't look at me, take a look in the mirror. >> okay, gang, that is best reshuffling of the deck i have ever seen in a presidential debate. howard fineman, there is mitt romney blaming rick santorum for obama care. >> well, and what made it worse, if you're keeping score in the debates is rick santorum took the bait. and then went into a long explanation of why he voted for arlen specter, why he supported arlen specter, why he backed arlen specter, because specter

was going to be a reliable vote for supreme court justice nominees, et cetera. and i can tell you that it's not really a way to win the hearts of undecided conservative republican voters, to associate yourself with arlen specter. it's just not. because not only is is he pro-choice, he's pro-gun control, he's all the things that the last surviving liberal from pennsylvania in the republican party is going to be. so i thought it was very seclhr tactics on the part of mitt romney, there's no doubt about it. >> john heilemann, it did seem to throw santorum off. he could never have been expecting -- he would never sit in that chair and think, at some point tonight, i am going to be blamed for obama care. by mitt romney. and you know, romney's thread there wasn't that easy to follow, but it was much easier to follow than what santorum's answer became. >> yeah. yes, sorry, i thought you were

about to play tape there, lawrence. >> don't do that. >> i thought that throughout the night that rick santorum, on that question, on a lot of questions, i thought rick santorum really seemed to kind of, tonight, bring his "b" game. and he was -- he did not -- this is, i think, could have been the most important debate of the entire cycle, the 20th debate. both of these candidates had important strategic objectives. there's a consensus out there in the world now, the republican world, that the if rick santorum wins michigan, that it becomes very hard for mitt romney to be the nominee. that raised the stakes hugely in this game. and i thought that santorum was, in general, throughout, he made all the specific mistakes that we've been talking about, but the general affect was not of the momentum candidate, not the guy on the rise, not the guy driving the contest. if you think about how well he performed in the florida debate, it was nothing like that tonight. i don't know if it had something to do with sitting around that table and kind of slouching throughout it, but he did not have the kind of aggressiveness and the clarity of someone who is, at the moment, the momentum

candidate, tand the guy who's oe win away from knocking out the front-runner and winning the nomination. he did not look like that man tonight, and i don't understand why. >> tom brokaw, finally, the audience to these debates, this one started slow and stayed slow for a while. it wasn't like that one where the first question to newt gingrich was a giant moment in the debate. and what i'm wondering about is when an audience is 45 minutes in, and only then does it start to get interesting, and then it gets a little sleepy again, this is a two-hour drama, or it's supposed to be a two-hour drama. if it doesn't sustain the drama, is it possible for the points that we think are scored an hour and a half into this thing to actually register, or has the audience kind of drifted into another place? >> well, it's -- that, again, is very hard to know. look, we're in the 15th rounds of these debates. they've been going on and on and on, and there wasn't that aha moment tonight, as we have seen in other debates. i was thinking about, two-thirds

of the way through, where's jeremy lin when we need him. you know, a point guard to come in and shake things up. drain a couple of three-pointers, get a couple of assists. but that's where we are. and the fact is, lawrence, as you know, in the hall, and those of us who are watching this are the people who are dedicated to this process. and a lot of people will be catching up on this debate tomorrow morning on "morning joe" and on the morning television cable shows and over the air, they'll be reading about it in the newspaper. i was just in arizona over the weekend on other business. there wasn't a lot of buzz down there about the debate coming. obviously, they were paying a lot of attention to their politics. but they've got severe economic problems in arizona. on the other hand, they've got a lot of other good things going on, starting to turn the corner. there was a lot more talk about that than about the debate that was coming up. so i'm not surprised that at this stage in the game that it got to this point. i think to talk about what john was describing rick santorum and the position that he was in, he

learned, as all of them have, newt, governor romney, now rick santorum, that you can be on the offensive when you're not leading the pack. but once you get out front a little bit, then you're playing the defensive game. and you don't have a lot of control over it. you suddenly become the target, the lead dog, if you will. and then that changes the dna of the whole debate. >> tom brokaw, john heilemann and howard fineman, thank you all very much for joining me tonight. >> thanks, lawrence. coming up, the obama re-election team's reaction to tonight's debate. we'll also hear what newt gingrich's daughter thinks of his performance and why pete hoekstra is trying to rewrite his campaign by pretending that that horrible ad he ran never existed. turns out the polls are just disastrous now for hoekstra.

are you still sleeping? just wanted to check and make sure that we were on schedule. the first technology of its kind... mom and dad, i have great news. is now providing answers families need. siemens. answers.

here now we have a list of

other movies made about mitt romney. number three, mr. romney doesn't go to washington. number two, dog on a hot car roof. that's number two. and the number one other movie about mitt romney, they're just not that into you. [ female announcer ] your mom, so proud. tells the neighbors all about her son, the lawyer. someday, but not today mr. intern. today, your boss needs her caffeine. the boss that calls you nick. your name is nate. but you'll do whatever it takes to impress. you'll bring her the all-natural sugar in the raw and the all natural, zero calorie sweetener stevia in the raw.

now run along and learn lots. like how she doesn't drink coffee, just tea. it's only natural. tle like how she doesn't emotional hetlretl?tlst tea. aren't you getting a little industrial? okay, there's enough energy right here in america. yeah, over 100 years worth. okay, so you mean you just ignore the environment. actually, it's cleaner. and, it provides jobs. and it helps our economy. okay, i'm listening. [announcer] at conoco phillips we're helping power america's economy with cleaner affordable natural gas... more jobs, less emissions, a good answer for everyone. so, by reducing the impact of production... and protecting our land and water... i might get a job once we graduate.

the bottom line was, when i was in the united states senate, there was transparency and congressman paul, who is one of the most prolific earmarkers in the congress today would tell you, and i'm not criticizing, i'm just saying that's a fact, that he -- he -- >> i think -- >> mr. speaker, you were referenced by the governor. you first than congressman paul. don't worry, we'll get to you, congressman, i promise. >> as the republican candidates continue to fight for the privilege of facing president obama in presidential debates, the latest ap poll indicates that president obama would beat mitt romney 51-43. the president would beat newt gingrich 52-42 in the current poll. the president would beat rick santorum 52-43. and the never to be nominated ron paul, if he ever were,

according to this current poll, would be beaten 53-44. joining me now from chicago is president obama's deputy campaign manager, stephanie cutter. thank you for joining me tonight, stephanie. >> hey, lawrence. >> the fascinating thing about the poll numbers is how consistent the president's number is, no matter who you put up against him, including ron paul, who will never come close to the nomination. there's not that much difference between how the president stands against ron paul than how he stands against, say, mitt romney or santorum. ron paul, 53-44, romney, 51-43. what does that tell you about both the president's standing in the polls and anyone with the word "republican" attached to their name? >> well, i think that it tells you a couple of things. one, that there is a now more than the majority of the american people who support the president in what he's done for this country. and more importantly, trust him to stand by what he believes in. and i think on the other side, there's great dissatisfaction

with their candidates running for president. and i don't blame them. after watching tonight's debate, i think i'd be dissatisfied too. but that's what it's a reflection of, that republicans have not coalesced around a candidate, they're not satisfied with their candidates. mostly because they either don't trust them or they don't agree with their policies. >> stephanie, i want to give you a chance to truth squad this debate tonight. what do you think was the most egregious falsehood advanced about president obama tonight? because every one of these t debates, of course, always does that. >> well, i guess the most egregious falsehood would be the president's position on iran. you know, whether it was mitt romney or rick santorum attacking the president for not being tough enough on iran. ask any foreign policy expert out there. we have the toughest sanctions in place today than we have in decades, thanks to this president. and i don't think that he, you know, if not for one second will take a backseat to any of those guys on that stage tonight in terms of being right on foreign policy. you know, presidents only get

one choice, one chance to make the right decision, and the president has consistently done that. now, look at mitt romney. what he didn't say on the stage tonight is that just four years ago, when asked the same question on iran, he said he'd have to check with his lawyers. now, that does not make a commander in chief, somebody who has to check with his lawyers. what he also didn't say is that he also in the past has said that he would haven't gone into pakistan to get osama bin laden. that doesn't make a commander in chief either. so i think that's the most egregious falsehoods that were said tonight. there were many others. we could go into the auto bailouts, if we have the time. >> please do. you have the time. that was my next question. none of these guys want to admit that the auto bailout worked and they all have the better idea that shouldn't have let them go into bankruptcy. >> right. so let's just review the facts. i don't think that there's anybody out there that wouldn't say what was done in the auto bailouts wasn't a huge success in terms of saving an iconic industry, protecting 1.4 million

jobs, returning the autos to a competitive stance that they haven't had in decade, to building the cars of the future and putting hundreds of thousands of people to work and protecting hundreds of communities all over this country that rely on the auto industry. it was a huge success. and that taxpayer money has been paid back. now, let's take mitt romney's stance. we all know the famous op-ed that he published in 2008 that said, let detroit go bankrupt. and what he meant by that is that he wasn't going to provide a rescue loan to the industry, to ensure that they could remain functioning while they went through a structured bankruptcy. not even his own bain capital would provide the private financing. private financing at that time did not exist. so if you have this incredible business experience and know how the real economy works, you have to understand that private financing wasn't available at that time. so what was available? a government rescue loan with conditions attached. conditions on restructuring, getting rid of excess and waste, forcing everybody to have shared sacrifice. and making the industry more

competitive. manufacturing the cars of the future. making them more fuel efficient. those are the facts. and mitt romney knew exactly what he was saying back then, when he said, let detroit go bankrupt. he meant, let them go bankrupt. let them liquidate. let the auto industry no longer exist in this country. those are the facts. >> stephanie cutter, i have to tell you, i didn't see anything in that debate tonight that seemed very threatening to the obama re-election campaign. >> well, you know, this race is still going to be close. you know, this country is still very divided. but i think -- >> well, that's what the poll indicates. the poll indicates anybody with the word "republican" will get at least 45% of the vote. so we'll be counting somewhere between 51/49 or 52/48 is where it's going to end up >> and it was the same way four years ago, and we've got to find a way to break through that. and i think what we're seeing right now is that the american people understand that the president has put the country on a path, a path of rebuilding the economy, so that everybody has a fair shot to get ahead. of rebuilding an economy that's

built to last, not based on bubbles or paper profits or recklessness or greed. and that we're making the things that the rest of the world buys. we're finally regaining or competitive edge. and the american people see that that's the vision the president is pursuing. and we've got real accomplishments under our belt in what we've been able to do in three short years, most of which the president has done -- had to do on his own, without any republican support across the aisle. >> stephanie cutter with obama 2012, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you, lawrence. coming up, we're going to have representatives of all the republican campaigns joining me next. and later, president obama's new corporate tax plan and how it will put campaign pressure on mitt romney. ♪ ♪ let's go ♪ ♪ cruise like a norwegian ♪ [ kareem ] i was fascinated by balsa wood airplanes

since i was a kid. [ mike ] i always wondered how did an airplane get in the air. at ge aviation, we build jet engines. we lift people up off the ground to 35 thousand feet. these engines are built by hand with very precise assembly techniques. [ mike ] it's going to fly people around the world. safely and better than it's ever done before. it would be a real treat to hear this monster fire up. [ jaronda ] i think a lot of people, when they look at a jet engine, they see a big hunk of metal. but when i look at it, i see seth, mark, tom, and people like that who work on engines every day. [ tom ] i would love to see this thing fly. [ kareem ] it's a dream, honestly. there it is. oh, wow. that's so cool! yeah, that was awesome! [ cheering ] [ tom ] i wanna see that again. ♪

nature valley trail mix bars are made with real ingredients you can see. like whole roasted nuts, chewy granola, and real fruit. nature valley trail mix bars. 100% natural. 100% delicious. 100% natural. in the works package, we change the oil we change the filter... tire rotation, suspension, we make suspension checks... what we have here is the multi-point inspection. every time a vehicle comes into a ford dealership you'll be presented with one of these. we check the belts, hoses... brakes. tires and the pressures... battery, all your fluids... exhaust system, transmission... we inspect your air filter... it gets done,it gets done quickly and it gets done correctly. the works. oil change, tire rotation and more: $29.95 or less after rebate - at your ford dealer. you're a doctor... you're a car doctor. maybe a car doctor...

the ugliest campaign ad of the political season is back in the rewrite tonight. the candidate who ran that ad is now trying to make it disappear. but first, we will go to the spin room in arizona to hear directly from the republican campaigns. [ female announcer ] lactaid milk is easy to digest.

it's real milk full of calcium and vitamin d. and tastes simply delicious. for those of us with lactose intolerance... lactaid® milk. the original 100% lactose-free milk. chocolate lemonade ? susie's lemonade... the movie. or... we make it pink ! with these 4g lte tablets, you can do business at lightning-fast speeds. we'll take all the strawberries, dave. you got it, kid. we have a winner. we're definitely gonna need another one. small businesses that want to grow use 4g lte technology from verizon.

i wonder how she does it. that's why she's the boss. because the small business with the best technology rules. contact the verizon center for customers with disabilities at 1-800-974-6006.

the bottom line is that we have a problem in this country. and the family is fracturing. over 40% of children born in america are born out of wedlock. how can a country survive if children are being raised in homes where it's so much harder to succeed economically? the left gets all upset, oh,

look at him talking about these things. here's the difference between me and the left. they don't get this. just because i'm talking about doesn't mean i want a government program to fix it. that's what they do. that's not who we do. >> we're back with more on tonight's republican debate. joining me now is alice stewart, national press secretary for santorum for president, jackie gingrich cushman, senior adviser to newt gingrich, and thaddeus mccollum. alice, that was your guy leading into the segment, making a point, just because i have private thoughts and a personal morality about certain things, it doesn't mean that i want government to do anything about those and enforce those. but in today's "new york times," maureen dowd made the point in her column that that still worries her. he understands that distinction, but she has seen too much of

politician's own moralistic thinking seep into their governing when they get into office. >> in that particular instance, he was talking about how we're getting away from the family unit and we are seeing families that are single parent family. and while he respects and admiring single mothers, we're seeing a growing number of children having children and children having their children, more and more unwed people having children. but he also made the point when they were talking about contraception, he has his own personal belief on that. he personally does not believe, his faith does not have him support contraception. but he has also not stood in the way of women who make that option. and he also feels with the way that president obama is acting, we have the federal government stepping in on personal decisions and this has become an infringement on religious freedoms. and we can't have that. that's not the government's role to do that. but one thing that rick made abundantly clear is while he has personal opinions on many issues, it's not the federal government's position to step in

and do anything about it. >> jackie gingrich cushman, i want to congratulate your candidate. please pass on this congratulations to him. i thought he said the single smartest thing in the debate, in the toughest area of the debate for republicans, which is earmarks. newt gingrich was the only person there who defended the earmark process and warned a republican audience that with a democratic president, you will want people in the house of representatives if the republicans control it to be putting earmarks in the spending that specifically directs how the money will be spent, rather than leaving it to a democratic president to spend that money. and that, of course, would work both ways. i think both parties would want to have that if they had the opposite party in the white house and they controlled the legislative process. so i'm giving your guy all the big points tonight, the gold star for the one thing that i thought actually was completely

true and made sense. but do you think your audience hates the word earmarks so much? do you think it's possible that people listened to him on that? >> oh, i think they'll listen to him. but i think he showed time and time again, on every answer that he had, he rose above the question, to your point, right then. he rose above the question. he explained it in a way that made sense. and i think that was your favorite part. my favorite part were two things. one when he said he was cheerful, because he is cheerful. and if you could watch him during the debate and others were talking, you'd actually see him smile and laughing. the other part, which i think is very key, which no one else in this campaign, no other candidate, including president barack obama can say, is that my father can get things done in washington and not just on the campaign trail. he is the only candidate, including president barack obama, who has balanced the budget four years in a row, who reformed welfare, and again, santorum mentions that, but he did that under his leadership as

speaker. that's what we need today. >> uh now, i know my audience is expecting me to jump in here and wrestle with each one of you on these spinning items, but we don't have the time for that. so i'm just going to be getting what you have and moving along quickly. thaddeus mccotter, i want to play something that mitt romney said about what he calls the worst attack on religion in the history of this country, and that attack is being launched by president obama. let's listen to what your candidate said. >> i don't think we've seen, in the history of this country, the kind of attack on religious conscious, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under barack obama. most recently, of course -- most recently, requiring the catholic church to provide for its employees and its various enterprises health care insurance that would include birth control, sterilization, and the 'morning after' pill.

unbelievable. >> thaddeus mccotter, with his words were that this was the worst attack on religious conscience in the history of this country. where would he rank and how would he rank in terms of an attack on religious conscience when the federal government outlawed the practice of polygamy, the central religious tenant of his religion, that then forced his family to flee the country, give up on america, and flee to mexico? how would he rank that compared to what he has seen involving contraception politics in the last two weeks? >> well, i think that's a fairer question directed at him, especially given his mormon faith. i think he could answer that question for himself. as a practicing catholic, as someone who understands it across the board, there are those who do not want to ban contraception, such as myself, but there are those who understand that the federal government has no business trying to coerce people into going against the central tenants of their religion. and lawrence, i would ask a

simple question too, whether or not it is the largest infringement of religious liberty, there is an implication that it clearly is, and a violation of the first amendment free exercise. i personally would think that some of the fugitive slave laws and others of the past that forced individuals against their conscience to return runaway human beings back to their purported masters would probably be one of the greatest infringements of religion in the history of the country. >> would you say, would you disagree with your candidate and say, for example, what you just cited, forcing people to return slaves to their masters, that that was, in fact, a worse invasion of religious belief than what we've seen in the contraception situation over the last couple of weeks? >> well, i think i only bring it up to show that when your constitutional rights are infringed, it doesn't matter to what degree. they're not supposed to be infringed at all. and i think that would be the common ground that all people should be able to come to as americans, recognizing our god-given rights as put into the constitution. they should be protected and

guaranteed by the government itself. >> alice stewart, does rick santorum think that providing for contraception coverage in health care policies is a bigger invasion of religion than the federal government's outlawing polygamy, a central tenant of mormonism, or what thaddeus mccotter just mentioned, the government ordering people to, against their own religious conscience and beliefs, return slaves to their masters? does he think that contraception is worse than those two? >> he thinks, first and foremost, we have the right to practice the religion of our choice, and it's our individual choice to practice the religion how we see fit. and it's not the government's role to come in and dictate what we do. >> but, except he doesn't. no one thinks that. no one on that stage believes that a religion that allows polygamy should be allowed to practice freely in the united states. not one of them believes that.

so let's not pretend that they believe in complete religious freedom. none of them do. >> well, certainly, he's got his views and positions on that. but the overall context that has come up for the past week, more than a week, is the government intrusion on religious liberties. and we talked about contraception, another issue this evening was abortion. unfortunately, mitt romney has flip-flopped on that issue, and he started out the debate tonight quoting con stanza. when you the audience applause then stop. there's also another famous constanza quote, where it says, there's not a life, you believe it. there were many things that mitt romney said this evening that were complete falsehoods, and he misrepresented many facts when it came to abortion, when it came to the bailouts, when it comes to cap and trade. and these are things that people need to stand and read and follow up exactly where he stands. he says that he supported the bailout for wall street, for a specific reason, but he has not been consistent on that. you can't say that you support

one burglparticular bailout, bu don't support another. where we have rick santorum who feels it's not the government's role to bail out anyone at any time. we need the free market to act. and the free market, in many cases, there are winners and losers, and we can't the ds and we can't pick winners in a free market society. >> that's going to have to be the last word on the debate tonight. i'm sorry, we've run out of time. thank you all very, very much for joining me tonight. >> thank you, lawrence. coming up in the rewrite, the return of the ugliest campaign ad of the year. progresso. it fits! fantastic! [ man ] pro-gresso they fit! okay-y... okay??? i've been eating progresso and now my favorite old jeans...fit. okay is there a woman i can talk to? [ male announcer ] progresso. 40 soups 100 calories or less.

with less chronic osteoarthritis pain. imagine living your life with less chronic low back pain. imagine you, with less pain. cymbalta can help. cymbalta is fda-approved to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain. one non-narcotic pill a day, every day, can help reduce this pain. tell your doctor right away if your mood worsens, you have unusual changes in mood or behavior or thoughts of suicide. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. cymbalta is not approved for children under 18. people taking maois or thioridazine or with uncontrolled glaucoma should not take cymbalta. taking it with nsaids, aspirin, or blood thinners may increase bleeding risk.

severe liver problems, some fatal, were reported. signs include abdominal pain and yellowing skin or eyes. tell your doctor about all your medicines, including those for migraine and while on cymbalta, call right away if you have high fever, confusion and stiff muscles or serious allergic skin reactions like blisters, peeling rash, hives, or mouth sores to address possible life-threatening conditions. talk about your alcohol use, liver disease and before you reduce or stop cymbalta. dizziness or fainting may occur upon standing. ask your doctor about cymbalta. imagine you with less pain. cymbalta can help. go to cymbalta.com to learn about a free trial offer. nancy pelosi is smearing me and my super pac, just so she can push shadowy legislation called "the disclose act," which would force helpless super pacs

like mine to reveal their top five donors in each ad. five?! that is impossible. i mean, newt's pac only has one donor. take away sheldon addleson and the pro-gingrich winning our future pac is just a lemonade stand. the employee of the month is...

spark card from capital one. spark cash gives me the most rewards of any small business credit card. it's hard for my crew to keep up with 2% cash back on every purchase, every day. 2% cash back. that's setting the bar pretty high. thanks to spark, owning my own business has never been more rewarding. [ male announcer ] introducing spark the small business credit cards from capital one. get more by choosing unlimited double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day. what's in your wallet? this guy's amazing. the ugliest political ad of the year is back in the rewrite tonight.

>> thank you, michigan senator debby spend it now. debby spend so much american money, you borrow more and more from us. your economy get very weak, ours get very good. >> the campaign that ran that ad is now trying to do more than rewrite it. they're trying to erase it from their campaign history. the actress who appeared in the ad, as we've previously reported, is not a chinese citizen, she is a californian who doesn't speak with an accent and is a graduate of uc berkeley, one of the finest colleges in the world. she bravely stepped forward last week and publicly apologized for her role in the ad, saying she is deeply sorry and feels horrible about her participation in the ad. the candidate who approved that message, republican pete hoekstra, who's running for senate in michigan against democrat debbie stabenow, has been sliding in the polls very badly since that ad went on the air, and that trend continues in our nbc news/marist poll,

released today. hoekstra is now trailing stabenow but 21 points. and so, the hoekstra campaign, after defending the ad, has quietly scrubbed the ad from the web. it's gone from hoekstra's facebook page, gone from youtube, but the stain on the campaign remains. a 21-point stain. it could turn out that what this actress did in pete hoekstra's ad will do more to re-elect senator debbie stabenow than anyone who appears in the stabenow campaign ads. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] offering four distinct driving modes and lexus' dynamic handling,

the next generation of lexus will not be contained. the all-new 2013 lexus gs. there's no going back. ♪ tle there's no going back. emotional hetlretl?tl aren't you getting a little industrial? okay, there's enough energy right here in america. yeah, over 100 years worth. okay, so you mean you just ignore the environment. actually, it's cleaner. and, it provides jobs. and it helps our economy. okay, i'm listening. [announcer] at conoco phillips we're helping power america's economy with cleaner affordable natural gas... more jobs, less emissions, a good answer for everyone. so, by reducing the impact of production... and protecting our land and water... i might get a job once we graduate. my dad and grandfather spent their whole careers here. [ charlie ] we're the heartbeat of this place, the people on the line. we take pride in what we do. when that refrigerator ships out the door, it's us that work out here. [ michael ] we're on the forefront of revitalizing manufacturing.

we're proving that it can be done here, and it can be done well. [ ilona ] i came to ge after the plant i was working at closed after 33 years. ge's giving me the chance to start back over. [ cindy ] there's construction workers everywhere. so what does that mean? it means work. it means work for more people. [ brian ] there's a bright future here, and there's a chance to get on the ground floor of something big, something that will bring us back. not only this company, but this country. ♪ not only this company, [music playing]try. confidence. available in color. depend® for women is now peach. looks and fits like underwear. same great protection. depend®. good morning. great day.

president obama obviously wants a serious presidential campaign debate about corporate taxes, and that's why he released his new corporate tax plan today, so the republicans could fall all over themselves tonight, fighting against the very idea that corporations pay anything even close to their fair share of taxes, but they were too busy talking about bombing iran and the evils of contraception to get to corporate taxes and many other subjects that went undiscussed. joining me now is pulitzer prize-winning author, david kay johnston, writer for reuters and professor at syracuse law school. professor, the obama plan is out. it is a fascinating plan in that it cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 to 28. now, right away, some of president obama's supporters will say, wait a minute, he's cutting corporate taxes. but the important lesson in cutting tax rates is, if you also eliminate certain kinds of deductions, you can end up getting more in tax revenue as a

result. a simple exercise for the audience, imagine we cut your income tax rate, but then we also eliminated your mortgage deduction. you might end up paying a lot more in taxes. how does this shake out, when you look at the whole obama plan? >> well, the president is being quite consistent in his plan. the reason the figure is 28% is that's what the work done by treasury and the congressional budget office indicates, that the tightening items the president would put in would allow without a loss of revenue. it's essentially a revenue-neutral plan, and if you believe the republicans and the president on this, it should lead in the future to higher profits and, therefore, more revenue. i'm a little more skeptical of that side of it. but the idea here is to be revenue neutral. there's also a provision to lower the tax rate for manufacturing companies, to treat them differently, and effectively tax them at 25% instead of 28, on the theory that this will cause manufacturing to come back into

the country, even though it's super low labor rates that are really driving, moving manufacturing offshore. >> so, basically, he is able to cut the corporate tax rate by also eliminating or reducing some corporate tax loopholes. that's what gives him the money that allows him to do it. but let's go to the manufacturing, because that's really what everybody really cares about here. do we have any experience in the tax code of stimulating manufacturing by tweaking the tax code this way? >> temporarily in the past. we've had things call investment tax credits, which applied only no investment within the united states, and during the bush administration and the reagan administration, we had for brief periods of time, special rules for utilities, which is mostly electric utilities, giving them a lower tax rate. but in terms of manufacturing, except for that, no. and the general principle in tax is, you should tax all chips the same, whether they're potato chips or microchips.

>> yeah, i've got to say, i have an aversion to this kind of tax policy, where we think through tax policy, we can create certain kinds of economic behaviors, especially at the macro level of industries like manufacturing. the fact that manufacturing now would get a 25% rate instead of a 28 simply means we will be manufacturing a lot more tax lawyers, who will be trying to figure out how to call your business manufacturing. that's the first thing that happens. >> hamburgers are the classic example of that. people will argue that that's an assembly line production. you've got to put everything between the patty and it's manufacturing. it's not, but there are will people who will make arguments like that. >> well, yeah, it's easy to say it's not, but when you actually get into trying to define it in tax law as you write it, it becomes very, very difficult. and that's where i grew my aversion to this stuff, is when i was writing tax law on the finance committee and someone gets one of these ideas, and you say, okay, great, how do we

write that so it doesn't apply to hamburgers, and it's a very difficult thing to do. but it certainly does give the president a political argument here on two fronts. one is, he is thinking about manufacturing, he is trying to do something about manufacturing, and he's thinking about, in particular, what they immediate in relation to the tax code, but then, also, he's thinking about corporate fairness, fairness on the tax code extending over to the corporate side. and what do you see coming out of the republican side of the campaign that might in any way effectively counter the obama position? >> i don't. i've been looking at their plans, and there are lots of incongruities in them. romney's plan he put out today says at the very top of the page that we have an obligation to tax as much as we spend. my words, not his. and yet he proposes 20% across the board cut in tax ra