tv Meet the Press NBC March 1, 2015 8:00am-9:01am PST
this sunday, the politics of security. is dysfunction in washington jeopardizing our safety. >> we're going right into the valley of death. >> the department of homeland security narrowly avoids a shutdown, temporarily. republicans are now in control are they ready to lead? i'll ask a key gop house leader. plus 2016, the fight to become the conservative alternative to jeb bush. ben carson joins me exclusively. and murder in moscow. after a critic of vladimir putin is shot dead, putin said he'll personally lead the investigation. can he be trusted? then there was senator james inhofe. >> it is very, very cold out. >> proof that global warming is
a hoax or just another example of show and tell capitol hill style? i'm chuck todd. joining me to provide insight and analysis this morning are radio talk show host hugh hewitt, helene cooper of "the new york times." maria hinojosa of "latino usa," and chris cillizza of "washington post". when republicans seize control of the senate and expanded majority in the house in november after four years of divided government in capitol hill, the party's leadership made a few promises. no longer would they be the party of no and no longer would we see governoring crisis to crisis. if this week is any indication they failed. speaker john boehner was embarrassed when he went down in defeat after republicans angry over the immigration policy voted against the speaker. in the end boehner had to be
bailed out by senate republican leader mitch mcconnell and house democrats in order to keep the department open for just seven more days. in a moment, i'll ask a top republican if this is the beginning of the end for legislating of the congress just two months into its term? but first this politicizing of national security is happening at a time around the world beginning with the latest news about the isis killer known as jihadi john. he's been a potent symbol in the isis propaganda war, a mass killer whose cult of fear tlifz on anonymity. jihadi john was unveiled this week as mohammed emwazi, a british citizen born in kuwait, in his mid-20s and college educated. >> i think all the families will feel closure and relief once there's a bullet between his eyes. >> reporter: but is the u.s. losing the propaganda war?
isis now has social media feeds in 23 languages and this week, the nation's top spy offered a bleak assessment of the threat. >> problem there is their ubiquitous use of the media and so the challenge is how do you take down the internet? >> reporter: a dispute over how best to prevent iran from getting the bomb is increasinglying debooeg defined by the tom igs relationship between two men. >> there has now been injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate i think it is destructive of the fabric of the relationship. >> what is destructive in my view is making a bad deal that paves the way for a nuclear iran. >> reporter: all of this is the backdrop to this week's political fight over funding the agency created in the wake of 9/11. >> i had it with this self-righteous delusional wing of the party that this is like the charge and the light brigade, we're going right into the valley of death.
>> joined by house majority leader kevin mccarthy. valley of death, some republicans not happy with other republicans. congressman, let me ask you this, this is what you said in october. if you have a cliff, it takes attention away. why put cliffs up that hold us back from doing bigger policy? that was you in 2014. this immigration dispute in the funding of homeland security with a cliff that the republicans chose to create and in this case as far as making the protest over the immigration policy a part of homeland security, was it not in. >> it was not. let's go back and remember how this was created. the president right after the collection had a lunch bicameral senate and house leaders creating a problem would not solve the immigration problem, which he said he did not have authority to take action. after lunch, he took his executive action to chaos.
we funded 11 of the 12. and then what did the house do? five weeks ago, because we do not believe in cliffs, we took this issue up. it was the senate democrats who not only voted against the bill but denied the senate republicans from even bringing it up when seven senate democrats said they opposed it. they created the cliff, moved the bill at the last moment and what was the house action? let's go to conference. because even harry reid said last year that's the way for the last 200 years we settle our differences differences. we avoided a cliff they created one. >> but you guys chose to use dhs funding as a way to fund the action. the lawsuit is moving forward. it is likely the courts are going to say this has to go to the supreme court before the president can even decide it. so again, you know, you chose to use the dhs funding as a way to protest. was that the wrong decision? >> no, no. we chose an action. remember who did this. the president chose to use an
authority when he said 22 separate times he didn't have the authority to do. >> which is being challenged in the courts. >> in the last two years the supreme court, the highest court in the land, had overruled the president and specifically said he overused his authority in two different cases. this president has created this frustration. and remember, you see a frustration in the house. that is reflective and representative the frustration in our district. this president doesn't want to work with the american public. he's creating these problems when we're trying to work it out. the best thing that can happen is we go to conference, and we settle our differences. >> well, let me -- you brought up the senate and said senate democrats. one way this could change is since republicans do the majority is mitch mcconnell invokes the so-called nuclear option. right now there are no filibusters for any executive appointments, judicial or in the executive branch, but on legislation, the filibuster is still there. do you want senate republicans to -- >> i don't think going nuclear when you have 57% of the senate
voted for to cause the amendment that would take away the president's action, that is not nuclear when 57% of the american representation says it's wrong. that's not in the constitution. i think they should change the rules. >> could you have been more clever about this and written legislation that -- >> you're giving us high expectations. >> written legislation that essentially you had the lawsuit -- you had the one decision in the federal court. we have a circuit court that will decide whether they can inplemt. why not make the funding contingent on the lawsuit? >> well, there is a different argument to go with the fees and what is going forward. but don't you think something's wrong with this administration, this president, when the highest court in the land twice in last year said you overstepped your authority and 22 times you said he didn't have the authority and did it? i think that's creating a problem more so than -- >> what is going to happen in five days? >> i hope we settle our differences. that's what the american public expects. that's what harry reid said. >> can you bring the senate bill on the floor?
the senate passed full funding of dhs without the -- without the extraneous amendment on the immigration policy. can that pass the house of representatives? >> we sent the bill back to the senate. the democrats had a motion to instruct and it failed on the floor. that answers the question right now as of now no it cannot. >> what will happen in five days? >> the best thing for the american public is we do our job, washington changes, the senate and the house get together and sticks their differences and find common ground. >> this is not the reality we live in. the reality we live in how do you fund this in five days? >> from the majority leader of the house, i will be in that room and help solve that problem. all we need is harry reid to say the same thing and this can all go away and be solved. 57% of the senate agrees with us. we can get this done very quickly and never -- let me make one point very clear. the first priority of the republican majority is the security of america. we'll make sure we have the security for this country.
>> do you have an issue inside your conference of conservatives? here is what daniel nunez said. >> i prefer to be in the arena voting than trying to placate a phony group of conservative members with no political strategy to stop owe he owe owe obama. >> we're united in the principle, there is a right way and wrong way to legislate. unfortunately, the president chose the wrong way. and when the highest court in the land tells you you overstepped your bounds, that means there is a problem. >> is it fair to say legislating for the rest of this year, this is the climate. if senate republicans and house republicans can't agree on a way forward on dhs funding and you have control of both houses, how do you get tax reform done, how do you get trade proposals done? shouldn't we be looking at this and throwing up our hands and saying wait until 2016. >> no, no.
winston churchill said you can count on americans to do what's right after they exhausted every other option. that was friday. i have high hopes for america. >> you're setting a very low bar of expectations. is that what you're saying? >> no look we're committed to doing trade, tax reform infrastructure. all we need is someone that wants to work with us. we'll work with anybody that wants to work with us. we find administration -- he offered four times as many veto threats as bills he signed. he has a veto threat where he just stopped 40,000 jobs. >> here is the thing. it seems like nobody wants to be the adult in the room then. i understand you're criticizing the president. it is not like you're acting like the adults in the room right now. >> could we have done better on friday, yes? and will we? yes we will. we took up legislation five weeks ago. if there is somebody not being an adult, it is the democrats. i can work with anybody. homeland security did not shut
down. we say let's go to conference. we're ready to get the job done. >> five more days. see if we're here again. senator mccarthy thank you. >> the panel is here. hugh hewitt, helene cooper, maria hinojosa and chris cillizza. did the republicans create this cliff or not? i understand what mccarthy is saying putting the blame on the president. this is a tactic that house republicans chose to do. did they set their own trap? >> no i've been a critic of the leadership a lot. this is not an immigration issue. this is about the scope of the president's aggressiveness on the use of his authority. they didn't create the cliff. the president created the cliff. the leader made that point. he also made the point too, i tried to make some news saying it is not in the constitution that was sort of let's go to the nuclear option. i thought wow, my eyebrows went up i had not heard a member of the house leadership say it go that way.
>> maria, we're talking about homeland security. the backdrop is immigration. i guess we're not going to see a bill about immigration reform. that's not going to happen. but should it be congress that decides this or should we allow judicial review at this point? are we getting our branches confused here? >> so the interesting thing is it is actually not the republicans or the democrats that have created a problem. it is a reality that immigrants are in the united states of america. there are millions of undocumented immigrants in the united states of america. when i spoke to latino republicans, they say, like you're feeling the shame for someone else. this is when republicans can stand up and do something and they're not doing, not leading. what i'm getting from my reporting from on the ground is that latino voters are saying so republicans were prepared to put into question the security
of our country because of the fact that they want to continue to deport brown, you know, women, children, fathers? how does this help us? they're saying they -- they're saying we're blaming the republicans here, not the president who took a long time to act but they're saying it is the republicans that -- >> this is sort of the 2016 implication, what maria is indicating here on one hand i get where the conservative base is coming from. i think look it is possible the president can't do anything until the courts -- the supreme court. but that means yet another two years where there is no resolution on immigration and demographically that does what? >> the math is simple. john mccain gets 31% of the hispanic vote in 2008. mitt romney gets 27% of the hispanic vote in 2012. that trend line, it is not
complicated. if that trend line continues, maybe in 2016 you can elect a republican, gets dicey in 2020. 2024, given the country is young and it is un -- it is less registered to vote than it should be in terms of its population, you move that line up and you can't win. i don't disagree with you about the constitutional fight. the issue is a constitutional fight, not everyone understands it as that. this is really about the president's power. they understand it. to what maria is talking about this is about republicans again just like they did the last two years, they don't want to push immigration reform. what it looks like and what it is may not be the same thing but it may not matter. >> that's the perception problem. that's the box that i think the republicans might be in. >> you look at how this issue is playing out in the press and on tv and where americans go to get their news and it looks, again, as the republicans are threatening to shut down government over a stance.
and it just -- it also shows that -- i think it makes -- it makes congress look so dreadful. what i think at the end of the day is what this shows is that congress seems to have lost its ability to perform its job no matter which party is in charge. >> loretta linkynch's nomination may come up this week. i don't think it has been fully scheduled yet. a lot of republicans like her, but don't want to vote for her over the immigration issue. should senate republicans not basically stop her confirmation over immigration? >> no she's a very qualified nominee. very qualified. they should move to confirm her. but fund dhs when the ink junction re injunction remains in place and get to the budget. it doesn't require the president's signature. if the republicans change the subject, because i'm afraid it may end up where maria and helene and chris are saying i
think people still understand it is a constitutional problem that the president triggered but they got to move this ball. >> we'll be watching that. they got five days to move the ball. in a moment, we'll change subjects here, the latest on the murder in moscow. a fierce critic of vladimir putin, a friend of the victim, over the next 40 years the united states population is going to grow by over 90 million people and almost all the growth is going to be in cities. what's the healthiest and best way for them to grow so that they really become cauldrons of prosperity and cities of opportunity? what we have found is that if that family is moved info safe clean, affordable housing, places that have access to great school systems access to jobs and multiple transportation modes then neighborhood begins to thrive and really really take off. the oxygen of community redevelopment is financing and all this rebuilding that happened could not have happened without organizations like citi. citi has formed a partnership with our company
thousands of protesters have taken to the streets of moscow this morning in a march that has become a memorial now to slain opposition leader boris nemtsov. nemtsov, one of russian president vladimir putin's fiercest critics, was due to leave this march and was shot on friday. the the condemnation of the murder has been met with a lot of eye rolling and distrust. i'm joined from new york by russian opposition politician, former world chess champion and chairman of the human rights foundation, gary kasparov. welcome to "meet the press." >> thanks for inviting me. >> i want to get your initial reaction to the loss of your friend. >> i was shattered when i heard the news. hard to believe boris, the man i knew for more than 20 years and we have been working together closely since 2004 in opposition to vladimir putin's regime, the man was so full of life, energy he was shot dead. but it is a fact.
and it is a crime committed in putin's russia. >> do you trust putin to do this investigation? do you somehow believe he's responsible for this death? >> whether he gave a direct order, i don't know. we'll probably never know. but definitely the atmosphere in the country was hatred where people disagreed with putin had been portrayed as national traitor, enemies of the state an boris was one of the most formidable critics of the regime and he's pictures on big billboards and spread around moscow. so it is definitely the atmosphere. but this morning i look again at the video of the shooting, that's what we could find from one of the many cameras that are located at the bridge, and there are so many questions about
inconsistency of the official theory and the big question is about this snow removal track that suddenly appeared exactly at the spot where camera could catch out the killer. >> what is this going to do to the opposition movement? does this become a moment where suddenly democracy activists feel more freedom to come out and protest, feel as if they -- he shouldn't die in vain, or do you fear that it is actually going to make folks go underground? >> look many of our colleagues and friends there are behind bars or out of the country, like myself. and now with boris probably one of the bravest of us and the man who was standing tall criticizing putin and, by the way, he was preparing his new report on russian putin's and he
was killed, not killed in a dark corner but in front of the kremlin. it sends chilling signals to everybody. it spreads fear and terror. that's why i expect the regime that will benefit from this murder. >> do you fear for your life? >> sorry? >> do you fear for your life? >> not here in new york. and i left moscow russia two years ago and many, many of our colleagues did the same. after boris' death i mean, no one, no one feels safe in moscow. if you have anything to say against vladimir putin. >> what do you want the obama administration to do? you've been critical of his policies in dealing with putin in the past. how should the administration react to this? >> stop pretending you're dealing with another democratically elected leader. stop trying to bring putin to the negotiating table. his agenda is opposite to the agenda of the united states or europe. putin wants to destroy ukraine
and statehood. putin wants crisis. crisis more -- the lack of international security, those are elements that are vital for survival in russia. and one of the first things to be done is to make sure ukraine can resist putin's aggression. that's the best thing to be done to remember boris nemtsov. >> garry kasparov, opposition leader himself when it comes to vladimir putin, thanks for coming on "meet the press." >> thanks. another foreign leader the focus of attention here this week in washington. benjamin netanyahu. he arrives here today for what has become a controversial speech to congress on tuesday. controversial because house speaker john boehner invited him without consulting the white house. our latest poll out this morning found that just 30% thought that, yes, it was right for house republicans to invite the israeli prime minister to speak before congress right now. 48% said it was wrong. joined by former senator vice
presidential candidate joe lieberman advocate for democrats to attend the speech and illinois democratic congresswoman jan schakowsky who said she will boycott and not attend the speech. let me start with you. explain why you're boycotting? >> i'm not going to use the word boycott. i respect the people that are going and those that are not. it is a personal decision. the floor of the house of representatives is the most prestigious venue in the world. and for john boehner to turn it into -- try to turn it into political advantage, one by showing as he's tried for years that the republicans are really the supporters of the state of israel, creating a divide, and, two, to stick it to the president that the president who is trying to negotiate an agreement that will in fact prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon is on the wrong page. and inviting a very prestigious speaker the prime minister of
israel, to make that case right in front of the congress. i don't want to be part of that. by the way, i'll be listening to every word. we do have things like television that, you know, and i will certainly be watching and listening. >> senator lieberman, you wrote an op-ed trying to calm the waters. >> yes. >> trying to tell democrats you may not be happy with how this is done, but go to the speech. >> right. whether you like it or not, the fact is that speaker boehner made the invitation, he didn't rescind it. >> would you have done it? >> i'm not the speaker. honestly, the danger for me here is that once again something really important namely whether iran gets nuclear weapons is going to be swept up in washington partisanship and politics. i think the best thing for people like jan who i rehee respect and supports a strong u.s./israel relationship the best thing would be to go sit
there, it would have been a nonissue. and to some extent the democrats who are not going are actually making it partisan because by their absence. in other words if jan is right and john boehner is trying to prove that republicans are better friends of israel, then the way to disprove that is for all democrats to go. in the end most democrats are going to be there. tuesday, i predict prime minister netanyahu will make the speech that is extremely respectful of president obama. we'll talk about why he's fearful of the negotiations in iran allowing iran to have a nuclear weapon. and by the end of tuesday it will be over. the most important thing going on in congress about this is bipartisan. two pieces of legislation one to apply sanctions if there is not an agreement and another to require congressional oversight if there is. those are totally bipartisan. i believe they'll both pass with strong majorities. i think the one that gives
congressional oversight might well be over and the veto might be over because it is not just about iran, it is about the authority of congress to play a role in american foreign policy. >> on that front do you think congress should have that kind of role? the president's argument against this is that no on foreign policy, this is has never happened before. this is not a treaty not something like that where the senate says -- would you like congressional oversight on the deal? >> let me just say, i think anything at this point that interferes with re delicate negotiations the delicate creation of the p-5 plus one, that is the international community in support of these negotiations is very, very harmful. and those who will argue as the prime minister will and as john boehner has that this is a bad deal, what is the alternative? if we don't have a deal, then we run blind. that is we don't have instructions. we don't have any reduction in
the amount of the -- i think that is the really important question. in this hyperpartisan environment, i think the idea of putting up legislation that the republicans who have the majority can undermine the president, they're gong to pass. >> i'm wondering if president netanyahu defeated himself here a little bit because it is the more he attacks the administration on the deal the more the administration wants to dig in. here is what jeffrey goldberg wrote on friday. netanyahu is engaging in behavior that is without precedent. he's apparently so desperate to stay in office he let the republicans weaponize the country in the struggle against the democratic president they despise. >> you know, i don't have the ability to judge what effect this will have on netanyahu in the elections going on in israel. his whole line of thought among israeli political analysts that are coming here will hurt him. i think he's coming here i'll take him at his word. he's coming here because as he
said no responsible duly elected prime minister of israel at a moment like this, when he thinks not only the security of the state, but the very existence of the state may be on the line and the negotiations with iran about nuclear weapons. he couldn't say no. i think we all got to listen to him, and then go forward with what we're going to do. but this is the role of congress since the founding of our country, congress and the president have struggled for the privilege of determining american foreign policy and that's why i think the president vetoes the congressional oversight of any deal that comes out of the negotiations, i think there is a good chance congress will override it. >> a lot of jewish americans feel angst on this. they don't like it has become polarized. >> i couldn't agree more. i think it is time for everybody to quiet down. in my opinion this is a fight within a family. a disagreement within a family. if you ever had one of those, they're no fun. but when they end, the
relationships in the family remain the same and strong and that is the way it is. >> the concern is not just jewish americans but even loud voices and powerful voices in israel who worry about the relationship. but what i worry about too, i worry about war with iran. i think what the president is doing is an alternative to that. and that is the most important thing. >> all right, i'll pause it there. thank you, both, for coming on. we'll see if the waters get calmer. when we come back conservatives gathered in washington this weekend. rand paul was cheered. jeb bush was booed. ben carson is with me next to disc you can call me shallow... but, i have a wandering eye. i mean, come on. national gives me the control to choose any car in the aisle i want. i could choose you... or i could choose her if i like her more. and i do. oh, the silent treatment. real mature. so you wanna get out of here?
alternative to jeb bush. for the third year in a row, rand paul won with 26% of the vote. but it is the top four finishes that tell you everything about where the movement is. scott walk, 21%, second. ted cruz and ben carson, third and fourth. jeb bush, only 8% of the vote. in a moment i'll be joined by one of the top four finishers ben carson. let's look at some of the highlights from cpac where one person not in attendance got quite a bit of attention. >> not ready for hillary. >> mrs. clinton. >> hillary clinton. >> whose former secretary of state. >> hillary clinton. >> it is time for hillary clinton to permanently retire. >> oh, they say, we can't kill our way out of war. really? tell that to the nazis. oh wait you can't because they're dead. we killed them. >> here is the simple truth about our foreign policy. our allies doubt us. and our adversaries are all too
willing to test. >> we managed to mess up almost every relationship in the world if you think about it including canada, which is hard to do. >> i do not have political consultants saying here is what you say so everybody sounds like charlie brown's teacher. >> finally if they don't listen, we should limit their terms and send the career politicians packing. >> if i could take on 100,000 protesters, i can do the same across the world. >> for those that made a ooo sound, is that what it was? i'm marking it down as neutral. >> if you are pro life and you're pro family they don't even know what to call you. >> i'm joined from dallas by a likely republican presidential hopeful who you just saw there ben carson. welcome back to "meet the press." >> thank you. good to be with you. >> let me ask you the question
this way, why wouldn't you at this point run for president? what would make you decide not to run? >> if i found that there really was no support for it. that would cause me not to run. >> right now you feel as if you're seeing plenty of support? >> i'm seeing a very substantial amount of support across the country in red states, blue states, north south, east, west. >> your lack of electoral experience obviously on one hand you would say it would be an asset, career politicians and i know that talk. but a lot of the criticism from the right of president obama was his inexperience at managing politics, executive experience at managing the legislature. that would be a big hurdle for you, would it not? >> i'm not sure that the criticism of president obama is accurate. you have to decide what it is he wanted to accomplish. he wanted to accomplish fundamental change in america. i think he's done quite a bit of that. and he seems to know how to
execute those conventions. >> when it comes to -- what you're saying is you feel like in his vision he's been successful at what he wanted to do? >> yes. and a vision if i were to run and were to win i would have very different vision. it would be a vision of putting the constitution back on the top shelf. it would be a vision of making our government understand that it works for the people. and that the government responds to the will of the people and not pick and choosing who should win and lose what laws to enforce. and that -- laws we enforce have nothing to do with our own personal beliefs. it has to do with the laws and the constitution of this country. >> let me focus on foreign policy. i think it has been a surprisingly dominant topic even at cpac as we pointed out. this is what you said at cpac. you said the mission when it comes to isis, the mission is to
destroy them first and not tie their hands. what does that mean? wouldn't tie their hands. what does that mean? >> first of all, recognize that isis and some of the other radical islamic terrorist groups and let's not forget about the shia which are based in iran, you know, they he are responsible for a lot of terrorism. they would like to destroy us and our way of life. we have a couple of options. we can sit back and say, they're not that big a deal. or we can recognize that the longer we allow them to grow to spread, to root -- to get their roots well established the more difficult it will be to eradicate them later. what i mean is we have to eradicate them. we have to use every means possible to do that. and we certainly don't want to have people who know very little about military strategy micromanaging, a very confident military that we have.
>> let me ask you something you referred to the shia. are you saying -- i assume you're not saying all shia muslims are terrorist threats. >> no but i'm saying, you know we focus so much on the terrorist groups that emanate from the sunnis. i don't want us to forget about the other terrorist groups too. >> scott walker was asked about foreign policy, you have a lot of different cattle calls that you have to attend with different donors. i know you're flying all over country. you're at one in dallas. here is one of the writeups. scott walker made this after confronted about foreign policy, he said that the experience in the realm of foreign policy is inconsequential it is leadership that matters and the most consequential foreign policy decision of his lifetime was reagan's 1981 firing of 11000 air traffic controllers. he said it sent a message not only across america, it sent a message around the world it wouldn't be messed with.
do you agree with his assessment that firing of air traffic controllers was a foreign policy message? >> i don't really want to talk about what anybody else said and what they meant by it because i like for them to clarify what that means itself. but there is no question that our standing in the world has changed very dramatically. you know even before, you know, reagan got involved in firing those air traffic controllers he was a rejected individual. you remember the crisis where they mocked us the day he inaugurated, they let the hoss hostages go. there is no question the leader set a good measure of what kind of country we're going to be and whether our allies should trust us and whether our enemies should test us. >> last question you're a famed neuro surgeon, the best -- some say the best pediatric neuro
surgeon living in the world today. you're a man of deep faith. explain how science and religion in your mind co-exist. >> i personally believe that a person's religious believes are the things that make them who they are. gives them a direction in their life. but i do not believe that religious beliefs should dictate one's public policies and stances. i find a very good measure of correlation between my religious beliefs and my scientific beliefs. people say, how can you be a scientist, how can you be a surgeon if you don't believe in certain things? maybe those things aren't scientific. maybe it is just propaganda. you know, i think what we should -- i'm always willing to sit down and discuss things. and people who say well you have to believe this, you have to believe that, i'm willing to discuss with them why they believe what they believe and
why i believe what i believe, but that can't be done in a sound bite type of interview, needs to be done in a forum where you can sit down and deeply explain why you believe what you believe. >> well, i hope we just provided a taste of that forum. i look forward to having you back when you're an announced candidate and we'll have a longer end view. good luck on the campaign trail. let me bring in the panel, chris cillizza cillizza, cpac what did you learn? >> i thought that jeb bush, granted he was coming off extremely low expectations, which was essential, will he be booed off the stage or not. there were booed, some catcalls. i thought he was quite good. not just because the audience didn't boo him off the stage, but also because to his credit, he stood strong, sort of political hill he's willing to die on will be immigration. yes we need to enforce the borders, but we also need to do something about the people here illegally. jeb bush is smart enough to understand that's not a policy
that is going to go over well there. he took the boos understanding that the cpac audience is not the whole republican party we'll see how big a part of the republican party agrees with him, but i give him credit for that. i thought he was much better than he's been and his speeches -- i thought he looked listless and off. i thought he was on and revved up to address the audience. >> i got to play a quick little -- president obama and jeb bush talking about immigration this week. >> when they start asking for votes, the first question should be do you really intend to deport 11 million people? and if not, what is your plan to make sure that they have the ability to have a legal status stay with their families and ultimately contribute to the united states of america? >> the simple fact is there is no plan to deport 11 million people. we should give them a path to legal status where they work where they don't receive government benefits where they
don't break the law where they learn english and where they mack a contribution make a contribution to our society. >> what i'm hearing from certain latino republicans is they want that but i also heard just in last 24 hours not a whole lot of love for jeb bush. these are people who have donated thousands, not a couple of hundred, thousands, and they're, like cpac, we don't even care about what's going on. the question that needs to be asked is who is the candidate that can get the general election and win it and how are they going to get latinos and women? let me tell you about very quickly at the thoel,hotel, what about republicans? i'm a voter, i'm going to vote for the first time, the republicans, they're tougher on latinos. >> it is like the decathlon, you
have to do very well on a few events and not screw up any events. jeb bush did much better in this event than people expected. the guys who won, scott walker, ben carson, did the least frank underwoodish in the party. up next, political suicide mystery in missouri. was it about religion or something else? what led a republican gubernatorial candidate, perhaps the leading candidate in 2016 to kill himself just moments after he called reporters to talk.
[ hoof beats ] i wish... please, please, please, please, please. [ male announcer ] the wish we wish above all...is health. so we quit selling cigarettes in our cvs pharmacies. expanded minuteclinic for walk-in medical care. and created programs that encourage people to take their medications regularly. introducing cvs health. a new purpose. a new promise... to help all those wishes come true. cvs health. because health is everything. what does it mean to have an unlimited mileage warranty on a certified pre-owned mercedes-benz? what does it mean to drive as far as you want... for up to three years... and be covered? it means your odometer... is there to record... the memories. during the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event now through march 2nd, you'll get complimentary pre-paid maintenance and receive your first two month's payments on us. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer.
toenail fungus? don't hide it... tackle it with fda-approved jublia! jublia is a prescription medicine proven to treat toenail fungus. use jublia as instructed by your doctor. once applied jublia gets to the site of infection by going under, around and through the nail. most common side effects include ingrown toenail, application-site redness itching, swelling, burning or stinging, blisters, and pain. tackle it! ask your doctor now if jublia is right for you.
president obama's veto of a bill that would have allowed the keystone xl pipeline to be built is by no means the end of the political controversy. but for people who live on the proposed route keystone is more than a political buzzword. "meet the press" headed to nebraska and south dakota to meet the voters whose lives are actually impacted by the pipeline's project. take a look at what they had to say. both sides of this debate all of
[ male announcer ] some come here to build something smarter. ♪ ♪ some come here to build something stronger. others come to build something faster... something safer... something greener. something the whole world can share. people come to boeing to do many different things. but it's always about the very thing we do best. ♪ ♪
welcome back. a shocking political story out of the state of missouri this week involved leading candidate for governor in 2016, his apparent suicide and questions over whether the politics of personal destruction have gone too far. we sent kevin tibbles to s tos to missouri to find out what happened. >> reporter: politics personal and tragic, on a day with began that seemed a harmless voice message to the editorial director of the st. louis post dispatch. >> tony this is tom calling. if you can have a reporter here at my house at 2:30. >> reporter: at issue was tom schweik's plan to accuse the chairman john hancock of wagering a whisper campaign by telling donors that he was jewish. after leaving that message he apparently killed himself. >> i wasn't so close to tom that
i'm beating myself up over not knowing, but i talked to the guy three times that week. >> reporter: it was a campaign already sounding nasty. >> tom schweich like him? no is a weak candidate for governor? absolutely, just look at him. >> reporter: in a statement, republican party chairman hancock said while i do not recall doing so it is possible that i mentioned tom's faith in passing during one of the many conversations i have each day. in fact, schweich's grandfather was jewish but he was a an episcopalian. press secretary spence jackson says he was devastated his family's heritage was apparently being used for politics. >> still in this day and age someone's religious heritage still plays a role. >> and it shouldn't. it is shocking that it does but
it should not. >> reporter: and some say that fighting it is what set tom schweich apart. >> he listens to his heart more than political advice. >> reporter: while we may never know the ultimate reason why he did what he did, his death has many asking whether politics have gotten too personal. for "meet the press," kevin tibbles. >> yesterday i spoke more extensively with tony messenger, the editorial page eder terre for "the st. louis post dispatch" and i asked him about this issue of the politics of personal destruction and whether he thinks whisper campaigns fueled by anti-semitism, might actually still work in his state. >> i know tom, whose clearly closer to his party and the leadership in his party and the voters in his party than i am believe that it was happening. and he believed that it was happening because there were people who thought it would have some effect, particularly on
primary voters. i would like to think we're beyond that. but i can tell you i was just having a conversation before i walked in here today with another state wide official just talking about the various whisper campaigns that we have known about at a state wide level in the last few years on various topics and it sadly not uncommon in the state of missouri. >> think there is a big lesson to be learned out of this or is this a personal tragedy? >> in talking to the people in missouri politics, who i think really have a soul, there is a lesson to be learned in this. there are a lot of people that are soul searching in both parties who are wondering to themselves how do we get out of this? how do we get out of this politics of personal destruction? how do we serve tom schweich's memory and honor by doing
something in the missouri political system to just bring more honor to the process to the profession? my thanks to tony messenger. we'll try to lighten it up a little bit in a moment with our final segment. what we're now calling endgame. stay with us. 36% of all teachers in the u.s. have been teaching for more than 20 years. what does that mean? do the math. we need more teachers to lead future generations. the more you know.
time now for "meet the press" "end game" brought to you by boeing. >> welcome back. we are calling our final segment "end game." and the panelists here. i want to follow up an foreign policy in 2016. hugh i didn't -- it felt like we heard a lot of sound bites that's getting some of these candidates in trouble. scott walker has to be careful comparing isis to wisconsin protesters and then talking about firing air traffic controllers. it doesn't come across as fluency in foreign policy. >> i want to defend him an the patco thing. reagan established a firm position that when reagan went to reykjavik and when he said
why his yes meant yes. it was perhaps inartfully phrased. as to foreign policy the big underreported story, two out of cpac they loved john bolton at cpac. and ted cruz on social media deeply penetrated on foreign policy issues. it resonates. >> elaine this is your beat. has been your beat for years. what is the nuance argument that you want to see inside the republican party when it comes to this debate? >> that's a great question. of course john bolton killed it at cpac. he's john bolton at cpac. >> if he doesn't kill it there, where is he going to kill it? >> it's a kid in a candy store. i think that the republicans are definitely going -- they are definitely going with the strength. we're going to show that we can stand out, be strong, stand up to isis and all of that. but they have to be careful with that. scott walker his comparison of wisconsin union workers to isis was crazy.
and that's not something that you want to see as an american looking -- looking at your republican candidates. i think that they all have to be very very careful. >> it's interesting here chris. the biggest vulnerability for hillary clinton is foreign policy. >> i do. particularly the libya decision the whole management of the arab sprng didn't go well. >> and it's her most resume as well. >> that's right. and the question is will the republicans be able to have a credible attacker is the way to say it? >> and you look at this field. foreign policy. obviously, it's early. but foreign policy is more present as a major issue now in a republican primary than we've seen in quite some time. and yet, the contrast is the field lacks any one who you say, i mean john bolton i guess, aside, the top tier of the field lacks. jeb bush is not a foreign policy expert. he was a governor. >> he is good on latin american policy which nobody ever talks
about, but that's a whole pet peeve of mine. >> we've seen the issues with scott walker. wisconsin is just like fill in the blank country, harder. ted cruz. not an -- chris christie it's not an obvious fit. a bunch of governors and newly elected senators trying to talk about this at a time it does really matter. you are right. who is the one who can say, i
can make this case against her and be credible. >> that's why we'll have debates. senator tim inhofe used a finish prop to make his point on global warming claiming it was a hoax this week. here he is. >> i ask the chair. you know what this is? it's a snowball. and that is from just outside here. very unseasonable. here, mr. president, catch this. not going to use that to get into a climate change debate. i'm going to use it because the house and senate floor sometimes gets some fun moments. considering what happened we
lost lenored nimoy this week. let me play somebody who used to own the floor with some fun sound. here he is. >> news reports say after a game-winning goal at a soccer match in spain, a player celebrated by biting his teammate who scored on the genitals. beam me up. beam me up ladies and gentlemen. beam me up. beam me up. >> well that's our -- that would be washington's odd way of at least honoring leonard nimoy anyway. rest in peace leonard nimoy. that's it for today.
we'll be back next week because if it's sunday it's "meet the press."