tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX February 14, 2016 8:00am-9:00am CST
>> we're not going to give up the u.s. supreme court for a generation by allowing barack obama to make one more liberal appointee. >> i really wish the president would think about not nominating somebody. >> after marco rubio's damaging debate performance last week -- >> this notion that barack obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. >> there it is. there it s the memorized 25-second speech. >> he can get his campaign back on track? >> if our next president is even half the president ronald reagan was, america is going to be greater than it's ever been. >> senator marco rubio on his strategy to regain momentum. then -- obama. i was not that candidate. >> the democratic candidates clash on who is building on the barack obama legacy. bernie sanders in his first interview on "fox news sunday" campaign. we break down both races as bush xliii prepares to hit the campaign trail for his brother.
didn't work out so good. >> if donald trump wants to go after my brother, man, i think that won't be helpful. >> all right now on "fox news sunday." >> and hello again from fox news in washington. first, the news that broke late saturday, the death of supreme court justice antonin scalia. the passing of this conservative giant leaves a big hole in the court. and it sets off a fierce struggle of a weather barack obama should name his successor or leave that to the next president. we'll ask two leading candidates for the white house, marco rubio and democrat bernie sanders in a few minutes. fwifrt, let's bring in fox news chief legal correspondent shannon breen, reporting from the supreme court. shannon? >> chris, he's been described as larger than life and that was true of just antonin scalia on and off the bench. he was a spirited jurorist an unapologyetic of his philosophy.
constitution. i ask, what did those words mean to the society that adopted them? that's the same thing i do with legislation. what do those words mean? what's the fair understanding of them? >> scalia was known for being rather immovable once he reefd a decision and had fiery dissent when on the leezing end of an opinion. dissenting from the court's decision to legalize gay marriage last year, he felt the majority ignored the will of millions of americans who had voted at the state level to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. scalia wrote, "a system of government that makes the people suborder nant to a kmstcommittee of none lekted lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy" and now a showdown over his replacement. >> i plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. there will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the senate
give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. >> senate majority leader republican mitch mcconnell says he believe that should be left to the next president. and while that partisan fight plays out, the court is left to wrestle with the key decisions this term on affirmative action, abortion, the president's use of executive power and the hhs contraceptive mandate. in these cases as in any others, if the court issues a 4-4 decision that essentially just leaves the lower court ruling in effect. chris? >> shannon, thank you. now to the race for the white house. we're just six days from south carolina's first in the south primary. and last night a smaller field of republicans held their final debate before that key contest. fox news senior national correspondent john roberts reports from greenville where scalia's death and vacancy on court was a big issue. john? >> good morning to you, chris. this morning ben carson likened
it did illuminate sharp differences between the candidates on policy and personally. but the debate started off with a rare moment of agreement over the passing of supreme court justice antonin scalia. >> i believe that president should not move forward and i think that we ought to let the next presidentst united states decide who is going to run that supreme court. >> i think it's up to mitch mcconnell and everybody else to stop it. it's called delay, delay, delay. >> the senate needs to stand strong and say we're not going to give up the u.s. supreme court for a generation by allowing barack obama to make one more liberal appointee. >> well, that was about the end of getting along. from there on in, waits a free for all, highlighted by a declaration of more between donald trump and jeb bush. >> donald trump was building a reality tv show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe.
he has the resol to have go after my mother. he has the gal to go after my mother. >> a big part of jeb bush's strategy in south carolina is to be the only one to stand up to donald trump and to try to punch him as hard as he can, chris. we'll find out if it worked the week from now. >> john roberts reporting from south carolina. john, thanks for that. and senator marco rubio who was trying to rebound from a shaking debate performance last week in new hampshire, senator auto rubio, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> thank you. thanks for having me back. >> last night you said that president obama basically doesn't have the right to appoint scalia's successor. take a look. >> i do not believe the president should appoint someone. it's not unprecedented n fact, it's been over 80 years since a lame duck president has appointed a supreme court justice. >> now, senator, when you say lame duck, president obama has
re-elected in 2012. you are saying that no president can appoint someone to the supreme court in their second term? illegal. he most certainly has the power to nominate someone. is xleer. we're not moving forward until after this lection. the main reason is this president is no longer -- he's -- this was early in the second term, that's one thing. but he has less than a year left in office. the voters -- the supreme court justices. they're not in year round. so they can get through this term of the supreme court with all of the decisions. they've done this before. and then there will be an election in move. we'll have a debate about what kind of justice should replace scalia. the voters are going to get to vote for a new president. i think this will be part of the calculus calculus. i think we should wait until after november before we move forward on confirming any justice to the supreme court. the president can nominate whoever he wants. but the senate is not going to act. that is pretty clear.
we're not moving forward. >> ronald reagan named anthony kennedy to the supreme court in november of his seventh year. and kennedy was actually confirmed in reagan's eighth year. are you saying somehow that november is okay but three months later is over the line? >> yeah. again, i mean, i don't -- it doesn't really matter what they've done, reagan did in '87. it was '87 whether he nominated him. obviously, it was early in the year. this is november, october, september of last year where the president had more than a year left in office than perhaps this will be a different discussion. but he now has basically about 11 months and 10 1/2 months left in office. we have an election coming up. there will be a debate over what the supreme court justices should be like. and voters are going weigh in in november. they're going to lekt a new president. i think the president should allow the next president to appoint the justices to the supreme court and if it's me, and i anticipate that it will be, i'm going look for someone in the mold of justice scalia who while irreplaceable is a
great jurorists in american history. >> you got into quite a battle with senator ted cruz over immigration. here some of that. >> the lines are very, very clear. marco right now supports citizenship for 12 million people here illegally. i oppose citizenship. >> this is a disturbing pattern now. for a number of weeks, ted cruz has been telling lies. he lied about ben carson in iowa. he lies about marriage. he's lying about all sorts of things. now he makes things up. >> senator, what do you think of ted cruz? >> i like ted. in this campaign and the last few weeks he has kind of developed a disturbing pattern of telling things that simply are not true. just this week aloerngs he had an ad pulled off the air because it lied about sanctuary cities and immigration. he also, by the way, lied about my position on marriage, my position on planned parenthood. we saw what he did to ben carson. he keeps actsing like it was a when it per campaign.
out to his activists in iowa telling them to inform people at the caucus site that ben carson dropped out. donald trump made an allegation last night, i don't know if it's true or not about, the robo calls happening here now. and then he portrays himself as an immigration purist. he's always been strict on immigration. it's just not true. when it comes to the issue of people that are in this country illegally, he argued passionately in favor of doing something for them, like, legalizing them and bringing them out of the shadows. so he wasn't telling the truth then or he's not telling the truth now. but to portray himself as a consistently does that he's the only conservative in this race, i mean, it's just not true. and i think that's being exposed here at this campaign. >> senator, i also want to ask you about your closing statement last night which has tracted some attention. you said under president rubio, we are going to be a country that says that marriage is between one man and one woman. now as you well know, the supreme court has ruled the
that are you calling for a constitutional amendment? >>, no you'll have a president that says marriage is between one man and one woman. ultimately, the decision to define marriage has an end to regulate it especially has always belonged to the states. level. the constitution already says that. the constitution is pretty clear if it doesn't define a power to the federal government, it doesn't belong to the federal government. >> but, wait a minute. >> that's why the decision by the supreme court on thissish sue wrong. >> you are going try to overturn the supreme court's decision? i mean that, is the law of the land. >> a president cannot overturn a supreme court decision. i can tell that you i believe more justices like scalia and any justice irrespective of the personal view on the definition of marriage who is someone who is going to apply the constitution as originally meant by the society that wrote those words at the time will tell that you the issue of marriage regulating it and defining it has never belonged to the federal government. ed that court decision should be overturned on the basis of the
if you want to change the definition of marriage go, to your state legislature and have the debate there. i believe it should be between a man and woman. i'll engage in that debate. but your elected representatives at the state level will decide it. it doesn't belong in the sfralfederal courts. a president cannot overturn a supreme court decision. >> as you know too well, one of the big stories going into last night was your, i think you would agree, shaky performance in the debate in new hampshire. do i think that last night you, one dshgs the damage from that debate, should people who suddenly began to worry, is this the guy we want to put up in the general election against the democratic nominee? have you eased those concerns? >> yeah. chris, if you follow -- yeah, you have now. you've been part of two of them. we had nine debates. in 8.75% of the debates, i've done very well according to everyone who watches them. i had one ba bad answer to questions, obviously. voters opined that way. i took responsibility.
but i'm very proud of my debate performances consistently throughout this process and again last night. and here's the key, if i'm the nominee, i look forward to debating hillary clinton or bernie sanders. one of the points i'm making is i should be the nominee because not only am i as conservative as anyone running, i'm the conservative that wins. i consistently beat hillary clinton in poll after poll and i think last night with the passing of justice scalia, we are reminded of how important this election is, how high the stakes are and why we must win. i am the conservative that united states the republican party, that grows it that, wins this election, and that begins the important work of undoing the damage barack obama has done to us. >> senator, you and your farmer mentor, jeb bush, are in a battle at least right now in the polls for third place in south carolina for who's going to be the leading establishment candidate. you say he has no foreign policy experience but he's been firing back recently. take a look. >> marco can say that he has a
that he goes to committee hearings and talks to people? that's fine. that's the job of a senator. but what is the record of accomplishment? >> senator, what about that argument? he ran a big state eight years and you attend hearings. >> first of all, that is not the extent of my experience. he has no foreign policy experience. as we've gone on to say, his foreign policy experience consists of the fact he lived overseas for a period of time when he was young. and he invests overseas and lead trade missions. that is not foreign policy experience. it's doing what i did, leading the effort to impose additional sanctions on hezbollah. foreign policy experience is doing as i did, when i helped lead the effort to impose tangs sanctions on human rights violators in venezuela. foreign policy experience is doing as i did when isis first popped up warning quickly while the president was saying this is a jv team and no one else was
consistently warning about isis. about what is going to happen in libya, about the situation now in syria, about the fact that putin would conduct their strikes in the middle east two weeks before he actually started doing those things. that's foreign policy experience on which i have achievements. jeb has no foreign policy experience, period. that is the most important job of this president. i'm ready to be the commander in chief and head of our foreign policy on the first day in office. >> senator, we have a minute left. during the last week's debate, you supported extending the draft, signing up for the draft. two women said you have no problem with anyone serving in combat as long as they can meet the standards. but this week you seem to flip on that saying that you don't support women signing up for the draft or making them serve in combat. why the change, sir? >> it isn't a change. selective service is not the draft. selective service is basically a list of people's names. second, just because someone's
anyone ever will in the future that is not nature of modern warfare, but just because someone is drafted doesn't mean you're drafted into combat. my point, is again this is another thing ted cruz was putting out there that wasn't true, he was saying that i was in favor of forcing women into combat, drafting them and forcing them. i am the father two of girls that are much closer to combat age than anybody else out there about. my oldest daughter is 16 years old. i'm not in favor of her being drafted and forced into combat. i'm actually in favor of a voluntary arms forces. i'm not even sure we need selective service anymore. >> do you believe that she should and any woman should have to sign up for selective service? >> i'm open to selective service being opened up to women that want to be a part of it. i've never said and i don't support is that we are going to draft women and force them into combat roles. that's absurd. i never supported that. i've also said that if a woman wants to serve in a combat role and can meet the minimum
would be open to that. by the way, minimum requirements for combat service apply to both genders. it's not just women that have to meet it. the men have to meet it as well. there are many men that don't meet the combat standards. the idea that we're going to draft women and force them into combat, i never said that. that is not my position. and all i said is i'm selective service is just a registry of names. for a draft that's never going to happen. i don't know why we still have selective service. >> senator rubio, thank you. thanks for making time for us, and, of course, we'll follow how this week goes for you and all the other candidates in south carolina. thank you, sir. >> thanks, chris. up next, we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss the death of justice scalia and the politics of an opening on the supreme court in the midst of a presidential election. my computer's dying again. you'll need to email us so we can issue you a ticket. but you're right here. it's protocol. or, you can try staples tech services next day guarantee. it's fast and done right. i'll do that instead. that's not protocol marsha. in by noon, out by 5 the next day.
you can't predict... the market. but at t. rowe price, we can help guide your investments through good times and bad. for over 75 years, our clients have relied on us to bring our best thinking to their investments so in a variety of market conditions... you can feel confident... ...in our experience. call a t. rowe price retirement specialist or your advisor ...to see how we can help make the most of your retirement savings. t. rowe price.
the next president needs to appoint someone with a proven conservative record similar to justice scalia. >> republican candidate jeb bush at last night's debate, reacting to the death of supreme court justice scalia. it's time for our sunday group. george will, david gregory, former moderateor of meet the press and author of the book, "how's your faith"? conservative pollster kristen soltis anderson and juan
george, your thoughts about an ton inxa lee yashgs antonin scalia, legacy and whether barack obama will be able to name his replacement. >> his originalism, the theory that constitution should be interpreted as the language was commonly understood at the time was written and ratified was an attempt by conservatives to react against what they took to be the somewhat freewheeling creation of nonconstitutional rights by the foreign courts and others. the dissents were written for the law students and the coming generation of judges which complicated the process of getting a majority. ju justice brennan once said the most important word in the supreme court lexicon is five. and sometimes mr. scalia was indifferent to. that he was writing so to speak for the ages. his most important consideration,consideration contribution was creating an alternative con conserveative infrastructure. i'm wearing the federalist society neck tie.
went on the court. three campuses, it's now on 200 campuses. 60,000 members, 10,000 law students right now. it's part of the complex and lasting scalia legacy. >> and what about this question of whether or not, obviously, he can name a successor, but whether or not the senate should act on it? >> well, the senate, i think, should not and certainly will not. the president would need all 46 democratic senators plus 14 republican senators which is probably 14 more than he'll get. beyond that -- >> to break the fillibuster? >> that's correct. knowing harry reid, reid would broken the rules by changing the rules in the middle of the session and blocked bill pust eded fill i busters and the president would
>> david and, by the way, good to have you here. >> good to be here. >> the future of the supreme court is always a big issue in presidential elections. but now we're talking about the current state of the supreme court playing out in the midst of a presidential campaign. how much of an issue do you expect that to be? >> this is huge. i agree with george's take on the politics of this in the senate. of course, if you're president of the united states, why wouldn't you do what is your responsibility is which is to appoint a successor to scalia? and by the way, this is now ideological warfare of the highest order. i don't mean that even pejoratively. this is what ideology and ideological warfare is really about, a contest of ideas in this country. and if scalia stood for a subtler role of the supreme court in american society and if he fought even for that in a losing way, it's even more important.
about the fact that the supreme court is so highly charged politically right now. so if obama nominates someone and they get blocked, the democratic base is going to be highly energized in this campaign. if he gets someone through, the republican base is going to be highly energized. no matter what happens, the court matters. and it's going to be a big issue on both sides. >> back in 2012, justice scalia sat down for an interview here on "fox news sunday." we got a real insight into his judicial philosophy and his personality. >> you're governed by the text. that's the only thing that is relevant to your decision. not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that. but the text of the statute. originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted. not some later modern meaning.
written in the 18th century, you try to find what those words meant in the 18th century? >> exactly. the best example being the death penalty. when the electric chair comes in, it's a new phenomenon. what did thinkey think of the electric chair? who knows? they did have the death penalty and impose death by hanging. so what the originalists say is the electric chair more cruel and unusual than hanging was? and, of course, it isn't. it was adopted to be less cruel. and the same thing with lethal injection. >> there is one supreme court decision reading a lot of your writings and speeches over the years, that seems to distress you more than any other and that is roe versus wade, the 1973 decision that says that women have a constitutional right to abortion. you say that it is a lie and, in
you say to accept long standing president dense, you precedence, you will continue to overturn roe. >> it is the clearest example of being a nontextualist or orginalist. nobody ever thought the american people ever voted to prohibit limitation onzs on abortion. there is nothing in the constitution that says that. >> what about the right to privacy that the court found in 1965? >> there is no right to privacy in the constitution. >> in the grizs wald case, they said there was. >> you wrote in an abortion case, cannot be taken seriously. you called an opinion by chief justice rehnquist in a 1988 case, "a shortsighted exercise in folly" n a 2007 dissent, here is what you wrote. "the sheer applesauce of the interpretation should be obvious."
>> no. i express myself vividly. those criticisms are criticisms of opinions, not of my colleague. i'm a good friend of steve briar. i like hum a lot. and sandra day o'connor and whoever else is whose opinions i criticize. >> and if they call one you have your pins applesauce? >> that's fine. as long as they can demonstrate that it's true. >> you're 76 years old. will you time your retirement so that a more conservative president can appoint a like minded justice? >> i would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that i've tried to do for 25 years, 26 years. sure. but, i mean, i shouldn't have to tell you that. unless you think i'm a fool. >> the wisdom and wit. the conventional wisdom is for all the talk every four years about the future of the court
move votes in a presidential election. but i'm going to pick up on what i was asking david this time, if there is a debate, an angry debate going on in the senate at the time, the president sang here is my choice, republican senators blocking that choice, could this time be different? could it come? >> only 20% of americans say that they think that the supreme court is too conservative right now. i think the fact that there is a vacancy on the court is made more important and sort of sent people to battle stations faflter because this is the seat that was held by justice scalia. the last two vacancies on the court were justices appointed by republican presidents but who sided generally with the liberal side of the court. so president obama nominating someone to fill the seats is not going to markedly change the balance of the court. here the idea is president obama appointing a liberal justice to replace antonin scalia, someone you can see why in that interview conservative law students across the country idolized him. it would really upset the balance of the court. i think that's what's going to
conservatives are engaged and ready to have. >> the flip side is if the president names somebody as is his right under the constitution, and the senate blocks it as is its right under the constitution, you don't think liberals are going to be equally exercised? >> i absolutely believe liberals will be equally exercised. the fact you have 37% of americans who think the court is already too liberal, in general i think conservatives are excited about having this battle moving into november. >> juan, big picture. what do you make of this whole event? the passing of a legal giant, his legacy on the court and the issue as to what this will play in the presidential campaign? >> when i think of justice scalia, i think back to ronald reagan and his attorney general wanting to undo the work of what they thought was a liberal activist court which began with warren in the '50s. we're talking about issues like civil rights.
you could say we're talking about gay rights. i'm talking about the confluence of rights emerging and they saw it as coming from an activist court that no one lekted. they wanted to change it. i think scalia was the leader in that effort. we saw in the interview, talking about text dg uaualism and originalism. you're going have a 4-4 court. so lots of things are not going to be decided here and we've got key cases remaining, affirmative action, abortion, environmental regulation just in the past week or so the court blocked president obama's effort in environmental regulation. the other thing i say going forward is diversity. huge issues here. president obama, obviously, he wants this as a legacy issue. he's already put two women on the court. the leading candidates right now, two are women. diane wood out of -- i think she's out of -- what circuit, george? do you sfleb.
>> and then janet napolitano, hhs secretary. >> department of home land security, yeah. >> and then also you have an indian-american for the first time, and you potentially have the first hispanic man. diversity is going to add to the kind of anger on the left if the senate chooses to somehow say, oh, we are going to ignore this president. >> this is going to be the kind of politically charged debate that antonin scalia would thoroughly have enjoyed. panel, thank you. we have to take a break. we'll see you later in the program. up next, bernie sanders makes his first appearance on "fox news sunday" since announcing his canned da sichlt we'll ask him about scalia and
primary could get. the democratic race for president has turned from a clinton coronation into a real battle. last night i spoke with senator bernie sanders for the first time since he announced his candidacy in may. senator sanders, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> my pleasure. >> there is already a fierce argument after the passing of justice antonin scalia, democrats say the president should name and the senate should confirm his successor. republicans say that should be left to the next president. where do you stand, sir?
i think we want a full contingent on the united states supreme court. they're dealing with enormously important issues. the constitution is pretty clear. president makes at pointment, senate con firmdz, let's get on with that business. >> you disagreed with justice scalia on a judicial basis, not a personal basis, on almost every issue. what do you think his legacy is, sir? >> clearly, he was a brilliant man. a very colorful man, a very outspoken man. and i happen to respect people who are willing to come under public scrutiny and serve their country. so you're right, chris, he and i had very different points of view. but i respect people who are willing to serve their country. >> senator sanders, let's turn to politics. the clinton campaign strategy now is that they have a fire wall as the campaign turns west
larger minority voters. she's beating you by 10 points accord together latest polls in nevada, 30 points in south carolina. just how strong is the clinton fire wall? >> well, you know, whether we began this campaign, chris, we were at 3% in the polls nationally. we were 50 points behind in iowa. 30 points behind in new hampshire. but clearly, the results in both of those states turned out to be very different than when we were -- where we were when we started. i think we're going to surprise people in nevada. i think we're going to surprise people in south carolina. in talking you to right now from denver, colorado where we just had 18,000 people coming out to a rally. i think we're looking really good with a whole lot of momentum for super tuesday as well. >> but when you were talking about those polls, that was six months before the voting actually took place. we're talking a week or two
south carolina and nevada. and, also, the clintons have such long, deep ties to the african-american community. why should a black voter choose you over hillary clinton? >> well, i think because if you look at my life's work, if you look at the agenda that we are bringing forth in terms of economics and criminal justice, this is an agenda that works for all americans but especially for those who are hardest hurt -- hardest hit economically. we're talking about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next several years. we're talking about pay equity for women. we're talking about creating millions of decent paying jobs, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. we're talking about focusing on the outrageously high rate of youth unemployment in the african-american community. we're talking about having the united states join the rest of
guaranteeing health care to all making tuition at public colleges and universities free so all of our kids, regardless of income, can get the higher education that they need. and we're also tackling in a very aggressive way a broken criminal justice system in which we have, chris, as a nation, more people in jail than any other major country on earth. disproportionately african-american and latino. we need a whole lot of work to make sure that we are providing education and jobs for our kids rather than jails and incarceration. >> senator, priorities usa action, the super pac that is supporting hillary clinton has just announced it is going to spend $5 million now to help her instead of waiting until the general election. when you brought up that super pac during the debate this week, she denied there was much of a relationship.
>> if you have a super pac like president obama had which says they want to support me, it's not my pac, if you take donations from wall street, you can't be independent. >> senator, how close are clinton's ties to that super pac and straight out, do you believe that millions of dollars she's gotten in campaign donations and also in speaking fees from wall street, do you believe that they have bought influence with secretary clinton? >> look, chris, obviously -- i mean, i don't think there is any debate, but that this super pac is one in which the secretary has worked very, very hard to raise a whole lot money. if my memory is correct, in the last reporting period, they raised $25 million, $15 million of it coming from wall street. now she's obviously not the only candidate out there. many republicans are raising
you know, every candidate says, hey, all of that money coming in from wall street, fossil fuel industry, it doesn't impact me. every candidate says that. well, the question that we asked, is wall street and all these others billionaires and wealthy individuals, are they really so dumb? much money? let the american people make that decision. >> senator, one of the central points in your campaign, you say it over and over again, is that the american economic system is rigged. but i want to go over some numbers with you. in 1981, the top 1% paid 17% of all income taxes. now the top 1% pays 37%. question, sir, if the wealthy rigged the system, why have they done such a lousy job of it? >> chris, i think you are
and that is what we have seen in recent years is a huge transer if of wealth from the middle class to the top .1% whose percentage of wealth in america doubled. we're talking about trillions of dollars going from the middle class to the top .1%. >> but, sir, isn't a lot of that because of the economic policies of president obama and of the federal reserve which put interest rates at basically zero? >> no. we have policies that have gone on for a long, long time on the republican administration and democratic administration. now, are we better off today than we were when president obama left office and we were losing 800,000 jobs a month? of course we are. but for the last 40 years, what we have been seeing is a middle class disappearing, people working longer hours for low wages and today as it happens, 58% of all new income is going to the top 1%.
mind, chris. >> senator, you and hillary clinton got into it in this last debate over universal health care, medicare for all as you call it. you say that it's a good deal for the american people. >> the family right in the middle of the economy pays $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health care costs of $5,000. >> senator, a health care expert and who helped devise the single you're wrong. that, in fact, your plan comes up about $1 trillion a year short and 71% of families would be worse off under your plan than they are under the current system. >> well, kenneth thorpe can say whatever he wants to say. a lot of the assumptions that he made in his analysis are absolutely incorrect. chris, here's where we are as a nation. this is not debatable. we have 29 million people without any health insurance.
world for prescription drugs. millions of our people have huge deductibles and co-payments. and, yet, per capita, we are spending three times more than the british who cover all their people, 50% more than the french, and far more than canadians. >> kenneth thorpe says that it's exactly the problems with your plan are exactly the reason that you're own state of vermont had to drop single payer. >> kenneth thorpe, i mean, you know, you quote the one guy. i think it was just a piece in one of the newspapers today by the foremost experts on single payer systems who really denounced kenneth thorpe and his analysis. i respectfully disagree with mr. thorpe. >> finally, sir, the republicans have held debates on all the networks but the democrats so far have refused to hold a debate on fox. you are coming on here tonight. we're very grateful. i hope you feel that you haven't been mistreated. would you be willing to
debate on fox news? >> if we went -- were clear to understand what the game -- the guidelines were and what the rules were and to make sure that they were fair and the dnc wasn't paying for it, i would have no objection. >> i assume you've seen this interview we just did. i hope you've seen the interview. >> chris, i have seen this interview but i have also seen other interviews. so if i could have a guarantee and knew who the questioners were and if the framework for the debate was fair, i would have no objection. definite maybe. senator sanders, thank you so much for coming on. please come back, sir. >> okay. thank you very much, chris. and then there is hillary clinton n a in a debate last month she was asked what she would do as president to bring the country together. >> i think it's an important
state of the union. here's what i would say, i will go anywhere to meet with anyone at any time to find common ground. >> well, once again this week, clinton turned down our request to speak to us and the millions of who you watch this program just as she has every week in this campaign. we'll keep trying for an interview and a debate. up next, we bring back our sunday group to discuss the republican debate last night and
debate and a different part of it which was donald trump's apparent search and destroy mission against jeb bush and his brother. >> the straw that broke the camel's back didn't break the camel's back. it was the accumulation of straws. and the question is people say trump is immune to mere accumulation. the profanity added up but last night i think he may have passed the frontier. the man supported partial birth abortion and gun control and eminent domain last night adopted the most vicious line of the hard left in this country, bush lied, people died. no one doubts that bush was wrong and all the others about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. to say that bush lied and derivatively pole inpowell lied and everyone else in the administration, the people in south carolina which rescued george w. bush and n. 2000 after
primary to john mccain. so i think that if there is such a thing as a critical mass, he's approaching it. >> david, ways surprised because it seems to gratuitous to go after, i know george w. bush, bush xliii is going to be on the campaign trail tomorrow with his brother. it seemed odd he would decide this was the moment to relitigate the iraq war. given the fact that he went into that debate, if you believe the polls with about a 15 point lead, do you think it changed the dynamicst race and the republican primary? >> i think there is kbangs of the vulgarity and torching of bush. the best defense of bush is he kept the country safe after 9/11 and there is debate of the execution of the war or the basis of the war in iraq. no doubt about that. you have 58,000 veterans in south carolina, w. bush, former president bush is popular down there. i don't see the wisdom of it. it allows jeb bush to fight for the establishment.
effective way in that regard. there is still cruz who i think is making a strong ideological case against trump on temperment, ideology, not being a conservative and with evangelical support, he has game. >> can you explain the wisdom of trump going after george w. bush the way he did last night? >> donald trump's appeal is that he will be something completely different and his appeal is not that he is a good republican who does good republican things. his appeal is actually to a lot of voters who may have called themselves republicans, maybe participating in prot ses. the options they've been offered in previous years, the difference between mitt romney and rick santorum didn't thrill them. so donald trump, despite the fact he's doing things that any other candidate they would be written off, counted out of this race, because you have a section of people who call themselves republicans but they don't like the republican party, that is who donald trump is appealing to. and that's why in poll after poll he actually doesn't do particularly well among very
he does well among those who are more conservative and moderate, left attached to the partisan partisanship and ideology and emotional attachment wanting someone to fail. >> after the landslide in new hampshire of bernie sanders, do we have to stop thinking of him as a potential spoiler that are going to make things difficult for hillary and push her to left and do we need to start thinking nominee? >> the trouble bernie sanders will have is he is not able to put together the full obama coalition. there is not an exact repeat of 2008 because bernie sanders does not have the same level of streng wjt african-american community in the way that barack obama did. that said, he's got such strength among young democratic voters that you have to believe that hillary clinton is wondering if this is going to hurt her in a general lection, if this generation of millennial voters that have fallen in love with bernie sanders, do they
inauthentic and does not represent their generation and they decide sto to stay home into stay home in november. >> juan, what does sanders say about the state of the democratic party at this point? what do you think it says about hillary clinton's strengths and weaknesses as a candidate? >> i think it's clear that hillary clinton is not an inspiring candidate. she doesn't inspire people out on the trail. and people see her experience or connection with not only the clinton administration but even the state department as secretary of state, not as a plus in many cases but as evidence she's part of the establishment in an era or in an election cycle where people want populism and authenticity, they don't see it coming from hillary clinton. hillary clinton is running on the basis of her experience and the fact that she can win that, she doesn't think bernie can win but, you know, bernie may excite you. he may thrill you right now,
but if you are worried about the republicans who are highly energized and you're worried about the republicans controlling the white house, the senate, and the house, then you got to look at me because i can win this race. that's hillary clinton's case. and so when it comes to the democratic party, chris, then the democratic party which is totally aligned with hillary clinton, i mean everybody, congressional black caucus to debbie shultz and the likes. >> the super delegates. >> she has the super delegates, don't forget that. you come back to the idea that democratic party with the problemsst republican party which is losing touch with the base. >> well, and i wanted to pick up on that with you, george. it's becomes clear as this goes on that both races, both in the republican side and the democratic side are going to continue for a while probably well into march, maybe even into april, who is running more of a risk, the republicans who seem
further to the right in this debate, or the democrats, who clearly with sanders-frank are being pushed to the left? >> they're both in jeopardy. bernie sanders' message is america is a nightmare of increasing inequality and rampant injustice. that's a hard sell, it seems to me, even based on the republican side. we know that if the republican nominee gets mitt romney's portion of the nonright electorate, 17%, he'll need to get 65% of the white electorate which no one has done since ronald reagan in 1984 carrying 39 states. and it's going to make it very difficult after this rhetoric about immigration to do that. >> 20 seconds, david, final thought? >> i think hillary clinton is against sanders. i thought she was better in the debate. she is making him out to be a one issue candidate.
this week, the french national assembly votes on extending a state of emergency in effect since november's islamic extremist attacks. security is still high in paris with armed gunmen on the streets and at sites like the famous eiffel tower. for the french, that one horrific night became their 9/11. and like many americans, life may never be the same. scott thuman found the french are discovering a new result and patriotism. -- resuolve and patriotism. scott: paris, november 13, 2015, the sounds of a city under siege. terror groups, targeting parisians at random -- a crowded theater, packed cafes and restaurants, a major soccer match. 130 dead, nearly 400 injured. and a nation that once survived the occupation of armies was now under attack by a new enemy, in this case, one that didn't wear uniforms and promises to strike again.