IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'Up w/Chris Hayes' for Saturday, October 20th, 2012

October 20, 2012

Guests: Tyson Slocum, Bill Dailey, Patrick Gaspard, Mike Caputo, Chrystia
Freeland, Tom Gaulrapp, Thea Lee, Rebecca Traister, Laureen Rikleen

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good morning from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.
President Obama has picked up endorsements from "The Denver Post," "the
Tampa Bay Times" and the "Salt Lake City Tribune." And a federal judge
blocked Arizona yesterday from applying a new law that bars "Planned
Parenthood" clinics from receiving state funding. We`ll be talking more
about how women`s issues have played in the presidential campaign in just
a minute. Right now my great pleasure to introduce Patrick Gaspard,
executive director of the Democratic National Committee, Rebecca Traister,
friend of the program, author of "Big Girls Don`t Cry: The Election That
Changed Everything for American Women." and a contributor at
Father Bill Dailey, a Roman Catholic priest who is a lecturer in law at the
University of Notre Dame Law School and a fellow at the Notre Dame Center
for Ethics and Culture, and an indefatigable email correspondent. And MSNBC
contributor Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, also contributor to MBC Latino, and
an LBJ-- a fellow at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of
Texas Austin. You guys are an august panel. That was a lot to get


HAYES: All right, if this week has told us anything about the presidential
election, it`s that women appear to be the most sought after portion of the
electorate. The morning after President Obama stepped off stage in New
York from the second debate with Mr. Romney where he trumpeted his signing
of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he was in Iowa telling to crowd that
women should get equal pay for equal work.

Governor Romney, on the other hand, was in Virginia telling a crowd that
the President has failed American women. And we are going to talk about
his binder issue in just a bit. But even though it`s not really being
talked about on the stump, abortion is still a top issue in these swing
states. According to a recent Gallup poll, women in 12 swing states cited
abortion as their most important issue followed by jobs. The Romney
campaign used an ad this week to try to clarify the candidate`s current
position on the issue.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know, those ads say Mitt Romney would ban all
abortions and contraception seemed a bit extreme, so I looked into it. It
turns out, Romney doesn`t oppose contraception at all. In fact, he thinks
abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest, or to save a
mother`s life. This issue is important to me, but I`m more concerned about
the debt our children will be left with. I voted for President Obama last
time. We just can`t afford four more years.


HAYES: It didn`t take long for Obama campaign to respond with an ad of its


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Seen this from Mitt Romney? Then take a look at

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: If Roe v. Wade was overturned and Congress
passed a federal ban on all abortions, and it came to your desk, would you
sign it? Yes or no.

delighted to sign that bill.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Banning all abortions.

ROMNEY: I`d be delighted to sign that bill.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trying to mislead us, that`s wrong. But ban all
apportions? Only if you vote for him.


HAYES: In fairness, the Obama ad doesn`t give the full context of the
Romney quote. It cuts out the part before and after Romney`s remark where
he talks about the issue of abortion being returned to the states in this
hypothetical post-Roe world, and the part immediately after, where he seems
to imply that a lack of national consensus on the issue means that such
hypothetical legislation simply would not happen. Remarkably, though, with
all the talk on the air waves now about abortion, you should know there was
not one mention of the word during Tuesday`s debate. Contraception, on the
other hand, made more than a cameo.


bill I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to
everybody who`s insured because this is not just a health issue, it`s an
economic issue for women. Governor Romney not only opposed it, he
suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to
whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage.
That`s not the kind of advocacy that women need.

ROMNEY: I don`t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone
whether they can use contraceptives or not and I don`t believe employers
should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not.
Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives and the
president`s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.


HAYES: At the end of that exchange President Obama can be overheard
saying, Governor, that`s not true. And the reason he said that, it`s
because despite Romney`s attempt to soften his message on birth control, he
supported the Blunt amendment back in February, which would allow employers
to deny contraceptive coverage to their female employees for religious or
moral reasons. The confusion over Romney`s position on contraception is
understandable. First he said he was against the Blunt amendment, then he
said he`s actually for it. And now he seems to have given the impression
he has reversed his position again.

First, before we talk about the Blunt amendment, I know Notre Dame is a
party to the lawsuit against the federal government for the issuing of the
Affordable Care Act regulation that requires insurance coverage, before we
talk about the specifics of that, before we even talk about abortion, I
would like you guys to tell me how you feel about the way in which women`s
issues are being discussed, because it seems to me that it`s a fine line
between speaking to a certain constituency and pandering to a certain
constituency and condescending to a certain constituency. And it often
seems that we`re blurring those lines during this conversation. Rebecca?

REBECCA TRAISTER, SALON.COM: Well, I should say it happens every four
years like clockwork. There is a sudden incredible burning interest in
women`s issues amongst men in Washington who spend the rest of the three
and three quarters of a year not caring at all. Now I prefer the pandering
to the completely ignoring women`s issues. So I will take it.

And the other thing I will say, is that I - and I`m not reflexively always
happy with how President Obama talks about women`s issues. I`ve been
critical of some of the things he said in the past. I actually thought the
way he addressed the equal pay issue during this debate was one of the
best, most thoughtful and comprehensive answers I have seen out of any
politician because what he did, answering a question about equal pay. He
hit Lilly Ledbetter, which is the obvious response. He signed this
legislation that dealt directly with equal pay. But then he went into
bigger systemic things, like talking about Pell grants and the role of
education in women getting toward equal pay and then bringing it to
contraception and talking about the ability to control reproductive health.
This was a terrific, thoughtful, systemic answer, in which he said my dream
sentence, which is this is not just women`s issues and these are not just
family issues, these are economic issues. That`s one of the smartest ways
I`ve heard it addressed. So it may be pandering, but it brought a terrific
answer that I think helped.

women are not addressed directly. And I think we saw this very clearly in
the vice presidential debate, where the candidates were asked about their
beliefs about abortion, but not necessarily about theoretically what do you
believe the rights of women should be, in particular with terminating a
pregnancy or not. So I think that we`re seeing the interests of women
being, as my political theory friend Alicia Kessel (ph) would say,
subverted. First to men in terms of being in charge of most of the state
legislatures, to medical professionals in many instances, and second if you
read the RNC platform and the plank on abortion, to fetuses. There`s a lot
of discussion about fetuses and their rights, but there`s no discussion
about women, only in terms of how they relate to their bodies would relate
to medical practices.

HAYES: Well, but -- Patrick.

in on Rebecca`s point. Generally I agree with Rebecca, but the notion that
for both candidates on the stage that night that women`s issues were being
thrown out of there for the first time, because they happen to be running,
isn`t exactly true. In the instance of the president, since we all know
that the very first bill that he signed into law was Lilly Ledbetter.
Clearly his appointments to the Supreme Court, which suggest that he is
concerned about women`s empowerment and women having the ability to make
decisions for themselves about the society, and clearly given all that took
place during the litigation of Obamacare the president always lifted up
health care rights....


HAYES: Particularly the birth control regulation that was issued. What
you just said is interesting to me, because if the way that Democrats talk
about abortion -- what you just said about the Supreme Court. Were you
talking about abortion just then when you said ...

CASPARD: No, actually, I was not.


GASPARD: I was actually talking about the people that he has actually
named to the Supreme Court. And he`s doubled the number of women who are on
that court. And I would suspect that given their experiences that they
might have a contribution to make when issues that are principally
affecting the health care lives of women come before the court.

HAYES: What`s interesting to me, Father, is that you see -- you have a
situation right now in which -- and you`re both a Roman Catholic priest and
a lawyer in which, you know, the Supreme Court -- there`s essentially five
votes to uphold Roe. One of those votes is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There may be more than five.

HAYES: There maybe. We know five, we can count five, exactly. Yeah,
you`re right. That`s a very good point. And yet that aspect of it seems
incredibly distant in the national debate. And it seems almost weirdly
taboo to talk about. There was a moment when Vice President Biden in the
vice presidential debate basically said essentially, we`re going to
nominate pro choice justices and they won`t, and Paul Ryan shot back,
asking, is that a litmus test? And I`m in the position, that we should
just know. I mean we know what both parties, where both parties are on this
issue. There shouldn`t be this bizarre taboo around saying about what -
what the justices ...

FR. BILL DAILEY, NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL: Well, we have a tradition, right,
where any judicial nominee as to any future issue won`t refuse to predict
their vote.

HAYES: Right.

DAILEY: Even if we think it`s probably relatively predictable at least in
some cases.

HAYES: Is that a good tradition now, in this case?

DAILEY: It`s just sort of -- I mean there`s a sort of -- that`s a big like
what are the separation of powers issues. What is the Senate permitted to
know and have as a litmus test. I think you can argue that either way
irrespective of the merits or demerits of any particular issue, like Roe v.
Wade. So, that`s a more complicated jurisprudence issue.

I do think there`s a political minor point here -- why wouldn`t the
candidates spontaneously mention abortion, when we know that to their base
they started to do it a little bit more, which is an interesting
phenomenon. That the Obama campaign is being more explicit about it when
typically you wouldn`t shows that there is some base politics going on,
which is kind of late in the game for that. Maybe they`re more worried
about Ohio than we thought. But I want to problematize the whole idea of
women`s issues here. I don`t speak for all women, but neither do the two
women here.

HAYES: Right.

DAILEY: There are a lot of women`s health issues. The idea that
contraception, which misleadingly -- it was never in the president`s bill,
right? Congress has tried many times to pass a contraception mandate, it
always failed. ACA had a vague mandate about preventive services, and the
Department of Health and Human Services decided to interpret that as they
chose to. There are so many things that we don`t provide women for free
that might be more useful, like the cost of insulin for women whose
children have diabetes. That`s a woman`s issue. It`s also a men`s issue.
The stability and strength of marriages is a woman`s issue. But when we
talk about the narrow slate of women`s issues within politics, this is one
where it seems to me the Democratic Party. And it`s narrow slate of
issues, I`m not saying they are not important issues, but it`s hardly
obvious that they are the only women`s issues or the most important women`s

SOTO: Right. (inaudible exclusive that.

HAYES: Rebecca, you seem to ...


GASPARD: I think Rebecca will have a broader point, actually, about how
all of this fits in a broader economic frame.


TRAISTER: Yes. And that in fact it is a daily issue for women. And
you`re right, that there are millions of women out there who`s had all
different kinds of feelings about this. And they are - and women who do
not believe, for example, when using contraception are more than free to
not avail themselves of contraception. The management of this particular
health issue for women I think is sometimes -- perhaps men don`t
understand. It is a daily regular thing that women think about all the
time throughout their lives often regardless of circumstances. I mean they
are -- often if they`re not having sex, if they don`t have active sex lives
they need to avail themselves of contraception. Still, it is the degree to
which the issue of controlling reproduction is something that affects all
women out there. It`s something that I don`t think that can be overstated
enough. It is a daily issue affecting a woman`s body.

HAYES: So, you`re arguing that there`s a substantive centrality to the
issue ...


HAYES: Greater than essentially a kind of political carving of that space,
because of this ...

TRAISTER: Right, and I agree that there are all kinds of other things that
women should be and ought to be getting through my beliefs for free.



HAYES: This is just the start, America. And I want to make a point -- -I
want to make a point about the politics particularly around abortion and
choice. That`s important in this respect. Right after this break.



GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: The Supreme Court decision, finding a
right to privacy in the Constitution?

decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided.
It was based upon that same principle. And in my view if we had justices
like Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia and more justices like that, they
might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it`s
in the federal Constitution.

Do I believe the Supreme Courts should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.


HAYES: That`s Mitt Romney speaking about his judicial vision for the
Supreme Court in January. Just one point I want to make piggybacking off
what you said, Father. Is that, you know, I want to make sure in the
liberal bubble sometimes we can conflate women`s issues and women`s
preferences with pro choice, right? And we just -- it`s important to say
that there are millions and millions and millions of women who are very
vehemently opposed to abortion. Abortion sometimes in all cases. And the
polling on this, there is a gender gap in the polling on this. Bu it`s
also the case that there are literally tens of millions of women who have
that beliefs. So, I just don`t want to fall into the trap I think liberals
sometimes do, in which we say women and obviously choice and women and
choice go together. And that is not always the case.

DAILEY: It`s also true that fetuses are not gender neutral. More than
half of them, it turns out, are little girls. So, if we want speak about
abortion and women`s issue it`s not uncomplicated ...

SOTO: No, absolutely. But in terms of ...

DAILEY: I think the personalizing the fetus doesn`t ...

SOTO: But the fetus vis-a-vis the woman. I think in the focusing and the
platform being on the fetus rather than on the woman. Why not talk about
both if that is of concern. So I think that was a question that I had.

HAYES: Patrick, this issue on the Blunt amendment, what`s fascinating
about it, it`s fascinating to me that it`s now here centerpiece in this
debate because it actually did begin, it was a little seed planted in a
bureaucratic bed of soil, right? It was a provision in the Affordable Care
Act really about cost and cost containment and the wisdom of comprehensive
preventative care coverage as a mechanism for reducing long run health care
costs, because it`s better to give people free checkups, right? Because
you don`t want to incentive people not to go to free checkups or get
preventative care, it will be more expensive later on.

GASPARD: It`s all the free things that Rebecca wishes.

HAYES: That`s right. That`s right. And so, but it has now become a real
political issue. And I wonder where you think -- do you think you have the
political upper hand, for lack of a better word, on this issue on the
contraception ruling?

GASPARD: It`s an issue that has become part of the conversation in this
campaign, but it`s not a political issue for us. But if you don`t mind,
Chris ...

HAYES: Please.

GASPARD: I really want to go back to the video that you just showed a
second ago to lead us into this conversation. It was one of the very few
moments in the course of the last year or so where there`s been absolutely
no obfuscation from Mitt Romney when he answered the question of whether or
not he believes that Roe versus Wade should be repealed. He was 100
percent clear. He said absolutely it should be. So despite what he is now
saying on stage about his judicial appointments, despite what he`s saying
about what he stands on broader issue of choice in the instance of rape and
incest, he was incredibly clear in that one moment. And I think that it`s
our responsibility to hold him accountable for it.

HAYES: Well, I mean I`m taking the contrarian view on litmus tests, which
is, you know, if you viewer at home believe that Roe should be upheld, you
should vote one way, if you believe Roe should be overturned, you should
vote another way. Obviously, it`s not the only issue. But like ...


HAYES: But just no one should be fooling themselves about where the two
parties are, institutionally, structurally, in terms of what the nominating
processes are going to produce from these two parties. Everyone should
just be very clear about what they`re going to get. The other big -- the
other big moment in that debate having to do with women`s issues is that
the now infamous binders full of women and here`s Mitt Romney. I actually
didn`t think it was as laughable or ridiculous or kind of ridicule worthy
as it has developed into. But here is the moment when he asked about equal
pay, and this is his response.


ROMNEY: As I was serving as governor of my state because I had the chance
to pull together a cabinet and all of the applicants seemed to be men. And
I went to my staff and I said, how come all the people for these jobs are
all men? So we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had
backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I
went to a number of women`s groups and said, can you help us find folks?
And I brought us all binders full of women.


HAYES: Oh, that`s the binders full of women. So, I want to bring in now
Lauren Rikleen who is co-chair of MassGAP, which the bipartisan coalition
of women`s groups working to increase the number of women in Massachusetts
state government. She was part of the task force that collected the
resumes, vetted potential candidates for cabinet positions when Mr. Romney
was running for Massachusetts governor in 2002, and actually put together
the now infamous ...


HAYES: Binder full of women.

LAUREN RIKLEEN, CO-CHAIR, MASSGAP: Binders full of women.

HAYES: Yes. I mean, I was going to ask you a snarky questions about what
brand, did you go to trapper keeper, (inaudible) to reinforce the resumes.
But in all seriousness, will you tell me a little bit about the context for
this, because in some way it sort of captured peoples` imagination. I
actually thought it was a really pretty good argument in favor of what we
generally call affirmative action, which is making an affirmative effort to
make sure that you are recruiting and finding qualified people from outside
the small narrow world of white men. What was the actual circumstances
that produced these binders?

RIKLEEN: Well, in 2002 while the race was going on between then candidate
Romney and candidate Shannon O`Brien, a coalition of women`s organizations
led by what`s called MassGAP, the Massachusetts Government Appointments
Process -- Project sought to - we got together just and said, we have to
change the paradigm here in terms of the number of women in state
government in leadership roles. And we created a pledge. We went to both
candidates and said, if we work together and if we go out and find as a
group of very dedicated women, if we go out and recruit high level women
and then interview, vet, and provide you the product of that effort, will
you commit to work with us and make your cabinet reflective of the number
of women in Massachusetts, which was around 52 percent at that time. So,
it was -- what we were doing was an effort to make a process ...


RIKLEEN: ... by which both candidates would agree to increase the number
of women in the cabinet, or make a commitment of close to half.

HAYES: So, I want to get your response to what you thought when this came
up in the debate and then the reaction to it and I want to hear also how
this worked. I mean, was this a successful effort and have the panel weigh
in right after this.


HAYES: All right, we`re talking about the binders full of women issue, and
I want to ask you, what was your reaction when it came up in the debate and
was Mitt Romney misleading insofar as he made it sound like this was an
affirmative choice that he made?

RIKLEEN: Well, I mean, I think for those of us who were involved in the
process when it came up in the debate and we heard it, of course we all had
a very similar reaction which is we were there so we understand how it came
about. There`s no question that it came about as an affirmative process
created by MassGAP prior to the actual election of the governor. At the
same time, one of the things that we all care about is that when we have
these kinds of discussions we also focus on why is it we are at this point
in time, whether it`s 2002 or 2012 where we still have to create massive
processes to get women into higher appointed position and if we don`t pay
attention and keep counting the metrics, those metrics drop. I think that
larger conversation is the conversation that we need to have and we`re not

HAYES: Yeah. It`s a great point. Patrick, I want you to -- it has become
this kind of point of ridicule on the campaign trail, it`s a punch line now
in the president`s stump speech.


HAYES: And why the big deal about this? Why is the president--

GASPARD: The process as described by Lauren should not be ridiculed. And
it`s to the governor`s credit that his lieutenant governor was assigned to
take this very seriously and to work with MassGAP to make sure that women
are represented in government. However, that response was ridiculed
because it was -- and - response to the question about the pay equity law,
which Mitt Romney refuses to take a position on, which his vice
presidential nominee voted against. And if you go back to that tape for a
second, just think about it for a second. Mitt Romney becomes governor,
it`s 2002. He`s not a 20-year-old man. He`s been in private business in
that state for 25 years, and yet someone has to come to him with binders
full of women in order for him to be able to identify women should be in

SOTO: It was insulting, binders full of women, and also it kind of botched
the story. But he brings up the larger issue of descriptive


SOTO: And Chris, you brought this up earlier, in that women, if we look
just at elected offices, less than a quarter of all of our elected bodies
are made up of women. And then this gets into the issue we are talking
about, making decisions for women`s health care, economic welfare. So I
think he did bring up an important position and this is something that we
need to look at in addition to issues such as contraception and the Lilly
Ledbetter Act.

GASPARD: Important point.

DAILEY: Again, it is a very complicated issue. It is a question, why do
we have trouble in this day and age, but it probably isn`t just because no
one wants to have women around or men who are in control still don`t want
to have women around. During the break you were saying that you were upset
that this came up in the context of his talking about people needing to
make dinner at 5:00. The reality is and we see this in the legal
profession a lot, women are now graduating at majority rates from top law
schools. A few years ago a bunch of women law deans from top law schools
got together--

RIKLEEN: That`s not true anymore, actually.

DAILEY: Is it not true? OK, but it`s close.

RIKLEEN: That`s not true anymore. The number of women in law schools has
been declining since 2002. It`s becoming a crisis in terms of that issue.
And we -- you and I are in the same profession. So that is -- the numbers
are dropping. And when we talk about pay equity, why -- and I think the
biggest problem is that the specific question wasn`t answered. But in 2010
Congress had an opportunity to vote on pay equity and that vote was kept
from floor discussion. And yet why is it not front and center today for
everybody who`s running to office to say, would you support a law to create
economic parity for men and women? And how is it that that becomes a
women`s issue as opposed to an economic issue at the time when the majority
of households are dual income earners.

HAYES: Let me make one little clarifying point here. Because I think
there is a little misimpression about what the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
did. It did not in any way actually mandate pay equity. What it did was

RIKLEEN: No, no, no.

HAYES: No, I know you know that. I just want to make sure viewers know
that. Because I think there`s a little confusion about what actually the
substance of it is. It revised a statutory provision that had been the
subject of a Supreme Court ruling in which Lilly Ledbetter, who is the
plaintiff in that case, only discovered the equity problem years and years
and years after it had begun, and the court essentially ruled that she
couldn`t sue because she had missed the window of raising the issue. And
so what the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act says, it essentially keeps that
window open. It says as soon as you find out this has been going on, it`s
not a question of when you started getting screwed. It`s as soon as you
find out that you`re getting screwed on pay, then you can raise it. I just
want people to be clear.

RIKLEEN: And you can raise it. There`s no guaranteed results.

HAYES: Absolutely, yes.

RIKLEEN: It`s not like you get ...


HAYES: There is no law in America mandating pay equity, although that
might ...

RIKLEEN: But that`s right. And that`s what in 2010 the Paycheck Fairness
Act was all about. That would have been the follow-up to Lilly Ledbetter
that would have created pay equity.

SOTO: You know, and it`s interesting that Romney has drawn apart from
this, because he`s saying that Obama is waging economic war on women. So
this would actually fit in well with his argument that women should support
him for economic reasons.

HAYES: Right, but the pay equity stuff gets, I mean the U.S. Chamber of
Congress does not want they Paycheck Fairness Act. I want to talk more
about paycheck fairness. Right after this quick break.


HAYES: Talking about the role that women`s issues played in the debate and
it has played in the campaign. And Father Dailey, you`ve made a point
about the roots of these pay equity gap, which is -- which exists. And
some of it being -- they are being a complicated bundle of causes possibly,
one of them being the management of what we call work/life balance. And
that was part of actually -- the other part of the binders response was
Mitt Romney said, and the other thing that I -- the reason that I`m sort of
plugged into the issues and recognize was that we had women who were
working for us. We realized we had to be flexible so that they -- she
could get home and make dinner. But let me just quickly give the statistic
to close the loop on this conversation. And Rebecca, and you ought --
there is something you want to say I know. But 42 percent of Mr. Romney`s
senior level appointments for women during his first two years in office,
and that dropped off to 25 percent in his final two years, which, I think,
Lauren, it goes to your point about sort of maintaining, you know,
vigilance in the face of this. Rebecca on this flex time question, what
was your response to that part of ...


TRAISTER: That was the part more than the binders, that was the part of
his answer that seemed to me reflective of some of Romney`s attitudes about
gender in the workforce. What he said was, you know, when you have women
in the workforce, we understand they have sort of special needs. They have
to leave at 5:00 to go cook dinner for their kids. He actually
specifically called out I believe his chief of staff. And he said, for
example, my chief of staff had two young children at home. Now would he
have said that if his chief of staff had been a man who had two young
children at home. What he was doing was treating the women who he was
working with, what that comment said was that if you were a female and
working, then your responsibilities to your young children clearly will
make you a sort of special case within the workforce. This is the root of
at least part of pay inequity in this country. It`s the idea that if
you`re a woman, you have to specially divide your time, but that if you`re
a man you just work and you don`t need to go home and cook dinner for your
family. This A, situates him about five decades ago when men, you know,
when women were responsible for putting a hot meal on the table at 5:00.
Or, you know ...

HAYES: Which is early. I like to eat it a little later.


TRAISTER: So it, A, sort of positions him several decades ago and, B, it`s
precisely the problem that he failed to address in his answer about pay

BAILEY: Well, but let me come to the defense of Mitt Romney a little bit


HAYES: You defend. You defend.

SOTO: I understand that the fact that this is a special case. I get that.
But the fact that he brought it up because we can`t address the issue of
women trying to multi-task unless we bring it up. And he brought it to the

GASPARD: Well, yes, he brought it up as a way of avoiding the question.

SOTO: I don`t deny that.


GASPARD: Trying to get a badge of honor for allowing his chief of staff
to go home early.


SOTO: -- right now. I mean the fact that it has come up and we`re not
just talking about abortion and contraception, but we`re also talking about
time management and how women can juggle all of these things.

TRAISTER: But to suggest that that`s a woman`s unique responsibility.

HAYES: Lauren, please.

RIKLEEN: Thank you. I think the problem is that when we personalize his
chief of staff ...


RIKLEEN: Or this individual we take away from the larger point. And one
of the critical larger points here is that we are facing a new generation
coming into the workplace in which the issues of raising children actively
being part of who cooks dinner and who cleans the house is a gender neutral
issue. And we have a workplace that is completely ill equipped ...


RIKLEEN: ... to be able to address that very changing demographic.

DAILEY: And that`s a conversation ...

RIKLEEN: So that`s another whole issue we have to talk about.

DAILEY: I think that`s a conversation I was trying to make a rare feminist
point for catholic priests to make. Feminism could enrich this
conversation by not describing it. I`m sorry, but you can`t reduce it to
the Fair Pay Act, right? If we always go back to this political event that
happened, that`s pretty narrow point about statutes of limitations. And
you can argue it either way.

GASPARD: That was a very pointed question that was put to the candidates.


DAILEY: I understand. But the issue is a much richer issue than that.
And, you know, whether Mitt Romney`s way of talking about it -- I mean, we
do politics by anecdote now. His raising of his chief of staff was perhaps
(inaudible) by his age, but ...

HAYES: The anecdotal phase, though, has also become a real trope,
particularly for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney in this when there is a policy
on the table that they feel -- on Afghanistan, Paul Ryan was asked about
Afghanistan. He said, I just -- you know, there`s someone that I grew up
with who served there. Which is good. And it`s good that he`s had that
relationship. But the question is, are you going to get out of Afghanistan
in 2014? There is actually a policy issue on the table. Rebecca.

TRAISTER: And I would also say that some of these do make it a richer
issue. I mean this particular question was pointed. But in fact, the very
thing I was praising Barack Obama for earlier, which is pointing out that
pay equity also has to do with college, it has to do with contraception, it
has to do with health care. That is ...

SOTO: And they all tie in together.

TRAISTER: But they all tie in together. Yes.

SOTO: (inaudible) people how many children you have is also going to
affect how you work.

HAYES: Part of the reason I -- and I love doing this show on the weekends
is that the way that schedule works out is that I have a lot of time with
my daughter during the part of the week and so I have an extremely non-
traditional work schedule right now, which in some ways is weird and bad,
but in other ways it means that Mariah and I get to chill. All right.
Lauren Rikleen, co-chair of MassGAP, thanks for joining us this morning.

RIKLEEN: Thank you.

HAYES: I really appreciate it.

RIKLEEN: Thank you for having me.

HAYES: And Rebecca Traister from, great to have you as always.

TRAISTER: Great to see you.

HAYES: President Obama and Mitt Romney swear their undying faithfulness
to coal. My story of the week is next.


HAYES: All right. My story of the week. The climate silence at the
debate. Four years ago when Barack Obama and John McCain met for a town
hall debate they met as two men who each accepted the scientific consensus
that fossil fuels are warming our planet. They met as two candidates with
competing plans to deal with this challenge. Though their plans differed
on the details. And over the course of the evening they were even asked a
direct question about the issue.


INGRID JACKSON, UNDECIDED VOTER: I want to know what you would do within
the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as
environmental issues like climate change and green jobs.

clean up our climate and develop green technologies and alternate --
alternative energies.

BARACK OBAMA: And we`re not going to be able to deal with the climate
crisis if our only solution is to use more fossil fuels that create global


HAYES: In the wake of this week`s debate, that moment in 2008 seems like
something excavated from the ruins of a destroyed civilization. Despite
the fact that this past September was tied for the warmest in the 132 year
history of recordkeeping, the word climate crossed neither candidate`s lips
nor was it mentioned by moderator Candy Crowley or the audience of
undecided voters select to ask questions. Crowley explained the omission
of the issue this way.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You culled through all of these questions that these
undeclared voters brought in this morning. I know that this was such a big
concern of yours. How did you decide which ones to choose?

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We wanted to cover subjects that maybe
folks hadn`t heard about but still were interested in. I think ...


CROWLEY: Gun control and immigration and women`s issues were the three big
ones. Climate change, I had that question for all of you climate change
people, we just, you know, again -- we knew that the economy was still the
main thing.


HAYES: Climate change people is a revealing phrase. It suggests that
climate is a boutique issue like NIMBY opposition to an unsightly
development down the block or advocating for the metric system. But I
can`t really blame Crowley for the omission, because the candidates both
spent much of the night talking about the related and entirely inseparable
issue of energy and had every opportunity to at the very least mention our
single greatest governing challenge. Instead, the entire debate about
energy, such as it was, was a debate over who can most ruthlessly
facilitate the total and utter exploitation of every last ounce of
fossilized carbon sitting beneath the continent.


OBAMA: We`re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous

ROMNEY: I will fight for all coal and natural gas. Go after natural gas,
more drilling, more permits and licenses.

OBAMA: Increased oil production.

ROMNEY: Drilling offshore in Alaska. Drilling offshore in Virginia.

OBAMA: We`ve built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire Earth.


HAYES: In fact, one of the most unintentionally hilarious moments, this
hasn`t gotten a lot of attention. Mitt Romney was asked by a voter to
reassure her that his presidency wouldn`t just be reprise of the disastrous
tenure of George W. Bush. How are you different, she asked.

First, Romney avoided the question by attempting to litigate President
Obama`s previous response, but then Mitt Romney gathered himself, and began
to list his differences with Bush and remarkably his number one difference
with George W. Bush, the thing he started with, the very first difference
he listed was that unlike Bush, he, Mitt Romney, was really enthusiastic
about fossil fuel extracting. That under George W. Bush we hadn`t
succeeded in scraping every last cell of carbon from this withering husk of
an earth. But under Romney we would sink a drill and mine into every last
surface across this great land.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is the biggest difference between you and George
W. Bush and how do you differ and shape yourself from George W. Bush?

ROMNEY: President Bush and I are different people and these are different
times. And that`s why my five point plan is so different than what he
would have done. I mean, for instance, we can now by virtue of new
technology actually get all the energy we need in North America without
having to go to the Arabs, or the Venezuelans or anyone else. That wasn`t
true in his time, that`s why my policy starts with a very robust policy to
get all that energy in North America and become energy secure.


HAYES: Imagine for a moment if discussion of the national debt and long
term deficits, both candidates have taken to competing to say who would
have the biggest deficit, who would increase the rate of healthcare costs
the fastest and push interest rates up the most. This was roughly what the
energy debate was like. And yet the politics of this aren`t as logic
defying as the substance. Right now it is looking more and more likely the
outcome of this election will come down to Ohio. And more specifically,
the voters in the southeastern portion of the state that is coal country.

The people who work in that industry are understandably worried about their
future and their livelihoods. Coal has had a bit of a rough stretch over
the last few years as it makes up a shrinking portion of our domestic
energy consumption. The inconvenient truth is that there is a war on coal,
but it`s not being waged by the Obama administration. No, the relentless
assault on coal is coming from the natural gas industry. Thanks to its
breakthrough in hydrofracking and extraction of chill grass, it can now
produce energy that`s both relatively cleaner and cheaper than coal.

The folks whose livelihoods depend on the antique planet endangering
technology of coal and the one percenters who own the mines are
understandably spooked. And so, we have this asymmetry of passion. On one
side of the ledger a concentrated set of interest in voters who care in a
near life and death way about the continued exploitation of dirty energy
and on the other side a public with a weak nonchalant preference for us to
do something about that whole climate change thing.

Barack Obama isn`t going to rectify this imbalance. The only way to get a
sustained climate debate is international conversation, is to create a
cadre of activists and citizens and voters who will balance that ledger who
care as passionately about saving the planet from ruining as those on the
other side do about their industry. Because they see and understand just
as viscerally as the other side that, yes, this really is a life or death
issue. Not for one industry, or one region or one state, but for the
planet and every single person that we love who lives on it. I want to
talk to my panel about where Democrats are on this right after this.


HAYES: Joining me now at the table is Tyson Slocum, the director of the
Public Citizen Energy Program, which focuses on climate change, coal, oil
fracking, nuclear and other renewable energies. Tyson, what was your
response to watching the debate, specifically the energy portion of the

really disappointing that the attitudes and opinions of a vast majority of
Americans, a recent Yale poll showed that 70 percent of Americans
understand that global warming is real and more than half people understand
that humans from burning fossil fuels is the cause. And those opinions are
not being adequately reflected in this debate. What we have to understand
is that while the science behind climate change is very compelling, the
politics and the economics of energy policy is what`s dominating things.
We have to remember that in 2012 the United States is the largest fossil
fuel producer on the planet and that means that we`ve got huge corporations
here in the United States making a killing extracting fossil fuels and
benefiting from the status quo. So they have mobilized an unprecedented
political operation aided by Citizens United so they saturate the airwaves
and inform citizens on the fossil fuel version of energy reality that is
completely distanced from what we need to do because while it is clear that
there are a lot of people that are employed by the fossil fuel industry,
there are more Americans that are harmed by the burning of fossil fuels and
fossil fuels are going to become increasingly expensive. We no longer can
afford the status quo from a consumer standpoint or from a climate

HAYES: I`m not sure if I`m sold on the increasingly expensive ...


HAYES: Particularly as natural gas is concerned because natural gas is --
what`s happening with natural gas is remarkable. It`s unlike anything I`ve
ever seen in energy markets ever or even in any other market aside maybe
like personal computers.

SLOCUM: Until we have a BP Deepwater Horizon in someone`s aquifer ...


SLOCUM: And that`s the issue is can we trust ...

GASPARD: Very true.

SLOCUM: These companies in a lightly regulated environment to do the right
thing? I don`t.

HAYES: Two interesting little pieces of data that I think are important.
And then, Patrick, I want you to talk about the president`s record on this
issue, because he didn`t talked about it explicitly. One is that we`ve
seen a doubling in the portion of our electricity that comes from
renewables in the four years Barack Obama has been president. I think it
went from about three to six percent.


HAYES: We`re hitting the wind energy targets that were projected out to
2040 already. And also, and this is a kind of amazing paradox, right? As
climate has lurched backwards in the political debate, emissions have come
down quite a bit. We now have a carbon emissions in 2012 at the 1990
levels. Now this is a result of two things. Massive economic contraction,
which is that first -- that first dap -- there in `08, and then the natural
gas boom and the way that natural gas has BTU for BTU replaced coal and
emits much less. Patrick, is it an explicit political strategy to not talk
about climate?

GASPARD: No, it absolutely is not. I -- I want to point you back to the
most important speech that the president`s made during the entire election
cycle, which is, of course, the convention speech that he delivered from
Charlotte, North Carolina where he explicitly talked about climate change
and actually pushed back against Republicans who were ridiculing the
science of climate change in their convention. And to go back to the clip
that you showed.

HAYES: Sure.

GASPARD: Chris, in all fairness to the president, that was just one little
snippet, part of a larger answer where he actually talked about our need to
make sure that ...

HAYES: He talked about renewable.

GASPARD: About renewables, he talked about wind, he talked about solar, he
talked about bio fuels. And that was just one part of his response. But I
actually want to go back to what Tyson was saying about the percentage of
Americans who are concerned about this issue, and I want to go back to a
stirring homily, the father was getting envious that you opened that
segment with. Yes, 70 percent of Americans do express some concern over
this issue, but I would just suggest that somebody who came up through
organizing in my community and my union and working for collective actions,
that the movement on the ground in the state isn`t commensurate with the
numbers that you just made mention of. There`s got to be a way that one
builds the kind of core constituency to hold Washington, D.C., accountable.

HAYES: I mean this is a classic. You see this in all sorts of political
issues, in which there is diffused public opinion on one side. Even if
it`s large public opinion, you know, 60 percent of people, someone brings
them up, pollsters says are worried about climate? They say, sure, right?
And then there`s concentrated but passionate resistance on the other side.
And when you have that equation, and we see it in the whole bunch of
issues, you know, farm subsidies are the classic example of this, right?
Like, you know, you can get all the things, tech reports you want and you
can talk about how all these farm subsidy doesn`t make sense, but there`s a
small group of people that the farm subsidy makes a lot of sense to.

SOTO: It`s very concentrated, too. Because if you look at the political
angle at Ohio, it`s the swing state, and you`re looking for the actual
votes. And then contextually, you pull it out, we`re still struggling

HAYES: That`s the ...

SOTO: So it does regrettably fall to the backburner. When people rank it,
it still may be an issue of concern, but ranking wise it`s jobs and the
economy. An finally, you know, it`s -- we are talking about, it`s lobbying

HAYES: Right.

SOTO: They have the power to go in there. So, it was interesting to see
the rah, rah on both sides.

HAYES: Yeah, I want to talk about coal specifically. Because coal has
really become a real center piece of the campaign. I want to talk to
someone who spent his life working in coal, a representative from the
United Mine Workers right after this.


CHRIS HAYES, HOST: Good morning from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

Here with Patrick Gaspard, from the Democratic National Committee,
Tyson Slocum from the Public Citizen Energy Program, Father Bill Dailey
from the University of Notre Dame and MSNBC contributor Victoria
DeFrancesco Soto.

We were talking about energy and the energy conversation that happens
at this week`s debate. It was, I thought, one of the centerpieces of the
debate. I mean, it seems terrain that both candidates wanted to talk
about. It`s clear that there`s political traction there, that both
campaigns think there are votes to be had in talking about the energy

And yet as I noted in the previous hour if you just joined us,
climate was totally absent.

And, Tyson, you talked about the president`s agenda in 2008 in terms
of precisely this issue.

remarkable. In 2008, Obama campaigned specifically on addressing climate
change by putting forward a proposal that would cap emissions, that would
require companies to buy permits, that government would collect a revenue
from those permits, and 80 percent of that revenue would be kicked back to
families in terms of a global warming tax cut basically.

HAYES: Right.

SLOCUM: With another 15 percent or 20 percent left over for
deployment and investment in renewables and efficiency.

That was an easily explainable plan that the president put together.
And he talked about how it was relevant and would benefit working families.

And what happened as we went from the campaign to the sausage making
in Congress, was the House put together a complex cap and trade where
inside the Beltway folks put together the details and it no longer had the
relevance. And that packaging that we needed to sell to the American

HAYES: We should be clear. They didn`t just do that because they
wanted to complicate the legislation, they did it because they want to over
-- they wanted to essentially deal in the fossil fuel interests who
otherwise they thought would kill the bill and so they tried to create
these kind of compromises with them, and you ended up with something that
was very complex and hard to explain as opposed to cap and dividend which
is what you`re talking about.

SLOCUM: Absolutely.

HAYES: Which is, basically, we put a price on carbon, we collect the
revenue. I mean, write you, American, everyone, a check. Which is
basically what happened with Alaska`s oil, right? This is the way Alaska`s
oil resources work is that the state basically writes every Alaska -- you
know, voter in Alaska, you get a check from the oil revenues that come from

Coal, why does coal keep coming up? Why is coal such a big issue
right now?

SLOCUM: Well, because of its presence in some swing states. But
it`s also because electric utilities, even though coal is declining as a
source of fuel in the electric power sector, there are enough utilities in
key states that use it and they are lobbying along with coal mining

But you have to remember that coal exports are at record highs,


SLOCUM: And most of that`s going to Europe. A lot of it`s going to

But the point is we`re not seeing enough renewable deployment and if
we`re going to really transition our economy and prioritize clean air and
clean water, we`ve got to move towards the goal.

HAYES: Sorry. In 2000, 52 percent of U.S. electricity came from
coal. By 2012, it`s down to 36 percent. So, in terms of what share of our
electricity is produced by coal. It`s falling off. But we`re now
exporting a lot of coal --

PATRICK GASPARD, DNC: We`re exporting more coal, of course, in the
last three years. Coal jobs in this country have actually grown by 5

So, it`s interesting we`re having this debate whether or not there`s
over regulation in the industry that`s causing the decline. In employment,
the job is up by 5 percent while our export --

HAYES: Yes, this past year hit a high water mark in the last five or
six years for coal employment.

Speaking of coal employment, I want to bring in Mike Caputo. He`s
vice president of the United Mine Workers of America where he represents
Ohio and northern West Virginia. He`s also a Democratic member of the West
Virginia House of Delegates.

Mike, thanks so much for joining us this morning.

I wanted to get your sense of what role you see coal playing in this
election right now.

First of all, thank you for allowing me to be on your show to represent our
membership in southeastern Ohio and West Virginia.

You know, we`re very, very concerned about the future of our
industry. Coal has been a very abundant, reliable, affordable source of
energy for this country for quite a long time, and it`s still at about the
40 percent level when it comes to energy production in our country. So,
coal isn`t going away any time soon, but we don`t want to argue the science
of climate change. But we do think that Congress needs to help us in
advancing clean coal technology so that our members and coal miners all
across this country can have a future.

When you take away an industry such as coal mining from a community,
you know, that may not seem like a big deal across the country or as far as
Washington politics go, but you`re talking about anywhere from a miner
making $70,000 to $100,000 a year, having excellent health care and
excellent benefits.

And not only does that family of that miner depend on this living but
the entire community depends on it. We`re talking about people who work at
the machine shops, the rebuild shops, people who actually own the general
store on the corner. A lot of money is pumped into the economy of coal-
filled communities because of coal mining.

And, you know, we can look across the country and we can see these
wind farms and things like that, but if you look at the real jobs that
those create, they`re minuscule compared to coal mining communities.

It`s a way of life for us. We greatly depend on it.

HAYES: One of the things, I think, one of the ironies here, is that
-- forget about Barack Obama, forget about climate change, there`s been --
the level of coal production and level of coal employment have been moving
in opposite directions for years.

We have a graph to show this. Coal has gone from very labor
intensive to a capital intensive process, partly because of mountain top
renewal. So, you know, if you go back to 1923, that on the right -- on the
right part of your screen is employment in coal. The red bar graphs fall
off the cliff. On the left part is coal production.

So, we`ve produced more and more coal with fewer and fewer people.
You see it does tick up in 2011.

Isn`t that a bigger issue in terms of employment, in terms of this as
a source of jobs, the fact that the way the industry is moving,
particularly with mountain top removal, means there`s just -- there`s less
and less need for your members?

CAPUTO: Well, I respectfully disagree with that. I think technology
and the industry will level itself out. I mean, you know, you`re
absolutely right, back in the 1920s, we used to mine coal with picks and
shovels. Now, we have long wall mining, we have advanced mining
technologies in both underground and surface operations which brought coal
-- we had to keep up with the pace of abundance and affordability and
mechanization has done that throughout the years.

But there`s still a lot of families that depend on the mining of coal
to sustain their life and to sustain their communities quite frankly.

HAYES: Tyson, I want you to respond. Because, you know, obviously
I`m very passionate about climate and coal in terms of -- you know, in some
ways is the enemy. I mean, the actual -- and I don`t mean the people that
work in the coal, I mean the actual carbon that the coal emits.

But at the same time, it`s easy for me, you know, in Brooklyn to talk
about this. It`s not my livelihood on the line. So, when you`re talking
about -- when we talk about this future that we`re going to have for
energy, you know, what do you say to someone like Mike? Like what is the
message here for the folks that are -- whose livelihoods do depend on it
and who are thinking about that as they`re going to the voting booths in
this election?

SLOCUM: Well, first, it is important to know that burning goal is
the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet and in the
United States. And that in addition, there are a lot of discrete
environmental problems with burning coal, higher rates of asthma and other
sicknesses especially for the elderly and the children.

So, when you talk to communities around coal power plants, they have
a number of concerns. That`s why so many proposed coal-fired power plants
have been canceled, because we have a democracy where people can still have

Now, Obama in the stimulus bill had $5 billion in allocations for so-
called clean coal. That`s the way to try and reduce the amount of
emissions. But the problem is that technology is enormously expensive, it
is still in the laboratory and the drawing board stages and it is nowhere
close to completion.

So, it`s -- right now, it`s on the design level.

HAYES: It`s carbon capture technology specifically is what it is.
It means that, you know, you emit the carbon but you get it before it goes
in the atmosphere and you essentially put it beneath your surface.

SLOCUM: That`s right.

HAYES: There`s only one plant in which this is projected to be
actually implemented which I think in Mississippi. It`s been plagued by
tremendous cost overruns.

But there is right now, we should say, clean coal, coal produced with
this carbon sequestration technology produces exactly zero percent of
American --


SLOCUM: And the question is, is it affordable? Not when you look at
where the cost curve for wind and solar have been heading. They have been
plummeting at the same time these new technologies stuff as carbon
sequestration for clean coal have been escalating.

So, if you look at where the United States needs to position itself
for the future of energy production, it has to be with renewable. I
sympathize with the plight of --


CAPUTO: If I could jump in here, Chris.

HAYES: Let me get Patrick here. I`m going to go to you, Mike.

GASPARD: Let`s go to Mike because he represents thousands of folks
who are uniquely impacted. So --

HAYES: Mike, please respond.

CAPUTO: Well, we certainly believe there`s room for renewables,
along with coal production and burning of coal for power.

You know, I`ve been in this industry since I was 19 years old. I
started shortly after high school. I started working in the mines. I
worked there 20 years. I`ve been working for the union for the last 16.

I lived in a community where you could literally throw a rock from my
house and hit a coal burning power plant, and I don`t know anybody in my
community that suffered from that quite frankly. The community prospered.
We had good health care. We grew up in a great neighborhood.

It just amazes me that people from New York and across this country
that really want to just shut our industry down. Coal miners are -- they
love the outdoors. They love clean water. They love clean air. They love
to take their family out and enjoy the outdoors.

We have came a long way in this industry. I came from when I was a
young boy growing up in Reedsville, West Virginia, to watching black smoke
beller (ph) out of stacks at to seeing nothing coming out of those.

The water is clean now. We`ve came a long way. Do we have some
hurdles to clear at this point? Absolutely we do. And we`re willing to
clear those. We just need some time to get there.

You know, we have some people on the opposite side of this issue that
just basically want to see this industry come to a screeching halt, and I
think that we can do both.

Coal has been good for West Virginia, Ohio, and America, and I think
we can continue to use it as an energy resource.

HAYES: Patrick?

GASPARD: Mike, if I could jump in. Mike, I have a tremendous amount
of respect for you and the president of the mine workers, I think you all
ought to be applauded for working with the administration and the industry
to make sure that we move billions of dollars into clean coal research and

But I just wonder if there`s not a different kind of conversation
that we need to encourage between you and Tyson, for instance. Tyson
expressed sympathy for the workers in the mines. We need more than just

We need some kind of collaboration between the two of you, because,
Mike, to you, it`s a little disingenuous to suggest that there haven`t been
health and safety issues as a result of coal. Those issues exist for your
own workers, right? And we know this and, Tyson, you know, of course,
there are communities that will thrive or not based on the revolution
that`s taking place in that industry. And there`s got to be --

HAYES: This is true Obama-ism, ladies and gentlemen, bringing both
sides together.

It`s true. The reason I want to have you in part of this
conversation is because, you know, I -- we -- this is something we`ve got
to solve, right? We`ve got to solve it with everyone at the table. It
can`t just be railroading through the people that are running the general
store in southeastern Ohio.

Father Bill?


CAPUTO: Our union has always been willing to come to the table.

DAILEY: Three C words. You asked why was coal part of the change
and climate change not? Coal is iconic. We talked to some surprise that
it`s, what, 88,000 members of the United Mine Workers. Now, it seemed like
a low figure.

HAYES: Right.

DAILEY: It`s iconic because, as you stated, it`s in swing states.

It`s also representative of an economy that I grew up in. My father
worked in a steel mill until he was 48 and lost his job in a dislocation
that took steel mills out of Ohio, that connects up with the outsourcing
conversation we`re going to have. This anxiety that neither party is
willing to face up to, that can we return to the economy of the 1960s,
`70s, whenever you want to pick an ideal point where you have those union

And I would push back at bit on your modest defense of Candy Crowley.
The other C word I`ve been asked on the show to talk about contraception,
which I`m happy to talk about religious freedom and why Notre Dame
shouldn`t be conscripted to pay for contraception.

But that`s a tiny issue that no one can possibly believe is as
important either as coal or climate change.

And so, the inanity of a political cycle that over nine months has
devoted a lot of time to a sort of side issue about a few religious
institution that are asking for a slightly broader exemption in ACA says to
me that the media hasn`t done a very good job of pulling either of these
much bigger issues together.

HAYES: Father Dailey putting the system on trial.

Mike Caputo from the United Mine Workers of America, thanks so much
for joining us this morning. I really appreciate it. If you`re ever in
New York, I`d love to have you here at the table.

CAPUTO: I would love to do that. Thank you for having us.

HAYES: And Tyson Slocum from the Public Citizen Energy Program,
thank you for joining us this morning as well.

SLOCUM: My pleasure.

HAYES: More news on a story we broke last week. The CEO who asked
his employees to vote for Mitt Romney. This time he went further. That`s


HAYES: We reported last week on an e-mail we obtained sent by Arthur
Allen, the CEO of ASC Software Solutions, a Florida-based software firm, to
his 1,300 employees asking them to vote for Mitt Romney and suggesting
their jobs may be at stake if Romney doesn`t win.

We have now obtained another e-mail from Allen, a long time supporter
and donor of Republican campaigns going further than just asking for votes.
And this one dated the day before the scheduled start of the Republican
National Conventional, Allen told his employees, quote, "I am encouraging
everyone to go to the Romney for President Web site and contribute as much
as you can to his campaign for president, up to the maximum of $2,500 per
person. I`m also encouraging you to contact all of your friends and
relatives and ask them to support Romney and go to the polls and vote on
Election Day.

ASG, like many other companies, is still struggling even after four
years. We need to elect a fiscally conservative president and vice
president, and stop this ridiculous government spending. I believe that
Romney and Ryan can put us back on the path of sanity. But even then, it
is not going to be painless for our country and ASG.

Please help ASG and yourself by contributing to the Romney/Ryan

In a third e-mail we have obtained, about five weeks after asking his
employees to contribute as much as $2,500 to the Romney campaign, Allen
asked them to defer, quote, "some or all of their salaries until December
to help the company make a $15 million interest payment." As Allen noted,
many ASG employees have already been on a four-day workweek for several

In a statement to UP WITH CHRIS HAYES, ASG said, "ASG Software
Solutions is a privately held company and reserves the right to be honest
and forthright with all employees about the future. All communications are
intended to be informative, not coercive. We have always championed open
communications and on Monday, employees will be encouraged to provide
feedback in a confidential forum."

Just for context, earlier this year, Allen publicly touted his use of
the company jet, a Gulfstream G550, which according to "Aviation Week"
costs more than $50 million.

In a special advertisement, "Forbes" wrote, quote, "Configured with
17 seats, the Gulfstream becomes an airborne hotel, restaurant and
conference room. That`s where I live 250 days a year," Allen says.

Of course, as we discussed last week, Allen isn`t alone. Westgate
Resort CEO Dave Siegel, infamous for building the largest house in the
country, threatened to shut down his business if Romney didn`t win. Koch
Industries sent mailers to its 50,000 U.S. employees on October, suggesting
they vote Republican all the way down the ballot.

And on teleconference in June, Mitt Romney himself told business
owners they should be telling their employees how to vote.


clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your
enterprise and, therefore, their job and their future in the upcoming
elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama
or whatever your political view, I hope -- I hope you pass those along to
your employees. Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about
what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure
in to their election decision, their voting decision.


HAYES: We will, of course, post all of those ASG e-mails and their
statement on our Web site at

And workers at a company owned by Bain Capital are begging Mitt
Romney to save their jobs. I`ll talk about that with my panel, including
one of those workers, next.


HAYES: Our building neighbors, The Roots. Their latest album is

In Tuesday`s debate, President Obama and Mitt Romney had one of the
testiest exchanges of the night over their personal investments in Chinese
companies. The exchange actually began on the issue of outsourcing jobs to


Governor Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing to
China, and is currently investing in countries -- in companies that are
building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks. That`s
-- Governor, you`re the last person who`s going to get tough on China.

ROMNEY: Any investments I have over the last eight years have been
managed by a blind trust. I understand they do include investments outside
the United States including in Chinese companies.

Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at
your pension?

OBAMA: I`ve got to say.

ROMNEY: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?

OBAMA: You know, I don`t look at my pension. It`s not as big as

ROMNEY: Let me give you some advice.

OBAMA: I don`t check it that often.

ROMNEY: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You
also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments
outside of the United States. You also have investments to a Cayman`s
trust --


HAYES: Both Romney and Obama do have money invested in foreign
companies, though the circumstances are considerably different. So let`s
walk through it. Romney has millions of dollars in several funds
controlled by his former private equity firm Bain Capital, which in turn
invest that money in Chinese companies.

President Obama, on the other hand, has between $50,000 and $100,000
in an Illinois retirement fund from his time there. The fund is controlled
by the state and invests some of its money in Chinese companies as well.

But those accusations alighted to the core issue that ignited the
exchange in the first place, the outsourcing of American jobs to Chinese
workers. Romney has, indeed, invested in companies that have offshored
American jobs. In fact, he`s invested in one company that is preparing to
offshore American manufacturing jobs as we speak. Mitt Romney has as much
as $8 million in a series of Bain Capital funds with a controlling stake in
a company called Sensata Technologies which makes sensors and controls for
vehicles and motors.

Bain Capital took over Sensata in 2006 and Sensata in turn bought a
factory in Freeport, Illinois, that makes those electronic auto-sensors and
controls. In the year since, Sensata has been very profitable. They
reported net revenue of over $1.8 billion and adjusted net income of $355
million in 2011, which Sensata said, quote, represents record levels for
the company.

Despite Sensata`s financial success, the Bain Capital controlled
company is preparing to transfer 170 jobs at the Freeport plant to a less
expensive location, Jiangsu Province in China. Sensata workers have been
protesting at the plant for over a month, and even following Romney on the
campaign trail, including at the debate in Hempstead on Tuesday. They`re
asking Romney to intervene to stop the off shoring of their jobs.

The Romney campaign has responded by saying only that Romney has no
control over what Bain Capital does or what his blind trust invested.

Patrick Gaspard at the DNC is back with us now.

Joining us now are Chrystia Freeland, editor of "Thomson Reuters" and
author of "Plutocrats: The Rise of New Global Super Rich and the Fall of
Everyone Else". I have not read it and I am hearing amazing things and I`m
going to read it. I suggest you check it out.

Tom Gaulrapp who has worked at the Sensata plant in Freeport for 33

Thea Lee, chief international economist for the AFL-CIO.

It`s great to have you all here.

Tom, I want to start with you. This story has been bubbling up a lot
in social media. You guys have set up an encampment outside the camp,
calling it Bainport.


HAYES: Tell me a little bit your story. You`ve been working at this
plant. What do you do with that plant? What do you guys do? And when did
you find out you were going to lose your job?

GAULRAPP: We make very high tech auto sensors, and it`s, you know,
not like you`re sitting there snapping together parts. This is very, very
expensive equipment, very high tech. These people are very skilled.

And when they took over the plant they called everybody together for
a meeting and they said, "OK, here`s our transition team." They introduced
like three people.

HAYES: This is when Sensata took over the plant that`s totally been
run by Honeywell?

GAULRAPP: Exactly. They said, oh, by the way, all the jobs are
going to be gone by the end of 2012. And you could have heard a pin drop
because we make the absolute best parts in the world in that plant and it`s
been unbelievably profitable for both Honeywell and for Sensata. We`re
like dumbfounded. We don`t understand what`s going on.

And later on that then we found out that the Chinese government was
building them a plant in China for them to move the jobs there.

HAYES: Yes. Sensata has the plant -- the plant they`re moving to
was actually built by the state of China. This gets to the point that
China, of course, engages in a ton of industrial policy, things like that.


HAYES: You were given -- this was two years ago.


HAYES: You guys -- they`ve moved the equipment out. At some point
the Chinese engineers came and all of you who are about to see your jobs go
were in somewhat awkward, surreal position of training them?

GAULRAPP: Right. They brought them in. The vast -- for the most
part they were very nice.


GAULRAPP: We don`t blame them for what`s going on. The thing we did
notice though is they didn`t really pay attention to what they were doing,
they didn`t pay attention to what they were being trained. They were busy
playing with their laptops and doing things that apparently they can`t do
in China.

HAYES: Right. Right.

GAULRAPP: When this gets to China they`re going to have a lot of
quality issues and we want to stress that to people, that if these parts
fail, your car`s going to stop. And this can be a safety issue. And it`s
also expensive. It`s like a $4 part but you have to take the transmission
out to replace it.

HAYES: You`re asking -- you and your fellow workers, the jig is up
at the end of the year, I mean, before Election Day, right? It`s like
November 5th.

GAULRAPP: Well, they want the plant completely closed the last we
heard was December 21st, a merry Christmas present for everybody.
Personally, my job is scheduled to go away on November 5th.

HAYES: What -- why is this -- why is Mitt Romney involved in this at
all? You know, people are going to say, so what? So he has money
invested. Barack Obama has money in his pension funds in Chinese companies
and people have money in all sorts of things.

Why -- what can Mitt Romney possibly do? Why are you targeting him?
Why do you want him to intervene?

GAULRAPP: OK. Because the way we look at it is that the Bain
Capital board has made their decision. The Sensata CEO has made his
decision. The only person who can affect this is the largest shareholder
in Bain, who`s Mitt Romney.

And he had the nerve to stand up in Janesville, Wisconsin, less than
an hour drive behind us and stand behind a podium and say jobs are a top
priority and talk about getting tough on China and his company that he`s
the only CEO they`ve ever had is moving it there, is moving my job to China
and 169 other people.

You know, they`re destroying our American dream purely for greed.
And it`s just absolutely outrageous and the hypocrisy of this man and the
people that are like this is just mindboggling.

HAYES: I want to zoom out a little bit on this discussion, because
what`s happened to you has happened to companies -- has happened to workers
all across the country.

GAULRAPP: Exactly.

HAYES: And put it in context, talk about what the Obama
administration`s record has been on this issue. Whether this is
inevitable, bowing to economic logic, right after we take this break.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question really is what did Bain do to help
us get started?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bain came in and help us build a business.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think when Bain came in, all of our standards
raised. They supported us, invested in quality people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mitt Romney knew how to motivate people. He was
a people person.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mitt Romney actually did help me build this

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mitt Romney cautiously led us to a very
successful future.


HAYES: Very glowing video about Bain Capital`s record that were
shown at the Republican National Convention, very different side of Bain
from your story, Tom, about your job now being sent to China at the end of
the year.

And I want to -- I want to zoom out for a second because what`s going
on to you and through Bain and Sensata is part of a larger trend in
America, right, Chrystia and Thea. You spend a lot of time thinking about

I want to read you something from Ed Conard, who was head of
manufacturing at Bain. He was part of their manufacturing division. He`s
been a guest on this show. This is him talking about the economic logic of

"Let`s not kid ourselves about how cheap offshore labor is. We not
only pay substantially less per hour. We also avoid the costs we would
incur if these workers immigrated here. We don`t pay for their medical
expenses when they show up in the emergency room without insurance. We
don`t pay for their pension costs if they don`t save for retirement.

We don`t pay for their children`s public education. Nor do we pay
for their out of wedlock children, their unemployment benefits and workers
compensation, their slip and fall tort, their wear and tear on our public
infrastructure, and the cost of drunk driving, drug use and other crimes.
We outsource pollution, its adverse effects on our health, and its cleanup
costs. Neither the employees nor the employers are here to vote and seek
political handouts."

What`s your response to that articulation of the logic?

GAULRAPP: Well, it just goes to show they`re arrogant. You know,
we`ll do all the negative things somewhere else and we`ll take the money
out. You know, they had the Romney video where he`s talking about
harvesting companies.

HAYES: Right.

GAULRAPP: And that`s exactly what they do. They take all the good
out and leave this mess behind them and if they can do it someplace where
they don`t have problems with regulations or anything like that, they`re
all the happier and that`s why you see them screaming about they want to
get rid of regulations here. They would love to see that situation here
where they don`t have to move it or they can just dump whatever they want
in the water.

HAYES: Bring China here. Yes?

THEA LEE, AFL-CIO: I think the real point is how shortsighted this
view is. And it`s bad for business, as well as bad for American workers
because if you don`t invest in infrastructure, and education, and skills,
and cleaning up pollution, you`re going to end up in a globe that is really
hideous and there aren`t any good jobs for American workers.

And in the end, if American workers don`t have good jobs, they`re not
going to be good consumers for all the crap these guys are producing.

So it`s not even good business. It`s greedy. But in the long term,
it`s not good business.

HAYES: I don`t know if it`s -- Chrystia, I mean, economic logic
seems impeccable, right? I mean, when we talked to Sensata -- I should say
this -- we would have loved, if you`re watching, Bain Capital, Sensata,
have some representative at the table. We like inclusive and democratic
conversations. They declined to make anyone available or speak to us on
the record.

But, you know, they`ll say and people that defend them will say,
look, they`re going to pay Tom`s replacement, I don`t know, 1/10 of what
you`re making?

GAULRAPP: Ninety-nine cents.

HAYES: Ninety-nine cents an hour, right? And you`re making what?

GAULRAPP: About $17.


LEE: Are they going to sell him a car?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND, REUTERS.COM: No, see, you know, the thing --
look. I think that this -- what`s happening to Tom is the tragedy of
Western industrialized economies right now. And I think it is not being
faced squarely by anybody.

But I think for us to pretend that this is a short-term thing, that
it`s going to stop is also really shortsighted. That`s kind of ostrich
head in the sand. I think that`s what`s happening now with the global
economy is a transition comparable to the Industrial Revolution. There are
huge dislocations and what makes me really angry about the political
response right now is people aren`t treating those dislocations seriously.

You know, when you think about the response to the Industrial
Revolution, an entire new set of political and social institutions was
created. You had the progressive era.

HAYES: Right.

FREELAND: You had the trust-busting and you had the New Deal. We
are not -- I don`t see anyone as inventive as people were then but to say -
- to say that this process can be stopped or reversed, I also think is
wrong. Your point --


FREELAND: Yes, it can be shaped.

LEE: And it should be.

FREELAND: It should be shaped.

GASPARD: And it should show the fraction of the workers impacted.

FREELAND: Of course, it should. But I think, you know, around a
progressive table, you shouldn`t kid yourselves that you can -- that this
can be stopped.

HAYES: I`m down the center.

FREELAND: And the point of consumers, Thea, I think is a powerful
one. But perhaps one of the reasons why this is going so fast -- I mean,
things I write about in my book, which is a big difference between today`s
plutocrats and the Henry Ford era of plutocracy is today`s plutocrats are
not dependent do not rely in Western industrialized countries.

HAYES: On Western consumers.

FREELAND: They are not dependent on their domestic consumers in the
way the capitalists of a previous era were. That`s a big difference and a
political --

HAYES: I want to hear if Mitt Romney -- you can intervene. I want
to hear if Barack Obama can save your job and I want to hear what his
record has been on getting tough on China after this break.


HAYES: Thea, I want you to respond to what Christian was saying
about the kind of -- you know, the unavoidable economic logic of the kind
of outsourcing that we`re seeing in the case of Sensata and Tom`s job

LEE: Sure. And the truth is that globalization is not the weather.
It is created by the policies that we put in place, that the global economy
puts in place.

And the question is, can we shape globalization in a different
direction so it is much more humane and we can put a focus on American
jobs, on workers` rights, on environmental protections? And we would
create a very different kind of global economy, one where in this country,
you know, whether the tax policies on outsourcing that Mitt Romney --

HAYES: Right.

LEE: -- supports big tax breaks for outsourcing, whether we enforce
our trade laws so that we can enforce against unfair trade practices like
Tom was talking about where the Chinese government is going to subsidize
the production of a factory in China and our government needs to make sure
that we`re investing in the future of this country in building our
infrastructure and training our workers and educating our children.

And we haven`t done that. Mitt Romney doesn`t want to do that.

HAYES: When you say we haven`t done that, right, President Barack
Obama has been the president for the last few years.

So, what -- I mean, here`s where this looks to me. You can go back
and you can look at Bill Clinton in the campaign trail in 1992, tough on
China, tough on China. Gets in, signs the most favored nation status,
passes NAFTA.

You can watch George Bush in 2000, tough on China, tough on China.
Gets in, is not tough on China.

This seems to me like a trope that we get in campaigns. Is Barack
Obama -- is there any actual distance between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama
on this kind of issue?

GASPARD: Well, let`s go back to where the actual record is. Of
course, in the last 3 1/2 years, we know, and Thea would be the first to
note that there was increased manufacturing output in this country by 12
percent. First increase we`ve had since about 1996. And the president has
a real tangible plan to increase manufacturing jobs by another million
between now and 2016 and to double our manufacturing exports in this
country between now and 2014.

If you just -- I want to go back to the conversation we`re having
before about free trade versus fair trade, what the impact is on workers,
and the Ford model. I suggest the kind of dislocation we have now is just
because of a shift in values, right? We understood, following the
Industrial Revolution and the Ford model that if you paid your workers a
living wage they`d build a community and they would be able to afford and
pay for your products and now clearly we have folks who are in charge of
these companies who are getting the bulk of their material advantage
resources from overseas.

That`s the tension that exists here, which is exactly why in pursuing
policies of fair trade, the president just won an important victory from
the World Trade Organization by going after the way in which China
supplements its steel industry. There`s a way to work without having our
head in the sand about whether or not it`s --

HAYES: Thea?

LEE: And the truth is President Obama`s done a great job enforcing
our trade laws. He`s brought cases on Chinese tires, on the Chinese
subsidies of energy and on steel. He`s won a bunch of them.

And this is a big contrast from George W. Bush. It`s also a huge
contrast to Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has trashed the use of our trade
laws. He stood up when President Obama did the Chinese tire case and to
protect American jobs and he did protect over 1,000 American jobs in the
Chinese tire -- in the tire industry here in the United States and Romney
criticized him and said, we`re just holding on to unproductive workers. We
just need to let those jobs go, that this is unrealistic.

FREELAND: You know, I feel like I`m the voice of doom at this table.

HAYES: Please be. Please be.

FREELAND: The thing that I think we really have to grapple with is
the extent to which there has been a decoupling of the economic interests
of the people at the very top of the global economy and the middle classes
in Western industrialized countries. That is a very different political
reality from the one we lived in in the 20th century.

I think maybe 30 or 40 years from now, the world will be back in
balance. But right now those economic interests are really, really
different. I think that accounts for a lot of the attention you`re seeing
in the U.S. political debate.

And I think Democrats need to face that squarely and talk about it.

HAYES: Tom, very quickly. What are your plans? What are you going
to be doing?

GAULRAPP: Actually, I don`t know. As part of the Trade Adjustment
Act, because of our jobs being offshored, we can go to community college
for two years, but I`m 54. In two years, I`ll be 56. You know, who`s
going to hire me?

And in our community, in a lot of places in the Midwest that were
manufacturing communities, despite the best efforts of the local government
to try to bring in new business --

HAYES: There`s not a lot.

GAULRAPP: -- it doesn`t exist.

The only other large company is actually a tire plant which was saved
by President Obama in getting tough on Chinese tires.

HAYES: Well, I want to tell you that you are welcome back at this
table at any time. I want to thank you coming today. I appreciate hearing
your story.

I want to thank Tom Gaulrapp who has worked in Sensata in Freeport,
Illinois, for 33 years. And Thea Lee, chief international economist of
AFL-CIO, for joining this morning and we`d love to have you both back.

What we know now we didn`t know last week, my answers after this.


HAYES: So, what do we know now that we didn`t know last week?

Well, we know that not one, but two federal appellate courts have
found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. On Thursday, Second
Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs issued an opinion for the three-judge
panel finding that Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage for federal
purposes as only the legal union between one man and one woman is
unconstitutional because it discriminates against gay people and fails to
pass the test of heightened scrutiny, which courts use to examine other
laws that might discriminate against racial minorities and women.

We know that Jacobs himself was appointed to the federal bench by
President George H.W. Bush and is considered a conservative judge.

We know the Obama administration`s decision not to defend DOMA in the
courts was a righteous choice even before this decision. That it looks
sounder and sounder every day. We don`t know when this issue will hit the
Supreme Court, but we can be almost certain it will sooner rather than

Despite the absence of any mention of climate disruption in the first
three debates, we know that two-thirds of Americans say there is solid
evidence of global warming, the highest that number has been in five years.
We know that the effects of a climate in turmoil are more and more apparent
from record heat to drought, and we also know the last month is tied for
the warmest September on record, according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

We know that with one party deep in denial on the climate, the other
largely silent, it`s up to citizens to raise a ruckus if we are to create a
bountiful, secure future. We know one creative way to do that is`s
new campaign for institutions to divest from fossil fuel companies. You
can find out about their thrilling new campaign at

All right. I want to find out what my guests now know that we didn`t
know in the beginning of the week.

And I will begin with you, Patrick Gaspard of the DNC.

GASPARD: Well, I now know that the Republican Party, which tried to
lift up all manner of regressive voter suppression laws in this cycle
apparently because they believed there was some voter fraud that they
didn`t have any evidence of. We know they`ve been engaged in voter fraud.

We know that Chairman Reince Priebus of the Republican Party hired a
company out of Arizona that had a long history of defrauding folks who were
trying to exercise their franchise, and now, they`ve been caught throwing
away voter registration forms in Virginia, in Florida, and Ohio as well.
So I know this and I did not know that last week.

HAYES: Yes. The throwing away of voter registration forms is pretty

GASPARD: It`s reprehensible.

HAYES: Yes, reprehensible. Well said.


FREELAND: OK. Chris, will you forgive me for shameless self-

HAYES: No, please?

FREELAND: OK. So, shameless self-promotion. OK.

We know my book went on sale this week. It is the definitive
investigation of the global super elite. These are the people who are
pulling away from the middle classes in the entire Western industrialized
world. I have tried to tell you who they are, how they got there, and
crucially how they think. And this is really important if you are a voter.

HAYES: You had a great piece about one of these plutocrats in the
"New Yorker" and was getting into this. I just wrote a book also about
elites, and I`m really interested in this idea of elite psychology, right?
Like what are the kind of communal and social norms that affect the
thinking of folks that are in this position?

I thought you did a great job in that "New Yorker" piece of getting
to the bottom of this kind of pathological distaste for the president.

FREELAND: Well, and a sense of self-righteousness.


FREELAND: A sense that I did it myself --


FREELAND: So I have the answers for the rest of the country, and
what is a real issue with that, I think right now, is the economic
interests of that narrow slice are different from the interests of other
people, and that`s, you know --

HAYES: Also, anesthetic point of the whining, just so much whining.
Stop whining.

Father Bill?

DAILEY: I hear we now know that except on this set, our country`s
politics much prefers the frivolity of binders full of women, the president
answering innocently it seems to me Jon Stewart saying the deaths were not

HAYES: Right.

DAILEY: Wouldn`t have been his word choice except in his response to
Jon Stewart. But --

HAYES: Right.

DAILEY: -- we`re going to focus more on that and on Romnesia than
many of the things we talked about this morning.

Less depressingly, I`ll take myself less seriously. I learned
yesterday that the Duc de Saint-Simon, inveterate conservative gossip at
the Court of Louis XIV, written beautifully by Joseph Epstein in his book
on gossip, thought his contribution to society was so great that in his
memoirs, he wrote 3,000 pages published in 40 volumes. I can`t produce
that sort of thing or think of myself that seriously and there`s a whole
paradox of how --


HAYES: Can you imagine that dude on Twitter?


gender gap for granted, that preference of Democrats by women. You know,
we`ve been seeing so much bounce in the polls in terms of women in 2010.
We also saw a preference for Republicans by women.

So, in 2012, I don`t know what`s going to happen. Is this going to
be an exception that conforms to the rule or more of the same?

HAYES: Yes, this is a big thing to keep your eyes on. And women do
vote differently than men. And they have for some time.

My thanks to Patrick Gaspard from the DNC, Chrystia Freeland from
"Thomson Reuters Digital," Father Bill Dailey from Notre Dame University,
MSNBC contributor Victoria DeFrancesco Soto -- thank you for getting UP.

And thank you for joining us today for UP. Join us tomorrow Sunday
morning at 8:00, and we`ll preview Monday`s presidential debate on foreign
policy with former congressman, Admiral Joe Sestak, and Anne Marie
Slaughter, former director of policy planning for the Obama State

Coming up next is "MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY." On today`s "MHP," this
week in voter suppression, the confusion edition. As courts strike down
one technique after another, there are people still at work actively
manipulating the system. Their latest technique: putting as much confusion
in the process as possible. What you need to know on "MELISSA HARRIS-
PERRY" coming up next.

We`ll see you right here tomorrow at 8:00. Thank you for getting UP.


Copyright 2012 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>