care reform. that's their jobs plan. >> it's a taxpayer funded trip. the job debate with congress after all is official business. the president's rival from 2008 these as much more about 2012. >> the president made these remarks on a tax payer paid for riding in a canadian bus visit for the next three days. >> plus, rush limbaugh often has unkind things to say about me and this network. so what are we to make of this over the top praise of our fast and furious scandal? >> john king is calling attention to a huge contradiction. how did the president know about this in march and how did he know the attorney general knew nothing about this in march when the attorney general said the may, he just learned about it a couple weeks ago. >> while we always appreciate kind words, tonight's truth is that the issue is not as black and white as mr. limbaugh sees it. we'll also talk to the espn rotter who was right there in the pit at the track a few mile north of here when this happened. >> opening up in front of him. here we go! contacted. a huge crash. multiple cars involved! >> but first tonight, rising cain. our brand new poll shows surprised republican contender herman cain solidifying his place in the gop race. in a dead heat now nationally with former massachusetts governor mitt romney. with that surge in support comes a surge in attention. and mr. cain and his ideas will without a doubt be a major focus right here in las vegas tomorrow night. in a motel, one-on-one with mr. cain in his only national interview today. first over the week, cain conceded some would pay more taxes under his signature 9-9-9 plan. >> some people will pay more but most people will pay less is my argument. >> now rising in the polls means more attention from his rivals who are attacking cain on his views on gay marriage and immigration. generating headlines, this remark over the week in tennessee. >> i tell you what. when i'm in charge of the fence, we'll have a fence. 20 feet high. it will have barbed wire over the top. it will be electrocuted -- electrified. and there will be a sign on the other side that says it will kill you. >> the congressional hispanic congress speaks remark is grossly insensitive. in arizona, michele bachmann says it proves he just doesn't get it. >> i also wanted to say that this is no laughing matter. the border fence. we've seen jokes made by presidential candidates about the fence. it is not a joke. this is a real issue. it is a serious issue. >> that's bachmann in arizona. mr. cain is also in arizona. we spoke just moments ago. mr. cain, you say your remark over the weekend about building a fence would be electrified so that anyone trying to sneak across the border could be electrocuted. you say it was a joke. but you're running for president of the united states, not for court jester. do you agree that's a pretty insensitive thing to say? >> it was a joke, john, and yeah, i haven't learned to be politically correct yet. so yes, it was probably not the right thing to say and i did not mean to offend anybody. >> you're coming here to the state of nevada for a big debate tomorrow night. 26% of the electorate here latino. what would you say to someone here who might have seen that remark and say who is this guy? do i want him as my president? >> well, john, what i would say to them is, i'm all about making it easy for people to come to this country. we have wide open doors. i have talked repeatedly about wanting to make it easy for people to come to this country the legal way. cleaning up the bureaucracy in washington, d.c. those kinds of things never get reported on. but i am all for opening up the doors of this nation. but we must do it the legal way. that's been the point that i have been trying to make. >> you're going to spend some time with someone on the left, a lot of critics who say he racial profiles. he discriminates against latinos. what's that conversation going to be about? >> well, we're just going to talk about general principles. i have a lot of respect for the sheriff because of the job he's done. in a lot of ways, he and i are the same. we focus on what pits we need to do to get the job done. not what we need to do to be politically correct. i'm looking forward to meeting with him again. this is not the first time that we will have met. >> what would a president cain do in his first 100 days when it come to border security? is it finishing the fence? more boots on the ground? is it all of the above? >> i think it is all of the above. i think we need a combination of physical fence in some instances. we can use technology for some parts. and some of the more dangerous parts, wath we need to do is put boots on the ground in order to secure the border. john, i am tired, like the american people are, of hearing about citizens being kill, citizens being threatened, and some border agents' lives being threatened. this is what i want to stop as president of the united states of america. what do we have to do in order to stop it. >> what happens to those who are already in this country illegally? many of them working in the economy. mayor bloomberg in new york says it's foolish to think you'll round them up and throw them out. you have to have a path to legal status if not a path to citizenship. that was george w. bush's position. it was last republican nominee's position, john mccain, until it became so toxic. what would a president cain do? maybe 8 million, maybe 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. do you work them into the system or do you find them and kick them out? >> john, let me give you my total description of how to approach the problem. it starts with securing the border for real. not just talking about it like we talked about it earlier. secondly, it would involve promoting the path to citizenship that we already have. thirdly, enforce the laws that we already have. the immigration laws. and here's how i would enforce those laws and here's how i would deal with the illegal that's are already here. empower the states to do what the federal government is not doing. if you've got 50 states working on what to do with the illegals in their particular states, that's the way i believe that we ought to approach solving that problem. no, we won't round he shall up and try to deport they will. allow each state to determine how they will address it. >> if you allow every state to do it on a state by state basis, aren't you inviting chaos? state a. i'll make one up. alabama is being very tough. maybe people go across the border. maybe they go to the next state. won't you have a hodgepodge? >> no, john, that's not the case. i trust the governors. i trust the states to be responsible in doing things like that. remember, the governors get together and they talk and they share ideas. i would trust them not to create some sort of chaotic hodgepodge. they would solve the problem and i happen to believe they would be sensible in terms of the things they would come up with. >> you conceded over the weekend that some people, some people at least initially work pay more taxes under the herman cain 9-9-9 plan. that is now of national attention. it's had international collection. but an average family of four could end up paying from $2,000 to $4,000 more in federal taxes under the 9-9-9 plan. is that fair? the people who have had the value of their homes go down? the people hit hardest? should they hit higher tax in the early days of a cain administration? >> first, i won't comment on those calculations. i don't know what assumptions they used. here is a fact. it would depend upon what that family spend their money on. when you get to that third 9, that national sales tax. it depends on whether or not they buy used goods or whether or not they buy new goods. i can't comment. when you make the statement is it fair, how do you define fairness? i'm not going to comment on that. i don't know what assumptions they made. i'm making the assumption that a family making a small am of money, they'll stretch their dollar. 9-9-9 will give them the ability to stretch it even more based upon their decisions and not based upon the decision of the government. >> well, you did concede some people would pay more by your calculations. who would pay more, mr. cain? >> the people that would pay more are the people who would buy mostly new goods. that's how it will be determined. so since i don't know what people's buying habits will be yark say who will pay more. secondly, most people will pay less because embedded taxes will come out of all the goods and service that's are produced in this country. the reason that they will come out is because of competition. when the embedded taxes come out, the cost goods will go down which means that most people won't be paying any more in taxes than they are paying today, probably a lot less. >> as you know, your rise in the poll comes with a lot less. you get a lot more scrutiny. not just from the media but even the white house communications director told wolf blitza arer w minutes ago, he thinks your rise in the polls, he doesn't equate it to you. he thinks you're a vehicle. how would you answer that? >> the way i would answer that come is quite simply, they don't know what's going on out here. my message is resonating with people. i know that because i didn't just start campaigning two weeks ago. i have been basically testing the pulse of the public for over a year now. even before i actually formally declared. so i know that it is my message which is driving my popularity and my rise in the polls, and we know that for a fact. and we know it firsthand. and we'll continue that momentum. >> is it the specifics of your message or is it the fact that what many people say is a weakness? herman cain has never held political office. he has never worked in washington. herman cain might not know how to work the congress or how to be the commander-in-chief. what many people say is a weakness. is that actually your strength? >> this is what the american people are telling me. whenever i'm out speaking, and i mention the fact that one of the big criticisms against me by the establishment is that i have never held high political office. john, i get a spontaneous applause every time. here's the other thing. it is, relative to my message, it is the specifics of my message. it is the substance of my message and it is the simplicity of my message that has a lot of people excited. so this is what i believe is causing a lot of the people to connect with me. because of those three aspects of my message. not just relative to what i would do to fix the economy but also relative to the other issues we face. >> part of the simplicity is i'm an outsider. i'm not a politician. some people might not know that you were on the federal reserve board in kansas city there. you're an economic adviser to bob dole and jack kemp in 1996. you ran for president very briefly in 2000. ended up co-chairing the steve forbes campaign for president. you ran for senate in the state of georgia. is it fair to say that you're not a washington insider but you're not exactly a political outsider. >> i am not a washington insider and i'm not a politician even though i have helped other politicians with their campaigns. i have been a businessman for over 40 years. so my part time activities helping other candidates does not make me a politician. i ran for the united states senate in 2004 and i came in an impressive second. and so i did not know what that was going to lead to. so i consider myself not only a washington outsider but also a nonpolitician. because even though i've helped people, i have not healld high elected office. >> what is your relationship with the brothers who many americans might not interrogatory name but they have funneled millions of dollars into conservative causes. they are part of bank rolling at the citizens united case. less restrictions on campaign finance and disclosure. do you have a relationship with the coke brothers? >> i know the brothers. they helped to start an organization called americans for prosperity. and did i some speaking when they were starting that organization and i'm very proud of the relationship that i have with them as well as americans for prosperity. i have also attended some of their seminars and have found them very informative. i don't have a close relationship but i know them and i respect them. and they know me and they respect me. >> one of your comments over the week that drew attention from one of your rils, rick santorum from pennsylvania. you said when it come to same sex marriage, you think as you just addressed on the immigration issue, you think this should be dealt with on a state basis. senator santorum said the idea that this is an issue that should be left to the states is the position barack obama takes. it is not the right position. there needs to be a uniform defense anything of marriage in this country. do you disagree with senator santorum on that? >> well, that's a point of difference. look, i believe in traditional marriage and i believe in the defense of marriage act. the defense of marriage act, i might point out to senator santorum basically already gives that responsibility to the states. in one way, from the perspective if one state recognizes same sex marriage, the defense of marriage act that was passed in 1996 and signed by bill clinton says that another state does not have to recognize it. so i don't see how that's such a big leap from saying that the decision ought to be at the state level when in fact we already have laws to protect states from strong recognize the decision that another state may have made relative to that particular issue. >> let me ask you a couple questions about how herman cain would approach the job of commander-in-chief. there was a question with u.s. troop in afghanistan increasingly facing shelling coming from the pakistan side of the border. mortar being fired across the border. other weapons across the border. what would a president cain do if u.s. troops in afghanistan were being shelled from a country that is nominally an ally. pakistan. >> well, john, let's back up first. because first of all, i wouldn't have allowed the situation to get to where it is. this president first approved the surge a little over a year ago. and then he then desurges the whole move and then he tells the enemy. that's the problem. i wouldn't have hesitated to basically say yes to the surge if my commanders on the ground thought it was the right thing to do. the surge was working. but then this president decided almost against the will of his commanders to basically announce how many troops he's going to bring home for political reasons. and so i believe that decision has made our men and women in uniform more vulnerable. regardless of where the attacks of the shelling may be coming from. let's go back to he's made the wrong decision of pulling the troops out and then letting the enemy know exactly what we're going to do and when. i also don't agree with him doing the same thing in iraq. you don't telegraph what your moves will be when you're involved in a war. no. that i don't believe is good common sense when it come to making decisions that will ill fact lives of our men and women in uniform. >> but if this were happening in the cain administration works president cain give the colonel and the general on the ground the authority to retaliate? to fire back across the border. would you order a drone strike if could you prove you had no doubt that attacks on your men know your men were coming from across that border. >> i would give the order to fight back and to fire back, yes, without hesitating if in fact the commanders felt like they had the information and it was substantiated. i wouldn't hesitate to give them the authority to defend themselves and to fight back. >> mr. cain, thank you for your time tonight. we'll see you when you get here to vegas. >> i look forward to it. thank you. rare praise from rush limbaugh who says we've caught the president and the attorney general in a contradiction. maybe more when it document what they knew and when they knew about it the so-called fast and furious scandal. [ male announcer ] humana and p d medicare prescription dru. ♪ with the lowest nationalpl. ♪ ...and copaysas low a. ♪ ...saving on medicare pr. ♪ so you're free to focus os that really matter. call humana at 1-800-808-4003. or go to walmart.com for details. call humana at 1-800-808-4003. so if i didn't know better i'd say you're having some sort of big tire sale. yes we are. yeah. how many tires does ford buy every year? over 3 million. you say you can beat any advertised price on tires? correct. anywhere? yes. like this price? yes. riously? yes what about this one? i'll beat it. this one? s we will. right, i only have one more question for you...this one? (laughing) yeah. get $100 rebate when you buy four tires. 100 bucks! only at your ford dealer. 3 million tires. 11 major brands, fiona's kind-of-nice. i don't know why you're not here. at liberty mutual, we know how much you count on your car and how much the people in your life count on you. that's why we offer accident forgiveness, man: good job. where your price won't increase due to your first accident. we also offer a hassle-free lifetime repair guarantee, where the repairs made on your car are guaranteed for life or they're on us. these are just two of the valuable features you can expect from liberty mutual. plus, when you insure both your home and car with us, it could save you time and money. at liberty mutual, we help you move on with your life. so get the insurance responsible drivers like you deserve. looks really good. call us at... or visit your local liberty mutual office, where an agent can help you find the policy that's right for you. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? to hear rush limbaugh, we hear at john king usa have caught the attorney general in a lie. at least a nontruth when it come to his knowledge of the controversial gun trafficking program, fast and furious. >> john king is calling attention to a huge contradiction. how did the president know about this in march and how did the president know the attorney general knew nothing about this in march when the attorney general says in may, he just learned about it a couple of weeks ago. >> now that praise was based on our raising this important question last week. how did the president know this with such clarity in march? >> i heard on the news about this story that fast and furious, where allegedly, guns were being run into mexico and atf knew about it but didn't apprehend those who had sent it. eric holder, the attorney general has been very clear that he knew nothing about this. we've assigned an ig, inspector general, to investigate it. >> if the president is right and the attorney general was so very clear, then why six weeks later, was he so less clear in this testimony to congress? >> when did you first know about the program officially i believe, call fast and furious? to the best of your knowledge, what date? >> i'm not sure of the exact date. i probably heard about fast and furious for the first time over the last few weeks. >> to republicans, that is prooch the attorney general has something to hide. at least isn't being completely forthcoming. here tonight's truth. while we're always appreciative of kind words, the facts do not support the black and white right and wrong view of mr. h limbaugh. the public report shows it was holder himself who ordered the inspector zwroen investigate fast and furious. that was in march. so he clearly knew about the controversy then. what is curious is why he was then so vague when he will congress he learned, as you just heard, a few week ago. holder knows better. he is an experienced attorney and an experi