>> john: today supreme court justice anthony scalia said continuing the voting rights act was, quote the perpetuation of racial entitlement. don't you hate those black people who feel they're entitled to vote because they're american citizens. also others won't change their mind on gun control until you pry them from their cold dead minds. stay is the bird of late john steinbeck, the very alive joann woodward and ralph nadar whose name we're finally allowed to say on this channel. on this day the u.s. supreme court rejected a challenge to the 19th amendment protecting women's right to vote, or as scalia calls it, perpetuateing female entitlement. this is "viewpoint." [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> john: good evening i'm john fugelsang. thank you for joining us. as washington careens towards friday's rendezvous with the sequester and it's trillion dollars plus in cuts senate senator mitch mcconnell drips with charm. >> mr. president, you honor us with your presence. thank you for being here. >> john: don't look down, ashley judd might be behind you. and it was only yesterday that same senator mcconnell accused the president of quote fanning the flames of. the nerve. meanwhile at the pentagon newly sworn in defense secretary chuck hagel had a minute to savor the job before facing the big challenge. >> budget, sequestration i don't need to dwell on the good news there. that's a reality. we need to figure this out. >> let's hope the president doesn't order cuts in the canneries make budget. maybe chuck hagel will get help before the weekend. a drum roll for press secretary jay carney. >> the president did invite four leaders to the white house for friday where he hopes that they will have a constructed discussion. >> john: with michigan mcconnell, harry reid, join boehner and nancy pelosi. according to the gallup pole the president goes in better shape than his friends in the g.o.p. 45% say barack obama is doing a better job of handling the sequester than congressional democrats at 37% or the mcconnell and boehner crews with just 25% but that's just a poll. does that mean that the voters support the president's call for closing tax loopholes for the wealthy? according to a wall street journal poll over 20% of the adults think it's a good idea. 52% say it's not a good idea. when asked if they favor the cuts to fix the deficit, 14% say they like the sequester cuts as they are. nearly 40% would like a plan with more cuts. just 37% want viewer cuts in all. i'm joined by a congressman who is offering an alternative adam smith, ranking member on the house arms committee. thank you for joining us this evening. >> thank you for having me on. i appreciate it. >> john: let's get to it, what do you have on your bill and how does it differ from the sequester. >> i'm the ranking member of the armed services committee, so the across board cuts to defense clearly has an impact there but it has a huge impact on transportation infrastructure, research education and it's done mindlessly across the board. we haven't even passed an appropriations bill for this year to adequately fund those programs. so my bill says let's set the funding level for this year and for the next nine years get a ten-year discretionary budget level saturday seth in place and turn off the sequester. stop it from happening make no further cuts in fy '13 and then make cuts over the next nine years that are equivalent to a third of the overall sequester. i acknowledge the deficit problem. i acknowledge the discretionary budget will have it take more cuts but to do it going forward and it makes no sense to do across the board mindless cuts that are set to kick in friday. >> john: the bill that you're putting forth does it have that many specifics in terms of what would be cut? was that by design to recommend welcome republicans to the table? >> partly, but $167 billion over the next ten years has to come out of defense. and the other 153 comes out of the rest of discretionary spending. that was to recognize the role of the appropriators. what once we set what the discretionary level is, it's up to them to divide that up. but right now we're paralyzed. we're not even passing a appropriations bill. >> john: you voted against the famous fiscal cliff bill. they say its essential for any bill that might replace the sequester. there aren't any new revenues in your bill. is that a peace offering to your g.o.p. friends? >> i support raising taxes. one of the biggest reasons i felt the fiscal cliff deal was a mistake because it locked in and made permanent 90% of the bush tax cuts. i want to address the deficit. i'll be honest. we have to find savings cuts in the mandatory spending programs as well. but what we're doing right now is we're torturing the discretionary portion of the budget thinking that well, no one would want to see that happen so it will force us to make a big deal on taxes and mandatory spending. we're not. it's not working. let's stop torturing the discretionary budget. that's step one. that's what my bill does, sets reasonable spending limits and gets us back in the regular order of passing an appropriations bill. but holding the first hostage to the second, it's having a negative impact and we're just letting it happen. >> john: congressman, hit me throw this at you. given the economy's precarious state why not fight to cancel the sequester all together. taking hundreds of billions out of the economy will slow the system and that is less damaging than the mandate of the sequester? >> my bill does not cut anything in fy '13 and graduates the cuts going forward. so it doesn't do anything short term. it does completely shut off the sequester for fy '13 it recognizes that point. s reason why i put cuts in there i imagine we're going to have to have a discussion about some cuts in the discretionary spending bill. the plan is to take the sequester number and cut at that level which is a huge mistake. but to say that we're not going cut discretionary at all given the 1 trillion-dollar deficit given the projection going forward, i don't think it's realistic. this is a compromised number that makes sense for discretionary spending levels for the next ten years. >> i think your bill is much more attractive than say congressman ellison's bill. do you have any idea do you detective to get any republicans to sign on? >> we're going to get some democratic cosponsors today, and i think it's possible. on the one hand you've got a lot of who are cut cut cut can't possibly cut enough from government. then you have a lot of republicans who at least care about defense. defense is getting over half of these cuts. and the impact is really hitting home in heavy defense states like virginia and california. so republican members are concerned. an option that turns off sequestration that moves us in the right direction is something that i think will be attracted it some republicans. now it skips the larger debate of taxes and mandatory spending which we still have to have, but we got to deal with the discretionary portion first. >> and tax loopholes as well. we only have a minute left. it's being reported that president obama and congressional leaders will heat with us friday. have you discussed this bill with nancy pelosi and do you expect to bring elements of that bill on saturday. >> yes i've spoken with nancy pelosi and others, and i think over all they agree with the direction. it's just how does it fit with the larger debate? once you get in a march once we start having to deal with this, this is a realistic option people have to consider. what the republicans are putting on the table, all right eliminatee questionster in terms of the cuts, but keep the number. i say eliminate it but reduce those cuts. it's a starting point for discussion that the democrats are use. >> john: congressman adam smith, thank you for your ideas and ingenuity and thank you for coming on the show. i'm pleased to be joined by robert reich and author of "beyond outrage." welcome welcome. >> good evening. >> john: you heard the congressman speak and the news is the president will meet with congressional leaders on friday. what can we expect if they make a deal, and how would cutting the sequester down to $600 billion or the $320 billion that our previous congressman smith proposed affect our economy? >> well, look, it's very important to cut the sequester down. you've got 20 million americans who are unemployed or under employed. you've got so much excess in the economy. the consumers who are spending 70% of our economy those consumers are not spending. their wage versus gone done. their benefits have gone done, the median wage has gone down. if the government pulls out $58 billion, that's what it means this year, if they pull that much out of the economy at the same time that the consumers are reluctant to spend we'll have higher employment, slower economy and increasing the chance of recession. this sequester is a lousy idea on all grounds. what we ought to be doing--what democrats ought to be proposing and even republicans ought to be proposing is repeal the sequester. we do want to get on with the job of long-term deficit reduction, but the problem right now, and this is very important for people to understand. the problem right now is not the budget deficit. the budget deficit is shrinking. the problem right now is jobs. the problem right now is the economy and economic growth, wages. that's what we ought to get back to the fundamentals. >> john: you have a dine mime blog post of why obama must meet the republican lies directly. >> there are two big republican lies. you have many to choose from but there are two very big ones. one is austerity economics. europe has tried it. the idea and the lie is that essentially our biggest problem right now is the budget deficit. that's why the economy is so anemic. if we get the budget deficit down we'll get jobs back. that is the opposite of reality. the real truth is that if we get the budget deficit down right now, we're going to have fewer jobs higher unemployment and we'll have so much demand taken out of the economy. the second biggest republican lie is the one they've been telling the last 40 years trickle down economics. when we do get the budget deficit reduction don't raise taxes on the rich, they say because the rich are job creators. well, of course they are not job creators. the big job creators in america are the middle class all those people aspiring to join the middle class. it's their spending that creates jobs because they're spending is an incentive to businesses to hire more people. if there is not enough spending, if government is not spending, if individuals are not spending, i don't mean spending on stuff but i mean spending on quality of life, including schools if we're not actually aggregate demand is not enough then we're going simply have higher unemployment, low economic kind of performance and that trickle down economics is just a bald face lie. it means that you're protecting the rich, protecting the powerful. it's what republicans have been doing for years and they--you know, you tell a lie over and over and overagain john, and people start to believe it. >> john: when you think about it, president reagan cut taxes kept on spending, never balanced a budget. you and president clinton raised taxes, kept on spending, balanced the budget and grew the economy in both sides. but this president can't spend. he can't raise taxes and he's accused of being against pro growth. >> exactly. actually, we have a president who is completely constrained. whether you think he's bold enough or whatever he's doing we've got republicans right-wing republicans right now who are basically calling the shots. they're in the house of representatives, and they don't care what the public thinks because their major competitors in the next election are not going to be right wing republicans in the primaries they have safe districts. they have safe districts because they're gerrymandered their way into safety. that's the fundamental problem we're facing. >> john: we only have a minute left but in his column today dan gross in the daily beast the deficit has shrunk by $84 billion. people don't seem to know or care. does that tie in a another piece that he you wrote. showdown fatigue. >> people don't want to pay attention any more. they say those fools, crooks but the fact of the matter is the deficit has shrunk. as a proportion of the national economy to where it was when bill clinton took office in 1992. that's manageable. in the outyears we have to do something about about the dig deficits, but the problems with the outyears and what is causing the deficits are the increase of healthcare costs brought on a healthcare system that is still out of control and baby boomers who are still going to be aging. you can get control over that system with a single payer plan, and that is the answer to long long-term budget deficits. >> john: the same kind of socialism that they all enjoy. robert reich as always many thanks for coming on the problem and making it seem so simple. >> thank you. >> john: nine in robes are still trying to decide if racism is still a problem. that's coming up next. they thinking? save them. woolite everyday cleans your jeans and won't torture your tanks. woolite washed clothes look like new, longer. the natural energy of peanuts and delicious, soft caramel. to fill you up and keep you moving, whatever your moves. payday. fill up and go! the bar harbor bake is really worth trying. [ male announcer ] get more during red lobster's lobsterfest. with the year's largest selection of mouth-watering lobster entrees. like our delicious lobster lover's dream, featuring two kinds of succulent lobster tails. or our savory, new grilled maine lobster and lobster tacos. it's back, but not for long. [ woman ] our guests go crazy for lobsterfest. my favorite entree is the lobster lover's dream. what's yours? come celebrate lobsterfest and sea food differently. >> cenk: welcome back to "viewpoint." it's now time for thing of the day. as i mentioned earlier even republicans were on their best behavior as as a bronze statue of rosa parks the first african-american monument. she would not give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger. violating the law. this helped touch off civil rights movements and including by the way voting rights, which is ironic when considering across the street at the supreme court the voting rights act was on trial and facing heavy criticism from the conservative justices on the court including justice scalia who questioned whether protecting minority rights represented a perpetuation of racial entitlement. entitlement. in this case the right to vote, that very thing that under girds no, sir. he went on to say quote, even the name of it is wonderful: the voting rights act. who is going to vote against that in the future? well apparently, sir you relinquishrichwhite your honor. did you see anything that makes you especially concerned about the future of the voting rights act? >> i think the questioning from the conservative wing from the court makes me concerned about it. most walked in, including me, thinking it was going to be a close case and we walked out thinking it was going to be a close case. and then section 5 probably lives in anthony kennedy as so many cases before the supreme court do. but it was a very charged atmosphere in the court today. it felt like a historic occasion. you just mentioned rosa parks. it was a big day in the court. >> john: what do you make of justice scalia's comments of racial entateelment. it brought out gasp in the room. >> to be free from the right of voting discrimination that has plagued this country. it's a right grounded in the constitution, and enforced and a right shared by all americans not just racial minorities. >> john: that's my next question, should the supreme court even have a right to decide on the voting right acts? in 2009 they decided the constitution expressive grants congress the authority to determine the appropriate legislation for enforcing laws in the country. >> i think they have a right just as the right to pass on the constitutionality of any other statute that congress acts but as congress exercise it's power appropriately. but as the court recognized in the past, the vote guaranteed by the 14th and 15th amendment, congress is entitled to great deference. it understand the reality of voting discrimination better than the supreme court. and before it enacted the extension in 2006, it compiled a legislative history that was 15,000 pages long documenting the fact that this is not a problem of the past but very much a problem of today. >> john: you know it seems like yesterday we saw president bush reinforcing the righting voting right acts. >> 98-0. nothing passes 98-0. >> john: i guess john roberts is a tougher customer. what about the comment that shelby county is not the right place for this case. alabama would surely still be a state necessitating oversight. that's a diplomatic way of putting it. >> that's a fair point. everybody agrees that alabama among the states that has had historic problem of voting discrimination and ongoing problem of voting discrimination. and it is possible that if the court cannot come to consensus it, it may avoid the big constitutional question. it may do it again and this would be the way to do it. >> john: of all the fights to crusade for justice roberts began his personal battle against the voting rights act when he was a lawyer in the 80s when he was in his late 20s. would this represent a completion of his life's work. >> i think john roberts understands that he has a different law. he's chief justice of the united states. but the issue is in his present job he has made it clear that he's not a fan of the voting rights act. he has made it clear that it's on shaky constitutional grounds at best and he made that clear today. >> john: mayor soto also? >> she may be of question. >> john: thank you for coming in. >> i appreciate it. >> john: i appreciate it more. now in politics is the n ra finally being outgunned? that's up next. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis. a closer shave in a single stroke for less irritation, even on sensitive skin. ♪ ♪ gillette mach3 sensitive. gillette. the best a man can get. >> john: our week long wtf america sat lawsuits to the emptiness of new york state continues. in 2011 new york state lost $4.27 billion in both individual and corporate income taxes to offshore tax-free havens, $2.4 billion of that tax revenue lost was due to multi national corporations moving their accounts oh offshore. that's a lot of money. enough to buy two whole manhattan studio apartments. now i know this is going to be hard to believe but oddly enough these same corporations that avoid paying taxes in new york state are the same ones that donate to political campaigns. i know what a crazy coincidence like the time i walked through central park at night wearing a suit made of money what are the odds. pepsi, news corp, bank of america staff their cash in offshore accounts. they take from us pepsi guzzling, while giving nothing back to our great state in return. new york politicians not only allow this to happen but prosper through it through campaign contributions. and if we weren't so strung out on sugar and hopped up on trans-fat and screwed over by banks and hopped up on fox news we might do something about it. wtf-ny. nuance on it. in reality it's not like they actually care. this is purely about political grandstanding. >> john: this morning's assault ban hearing had controversial and emotional moments. none as moving as the heartfelt testimony of neil heslan, father of newtown victim jesse lewis. >> i'm jesse lewis' dad. jesse was brutally murdered at sandy hook school. i'm not here for sympathy or a pat on the back, but as people stated in the town of newtown i'm here to speak up for my son. >> john: nice to see him not being heckled this time. but the passion for gun control does not rest solely with those effectedaffected by newtown, yesterday in an election to replace jesse jackson jr. they put the gun control issue front and center. debby halverson expected to win but lost by 25% of the vote to former state of the robin kelly. helped by mayor bloomberg's super pac focused on the halverson rating received from nra. now for much more on in, i'm joined by john rosenthal and paul blumenthal. thank you for joining us. between the emotional hearings in d.c. the money behind the gun control cause and new poll numbers showing despite what congress might end up doing the support for gun control has been growing. is this the most hopeful you've been. >> john: if the public and media make gun violence prevention an ongoing issue of importance and ultimately a voting issue during the elections coming up, i think we may make progress but remember we've got a long way to go. there is no background check requirement on gun sales. to listen to a dad of a seven-year-old killed at newtown, one of 86 americans who had bury their kids today and every day. meanwhile congress says fiscal cliff and debt cerealing are more important than taking a vote on gun violence prevention. the hast time i checked neither of those economic issues resulted in 86 american dead a day. we need a limit on magazine clips. when i get a duck hunting license i have to restrict my magazine clip to three rounds to protect ducks. yet congress said it's fine for the general public and criminals to have 30 to 100 round clips as used at newtown. that is not rational public policy, but as long as the public stays out of the fray and allow special interest to control, we're not going to see any real change in this country. >> john: i think you're exactly right on that, john. a lot of politicians pay lip service to the issue but we saw more than that with mayor bloomberg. he spend $2.3 million on this primary in in a completely different race. why choose this race to focus on. >> i think mayor bloomberg has been choosing a lot of races throughout the country beginning with the 2012 election where he could have a real impact. choosing races in a democratic democratic primary where one candidate is against gun control like debby halverson. and he's really zeroing in on specific race where is a lot of money can have an impact as opposed to say a general election. you can bring the democratic, who are supportive of gun control to help defeat pro gun candidate in the primary. so i think that his spending has really been targeted in that way. and you know, he's willing to spend a lot of money in these races. >> john: it seems like he's doing it as a testing ground, to see if it will work here and will it work elsewhere. we know what is happening in the polls, despite what dc is doing he has money on his side. wealthy people altering elections like this, does this have the potential of being a really bad trend? >> this is a trend that we're going it see more of into the future mainly because it's successful especially when you target within a primary. when you look at the club for growth targeting to support fiscal conservatives how sufficiently they have been. you have mayor bloomberg who is pushing pro gun control candidates and in some cases pro education reform candidates, or you know, other issues that he cares about. i think that we could definitely see more of this from other billionaires who figure out how to do this in a more targeted way than say sheldon adelson who throws $100 million at karl rove and says do what you will with it. >> john: and adelson does it for himself whereas bloomberg does not have a personal profit motivate. he does it to improve the lives of americans shocking. so do mayor bloomberg and others who may joan him pose a real threat to the nra's influence finally? >> i do think that's true. you have to fight fire with fire. look, it's not the nra's money and it's not begun owners' money. this is the unrestricted, unregulated money from the unregulated gun industry that is predominantly controlled by a wall street equity group, the smith and wesson and other ammunition makers who literally have no restrictions on how they make or market their product and congress gave them immuneity from lawsuit in '08. imagine if you're in the business of making guns, and you can sell them to criminals overtly, directly, without getting sued, you can make guns like the guns used at column mine with a finish resistant to fingerprints. or penetrating 48 layers of body armor like at fort hood. the gun industry is getting away with murder at the rate of roughly 3,000 americans a month. that's a 9/11 attack every month. you can't sue them and the nra will say anything to collect that money. if bloomberg and the majority of americans step up it doesn't take that much money to buy congress these days. and we've seen it with the gun industry. we've seen it with other special interest groups. the american people want reasonable gun violence prevention legislate. there are far more of us than them. if we flood congress with phone calls and pay $10 ,$20, $40 we're going to win this, without banning anything but ammunition clips military style weapons and and. >> we could talk about this all night. i hope you'll come back on the show and discuss this as various bills come forward. again, guys, thank you for your great insight tonight. voter protection as a racial entitlement. i still can't get over that, and there is lots more to say about it coming up next. with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines. real, gripping, current. documentaries... the bar harbor bake is really worth trying. [ male announcer ] get more during red lobster's lobsterfest. with the year's largest selection of mouth-watering lobster entrees. like our delicious lobster lover's dream, featuring two kinds of succulent lobster tails. or our savory, new grilled maine lobster and lobster tacos. it's back, but not for long. [ woman ] our guests go crazy for lobsterfest. my favorite entree is the lobster lover's dream. what's yours? come celebrate lobsterfest and sea food differently. >> john: welcome back to "viewpoint." today oh justice scalia, he called the voting rights act a perpetuation of racial entitlement. and i'll have more it say about that in a moment. and clarence thomas brought nothing to say about it. if you have a comment for the show, tweet us. or post it on our facebook page already why don't you. now let's look at that phrase again. voting protection as a racial entitlement. earlier in the show we heard what an alcu alert had to say about this. with me is eric boehlert, teen i can't tubuy and toe median frank conniff who will be at the baghdad theater in portland, oregon, friday march 8 president. thank you all for joining me. what did you make of scalia's comment about racial entight! entitlement. >> he seemed to be upset that not enough senators were voting against the voting right acts. all sorts of weird things going on this. but basically i mean-- >> john: the title of it is studio friendly. more or less, nobody is going to vote against something with a nice game. >> if no one is opposed to it something is wrong with it. but it clearly puts him outside of the mainstream and scalia is adopting the fox news rhetoric of entitlement. you're title entitled not to be racially discriminated again. >> john: should we change the voting rights act? improve it? >> yes, i think it should be not just the south but i don't know, places like pennsylvania, that's other places where they want to disenfranchise people of color women and people who have jobs. the real thing is we discriminate against people who work for a living. we shouldn't vote on tuesday. we should vote on sunday or saturday when most people are not working. >> john: no, we're not the ag agririan culture any more. >> it's really a good thing. >> john: clarence thomas has written, i love this, this is no evidence that public officials stand ready if given the chance to again engage in consequented acts of subterfuge to keep people from voting. has clarence thomas heard of florida and what went on there? >> he's using rhetoric that we're not going to see 1964, 1965. >> right they want to go to 1955. >> it's chilling when a judge says i see no evidence. wait a second. >> john: but you don't leave your house thomas, that's the oh other thing 37 sonia sotomayor was the hero of the day when she said, you think racial discrimination no longer exists in this country, and scalia changed the subject. >> that's why it's nice to have the president put someone like that on the court. you have some diversity. >> she comes to the today. >> i'm not going to have this nonsense. i'm going to call you out on it. >> john: fox news viewers called an epic shouting magic when sean hannity and congress man keith ellison. ellison came on as guest called hannity a scrhill for the g.o.p. >> can i ask you a question. >> you say i'm racist. >> here is a special question. >> i'm not backing down to you. >> john: so what is this argument really about and i really don't want to ask this, but who won it? >> but glenn beck left fox too soon. he's having an argument with wrestlers now. there is wrestling going on with fox. >> i was baited. he was baited. >> john: hannity? >> yes, hannity invited him on the show. he had that ridiculous cliff with barack obama same things that were not scary with scary music in the background. he was set up and baited because he wanted to say why are you so ganger. heangry. he wanted the only muslim congressman look like an angry black man. >> it was clever. >> and angry black muslim. >> the style might not have been the right way to go about it, but i can't fault him for pointing out the absurdity of sean hannity. >> john: i think it was a christmas gift for hannity because fox news ran it all day like they were run holding up a scalp. >> hannity was unpersuasive. and now he rallies his friends saying, oh my gosh, didn't i do great. while he was going at it he sounded like a fool and he denigrated into a shouting match. but he can't think on his feet to save his life. >> john: that's true. >> so he has to spend the next day-- >> i'm registered as a conservative. wow,. he should have known. he should have known when you go on there you cannot give it away. he gave it away. >> john: and he's not a conservative. he's a neo-con. real conservative was have kicked bush to the curb in 2004. there are now two versions of the violence against women act and house democrats don't want the house version. for those not keeping tract at home this is mind boggling, this offers protection for immigrants and the lgbt community. but the house version has none of that. do they really think not protecting native american women will give them that many more votes from the community? >> last year they refused to authorize it, and then they came back and voted it down at the same time while they're trying to remaining remaining their brand rebrand and themselves and change their packaging. they're saying we'll vote for the house and boehner once again does not have the votes and he can't put together a coalition the right wing crazies. >> why do they have to make a distinction it can't help navy american women. are we afraid someone will if i can up an oscar from marlon brando? >> they're agrading losing the vote. >> scalia is saying that civil rights are special rights. so we're protecting women but we're giving special rights to these other people and they're also they don't want to have the domestic violence--they don't want them to be protected under this act. >> violence against women, voting rights, it's a nuance gray area for the republican. >> john: this is consistently. they're not angry that some groups need more protection. they're angry that those groups would dare ask for that protection. >> the other problem is we're having this gun debate. oh women should arm themselves. a mom should have semiautomatics at home to stop the burglars, and then they vote against the violence against women act. >> john: they're figure their way out of it. >> let hillary in 2016. >> john: my panel stays with me after the break when we look at this week's brutal disappointments. you don't want to miss it. leks karpovsky karpovsky now >> >> >> >> john: welcome back. quick question for the panel who has disappointed you this week? eric boehlert. >> boob woodward. he has declared war on the white house. he wrote a column about the sequester and said the white house has it completely wrong. now he's pushing back saying they're threatening me. and he invited a political reporter to his house very dramatic and very wrong. >> but he can't say who it was. >> that's right. he's totally off base, and he needs to rein it in. >> tina, who has disappointed you. >> seth macfarlane. >> how so? >> it wasn't because he wasn't funny. it wasn't because he was sexist it's because he did the entire show and never showed his boobs. >> you know, one line in that boob song about harvey keitel, he didn't go there frank, who disappointed. >> you i disappointed myself. >> please tell me. >> i can't go into details but i found myself alone in my apartment saying i'm sorry this has never happened before. >> john: which brings me to tonight's f.-book. f.-boom. why congressman ellison. as i mentioned earlier congressman keith showed up on sean hannity on fox news. ordinarily i like fox news. it's tv for feudal lords and serfs who love them. but he said something so vulgar i'll play it right now. >> quiet frankly, you're the worst excuse. i have praised you. you have been on this show. you even watch me perform stand up in your home state of minneapolis last month. where do get off calling sean hannity a journalist. i never have seen heard someone call hannity a j-bomb. who told you congressman that sean ever even took a journalism class. coming to his own bio sean has no formal training in journalism he has never been a