good evening, everyone, i'm erin burnett. and "outfront" tonight, ahmadinejad on the spot. an unexpected spectacle in tehran today. the president summoned before parliament for the first time since the 1979 revolution. conservative parliament members called ahmadinejad out on everything from the limping economy, which is a victim of u.s. sanctions, to his public disagreements with the ayatollah who, of course, is the supreme leader of iran. ahmadinejad tried to make jokes, and he made no secret of his disdain for this event, saying, quote, "the fact is that i tried not to attend this session, but i guess it was ordained that i should come, so there was nothing i could do about it." i met him once in person. that sort of seemed the way he might have delivered that, a little nonchalant. a growing power struggle between ahmadinejad and the supreme leader khomeini. president obama watched tehran's action and he used some of his strongest language yet while standing next to the prime minister of america's closest ally. >> tehran must understand that it cannot escape or evade the choice before it. meet your international obligations or face the consequences. >> while leaving no room for doubt, the president returned to the subject of iran 30 minutes later. >> the window for solving this issue diplomatically is shrinking. >> well, that window, of course, was cracked open last week when the u.s., along with the uk and other european allies, agreed to hold talks with iran. and the question was were there negotiations coupled with sanctions really going to work? would it halt iran's suspected progression towards a nuclear weapon? well, here's something that is bizarre on that front. today in tehran, the issue of nuclear weapons did not even come up when ahmadinejad faced parliament's questions. nuclear power not even on the table. it is important to say that iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. new polls show americans are losing patience, perhaps a lot of the rhetoric part of that. 62% say they would support israel taking military action against iran, and this is crucial, if tehran was building nuclear weapons, 56% would support military action against iran. is a weak ahmadinejad good for the u.s. or not? okay, great to have both of you with us. let me ask you this key question about the power struggle that's going on in iran. we've talked about this for a while. the supreme leader, ahmadinejad, at odds. how bad was this for ahmadinejad today? >> well, it was embarrassing for him that he tried to turn it into something that was not embarrassing. obviously, with his cracking of the jokes and even saying afterwards that, you know, i could have -- i could have come up with better questions if they'd asked me first. they didn't even ask me very tough questions. i mean, there's a lot of theater about the whole thing. but i think it was embarrassing for him. i certainly, from a domestic political standpoint inside iran, this has been threatened a bunch of times. but every time parliament has backed off the threat of summoning him which could lead to impeachment. certainly i think it weakens him a little built in the eyes of many people, but it also could strengthen him in the eyes of his supporters or people who believe that he is actually better than the hard-liners who are running the country. >> this is a key question, though. because if sanctions are effective, and i know obviously the impact that they have on regular people is a matter of real dispute. a lot of people feel that maybe that's not a good thing. but if they're effective in putting a stranglehold on the country, they may also be effective in pushing more people to support more hard-line conservative elements in the country which would be presumably the opposite of what the u.s. wants. >> well, yes. first of all, we need to remember, and as weird as this is to say, that when it comes to the nuclear weapons issue and the foreign policy of iran, ahmadinejad is the moderate. he is more likely than some of the people around the leader, the supreme leader khomeini, to be interested in negotiating a solution with the united states. when it comes to your sanctions question, i don't believe that in the end sanctions will cause iran to give up on a point of principle, that is their right to engage in nuclear enrichment. they have suffered great pain as a result of these sanctions. they have suffered great pain in the past as a result of sanctions and war with iran and iraq. and that is not enough pain for them to give up something they regard as a demand from the united states. let's remember, this regime was created with an anti-american element from its beginning. so to capitulate to the united states is not something i expect to happen. unfortunately, without going into all the boring details, i think it's unlikely that the iranians in this current formulation where all the moderates have been eliminated from the green revolution, those were the moderates. ahmadinejad is the last moderate. he's weak now as a result of this humiliation that iran is going to find the wherewithal to negotiate effectively with the united states. >> how does that play out, then? >> i agree. first of all, we have to remember that the nuclear issue in iran is not something that is in dispute among iranian politicians. all politicians in iran agree on iran's stance. jamie rightly said is iran has to enrich uranium. >> it's on the common bill, the nuclear symbol. >> and they know it's supported by the people, generally supported by the people, at least iran's right to enrich uranium. so that's not going to change. it doesn't matter who the president is. it doesn't matter whether there's a fight going on between the supreme leader's supporters and ahmadinejad's supporters. certainly he is much more moderate than many of the hard-line leaders in iran, and he's much more likely and has always been more likely to try to make a deal with the united states. >> so are we putting ourselves in a position by increasing the onerous level of sanctions come june that we're going to get the opposite of what the u.s. and the west intends? >> i think every time you put pressure on iran, you empower the hard-liners. every time we put extra pressure on iran, you empower the hard-liners. i think that's just a fact of iranian political life. is that every time iran says we want to make a deal with america, every iranian leader whether it was the one before ahmadinejad or ahmadinejad, somehow america does something, puts extra pressure on iran, puts it in the axis of evil, something like that, saying see, we told you from the beginning. >> president obama by saying this window endorsed him. i don't know whether he was trying to help or hurt him by saying that. i mean, the guy's smart. >> let me jump in here. the president's rhetoric today, i think, is important. >> is the window getting smaller? >> and the phrase or face the consequences. that choice rhetoric is the rhetoric that begins the run-up to the use of force generally in international relations. you have a phrase "serious consequences" in diplomatic parlance means the use of force. i'm not saying the president said that today, but what i think is going on is that the prime minister of israel came here. and what the president and the prime minister agreed to is let's raise the spector of possible use of force higher. let's agree on that even if we disagree on whether we should actually do it because they believe that will increase the chances of a diplomatic outcome. and there may be something to that. it may be possible to negotiate a solution. the problem is, the solution will require the kind of concessions on both parts of the united states and the iranians that i don't see anybody making. >> i don't think the statement is helpful. i believe that this kind of pressure -- >> president obama's statement. >> yes, president obama's statement about basically saying this is your last chance. you either do this, or as jamie said, serious consequences, in other words, threatening war again. it doesn't matter whether he pleens it, whether we're actually going to war or not. the way the iranians perceive it is you're threatening us. we're not going to buckle even one inch. if we were going to give an inch last week -- >> now we're not going to give a millimeter. >> yes. i think that's something that's been consistent in the iranian's leadership view of america is look, you can't trust them, they're constantly threatening us, you can't hold a gun to our head saying this diplomacy has to work in the next two, three or four months or else. take the or else off the table, and let's see how diplomacy works. that's their view. >> right. and u.s. view is we've tried that for 17 years. >> and that's where the problem lies. that the requirements for -- not just the u.s., the west -- >> yeah. >> -- for iran to satisfy the international atomic energy agency, they're not even close to meeting. sometimes they get closer, but then they deny a particular site or they have a particular argument. and that's what i'm worried about is that those minimum requirements don't seem any closer to the surface today than they were years ago. >> if the window is short, if the window is very short, then it really almost sounds like there isn't going to be a deal because you can't negotiate -- >> that's the impression today, it seemed. >> -- a deal on iran which we've been working on for the last ten years. you cannot negotiate it in a period of two or three years. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. i will have you both back again. rick santorum won mississippi and alabama. hey, you've been living on mars if you don't know that today. how much longer will the race go? what's mr. newt doing tonight? and mr. avlon went to washington today to find out whether congress is actually going to get their pay docked if they didn't pass their budget. that would mean retroactively 1,000 days for congress. and a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against apple. did they mislead iphone buyers? [ male announcer ] lately, there's been a seismic shift in what passes for common sense. used to be we socked money away and expected it to grow. then the world changed... and the common sense of retirement planning became anything but common. fortunately, td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life. take control by opening a new account or rolling over an old 401(k) today, and we'll throw in up to $600. how's that for common sense? in here, the landscaping business grows with snow. to keep big winter jobs on track, at&t provided a mobile solution that lets everyone from field workers to accounting, initiate, bill, and track work in real time. you can't live under a dome in minnesota, that's why there's guys like me. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ heltoday is gonna be an do... important day for us. you ready? we wanna be our brother's keeper. what's number two we wanna do? bring it up to 90 decatherms. how bout ya, joe? let's go ahead and bring it online. attention on site, attention on site. now starting unit nine. some of the world's cleanest gas turbines are now powering some of america's biggest cities. siemens. answers. battle speech right? may i? capital one is issuing a venture double miles challenge. show us how much you spent last year and we'll give you 2 miles for every dollar spent on your travel reward card. up to 100,000 miles! hawaii, here we come. claim your miles at capitalone.com today! what's in your wallet? can you play games on that? not on the runway. no. santorum's double win in the south last night is now pushing the gop to the height of confusion. party leaders and even the romney campaign are now acknowledging this race is going to go on for not a couple of months. there is frenzied talk about pushing newt out. i don't know how you would push newt out. he's a pretty solid guy. whether the romney camp needs to reshuffle its message ahead of a buying series of contests in the midwest which has obviously been a strong point for rick santorum. my guests are here with us now. there's something about republicans in a frenzy that, i don't know. >> brings out the best in us. >> okay. let's talk about this, two big losses last night for mitt romney. what does he need to do, in addition to some sort of a message change, a staffing change? what's he got to do? >> you know, reshuffling senior staff is a dicey game. it can really backfire, but it can also refocus. he's the management consultant. he really needs to diagnose what's wrong in his organization. and sometimes you can't blame the equipment. sometimes it comes down to the candidate. my advice would be to stop trying to play man of the people and instead focus on your core competency. the economy is issue number one. he's the fixer. he's the guy who has the experience to go in and solve the problems. he may not be the best campaigner in the world, but he knows how to be an effective executive. >> it was a snafu last night. let me play first what mitt romney said last night before the results came in. >> we're going to win tomorrow. we need your help. >> and then here's mitt romney's spokesman last night on cnn after the results. >> i don't think anybody expected mitt to win alabama or mississippi. >> except for mitt. >> come on. you've got to say you're going to win. you've got to be all in every time, erin. it's completely crucial. >> i get that. >> one thing i want -- >> i don't know about that, john. >> one thing that works for mitt i want to say is this hasn't been a momentum race. it has been all about the demographics. he keeps doing well consistently with the same groups, over 100k, senior citizens, slog it out, stay the course. >> it's like an afghanistan primary. it's been on and on and on. warfare. >> tribal. it's tribal warfare. >> it is tribal warfare, yes. >> erin -- >> yes, go ahead. >> i think the problem with romney that's tougher for romney to fix. it just seems like he's not quite comfortable with himself. and i think people start to smell that on you as a candidate over time. and as what john said a minute ago, i think he's got to go out there and just sort of say to people, listen. you know, i'm kind of a cornball sometimes. and i make funny jokes. and people don't necessarily think -- you know, and then start talking to them about what it is he wants to do for the country. if he's not comfortable with his own faults, no one else will be. remember george bush? bush would flub words and mess things up. he'd come out and say, so what? you know, like now let's talk about the country, and everybody basically gave him a pass on it. >> we got some reporting just coming in from time.com, "time" magazine. alex auldman is reporting. this could be really important. saying that ron paul -- this is a quote from "time" -- quote has sent discreet signals to camp romney, unquote, suggesting he'd be willing to trade his support in the gop presidential race. now, in terms of delegate counts on avlon, that could be really significant. >> it could be at the end of this. i mean, if he's within shouting distance, 1,144 but can't get over the hump, any delegate helps. it could be ron paul delegates, but what a heartbreaker to ron paul supporters. those intense supporters who have really bought into his specific libertarian philosophy that mitt romney doesn't represent. >> maybe that's part of the tradeoff. >> what? >> i don't know. i'm joking. but something that's really important to ron paul that mitt romney would publicly espouse. >> if this meant rand paul as the running mate, that would be an enormous deal and it could be a big liability for romney in the general election. that's an open question. >> you can't do a deal that that's obvious. >> no, i think that's fair. >> and i don't know what issue it is that he could pick up. what's he going to come out against the federal reserve? that's not going to be mitt romney's position. ron paul is so far away from where mitt romney is, it's hard to see how they bridge that gap. >> you could do a formal balanced budget, adopt some of the spending cuts formally, address the deficit. that's possible, right? >> that just reinforces the pander narrative which has been a problem for him. >> i mean, it's just going to be -- speaking of pandering, jamaal, i'm doing really in my brackets. i'm doing well. i'm 2 for 2 and i'm going to go 0 for whatever is left because i'm really not good at this. the president's final four, i believe, is all swing states. yeah, ohio, north carolina, kentucky, missouri. maybe i'm reading too much into it, jamaal. >> maybe. it seems like he's got a predilection for these top-seeded schools. you know, i'm from michigan. i picked michigan state in my bracket to make it all the way to the finals. you know, i'm not sure why it is he differed from my opinion, but, you know, who knows? >> i have southern mississippi in the final four. oh, you laugh. not a swing state. >> not a swing state. >> definitely not a swing state. one final thing i wanted to ask all of you about today. very specific number coming in from john heilman who was on this show recently. the guy knows a lot. so he puts a 99.4% chance because he gets very specific that hillary clinton runs in 2016. >> wow. >> i will say that she is not as hated as you might expect by republican women. >> high approval rating, right? >> high approval rating but she does better with these sort of noncollege-educated republicans than you'd think. i'd also say andrew cuomo, a likely 2016 contender, has taken big dings this week from new york state unions. so who knows? >> i think she'd have to wrestle cuomo for that nomination. but i think if she got in, she'd be a very formidable candidate. she's done very well as secretary of state, and i think people would really like her. and a lot of women, you know, are really anxious to see that last ceiling broken. so it could happen. >> yeah, but, i mean, come on, this is where our country has a serious case of a.d.d. we're in the middle of a presidential race. we do not need to pivot ahead with percentages. >> he would say john avlon, that's what being "outfront" is all about. >> it makes sense, john. >> okay, thanks to all three of you. appreciate it. always good to see you. and john avlon, as you all may know, took a little trip to washington on a story that he's been outfront on. he's been following this proposal called no budget, no pay, where lawmakers would get their pay docked if they don't pass a budget on time. obviously, it's been about 1,000 days since we've had a real budget. this could be real money and might really push washington to getting something done. so the first idea was on the table today, you went in and eavesdropped. what did you hear? >> what we're seeing, the fact that it's been 1,000 days has really been kind of a symbol for this divided dysfunctional congress. there's a proposal that came forward in a committee hearing to try to force action for congress. let's see what happened. >> it is a sad state of affairs that the only way that you can get the united states congress today to do something is to threaten to take money out of their wallet. but you know, that's where we are. we're not doing our jobs. we're not doing our business. and the american people are suffering because of it. >> that was the idea behind an unusual hearing on capitol hill today mosted by government affairs and committee chairman joe lieberman. it focused on one idea for congressional reform called no budget, no pay. >> it's that simple, no work, no pay. >> while the idea does well in the polls, it is proving controversial among members of congress. >> it's actually evidence of how bad things are here in congress. and that because i agreed to hold thi