>> who knew about it this? how high did it go? did it go to the attorney general or the president of the united states? >> the man who defended president clinton about that. also a man not afraid to speak his mind. the front man of the smashing pumpkins, billy corgin. why he feels so disappointed by president obama. and our "in america." news flash -- it's summer and it's hot. wait a minute. that's news? this is "piers morgan tonight." good evening, a big story tonight. just a little while ago a house committee voting on partisan lines recommending that eric holder be cited for contempt as part of the ongoing battle between congress and the administration over the fast and furious failed weapon sting operation. it could end with an unprecedented event. the united states congress holding a sitting attorney general in contempt. the measure goes to the full house next week. in a statement, the attorney general called the vote, quote, an election year tactic intended to distract attention. but does this battle come down to simple politics? or is it something more serious? i'll ask the special counsel, lanny davis. we begin with a poll showing president obama with a 13-point lead over mitt romney among likely voters. according to latest bloomberg national poll. frank rich joins me now. strong stuff here, frank. >> i'm not the headline writer. >> i know what you're getting at. we played this ad. the infamous daisy girl which i may play early from a very early presidential campaign where a little girl goes running through a flower-filled field and it gets blown to pieces by a nuclear bomb. if you vote for that guy, that's happening to your daughter. i know the theme of the piece. interestingly, uh you're saying, although you don't necessarily agree with negativity in ads, you think they're very effective. and if obama is going to win, he has to step up a gear and go double negative on romney? >> yes. first offal awe, there's a long history back to the days of pony express. forget about television and the internet. they're always used they're always used equally by democrats and republicans and to unilaterally disarm which some seem to be suggesting to obama and ed rendell and others said it was nauseating and what have you, it is just ridiculous. this is the world we live in. >> you talk about previous negative ads. one of the greatest ever -- people think it's bad now. get this. you cite this in your piece. andrew jackson v john quincy adams in 1828. adams was accused of murder, drunkenness, dock fighting, slave trading and canbleism. and also said jackson's wife and mother were both whores. >> bigamists, yeah. >> unbelievable. >> everyone says this is a horrible modern development in american campaigns. it's always been there. that was the early part of the 19th. >> even though he got called a cannibal, murderer, dock fighter, slave trader, he ended up winning the election. >> appealed to the base. >> how effective is a very strong negative campaign? i mean, historically, since the second world war, say, is there evidence to say that when you go really negative against a vulnerable opponent perhaps, you'll win? >> they're not determinative, but they cement a trend that's going. and they're essential for that reason. the daisy ad sf johnson versus goldwater. the problem now is that they've become so ubiquitous, you've got to have the creativity that the daisy ad showed. >> let's see the daisy ad. it remains my favorite political ad in history. let's see a bit of this. >> eight, nine -- >> ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero. these are the stakes. to make a world in which all of god's children can live. or to go into the dark. we must either love each other or we must die. >> vote for president johnson on november 3. >> given that it's about nuclear holocaust, we shouldn't be laughing, but -- >> it is laughable. i interviewed the poor girl, who is now a woman who is horrified when she finds out what they had done with her lovely little flower performance. >> the reason why the ad was effective in its day of 1964 is first of all, it played on a real fear of the public, which was then nuclear holocaust and godwater had a habit of using loose language about nuclear weapons. also, it was very craftily done goldwater's name was never mentioned in the ad. it just captured people's imagination. captured once in primetime on nbc and it blew goldwater to smith renes. >> no one would do exactly that ad now. one of the two campaigns may come up with a fear-inducing ad that works. there was an attempt abandoned by supported by jer maya wright. >> john mccain decided not to press that button and that's why people say you lost. you didn't get nasty enough with obama and you should have gone that far. >> he did run an ad comparing, as for obama he ran, remember that ad about mccain didn't know how many houses he owned, but a creative ad, a real fear-inducing ad has to get above the fit for tat for the ad as that are generally run. >> let's look at romney's latest ad, which has just come out. >> of course, the economy isn't where it needs to be. >> well, mr. president, you had your moment, we've seen the results. and now, mr. president, this is our time. >> what do you think of that? to me, it's a bit tame. the gloves have come off yet, have they? >> it's tame and it's mediocre as a piece of advertising. not to say that obama has come up with great ads either. i would argue the most effective campaign ad we've seen in the cycle wasn't done by either campaign. the chrysler ad done with clint eastwood. >> fantastic ad. >> you need that kind of dynamite. that was not a negative ad, but that kind of creativity was needed. >> remember watching it live with no warning aboutwhat was coming and the clear impression you went away with was the bailout of the car industry was a fundamentally good and successful thing. so, it was a very well orchestrat orchestrated, very simple message using this great movie star. >> exactly. while i think the obama campaign had nothing to do with it, it stunned sufficiently that karl rove both complained about it and said, hey, it's a very effective ad. >> it was a great line. he hated it so much because he knew it was good. >> exactly. >> which is probably the sign of a good one. >> absolutely sg let's look at obama's new ad here. >> mitt romney campaigned as a job creator. >> but as a corporate grader, he shipped jobs to mexico and as governor he did the same thing. outsourcing state jobs to india. now, he's making the exact same pitch. >> i know why jobs come and why they go. >> outsourcing jobs, romney economics. it didn't work then and it won't work now. >> pretty simple message. clearly obama sees the whole romney/bain background as a vulnerability whereas cory booker and others, bill clinton, as well, don't agree with him. the polls today, a bloomberg poll has obama with the widest lead he had for quite some time. >> right, which also might be a reflection of the new immigration move that he made late last week. i think that both bain and the record in massachusetts, they're obviously very fruitful for obama, but at a certain point, i think people will get tired of them. and they feel like reruns. particularly since they were given a workout by the republican adversaries to romney during the primary period. so he's going to have to find a bigger message. not that he's wrong, but people will tune it out from familiarity. >> if you're into this nuclear negativity, the real button some would say to press with romney would be the mormonism, his views on abortion, on gay marriage and the social issue hot buons, which he's very carefully trying to avoid. would you go there if you were obama? >> i guess that's one hot issue, but i would say there's something even more, which is people don't really know who romney is. you find there's no opinion -- a fair number of people have no opinion about him. he's a mystery man. do people really know where hive wills. his whole record was wiped from hard disk that he left. we don't know the tax returns that he gave to mccain. his investments remain murky. that to me is a more primal scary thing for people choosing a president than any specific social issue. >> i saw you getting involved in the rubio debate earlier today. >> uh-huh. >> in the sense that -- well, i had frank on yesterday saying he doesn't believe for a moment that actually rubio will be the vp pick in the end. what do you think of why romney has now come out and said yes, we are vetting him. rubio said he wasn't being vetted. what do you make of it? what is going on behind the scenes here? >> my guess is that rubio indeed will not be the vice presidential nominee. and my guess is abc news had it correct when they said he wasn't being vetted. what happened during the course of the day yesterday was suddenly it looked like another diss at hispanics. probably offended some conservative donors who love rubio, which many do. romney came before the cameras and said, oh, yes, of course, we're giving him a full vetting but i think it's just, i hate to say it, just another etch-a-sketch moment. >> if you were mitt romney, who would you be leaning towards now? who is the smart pick? >> i don't think there really is a smart pick. i think it's really first do no harm. he's probably going to end up with another boring white guy like himself. and as long as that guy has been thoroughly vetted. >> pawlenty? safe pair of hands, good talker. or a bit more controversial? maybe chris christie who could galvanize the public better than most other candidates. >> i don't think chris christie would work. first of all, he's still a northeast republican, a little bit suspiciously moderate by that party's standards, but also he would just completely upstage romney. and already reading reports of romney is a bit irritated that christie tends to be late to events. there's been investigation of a sort of halfway house that christie is involved with. i think he wants someone safe and who people will forget who he is by the time of election day. >> come on, you're mitt romney, who would you go for? throw a name out there that would be the kind of person you're talking about. >> well, i think if he had got, given that type of person, he should probably go for paul ryan. because paul ryan is, like him or not, sort of the intellectual of the conservative movement right now. the base loves him and certainly a presentable guy. i think he is much more interesting than pawlenty or the two most talked about. i don't think it will happen, though. if i were he and going in that direction, that would be the most interesting choice. >> let's turn to the possible contempt charges facing eric holder. the attorney general. he's refusing to hand over documents. the president invoking executive privilege. whenever i hear that phrase, i think okay, they're covering something up. am i right to be that cynical? >> probably, but i have a feeling in this case it's pretty small potatoes. and also in one way, the executive privilege stand has been used so much by democrats and republicans, clinton, bush and so on. i think it's sort of lost its luster. i don't think this is a really huge issue, this fast and furious. it is among the republican base. congress will rev up the base a bit on it, but i think it's not really a big deal. >> thank you very much for coming in see you again i'm sure very soon. coming up attorney general eric holder under fire. the president is standing by his man, but will it cost him politically? also president clinton's special counsellor, lanny davis. ♪ [ slap! ] [ slap! slap! slap! slap! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium rich tums goes to work in seconds. nothing works faster. ♪ tum tum tum tum tums nothing works faster. sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering so, i'm walking down the street, x: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering just you know walking, sfx: sounds of marching bandnd and crowd cheering and i found myself in the middle of this paradeeet, x: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering honoring america's troops. sfx: sounds of marching bandnd and crowd cheering which is actually in tquite fitting becauseadeeet, x: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering geico has been serving e military for over 75 years. aawh no, look, i know this is about the troops and not about me. right, but i don't look like that. who can i write a letter to about this? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. wouldn't it be nice if there was an easier, less-expensive option than using a traditional lawyer? well, legalzoom came up with a better way. we took the best of the old and combined it with modern technology. together, you get quality services on your terms with total customer support. legalzoom documents are accepted in all 50 states, and they're backed by a 100% satisfaction guarantee. so, go to legalzoom.com today and see for yourself. it's law that just makes sense. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] we believe you're at your best when you can relax and be yourself. and at thousands of newly refreshed holiday inn hotels, you always can. holiday inn. stay you. and now stay rewarded with vacation pay. stay two weekend nights and get a $75 prepaid card. the clerk will report. >> 23 ayes, 17 nos. >> the ayes have it. and a contempt report is ordered reported to the house. >> that was a house committee vote today, recommending the attorney general eric holder be cited for contempt of congress. how much problem will this be for the president and his administration in lanny davis was white house counsel for president clinton. the perfect guy to ask about all this. you have been a good friend of eric holder, have been for 20 years. and when you were with president clinton, he famously operated this executive privilege 14 times. what is your view of this? how serious is it for eric holder? how justified is the criticism? >> well, first of all, this is an historical battle within the constitution going back to andrew jackson who defied congress and said you pass the law, now you execute it. congress and the white house over the year, democrat and republican presidents have fought over executive privilege. george bush resisted turning over documents during the firing of the u.s. attorneys on the grounds of executive privilege. president clinton did it so many times because he was slapped with more subpoenas by newt gingrich than by any other president. >> what does it actually mean? for those hearing this phrase, like me, who aren't completely up to speed on the minutia of the detail, it just sounds murky. it sounds like they've got something to hide. why wouldn't they just be coming out with it otherwise? >> the constitutional principle, versus the political reality. the constitutional principle, i work for the president of the united states, and i want to give him advice. i don't give advice if i know if i put it in writing someone in congress can hold a press conference about it. i'm going to guard my advice. same thing as a staff member or member of congress if the president asks for it. they would assert the same. that's what it's about. confidentiality and the ability to get candid advice. having said that, in the political arena, it looks like a cover-up. what eric holder did, and he's been a friend and a man of absolute integrity, he went to the chairman and said let's sit down, let's go through these documents, let me show you why this needs to be protected, having nothing to do with your inquiry of what went wrong in this tragic misguided fast and furious operation that began under this bush administration, this stupid technique. he wanted to work this out, and for some reason, i think it's all politics, chairman issa didn't work it out. and that's why the contempt citation is really over the top, as far as i'm concerned. >> what do you think will happen? >> i think that the house will not vote contempt. if they do, a party line vote will simply reinforce exactly why today i'm organizing a company with michael steele to get past this food fight hyper partisanship that the american people are sick of. a party line vote of contempt will take the 9% approval rating of congress, down to 3%. we'll be left with family and staff members who approve of congress. >> you wrote this great piece together to obama and romney, stop negativity. ironically, i just had frank rich on the show saying the opposite. he says all the negative campaign should be ramped up to an extreme scale on both sides. because actually that's the way you get to what they really stand for. they pulverize each other like great champion boxers and in the last round you find out what they're really made of. >> it's easy for frank to say that watching the gladiators kill each other and it's gory and it's fun. but i don't think frank rich means that distortion and lies are good for american politics. michael steele, former chairman of the rnc, republican national committee criticizes mitt romney for taking a barack obama statement that he doesn't know anything about the economy when he was referring to john mccain taking it out of context and then mitt romney says well, if it's out of context, what's sauce for the goose. >> frank doesn't like the negative ads. what he's saying is instinctively he doesn't think they're a good thing, per say. what he thinks is that mitt romney is going to throw the negative kitchen sink at barack obama, so he has to fight fire with fire. if you're going to get into that game, you may as well pulverize him with the maximum negativity. >> so here's the quick answer. i completely agree that's a reality that frank is describing. but the answer is to debate issues and give people a debate choice on issues about solving problems. the company we organized is purple nation solutions, and that to me is what frank would agree with. we can get them to debate obama and romney on what are we going to do about the national debt. why hasn't barack obama endorsed simpson bowles which would take an across the board approach. what is romney going to do with debt if he doesn't raise any revenues? let's hear that debate. that's negativity contrasting ideas. that's what we think ought to happen. >> can a presidential candidate win through positivity alone? >> well, it isn't necessarily -- the answer is yes, but contrasting, i think, barack obama's ideas are better than mitt romney's. i think he's got a better approach on national health care. i want to know how romney is going to take care of 33 million uninsured people if the supreme court overturns this law. people want to know answers. so there's negativity, but it's negativity about issues. it's not personal attacks. cory booker tried to say that and you know who condemned him worse than anybody? this administration actually said he's dead to us when cory booker said more positive on that particular program about barack obama than he said negative. all he said was he didn't like the personal attacks on both sides. and his own fellow democrats, fellow obama supporters criticized him. >> wasn't cory booker a bit naive? i like him very much, but wasn't he naive if he was going to oppose the bain line of attack. that is a central plank of barack obama's attack on mitt romney, isn't it? he's basically saying if you judge him on the economy through his record at bain, he's going to destroy jobs. that's why he got so touchy about it. >> if you read the transcript, it was almost all positive about barack obama. does a friend say to a friend what you're doing, which i think is wrong, he should keep doing if he wants to get him re-elected? that was the effect of saying he's dead to us. harold ford jr., a supporter of barack obam