measure that would have authorized the u.s. mission there. not only did all but eight republicans vote no but 70 democrats deserted the president as well. it is a symbolic blow but a sign of growing impatience with the effort to get ka daty. plus, the war on science. michele bachmann who kicks off her presidential campaign monday, says when it comes to evolution, the so-called intelligent design or creationism theory, there's a scientific controversy between the two and both should be taught. let's be clear. there is no controversy at all among scientists over whether humans evolved. none. we will get into the debate over whether creationism should be taught in schools. who says taxes should never be raised in cantor and kyl walked out of budget talks yesterday for one reason. taxes. taxes are at their lowest level in decades. our government is deep in the read and one president was deep in the taxes but saw it when it was necessary so why won't republicans even consider making the wealthy pay a little bit more? and why are some people in the fbi so nervous about the capture of whitey bulger? could it be that they protected him and are nowter find that he will turn on them? finally as they say, dying is easy. comedy is hard. texas governor rick perry found out just how hard last night. check out the side show. we begin with libya. the house rejected a measure authorizing the u.s. measure in libya with 70 democrats voting no but the house would only go so far. rep re fusing to defund u.s. operations in libya. only 36 democrats voted in favor of that measure. ohio congressman joins us from capitol hill. >> welcome. >> good to be with you. >> good to have you. why did you and other house democrats break with the president on libya? >> it is not up to the president. it is up to congress whether this country declares war. i've been involved in leading the effort to, not just the war but congress assumes its rightful position. that our system of checks and balance says activated and that the separation of power is on theish you've war that our founders had a clear intention to not just preserve but that we preserve it. >> congress hasn't officially declared war since world war ii and we have fought in many places around the world. what is it about the libyan operation that has people so up in arms? >> the president made a decision to take us into war. he talked to the arab league and nato, he talked to the u.n. and didn't come to the united states congress and ask for permission. when i looked that, i said you know, i don't think this is what the founders intended. i talked to other members of congress on both sides of the aisle and we decided that the contusion does mean something here, that article 1 section 8 needs to be enforced that congress our constituents are the ones asked to serve. we are directly elected. our constituents lives can be put on the line and we better have a say on these things. with america looking at a potential of expanding wars in pakistan and yemen and somalia a sudan and knows where else, it is time for action. >> i'm assuming you are one of the democrats who also voted not to fund the operation in libya and i understand you're going to introduce an amendment to that affect. if all congress today do was express displeasure without actually pulling the money, are we really just talking about symbolism? >> there is a symbolic dimension, you're correct own that. however there is nothing symbolic about an amendment 234 two weeks and congressman from plish began. that amendment cuts the funds. . that is the amendment that is a defining vote on libya. once you cut the funds and there a good chance of passing it, then this is done. >> we all remember how we got into this. the circumstances that surrounded our action in libya, khadafi's forces were rolling toward a city of 7,000 people, he was vowing to slaughter them. what sort of discussion would we be having today if president obama had sat on his hands and allowed that to happen? the republicans i imagine would be up in arms kuzing him of allowing these people to die. >> first of all, there was no massacre. and that khadafi was on a rant and threatening once he had experienced an inis you reks, that calls for careful analysis and not just simply reaching for the military response. the fact that we went on threats as opposed to anything definable, that actually happened, that's a big problem. because here we reacted in libya based on threats. and yet with what was going on in yemen, in bahrain, in syria and other places where have real harm done to civilians, we didn't do anything. so you have to say, what is the real deal here in libya? is it about america's interest? i don't know. i mean, libya didn't attack us. they don't have any intention or capability of attacking us. there has to be an action or threat to the united states. so that's why it was so important for congress to get involved, to have the administration, begin to answer questions and they by no means have answered the fundamental questions about why are with we there. who are we supporting really end what's the end game. we shoulding joining china and own nations talking about a political solution because there is no military solution in libya. >> you're right. the end game is the final question here with any sort of war activity. thank you congressman. i know you're busy. i'll let you get back to your work. let's turn to the huffington post, howard fineman, from huffington post. why did president the president go there under the first place. >> well, the likelihood was all too real for the president to ignore. that was number one. i think number two in the larger context of the so-called arab spring, i think there is some sense in the region that if they could topple oppressive regime and do it in the name of humanitarianism, they may as well do it. >> as dennis mentioned, we're not going into syria. we're not going into yemen. well actually we are. but we seem to sort of pick an choose our humanitarian causes here. does that make any sense? as a matter of principle? >> no, it doesn't. nor did the fact that president's people said at one point he was leading from behind. that is that nato and other leaders in the nation were taking the lead and the united states was a passive actor in it. i think that complicated the president's message. because if this was a matter of principle and freedom and threat to the united states, then we don't lead laed from behind in those situations, ron. we are out front. that's who we are. so i think it was confusing to the american people. also, the fact that i think it quickly became a question of who the rebels were that we were protecting. because the word was around. not always true in some cases but the word was around that the eastern part of libya was actually a lot bed of support for al qaeda. and you know there were questions about whom whom we were protecting there. no doubt about how nasty khadafi was. although he further confused the issue by seemingly being cooperative with the united states in recent years. so the lines were especially murky in libya even though the threat to the rebels was real. >> howard, here is a speaker john boehner today on the house floor. have a listen. >> so on the outset, we asked some very straight forward questions of the president. why isn't removing khadafi a part of this mission? what if he doesn't leave? who are the rebels that were there helping to fight? how long is this going to last? and at what cost? and what does success look like? these were questions that the administration would not or do not answer. >> howard, perfectly reasonable questions, i suppose. do you think john boehner would be asking those of you a president named bush for instance. >> i was just listening to that and i'm sure our viewers were doing the same. saying why didn't john boehner or virtually any republican ask any of those questions which were all the same questions. before we went into iraq. word for word the same questions. answers were not supplied. indeed, some of the answers we don't have even though we have 48,000 troops, let's not forget, under iraq. this is a lot of theater. i hate to be cynical here. but there is a lot of theatrics. whatever is happening in the house is meaningless because the senate will do nothing. they add symbolic vote today but not a vote to cut off funds. they probably won't cut off funds. republicans are loving going after the president on libya. because they are still weary of going after him on iraq and afghanistan. which are two wars that had their roots and bush years, in which republicans when it suites their purposes would still like to brag about from time to time. >> i suspect that if khadafi disappears, this issue will quickly evaporate and disappear as well. thank you, howard fineman, pleasure to talk to you as always. coming up, michele bachmann is kicking off her campaign. she is a big believer in creationism. she said as long as there is controversy design should be aught taught along side evolution. why do they get to push their beliefs on the rest of us? that's ahead only on msnbc. [ female announcer ] ever wish vegetables didn't taste so vegetably? well, v8 v-fusion juice gives you a full serving of vegetables, plus a full serving of fruit. but it just tastes like fruit. and try our deliciously refreshing v8 v-fusion + tea. as much as i can about a company before i invest in it. that's why i like fidelity. they give me tools and research i can't get anywhere else. their stock screener lets me search for stocks with more than 140 criteria. i can see what their experts are thinking and even call them to bounce an idea off of one of their investment professionals. a good strategy relies on good insight. if you wanted to learn more about a company, i think you'd actually have to be there. president obama didn't actually back the idea at a gay event in new york city but he came close. to those in the gay community who don't think he's moving fast enough on gay rights issues, the president gave this signal. >> with your help, if you keep up the fight and if you will devote your time and your energies to this campaign one more time, i promise you we'll write another chapter in that story. >> you heard him say it. another chapter. we'll be right back. announcer ] anan anthis...is the netwo. a living, breathing intelligence that's helping drive the future of business. in here, inventory can be taught to learn. ♪ machines have a voice. ♪ medical history follows you. it's the at&t network -- a network of possibilities... committed to delivering the most advanced mobile broadband experience to help move business... forward. ♪ the tea party and all of america has one goal and it's this -- that barack obama will be a one-term president! >> welcome back to "hardball." on monday, misch will bachman is expected to announce she's running for president. here she is in 2006 talking about evolution. >> there is a controversy among scientists whether evolution is a fact or not. they haven't reached a conclusion. there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists making decisions and who believe in intelligent design. >> and just last week after speaking at the republican leadership conference, she said this. i support intelligent design. what i support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. i don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides." the science on evolution in case you were wondering is pretty unequivocal. but when republicans deny scientific evidence on this and on issues like global warming, shouldn't they be called out? bob shrum is a democratic strategist. david corn is from "mother jones magazine" and msnbc contributor. welcome to you both, gentlemen. how disturbed should we be that a presidential candidate is talking nonsense? >> well, look, it's an indication of how far to the right the republican party has moved. this is flat earth ideology. when i was growing up i was taught in nothing inconsistent between science and creation in god. that is a matter of faj. you can be taught it in catholic schools but not public schools. michelle bachman and people like her have a different mission. they want to vindicate the idea in the bible that the world was created in seven little rat days. in seven literal days. about the fact that rockis that darryl was showing him were thousands of years older than his theory would allow and he looked a darryl and he said, frankly i'm more interested in the rock of ages than the age of rocks. that's what is going on here. >> david, let me repeat something that michelle bachman said here. there's a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is fact. hundreds and hundreds of scientists, she says, many of them holding nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design. none of that is true. is she just ignorant or is she deliberately misleading people? >> that's a really good question. i think you'd have to have her on the show and probe her. but i'm shocked that you are on and are shocked. not only does she go on -- >> i'm not shocked. i'm just outraged. >> fine. i'll grant you that. in addition to this you mentioned she believes global warming is a hoax. she has said also in the past that almost all gays and lesbians have been abused as children. that's why they're homosexual. she has said that founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery. that wasn't true. they kicked the can down the road. ignorance or historical revisionism is her stocking trade. now that's obviously for partisan appeal. it may be what she believes which would indicate a certain detachment from reality. perhaps the scary thing is that such detatchment got her pretty far in politics. and may serve her very well in places like iowa. >> i know some people's eyes glaze over when you talk about evolution. it seems to exist this positioning seems to exist on a continuum for me. all right. you deny evolution. then you deny global warming. then you're talking about birthism and then you're claiming that when you cut taxes you actually raise revenues. it's this sort of, you know, disdain for reality that disturbs me, i guess. >> look, ron, on economics you're seeing boehner and company trying to argue the way to help a faltering economy is take demand out of it so people buy less, companies produce less, and employers hire fewer workers. you know, the interesting thing if you look at romney and huntsman, they're deeply suspect in the republican party because they refuse to deny the client -- the science of climate change even though, of course, they don't want to do anything about it. they're trying to split the dufrns to satisfy the base. it would be terrifying for us and for the world for someone like michelle bachman ever to become president of the united states. i suspect that secretly in the white house they might actually be rooting for her to be the republican nominee. maybe even not so secretly. >> indeed. >> david, someone had a conversation with a diplomat from china. and they got talking about global warming. and then the american asked the chinese diplomat, are you having this argument in china about global warming? he just sort of laughed and shook his head. he said, no, you know, our leadership come from science and everything nearing mostly. so, no. we're not having that conversation. and we never really had that conversation. because they understand science. >> the scientific debate on global warming is over. it was even acknowledged by the bush administration. george w. bush came up with a voluntary system that really addressed the issue. sarah palin used to say it was real. you have pawlenty and mitt romney who say it was real. but we live in this sort of fact free political media environment where people can get away with just denying things and saying, hey, there are two sides to every issue. what she just said about creationism. you know, there is a scientific debate. on one side there are three scientists and the other side there are three million scientistses. so let's have a debate. >> exactly. >> go ahead. >> i was going to ask bob if you thinks it is useful and fair and certainly useful to question president candidates about issues like evolution to kind of, you know, assess their minds about this. >> you don't have to question michelle bachman. she's coming right out. >> no this is for her appoint of the lambs. she is appealing to the religious right in iowa, her whole strategy is to launch herself there, survive in new hampshire. get to south carolina and do the same thing. and i think the viewpoint is minority one in america. she might just take off and if the republican party completely loses its head, they might nominate her. sure we should question her. her answers will be entirely fact free? >> david, bob mentioned that this is a minority opinion in america. but here's the scary thing. if you look at polls consistently between 40% and 50% of americans, a poll from december asked about evolution and creationism, 40% saying, no, god created man in the present form. 40% is a pretty big number in this country. what are the consequences to a nation when not only their leaders but people themselves simply deny reality? >> well, you probably end up with not the right policies to deal with the challenges of the future. you know, the first -- you know, the first step to making progress in anything whether it's an personal life, social life or as a nation and kmunl activity is diagnosing reality accurately. then coming up with prospective actions to deal with it. so if you have americans in denial about global warming or about creationism, it's a problem. more so on the former than the latter. people can deny evolution and it doesn't necessarily lead to bad economics or bad climate policy. but i -- those polls are interesting, too. i think if you start asking people sort of more detailed questions, do you really believe that fred flintstone lived with the dinosaurs? do you believe the world is not older than 6,000 years? i think people watch creationism and says god created everything, fine. and at one level they do accept that, those 40, 50%. i think the true creation fanatics, if you can call them that, are a smaller minority. but, yet, they still are a big voting block in iowa which is what michelle bashman is counting on. >> absolutely. bob, you know, for me, this is not about religious belief at all. can you believe the world is a lump of cheese riding on the back of a giant turtle for all i care. you know, may the great turtle bless you. you know, but shoving it into science glasses just that crosses the line for me. we're going to have to leave it here. i'm sorry. it's been a pleasure talking to both of you. thank you, bob and rick. >> thanks, ron. >> you bet. up next, rick perry is still thinking about running for president. but his awkward jokes didn't make him any friends in the latino community last night. that's ahead in "the side show." what is that? it's you! it's me? alright emma, i know it's not your favorite but it's time for your medicine, okay? you ready? one, two, three. [ both ] ♪ emma, emma bo-bemma ♪ banana-fana-fo-femma ♪ fee-fi-fo-femma ♪ em-ma very good sweety, how do you feel? good. yeah? you did a really good job, okay? let's go back to drawing. >> announcer: this past year alone there's been a 67% spike in companies embracing the cloud-- big clouds, small ones, public, private, even hybrid. your data and apps must move easily and securely to reach many clouds, not just one. that's why the network that connects, protects, and lets your data move fearlessly through the clouds means more than ever. [ telephone rings ] oh! let's do this. look who's early! [ dentist ] my patien