♪ good evening from washington, d.c. today we watched the entire gop field speak at the ronald reagan building down the street from where i am here in our washington bureau. i had a chance to sit down with two of the candidates, john kasich and carly fiorina. before we get to that, an update on the dominant story in this country and in politics today. that remains wednesday's shooting in san bernardino, california. there is some more information

know now about the suspects now. one is an american-born muslim who had possible connections to extremists. there are reports about a stockpile of explosives found in the couple's home allegedly. the fbi is now treating it as a counterterrorism investigation. president obama said this this morning in the oval office. president obama: this is now an fbi investigation that's being done in cooperation and consultation with local law enforcement. it is possible that this was terrorist related, but we don't know. it's also possible that this was workplace related. mark: so there's still ambiguity. if it turns out that there is some link to terrorism what does , it mean for american politics?

john: we could be in for an external ugly -- extraordinarily iod in american politics. on the front of the new york post there were some provocative covers, muslim killers on one, and the other, god isn't fixing this, referring to gun control. this could be a polarizing -- there's a lot of ugly rhetoric and a lot of conclusions that will really raise the temperature of the presidential race. mark: all of them mentioning the incident some with more , specificity than others. listen to what chris christie told the group. >> that was a terrorist attack. [applause] >> and the president continues to wring his hands and say we will see.

but those folks dressed in tactical gear with semiautomatic weapons came there to do something, and let's remember something, everybody. if a center for the developmentally disabled in san bernardino, california, can be a target for a terrorist attack, then every place in america is a target for a terrorist attack. we need to come to grips with the idea that we are in the midst of the next world war. mark: he maybe a little ahead of the known facts, but he clearly is tapping into a range of emotions that a lot of people felt today. john: no doubt about it, but i think it's irresponsible for him to make statements that boldly when he doesn't have access to the investigative information , or certainly has no better information than the president does. let's move on to talk about that jewish coalition forum.

each candidate spoke for a half hour. for the most part, they talked about how much they love israel. the rjc is a group backed by -- -- alverson.on first let's talk about donald trump, who even more than usual put on quite a performance today. take a look. donald trump: i don't want your money. i want your support but i don't , want your money. by the way, i've won so many environmental awards. i've received so many awards from jewish groups, and they look at my wall, it's loaded up. but now the christians are catching up, i have to tell you. we have to get our prisoners back day one. there can essay, no. -- they are going to say, no. we are going to say bye bye, call us when you are ready. john kerry is probably the worst negotiator i have ever seen. he did not read "the art of the

deal." he is one of the few. the biggest selling business book of all time. and obama definitely didn't read it. a lot of press back there, so i have to say everything exactly correct. radical islamic terrorism. i will tell you what, we have a president that refuses to use the term. he refuses to say it. there is something going on with him that we don't know about. i just tell you that i'm going to win. [laughter] >> i am. i'm going to win. we all have to deals, right? how are you, sam? good man. good man. very nice to see you. i know everybody in this audience. >> can i at least pin you down on jerusalem as the undivided capital of israel? >> go ahead. >> is that a position you support? >> i am leaving for israel in a

short time. i know what you are saying. [boos] >> who is the wiseguy? do me a favor. just relax, ok? john: mark, you were in the room during that tour de force of sorts. did you think donald trump's performance was good, or bad, or just huge? mark: these are sophisticated, republican donors. some of the most sophisticated political people in the country in the donor class. they have other favorites. trump said so many things that were politically incorrect, that were little bit off key. but by the end, they applauded him. they received him well. i think he showed people a modulation of tone and substance that i think maybe softened the opposition that a lot of people in that room came in feeling. john: i still find it amazing that he continues to go back to making the not so veiled inferences, implications that

barack obama may not be an american. i find it kind of extraordinary that he does that. were people laughing with him or laughing at him mostly in the room? mark: there was some of both. i'm not sure what the percentage was. there was tittering at him. you saw that when he refused to weigh on moving the embassy jerusalem, -- to jerusalem there , was some loud hissing and booing, but overall, he went in, he leaves on bloodied, and i think he did himself some good with this audience. john: ronald reagan popularized the so-called 11th commandment, thou shall not speak ill of any fellow republican. today they showed little respect for that particular admonition. >> now it is forced deportation. we are literally going to round them up. does that sound familiar to you?

every one of them, including their american citizen children. that is the leader of the republican party. do you think you are going to win an election with that kind of garbage? if the nominee of the republican party will not allow for an exception for rape and incest, they will not win. ted cruz does not have an exception for rape or incensed. incest. >> i guess if you're inexperienced, you say i'm going to go and blow the place up. but when you are an executive and the commander-in-chief, your words are clear. >> jeb bush, this poor guy with low energy, it is sad. john: whose performance stood out to you as the most impressive? mark: the person who got the most buzz out of it was chris

christie. he was passionate, emotional. he told some of the stories about 9/11 that he has told in other venues. i think he did himself a lot of good. a lot of buzz about ted cruz including at the event that was , held earlier today honoring dick cheney that president bush was at. there was a lot of buzz there. and i think marco rubio did well. i think those three are getting the most favorable buzz. although rubio and cruz had the most support in the room to begin with. the other person who did ok was jeb bush. john: they were playing to a pretty friendly crowd. it seems to me that just reading the room from this distance, just watching these things on video, it seemed that rubio,

because of the nature of his stance, he would have found a very welcome reception to that presentation that he made. i thought he presented very well and obviously chris christie, i have a lot of issues with a lot of the things he said, but in terms of just performance, he seemed very strong, again from watching it remote. mark: rubio did better when he was taking questions than when he was reading his speech. some of the attendees noted that he did not seem fluid or animated. ben carson, a lot of people felt he was a little awkward and stilted but he had a more , focused speech than he normally has on topics like this. john: in terms of just pure dollars, who is the likeliest one to have snagged big donors ?

mark: my hunch is rubio, maybe three quarters of the room was undecided but there was a lot of , money in that room to be taken away. mark: that to me is what the whole story was about today. john: up next, paul ryan's first big speech as speaker and his big idea for bringing house republicans together. we will be back in exactly 60 seconds. ♪

some of his republican colleagues are suggesting that the honeymoon is coming to an end.

paul ryan said his party has to be both specific and bold with the policies they propose if they want any chance of beating the democrats. >> it's natural for people to start thinking maybe they are onto something. maybe the way to win the debate is to play identity politics, never mind ideas. maybe you slice and dice the electorate, demonize, polarize, turnout your voters and hope the rest stay home. i would say yes, it is possible that we could win that way, but to what end? we need a mandate from the people. if we want a mandate, then we need to offer ideas. if we want to offer ideas, they then we need to actually have ideas. that's where the house republicans come in. so our number one goal for next

year is to put together a complete alternative to the left's agenda. [applause] mark: what do you think about what paul ryan said today and how will it impact next year's presidential race? john: he acknowledged that the republican party has suffered him a dearth of ideas for at least a decade, if not more, and to admit that candidly and say we have to fix that for ever -- if we are ever going to be a governing majority is speaking the truth in a plain way. i don't think it will affect anything in terms of what happens next year. he more or less acknowledge that the time for legislating is pretty much over or will be over shortly in context of the presidential election. if he makes good on it in the long term, it could have an effect on the republican party's prospects. mark: i think whoever the republicans nominate, i think he will play a big role in putting ideas forward and trying to get

the party to adopt them and not deviate and evolve into just a -- devolve into just a circus of fighting out on the presidential trail. john: the biggest problem for ryan is that he has a lot of ideas and they are not , particularly popular. moving on, secretary of defense ash carter made a historic announcement today that the pentagon will officially open all its combat jobs to women, overturning a rule that restricted them from artillery and infantry. no exceptions in the future. hillary clinton praised the decision, saying women in the armed forces have enabled to prove their heroism and abilities, and our official policy is catching up. how big a deal is this announcement for the pentagon today? mark: it is a big deal, as president obama said in his

statement. this is why of the last areas of discrimination in the military. it's part of a broad sweeping set of social changes that the obama administration has brought about in the military related to gender and sexual orientation, and it's a big deal for women now who have equal opportunity, at least on paper. it is historic. the last piece to fall in terms of equality regarding gender. historic.oubt it is there's no question about that. the military at one point was in the vanguard of social progress and change. it has fallen behind in this area so it is heartening to see , that it has caught back up to where we are in society, and as you say, knocked down the final barrier to full equality for women in its ranks. mark: yeah. big deal. we will be right back with carly fiorina, right after this word from our sponsors. ♪

mark: welcome back. before her speech at the jewish coalition today, i caught up with presidential candidate carly fiorina. i started out by asking her about the recent shooting incident in san bernardino. i want to ask about the tragic event in california, and just your thoughts about it from a personal point of view, and from a public policy point of view. carly fiorina: i've been in that building, and i've been many times to san bernardino. it is a community under stress in so many ways. it is an unspeakable tragedy, and i cannot imagine the stress is community is going through

right now. it appears more and more likely a terrorist in their midst. mark: any early thoughts on things related to public policy state, federal, or local that we need to take a look at in light of these events, or is it too early to say? carly fiorina: i think it would be helpful if our president and mrs. clinton would acknowledge islamic extremism and terrorism is a real threat in our homeland, instead of immediately talking about gun control. california is, after all, a state with some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country . they clearly did not matter here. i think that would be helpful. mark: i want to ask about something that's process oriented. i asked you about public policy and you brought in president obama and secretary clinton. some would say that is an example of politicizing something.

you have talked about being against politicization of public tragic events. what is politicization? how do you define that? why isn't your answer an example of the thing you decry? carly fiorina: the left-wing politicized colorado immediately. when chris matthews said that i was responsible for the shooting at planned parenthood. mark: again, i take your point of what you're saying they did. but you invoke them. carly fiorina: you don't think islamic extremism is a public policy matter? it is a public policy matter. mark: it seems to me, if i definition, the answer you gave was every bit as politicizing and political as the ones you are criticizing them for. carly fiorina: when the president of the united states,

he is, after all, supposed to be the president for all of us. win his immediate reaction is to call for a long sought after democratic talking point instead of, for example, saying what he said today, we need to examine the facts but it certainly looks , like we need to be mindful. these are people who are building bombs. we also now know that a neighbor said that she was afraid to call the police because she thought she might be targeted for racial profiling. people are becoming afraid to speak the truth. that is a public policy problem. mark: when you say someone is politicizing something, what is the definition of that? carly fiorina: i understand what i mean, but i don't think you would like what i mean. mark: i don't mind it at all. i'm just confused by what you mean.

mark: give me an example. if you don't want to, or you can't. carly fiorina: when you castigate an entire party, that is politicizing. mark: i am going to move on. foreign policy is the main topic here. what do you find most interesting within the republican party? carly fiorina: what do we do to ensure we have all the information we need to track terrorists? one of the debates that is going on that i don't find particular he and lighting is should we return to the patriot act, or did we do the right thing? that misses the point. as somebody who has come from the technology industry, i can tell you that the technology has moved way beyond the patriot act. we have levels of encryption that did exist even two years ago. rather than having the typical, political conversation, isn't -- is it this bill or this bill,

we ought to be sitting down with private sector technology companies in this country and saying what is the state of the , technology today, and how can we, while protecting customers information, how can we make sure that law enforcement gets the information they need? that is not a conversation that is going on or not even a conversation that politicians think to have. but it is a conversation that we need to have. mark: you talk in general ways about a lot of issues. you just put out a blueprint of sorts. i wonder if you plan between now and the iowa caucus to put out any more specifics in any areas and what they would be? what am i missing? carly fiorina: most everybody

-- my campaign is more specific than anyone. i've been more specific about what we need to do to fight isis than virtually anyone else. zero-based budgeting is pretty specific. there is a bill sitting in the house right now. mark: discuss an original idea of yours that you developed. carly fiorina: does it have to be an original idea to be workable? i haven't seen a lot of original ideas. the problem with politics is all these ideas have been around a long time. on the left and on the right. the problem is, for conservatives, they have never been enacted, so yes, zero-based budgeting has been around a long time and we have never done it because politicians don't want it to happen. it's not some brilliant invention. it says that the federal government will have to justify every dollar. maybe it isn't original, but it sure would work, and we need to move to it. mark: i am not against

zero-based budgeting, but i still believe she has not been very specific on domestic policy and that has been one of the things that has not allowed her to keep the momentum she had going. john: also the prickliness on display there, not great. anyway. mark: thanks to carly fiorina for sitting down with us. when we come back, what john kasich told me about his chances of winning iowa, after this. ♪ sure, tv has evolved over the years.

it's gotten squarer. brighter. bigger. it's gotten thinner. even curvier. but what's next? for all binge watchers. movie geeks. sports freaks. x1 from xfinity will change the way you experience tv. mark: earlier today i sat down with ohio governor john kasich and talked about israel,

vladimir putin, and other foreign-policy issues that are still dominating this presidential race. governor, thanks for joining us. what is the significance of this group? john kasich: they are very involved, effective, strong, committed to israel. there are a lot of people there who are my friends who have supported me for many years. this is a really good group to speak to, and i enjoyed it very much. mark: do you see a lot of differences in your party that how to deal with israel? john kasich: i don't think so. to me, my view on the israeli situation is there is no real silver bullet. it's a matter of trying to have stability, and that's where your policy should be directed. i've been speaking to groups like this for 30 years. mark: what are the arguments for and against the two state solution? john kasich: you have to start

by making israel is secure. whenever they give, sometimes it does not work out well for them. so you want to make sure they have security. you want to work with them, they are our friend and ally, but i would not push them beyond the point where they felt threatened. i just don't think that would be right, anymore than you should push her own family. i don't think you should push a great ally like this. mark: would a president john kasich still favor a two state's solution? john kasich: i think sometimes we push them, and we do it publicly to the point where we begin to undermine them. that's not the right thing to do. mark: so you come into office january 17 and the israeli prime minister says i want to take steps to make israel more secure. what would be on your suggestion list to do?

what would your input be to that discussion? what you think could be done to make israel more secure right now? john kasich: the iron dome seems to be very effective. secondly, the assistance they need to be able to deter. the concerns i have are the s400s that the russians have now in syria. even though right now relations are not tense between russia and israel, when you have those kind of air defense systems out there, it begins to weaken the ability of israel to protect itself should things turned the wrong way. mark: tom friedman wrote that while vladimir putin may still popular home in some ways, his international gambits are not working out. crimea is not really working out. syria is not really working out. do you agree with that?

do you think that vladimir putin is on the offense or on the defense? john kasich: i think he is on the offense. this move, which very much concerns me, to put this air defense system in there, has some significant indications for the region. i think the west has not been strong enough in supporting ukraine, in reassuring the baltics. the swedes and the finns are nervous. whenever we appear weak, on the other side, he appears menacing and strong. but i don't think we should panic. i think we need to take action to make it clear that we are not going to tolerate this kind of activity in central europe. and in terms of what i believe in the middle east, as you know, i believe we should have a coalition to destroy isis and i've been saying that since last february. mark: you've been making the argument that you are the best national security candidate.

some of your colleagues have been making that argument. where do you think that debate is now? where are the divisions within the party on policy on national security? john kasich: i don't think it's just on policy. i also think there is an element of the need to reform the pentagon. i spent 18 years of my career understanding, but it's a little different than i'm going to go here or there. the situation is that that building needs to be significantly reformed. part of the reason why it is not reform is because president don't look across the river and demand that it get fixed. if i were president, i would. mark: does that same us money and make us safer? john kasich: it can take a weapon system and move it from a 20 year window into a five year window. it just saves us money and gets our systems online better.

the other thing is that i have had cast votes and participate in debates on where we should go. my philosophy is we go where we need to in our direct national security interests, that we take care of business and we come home. i've had a lot of experience in this. i'm not trying to belittle anybody else. i think the policies i was involved with, that speaks for itself. i also think i have the most comprehensive program on national security. i just spoke here in washington and i will speak at the council on foreign relations. mark: one of the debates is the balance between national security and civil liberties, those kinds of issues. not just the patriot act, but on those issues. where do you come down broadly on that debate? john kasich: there is no question that this problem of encryption is putting us behind the eight ball. as a governor, we have these

joint terrorism task forces, and we need to have an ability to determine that the people who are out there plotting, so we can disrupt the plot. i also think there has to be an authority, a judge, who can approve the need to do these kinds of efforts. at the same time, we have to use common sense. to me, you have got to have good human intelligence. the issue of encryption is a very serious issue that we have to deal with. there are many parts to that. it's not a simple solution, but we have to pull everybody together so we can hear when bad people are plotting so we can disrupt. mark: do americans have to give up some civil liberties in the wake of 9/11? john kasich: that is too broad. to tilt there a need more towards a government surveillance? kasich: it's not

inconsistent with civil liberties to make sure if there is evidence that someone is plotting something that you go to authorities to get the approval to do it. that serves both purposes. it allows us to gather the information at the same time without just willy-nilly invading the civil liberties of americans. mark: is it early still? are you going to be a head soon? when will you go ahead in this race? john kasich: you know this, you have studied this for some time. we will compete in iowa. we don't expect to win there, but we want to do reasonably well. then we will go to new hampshire. it is ground games that deliver results. we are building out beyond hampshire into south carolina. we are on the ballot in virginia, and we are not running out of money. people said he wasn't going to get in, was not going to get on the stage, and all these things are happening. i am very pleased with where we are in new hampshire. mark: is it your gut that you will go ahead in the public

polls before the new hampshire primary? john kasich: i'm not well known, as you know, and the national polls are not the issue. are you going to go ahead in the polls, you think? or are you going to shock everybody on primary night? john kasich: there's still 67 days to go and you will be apple -- will be able to make a good assessment as to where we are. mark: you are pretty grounded and true to yourself. is there anything you have done in how your treating people are dealing with voters where you have done your own midcourse correction? john kasich: i don't think so. i feel pretty good about what i've done. mark: who is the last person you yelled at? john kasich: i don't really yell at people. it has been a wild theory out there, but i have had a great time. we have a lot of fun as an organization. , but we are

serious. as i've traveled the country, i've met some incredible people who have just come out of nowhere to help me in big ways, and i appreciate virtually every moment of it. mark: he has got a lot at stake in new hampshire, as does chris christie and jeb bush. i continue to say, until any of the establishment candidates prove they can dominate and oppose donald trump, john kasich is in this. john: i agree with you. we talked about this a lot in the past few months. what was interesting to me about that interview, he is an impressive guy with an impressive record. there was something about his tenor and tone that suggested he didn't completely have the eye of the tiger. that he doesn't have the confidence -- mark: at the end, he talked about his campaign in the past tense. that might be one indication. john: that is what i was keying off of.

there was sort of a valid victory quality to that interview. did you feel that up close? considering the words he used, yes. earlier on, he is still animated. he thinks he would be the best president. he thinks he has the temperament and experience and the act is to -- the ideas to be the best president. right now, you have to say that john kasich and jeb bush are at best stalled, and that rubio and chris christie are the ones who are rising. bush and john kasich look at rubio and chris christie and think they are better. john: totally interesting. i did find it interesting to say -- you were asking specifically with respect to voters if there were things where you had to do -- where he felt he had to do a reset. he's been consistent and his consistency has earned him not that much in the sense that he is stalled right now. i wonder whether privately he is

in fact thinking i need to do something a little different. he sort of tried to do that in the boulder debate, so maybe he's going back to his original plan, even though that is not working as well as it might. mark: his talk today was solid and good, but he did not light the room on fire with his talk the way chris christie did. he is running out of time. todoes have to find a way change the dynamic in new hampshire. john: it's not early anymore, it is getting late. mark: up next, brush up on your yiddish. we have the most pandering panderers appearing before the republican jewish coalition today in washington. ♪

john: in politics there is always as much sucking up as at a frat party with beer pong. the objects of fawning and flattering is often donors such as the koch brothers. a lot of that happens behind the scenes. then there is the jewish community. today at the ronald reagan building, the toadying of the candidates was on full 2016 display. officialsuing an declaration of a pandering pandemic. >> i may have the first all jewish cabinet in america. >> the state of israel is an extraordinary story in the history of the world. >> last year was the first time i had an opportunity to go to israel, and it was such an incredible experience.

>> my mother told me one time, she said johnny, when i was a very young man, she said johnny, if you want to look for a really good friend, get somebody who is jewish. mensch withump is a chutzpah. -- with >> you just like me because my daughter happens to be jewish, right? the only bad news, i cannot get her on saturday. i am a negotiator like you folks. i've devoted so much time in my life to israel. i was the grand marshal of the israeli day parade. john: congratulations to those republican candidate who have earned a spot on our segment today. mark, you were in the room. the biggest panderer bear on israel and judaism? mark: some of them did it totally knowingly with a wink and a nod and a sense of humor. some of them did it just the biggest straightforward

pandering they thought they could get away with. those were first-class panderers, i have to say. john: john kasich they're saying if you need someone to trust, find a jewish person. it's one of those things that if you inserted any other ethnic group in the world, people's jaws would drop to the floor. i guess you can get away with it in that audience, but it was pretty funny. mark: and donald trump saying you are just like me, you are great negotiators. it was quite something. you often hear things like that before groups like this, but the consistency and jaw-dropping nature of them was quite something. john: plus a lot of butchered yiddish. we will be back in 60 seconds. ♪

mark: there are still a lot of things we're all trying to understand about the shooting that took place in san bernardino yesterday. the issue of gun control has been raised again by democrats like president obama, bernie sanders, and hillary clinton. moments ago at an event in dover, new hampshire, clinton said it's becoming clear that we are dealing with an act of terrorism. here to talk with us is paul barrett, a senior writer for bloomberg business week and author of a new york times bestseller. he also wrote a book about islam in america which puts you an -- in an incredible position to talk about two of the most burning issues of the moment. >> unfortunately. a happy coincidence, but fortuitous for us on the show. tell me what we know right now about the guns that were used yesterday and what implications that has. paul: there were four guns, as

far as we know, two ar-15 style military assault weapons, two handguns, relatively ordinary pistols, and crucially, a whole lot of ammunition. it's the proliferation of ammunition that actually makes an attack like this so deadly. one implication of this is that we are going to hear, for better or worse, renewed calls for bans on so-called assault weapons, semiautomatic large capacity rivals. john: i know you have strong views about the nature of the debate over gun control and that there is kind of an inherent, structural advantage that the pro-gun side has that goes beyond the fact that there is a second amendment. paul: right now the libertarian argument is very much in control. when you see an event like this, rather than it leading to an

overwhelming call for reform that can be backed up with political action in washington, you end up with people running out and buying more firearms out of fear that there's going to be regulation of firearms. you have the nra, which represents only a minority view of americans, having outside influence. that's what i mean by structural imbalance in the debate. john: every time since sandy hook or even before that, 80% of the people in the country favor the kind of gun safety measures as the president and hillary clinton and the democrats would have it stricter background , checks. it is overwhelmingly favored, including gun owners and nra members. you would think that would be a structural advantage that the pro-gun or pro-regulation side would have. why is that not the case? paul: because you have certain red states, arkansas or louisiana, where you have key

members of the senate who are basically just afraid of provoking the nra in their own -- home states. for that reason you cannot get to the supermajority you need to overcome a potential filibuster in the senate. that is the short answer to your question. john: and a brutal one in a lot of ways. president obama yesterday seemed increasingly beaten-down by watching these mass shootings happen again and again. this is the 300 and 50 seconds -- 352nd that has happened this year. there have been 1000 or so since sandy hook. what do you read in terms of what has happened to his resolve on the issue where he is emotionally and politically? paul: the truth is he came into office without much resolve on this issue. he bought the rahm emanuel approach of staying away from the gun issue altogether. that changed after sandy hook in december 2012. he really has never had a passion or determination to take

the fight to the other side that would be necessary to rally the democrats. we certainly saw that in his comments today. he just looked exhausted when he was talking about it. john: you also wrote a book , american islam, the struggle religion.ul of it came out in 2007 and is still relevant today. the mixture here of mass shootings, what does it add up to the terms of health might change the debate and the current stalemate that we have? paul: the troubling aspect is you see within the american muslim community, which traditionally, contrary to anyone's assumptions, has been relatively moderate minded, relatively assimilated. you're seeing the coursing through that community of some of the fundamentalist ideas that we associate with islam overseas

whether in the middle east or the slums of paris. if we see those themes come to the united states and manifest themselves in the way that we perhaps saw in san bernardino, that is a very intimidating prospect and terrible change. john: thank you for coming in. we will want to have you back in soon, especially as these issues remain at the forefront. you should definitely buy his book, please do. up next, ben carson and the --, divide, after these words from our sponsor. ♪

john: foreign policy can be

challenging, especially linguistically. asked residential candidate ben carson who had some trouble extremist group known to most of us as hamas. ben carson: hamas, hamas, hamas. john: a couple of times there i was hungry for some falafel. mark: yeah. he did humans work on his speech today, but it was tough. there will be a lot of campaign activity tomorrow and into the weekend in iowa. i will be on the ground and reporting from the des moines metroplex. until then, thanks for watching. sayonara. ♪

is friday, fourth of december. this is "trending business". i am rishaad salamat. ♪ the declines for the asia-pacific extending. the stimulus plans came up short. oil climbing as well. car ownersudge says can sue over losses tied to airbags. , the takeover means

drinkers will pay more for less. do follow me on twitter. let's have a look at what is going on market wise. the final trading day of the week. serious and negativity, haven't we? >> yes. ready for the weekend. day todaygative in asia. taking on the worries of europe. ofkets falling on the back not as much as expected from mario draghi in terms of how much the q e program has expanded. look at how things are faring in is