♪ john: welcome to this edition of "best of with all due respect." it was a week that tested the metal of those behind the electoral results. beyond the latest electoral results, each candidate had to respond to the deadly attacks in brussels, and explain how they would protect the u.s. against the islamic state and was on around the world. mark: several of them made their case. we sat down with donald trump on tuesday. the next day, we caught up with ted cruz of texas as he campaigned in europe. campaigned in the city. john: we begin the look back

with donald trump, telling mark and i have he first got word of belgium. donald trump: i was called by a friend he said a terrible thing happened in brussels. i'm not surprised. i have been saying brussels is a mess with what is going on. i turn on the television, and i saw what was going on. i think it is deplorable. mark: and one of your interviews this morning, you talked about giving the country a peptalk. as one of the things he would do. when you talk about these issues, you tend to talk about them in negative ways. you say be terrorists are winning, some people are in the country. donald trump: they are. they are shutting down the world, and we do not do anything about it. we are worried about laws. we can't waterboarded, and yet they are chopping off heads and putting people in cages. mark: i understand that is part of your view, but a pep talk involves optimism. what would you say optimistically about winning the war? donald trump: i would be tough on terror. i would be very optimistic. i would be much tougher than we are now. i would increase our laws so we could do certain things. we're not playing on the same field. they have no laws.

they have absolutely no laws. they kill people and do not talk about it. they do not worry about the law. we do something that is a little harsh, and the particular soldier or general or whoever may be, loses his pension and life. we're not playing by the same rules. they are playing dirty stuff, we're not playing that way. we cannot waterboard. we cannot do anything. waterboarding, nothing is nice about it. they say it is a minimal form, well you know what? , we have to go much tougher. it is eating up the world now. a lot of the world is weak. and they are weak and ineffective people. what is happening in germany is unbelievable. what is happening in a small part even of sweden is unbelievable. a lot of people are saying, donald trump was right. and you know that, and i know that. i don't want to be right about it. i would rather be wrong about it. but i am right about it. john: senator cruz came out today and said we should have police patrols in muslim

neighborhoods in the united states. you said you thought that was a good idea. in an earlier interview you said you are 100% behind it. we had ryan crocker on the show, the former ambassador of iraq and he says it is the worst idea , you can imagine. it would be exactly what isis would want us to do because it would portray the united states as being indiscriminately prejudiced against muslims. how do you respond? donald trump: i am ok. we have to be vigilant, we have to be careful. in new york city, we have the strongest of police departments which is amazing people. , we have the strongest, if you talk about vigilance, we were watching closer than anybody else. and it was an amazing group. they actually caught people in terms of stopping attacks. it was ended by a mayor that is grossly incompetent. we have an incompetent mayor of new york city, as you probably have heard. they ended it. for no reason. we should bring it back. we have to be vigilant. we have to look, even at the mosques. i am ok with it. there is a problem.

john: i don't think you are not responding to the substance of the argument. are you saying that is wrong? the analysis that isis would take it as a victory? donald trump: i think he is wrong. we are to be much tougher, much smarter, and much more vigilant. john: your career, which has been obviously very successful, what is the analogy, what is the kind of decision you would have to make in your career previously that was the closest thing to the kind of decision a president has to make when he decides to send american forces into a conflict? donald trump: nobody has made decisions like that. you're talking about lives, potentially thousands of lives. when you do not make decisions, often times you talk about more , lives. if we are going to be weak and ineffective like we are now, i watched president obama land in cuba with nobody to greet him. in particular, castro, but nobody to greet him. i thought that was terrible. i watched him in a press conference yesterday.

it looked like he was a baby, castro was the boss. i watched him today at a baseball game in cuba while people are -- body parts are laying all over a place with threats to us and anybody else. and i am watching him sitting in the sun watching a baseball game. i think it looks so bad. he could have left cuba. he could have said, this is an emergency, he should be back in washington, in the white house, where a president should be at a time like this. it looks so bad. mark: what is the toughest decision you have made in your career? donald trump: i have made many tough decisions. mark: what is one? donald trump: i do multimillion dollar deals. guaranteeing vast amounts of debt to do very large transactions, which takes courage. if they don't work out, i make them work out. i have taken that should not have worked out and i make deals.

i will be building a massive building, it is horrible, and the market is great. and then the market turns bad. i am tough on banks. i make them turn out. i do that very often. because very often things do not work out the way you think they will work out. that is the sign of a great business person. it is the sign of a great deal maker. because things change, it is, how do you do in the god times? it is not how you do in the good times. it is how you do in the bad times. mark: you talk about the border, isis. these are relatively short-term issues. if you are president four years, eight years, going back to the optimistic, you talked about war with the west, what is the donald trump land, long-term to try to make the relationship between a muslim world and western world better? donald trump: first of all, the need to respect us. they do not respect us at all. they do not respect a lot of things happening to not only our country, but they do not respect others. i think what merkel has done to germany is an outrage. i think the german people, i know german people that are here

all the time. you see them here all the time. people that love, love, germany. and people tell me, two years ago they were saying, it is the greatest country on earth. now they are going to leave. they are going to leave germany. mark: how would you make the muslim world like the west better? donald trump: the first thing you have to do is get them to respect the west and respect us. if they are not going to respect us, it will never work. this has been going on for a long time. you know, i tell the story about general pershing in 1918 were there were problems were they had radical islamic terrorism. in the philippines, and is a well-known story and i will not go to the process. they had a huge problem with the terrorism having to do with islam, or having to do with radical islam. he was unbelievably harsh. i think you know the story. he was unbelievably harsh. they didn't have a problem for 28 years.

mark: one element would be, have people in the islamic world respect the people in the west. donald trump: i don't think we will be successful until they have respect. they have no respect for the president or the country. mark: let's talk about nato. you talked about nato with the washington post. suggested that maybe the u.s. should have a different role, a smaller role. you did not say withdrawal but that nato might need a different type of mission. there are people that say that america needs to be the leader of nato, that is an important role. do you agree? donald trump: we have had a disproportionate share. we are paying for a lot of nato. it is helping them more than us. i look at the ukraine, we are always the leader. what about the countries surrounding it? they do not say anything. we are always the ones that want to go to war with russia over the ukraine. we are the ones always fighting, putting up a lot of money for nato disproportionately. now we put up a lot of the money for a lot of countries. we defend south korea, we defend saudi arabia, we defend japan, we defend germany.

we put up a lot of money and people wonder, why do we owe $19 trillion? we put up a lot of money for a lot. it is because we are defending it is not really for us. everyone else. everyone sees it as many times higher. we are defending the whole world. mark: should america be the leader of nato? donald trump: nato should be obsolete. it was set up when things were different. things are different now. we were rich then, we had nothing but money. we had nothing but power. far more than we have today. in a true sense. i think nato, you have to really examine nato. it does not really help us, it is helping other countries. i don't think those other countries appreciate what we are doing. john: just to be clear, you made two slightly different arguments, i want to clarify. one was that you want to see the u.s. pay less into nato. donald trump: definitely. john: but it is possible that nato is obsolete.

donald trump: i would certainly look at it. i would want help from others. one thing definitely, we are paying too much. as to whether or not it is obsolete, i will determine that. mark: up next, more with our interview with donald trump including thoughts about using , nuclear weapons against the islamic state. ♪

♪ donald trump: i think i would be very late compared to my opponents that are running. people do not realize, i know a lot of people like to say, he actually was for the iraq war. i was against the iraq war. many months before it started, i was like, i don't know. this is the first time. in all fairness, i have been a great businessman over the years. i was asked to the businessman, it did not sound good to me. by the time that started, plenty of proof on it, there are plenty of articles from very early on. i was very much against the iraq

war. hillary clinton wanted to do it. hillary clinton would be such a bad president. she does not have the strength, or the stamina to be president to be a good president. people wanted to go to iraq. i didn't. i am supposed to be the one where they say, he does i , probably would be the last to use it. but i have to say this, there are -- john: you would probably be the last to use nuclear weapons against isis? but you would rule in the possibility of using nuclear weapons against isis. donald trump: i am never going to rule anything out. even if i felt it, i would not want to tell you that. because at a minimum, i want them to think maybe we would use it. it is the worst thing when we do these interviews, with everybody, not me, and you ask a question like that, everybody comes clean and they are so honest. we need unpredictably. we have enemies. isis is an enemy. it is an enemy not wearing uniform. we do not know who they are. in the old days we had japan, , germany, they would be

dressed, we would be dressed, we knew who we were fighting. it was called a war. now we don't know who they are. we need unpredictedability. when you ask a question like that, it is a sad thing to have to answer. the enemy is watching. i have a very good chance of winning. i have frankly, i do not want the enemy to know how i think. with that being said, i do not rule out anything. john: rather than looking forward and maintaining unpredictability, have there been circumstances, provocations in the past, let's say, 15 years when you, if you had been , president, you would have considered nuclear weapons. for instance, after 9/11? donald trump: no. john: why? donald trump first of all, we : attacked the wrong country. we went after iraq. john: that is why i asked about the taliban. donald trump: iraq did not knock down the world trade center. i am saying, iraq didn't -- we could have taken out the taliban if we wanted to. we did not need nuclear weapons. i would say definitely, nuclear weapons are a last resort.

that i will say. i understand the power of nuclear weapons. i had an uncle for many years at m.i.t. a brilliant man. he used to tell me 30 years ago about the power of weaponry. the power of nuclear, and other things. it is so devastating. i would say, absolutely, as a last resort. john: you are talking more -- donald trump: that does not mean we should not be prepared. that does not meet our equipment should be prepared. i'm not even sure it is prepared. i watched "60 minutes" a year ago, where they should have never put this on. the administration should have never allowed it. but they showed these nuclear weapons that are not in a state of preparedness. and i will tell you, i would never want to use them. but we have to be prepared. they have to be perfect. mark: you are talking more in thinking more about national security than you ever have, obviously.

donald trump: it is true. mark: are there other areas where you think you need to know more to be president about national security? donald trump: i have a good instinct for national security. mark: i'm not asking about your instinct. there is no area for you think you need to learn more about it? donald trump: i want to know more about anything in every area. every little area and every little corner. i do think i have a good instinct. if you go back four years ago, we should not have been in iraq. but i said, now you are leaving, you have destabilized the middle east. it is a total mess. iran will take the oil. people don't realize iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world. really good oil. i said, take the oil. so now, who has the oil? isis has the oil, and iran will have it. john: it is been taken for granted for a long time that the united states and the president of united states are the leaders of the free world. if you are the president of the united states, would you think of yourself as the leader of the free world? donald trump: i would. that does not mean i will spend trillions of dollars on nation building. i think the days of nationbuilding have proven to be over. mark: do you think america is

the most powerful country on earth? donald trump: i think that weapons are changing, and all of a sudden the power of weaponry , is so incredible. if we were not talking about the power of weapons, i would have said, if you are in, you made a mistake, get out immediately. you cannot allow anybody to arm with the kind of weapons and the kind of power that can be produced. that is the problem. john: you talked earlier about the notion that we are losing to isil. they are making us look soft. donald trump: isis. the president always says isil. everyone else says isis. it is almost like he does it to bother people. john: i'm not doing it to bother you. donald trump: no, i know. the president always says isil, and everyone else says isis and , i actually think he does it to bother people. john: they're talking about economics, military, everything. is america right now the most powerful country? donald trump: i would say that people are catching up. i think china is catching up.

i think russia is catching up. you look at our budgets, we cut way back on the military. we have a military that needs help. we have a military with old equipment. i have a friend whose son has spent a bit of time in iraq and afghanistan, and he said we get our weapons are not as good as the enemies. we give them to people, and we think they are fighting for us. a bullet is shot in the air and they run and the enemy takes up at the weapons. he is so disheartened when he sees that they have better weapons than we do and they are american weapons. john: national security is going to be a big issue. you and hillary clinton are way ahead in delegates. let's say it is the general election between the two of you. she was the secretary of state. donald trump: look at the job she did. look at syria. mark: you are a businessman and hosted a tv show. how do you win that argument? donald trump: i think people will see how competent i am. i think i am smarter than she is, i am much more competent than she is. i think she has been very weak.

i have said it before. i don't think she has the strength or the stamina to be a good president. and the call at 3:00 in the morning, i think she is sleeping, i don't think she wakes up. that has been proven. when you look at hillary with that phony ad that she did, the 3:00 in the morning ad -- she never woke up. the phone call was made. the ambassador, benghazi -- the call was made hundreds of times. they were calling and calling. she took blumenthal's call, but not the people -- she was sleeping. john: you think there was anything she did as secretary of state you think is good? donald trump: not that i can think of. yeah, one thing. she did one thing, a lot of traveling. i think she worked hard. she was always on planes. going back and forth. but she also lied. she said she was attacked. she came under attack. she was landing someplace come and she was under a vicious attack. it turned out to be a total fraud.

john: that was trump. coming up next, we hear from his most electorally formidable opponent. ted cruz on why he thinks he could stop donald, next. ♪

♪ mark: senator, thank you for joining us. john: you are now the candidate of mitt romney and jeb bush. how did that happen? ted cruz: we are seeing republicans coming together. we are seeing republicans unite. in the last 10 days, we have been endorsed by jeb bush, mitt romney, but also by mike lee and mark levin. that is about as broader spectrum in the republican party as you can imagine. the entire ideological spectrum. i think the reason is simple. for some time, 65% to 70% of republicans have recognized the donald trump is not the best nominee to go head-to-head against hillary clinton. donald les to hillary, and i beat hillary. what we are seeing every day as republicans, coming together and uniting behind the campaign.

that is what it is going to take to beat donald for the nomination and hillary in november. mark: some of the people are less interested in supporting you then using you as a vehicle to stopping donald trump. ted cruz: i welcome support from anyone. the object is to win and turn the country around. if we keep going, we have had seven years under obama. seven years of economic stagnation. misery. seven years of the federal government assaulting the constitution and the bill of rights. as brussels yesterday tragically illustrated, seven years of weakness and appeasement from the obama, clinton foreign-policy that has enabled the rise of radical islamic terrorist. mark: politics is not static, if you look at a snapshot of where we are now, it is not clear based on polling that you are a stronger general collection then donald trump. ted cruz: it is clear. the polling consistently shows that hillary beats donald.

the polling shows that i beat hillary. i will give you an example. last week there was a general , election poll in utah. it showed hillary beating donald trump in utah, bright red, conservative, conservative utah. listen, if the republican nominee cannot carry utah, you're looking at a walter mondale style landslide defeat. that is one of the reasons why so many republicans across the ideological spectrum are uniting behind our campaign. mark: politics is rough, it has been a tough nomination. not the toughest either of us have seen. your wives are involved. i was really surprised at how quickly that escalated. it started with an outside group. you are not connected to it, he is not. he reacted, and then you reacted. is this more personal or just still politics? ted cruz: last night we saw how low donald is willing to stoop. he attacks my wife directly. it is a pattern we have seen, mark.

whenever donald feels scared, whenever he is afraid of what is happening, whenever bad news breaks for him, his reaction is to yell and scream, and often curse and try to bully people and threaten people. and so last night, was a very bad night for donald trump. he went and campaigned hard in utah. we were hoping in utah to break 50%, which gives us all the delegates. not only did we break 50%, we had a landslide victory. we had nearly 70% of the vote in utah. and donald is scared and unhappy. his reaction was to attack my wife directly. and listen, my wife, she is the daughter of christian missionaries. she lived in africa as a little girl. she is my best friend. and if donald wants a character fight, he has to stay with me. heidi is out of his league. mark: do you expect him to keep it up? ted cruz: i don't know. he is used to being a bully. to just attacking people and

scaring people. heidi is not remotely scared of donald trump. she has dealt with bullies in the business world her whole life. and someone yelling and screaming and insulting her is not remotely frightening. mark: let's talk about nato. he is taken on an unusual position for someone in either party to say, the u.s. contributes too much. maybe he would look at the fundamental purpose of nato, and maybe there isn't one. what with the role of nato be in a ted cruz administration? ted cruz: you are right. donald trump's foreign policy is bizarre. and is, he got very little understanding of foreign-policy. what he does know is wrong. what he has been advocating as weakness, as with rural, -- as withdrawal from the world, isolationism. with respect to israel, for example, he says he will be neutral between israel and the palestinians.

and with respect to nato, two days ago he advocated , withdrawing from nato. now that is a terrible idea. it was striking that the day after he called for that, we saw it tragic terrorist attack in brussels, where nato is headquartered. we should not be withdrawing from europe. we should not be abandoning our allies. we should be strengthening our alliance with europe. we should strengthen our alliance with israel. if donald trump had his way, if america did withdraw from nato, it would hand a massive victory to putin. a massive victory to isis. the idea that donald trump would want the presidency to begin with a preemptive surrender, turning tail and running, that is a sign of weakness. and it is striking that donald's foreign policy is to the left of barack obama and hillary clinton. they are not arguing to withdraw from nato. yet donald seems unable to , distinguish our friends from enemies. that is a very dangerous approach. mark: he said his speech may

have repositioned him on neutrality. on nato. ted cruz: he said many times that he would be neutral between israel and palestinians. the fact he read a speech someone wrote for him off by teleprompter the pretended to stand with israel is reflecting the fact that he read a speech that somebody wrote for him off of a teleprompter is inconsistent with where he has been over and over again. anyone who can't distinguish between the idf forces and islamic terrorists who seek to murder us, that raises real questions. about their fitness and judgment to be commander in chief. we need a president who understands the nature of radical islamic terrorism and is prepared to defeat them. donald's lack of knowledge and understanding of radical islamic terrorism is every bit as evident with regard to iran, where he says he will keep in place this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal and renegotiate it.

anyone who thinks that, this is not a real estate deal, and the ayatollah is not selling beachfront property. the ayatollah has pledged death to america, and he means it. you want to understand one of the simplest differences between donald trump and me? on day one as president i will rip to shreds this iranian nuclear deal, because it is the biggest threat facing america, the threat of nuclear iran. donald trump does not understand that. both donald trump and hillary clinton would keep his deal in -- this deal in place because neither one understands just how dangerous the ayatollah is. mark: i'm saying, we spend a lot of money on nato. they don't seem to be fighting isis. where is the threat from russia today that nato is preventing? what is the role of nato right now?

besides the symbolism of standing with europe. sen. cruz: nato has been the most effective military alliance of modern times. nato stood up to the soviet union in the cold war. the idea now that russia does not pose a threat -- russia is now invading its neighbors, ukraine, threatening the baltics. russia is threatening much of europe, and nato is a strategic alliance. nato should be a vehicle for going after isis. if we had american leadership, and nato does not work without american leadership, if we had american leadership, nato could play a critical role in utterly destroying isis. donald's approach is withdraw and hide, and he somehow thinks the bad guys will leave us alone. obama tried that. that is called leading from behind. it doesn't work. we need a president and commander in chief who will utterly and completely destroy isis. that is what i will do as president. mark: this proposal you floated

the other day, increased police surveillance of muslim neighborhoods here in the united states. can you name a neighborhood where that would be proper? what would you say to a young child who sees that in the neighborhood? sen. cruz: in brussels we saw a horrific terrorist attack yesterday. our prayers are with those murdered and wounded. and yesterday was a reminder that this was not an isolated attack, this is not a lone wolf. this is part of a global jihad being waged by radical islamic terrorists, waged by isis, and president obama and hillary clinton and the modern democratic party is in a state of denial. they are so captive to political correctness that they won't say terrorism." mic every time we see a terror attack, paris, san bernardino, and no doubt coming after of -- after brussels, president

obama lectures the american people on islamophobia. enough is enough. we need a commander-in-chief who recognizes his number one responsibility is to keep america safe. that is what i will do. now, when it comes to stopping radical islamic terrorism, you have to identify the problem and then use every law enforcement tool, every intelligence tool, ever national security tool, available to defeat it. we are in new york right now. new york had in place a very effective program to work cooperatively with the muslim community to monitor and prevent radicalization and to prevent islamic terror attacks occurring before they happen. -- from occurring before they happen. unfortunately, mayor de blasio came into office and is every bit asaptive to political correctness as is barack obama and hillary clinton, and he disbanded the program. what would someone think if they saw a police presence -- mark: a 10-year-old. sen. cruz: the police are here to protect us. i categorically reject the view

of democrats that the police are bad guys. people are fed up with this notion that every time there is an incident, barack obama, hillary clinton, bill de blasio, they side with the criminals, looters, and thugs rather than the men in blue. -- rather than the brave men and women in blue. i stand with the police. there was a moment not too long ago when the nypd stood up and turned their backs on bill de blasio. that spoke for new york and the whole country. when we have police in a community, it protects that community and keeps it safe and we need to stop pretending radical islamic terrorism doesn't exist and instead worked to defeat it. mark: senator, thank you. congratulations with utah. sen. cruz: utah was fantastic, and i'm looking forward to the contest in wisconsin. mark: a test of leadership, the political implications of the brussels bombings, next. ♪

mark: here now to talk about the implications of today's terrorist attacks in brussels. he is currently the dean of the george bush school of government at texas a&m university. he joins us now from college station. what could europe do now as a whole or individual countries to deal with situations like this that it did not do in the wake of the paris terrorist attacks? >> there are two big fundamental issues out there. one of them is simply the quality and coordination of european intelligence and security services. they are, by and large, certainly in belgium, far behind where we were on 9/11, and we have traveled light years in both our capabilities and

our coordination since then. the europeans have got to improve both the quality and the coordination of their intelligence and security services. islamic state is finding the gaps, the weak spots, and we see the results. the second thing that is such a major difference between the u.s. and europe is that we integrate people in this country. we don't have a situation similar in the united states, essentially an arab and muslim ghetto. our openness, the way successive waves of immigrants are brought into american society and truly find their place here, sets us apart from belgium, france, even from britain. so, as we respond from what has

just happened tragically in brussels, the worst thing we could do would be give away our greatest strengths, and that is our open society that makes everyone in america a part of this great country. john: i believe you just said that in terms of dealing with domestic terror, that the european union is further behind -- is behind where the united states was on 9/11. there have been a lot of things, including 9/11, that i would have thought would have alerted people to the notion that they have to get with the program. what accounts for that? what accounts for europe's laxity in this area? >> i think it may be that with the exception say of the train bombings in spain, that the europeans have not had anything on the scale of a 9/11. i don't want to generalize here. some european countries do remarkably well on intelligence

and security, i would cite sweden as an example. that they felt this was something that could only happen over here and not there. and frankly became complacent. after what we have seen now of paris in november and now this, it is way past time for the europeans to shake themselves awake. i hope we are making a major effort to engage them. now that we have had this new begedy, that we will stepping forward to be proactive and offering to the europeans some of the things we have learned in the 15 years since 9/11. mark: what are the metrics you use to say whether that is happening, where the united states is stepping up to help

europe with this problem? >> it will be clear by announcements, both from washington and from european capitals, so i am quite sure we have had this on offer before. the urgency has never been greater, so i hope we will not wait for an invitation, but offering to share with our european allies, again we are part of a nato alliance. nato was not constructed to deal with terror, but it is a security alliance, and is clearly falls within its -- this clearly falls within its mandate. john: you talked about integration versus segregation , basically in terms of some of the communities, how different the united states is in terms of how it deals with its muslim population. senator cruz suggested we need to start police patrols in muslim communities in the united states. do you think that is a useful or constructive suggestion?

>> i absolutely do not. this is precisely what islamic state would like us to do, to present an image of a country that is suspicious of people simply because they are muslims or because they are arabs. that plays right into their hand and allows them to hold out to arab and muslim populations the line that the united states is fundamentally anti-arab and anti-islamic. obviously we need to be doing everything we can to ensure our security, but we don't need to be taking steps that will harm our security, and this -- look, i understand the fears. that is why terrorists practice terror, so they can frighten people into doing things that are ultimately counterproductive for their own society. we just need to be sure we don't fall into that trap.

mark: thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. john: are journalists responsible for the rise of donald trump? "the new york times's" new media critic gives us his take, next. ♪

mark: in his first column , he covered the media's complicated and obsessive coverage of donald trump's campaign. i'm much of the coverage is -- how much of the coverage is his own doing, and how much is the press acting on its own? >> my favorite quote is trump said "i do these tweets, and they can be totally insignificant and break right into the news," so it's not all his doing. it is a symbiosis. mark: if trump continues to get

, do thinkike this that will be a huge advantage for him in the campaign, the coverage? >> i'm sure we would all agree that not all the coverage is positive. in 2004, when the war was being , reporters would say to the bush strategists that they are talking about the war. they said, as long as were -- we are talking about the war, we are winning. as long as we are talking about trump, he is winning. >> in reading your column, you pointed out that fox and chuck todd of nbc said no more of this special treatment where you get the phone in on some interviews, which is a much easier interview. then i watched george stephanopoulos, who slam dunked the moderator.

if one does it, are the others going to cave in? >> i'm thinking george decided that they did not want to talk about it enough, they won't take him on the phone, but i will. i will get a spike in the ratings. >> a phone interview for a subject is a lot easier than an in-person interview, and trump almost always does well in those situations. >> my impression is he steamrolled the interviewer. they can't break in. my bigger problem with it is these sunday broadcast shows, the traditional public affairs they were based on here is the candidate at the advent of television. we see them. it is not radio. i don't know why they would want to abdicate that responsibility, something they have built proudly over decades. mark: we have seen in past presidential campaigns some candidates get more and better

coverage than others. that always happens. this seems like on a scale that maybe we have never seen. >> i have never seen anything like it. "the new york times" presented a report in graphic form showing -- i know you guys have talked about it and your viewers have seen it -- almost $2 billion in free media coverage for donald trump compared to hillary clinton, about half of that. that is a disadvantage for hillary clinton. bernie sanders was way lower, as was ted cruz. mark: there's going to be for the foreseeable future to keep writing about donald trump. >> i know. i'm trying to think about what to do about that. here i am saying that everybody is giving donald trump all this coverage and here i am writing about it, so there is a hall of mirrors factor here.

he is a huge -- i'm not going to use that word -- a giant story. of course we will have to mull over this and explore it in the months to come, if not many years if he wins the presidency. >> many years ago after joe mccarthy, there were postmortems that were devastating for the press, the way mccarthy was able to use the press. after this election, i'm talking in a generic sense, are we going to look back? -- look bad? >> i don't think anyone can say od has been good. so far, so bad, or mostly bad, or very bad. here is what i wonder. you mentioned that chuck todd said he's not going to take donald trump on the phone anymore. cnn said we are not going to get roped into doing a donald trump qvc-style press conference, so maybe they are a counter

reaction. maybe there will be a giant change, and it has to happen soon. i'm hoping there is a correction here for all of our sakes. it's better for donald trump to have a different sort of coverage. it is better for democracy to have a different sort of coverage. >> the suits don't want to give up that revenue. >> it is too hard. the other thing i mentioned in the column, as i have made the rounds to get back in touch with the media industry i covered many years ago, people are afraid. they need that revenue, those ratings, those clicks, because it is an up-for-grabs moment in the new digital age, so donald trump is coming in at a perfect time, because he gives everybody what they needs, ratings. mark: thanks so much. john: more of the best of "with all due respect" ahead. ♪

john: that was a momentous week. thank you for watching this edition of "with all due respect" the best of. we will be back with you on monday. until then, sayonara. ♪

announcer: "brilliant ideas," powered by hyundai motors. narrator: the contemporary art world is vibrant and booming as never before. it's a 21st century phenomenon, a global industry in its own right. "brilliant ideas" looks at the artists at the heart of this, artists with a unique power to astonish, challenge, and surprise. in this program, new york-based ali banisadr.