attacks this week on liberal activist and philanthropist george soros, and he has every right to criticize soros, but what was truly pathetic when the fox news host said that at the age of 14, "soros used to go around with this anti-semiite and deliver papers to the jews and then confiscate their property and then ship them off." beck said soros didn't have a choice and he wasn't calling him an antisemiite, but i think we all see what's going on. invoking the holocaust is the lowest blow i can imagine. that's it for this edition of "reliable sources." i'm howard kurtz. join us again next sunday morning, 11:00 a.m. eastern for another critical look of the media. "state of the union" begins right now. the president was in the second week of his post-midterm visit to asia, halfway around the world, but washington seemed to follow him at every stop. first, there was the criticism for lack of accomplishments on his trip. >> there's an instinct to focus

on the disagreements, because otherwise, these summits might not be very exciting. it's just a bunch of world leaders sitting around intervening. >> then having to clear up a little mix-up over his stance on the bush tax cuts. >> here's the right interpretation. i want to make sure that taxes don't go up for middle class families starting on january 1st. >> and finally, some heat over the fiscal commission report. >> before anybody starts shooting down proposals, i think we need to listen, we need to gather up all the facts. i think we have to be straight with the american people. >> if this is what the president faces while abroad, imagine all that's waiting for him when he gets back home. today, from tax cuts to don't ask, don't tell, how much the lame-duck congress can get done, with republican senator john cornyn and democratic

senator mark warner. then, congressman james clyburn and heath schuyler on the leadership battle brewing among democrats. and a preview of battles to come between house republicans and the obama administration, with former white house communications director anita dunn and former republican congressman, davids. i'm joe johns in for candy crowley and this is "state of the union." candy crowley is on assignment in florida, preparing for her 8:00 p.m. special, "bush: two years later." president obama's focus on his overseas trip was jobs, jobs, jobs in reaction to the democrat's big losses in the midterm elections, the president's team recast this long-scheduled trip to be about putting more americans back to work, though the president's choices of countries turned into fodder for the late-night comedians. >> and president obama was in india yesterday, visiting our jobs and tomorrow he goes to china to visit our money, so

it's a nice trip. nice trip. >> meanwhile, back at home, a draft report from his own commission on how to tackle the national debt was received like a stink bomb in washington this week, which included something for just about every interest group to hate. reduced social security and medicare benefits, big changes to the tax code, and dramatic cuts in government spending, including the defensing budget. a lot of solutions that are simply guaranteed to create strong reactions in washington, d.c. with this deficit commission. i want to thank both of you for coming in and talking to us a little bit this morning. really want to start out with the deficit commission and some of the recommendations. we realize this is just a draft, a chairman's mark, as they call it. but i want your reactions and what the two of you might actually sign on to from among these issues. raising the age to receive social security, cutting benefits.

for higher income retirees. any takers there? reforming the tax code, including ending tax breaks for mortgages in the child tax credit. $100 billion in tax cuts on defense spending to senators from states with a lot of military, freezing pay for non-combat pay for three years, raising the gas tax. are any of these things that either of you can sign onto or can you reach some agreement somewhere, say today? >> we have to do this on a bipartisan basis because the american people have said that business as usual in washington, d.c., is unacceptable, particularly when it comes to spending and debt and people worried about the high degree of joblessness. but i think that start has to start, not only with the recommendation of the debt commission, but also the president's budget, which under the law, the budget act, he has to submit by the first monday in february. that's the blueprint that should

lay this out and we'll have to see what kind of commitment president obama and his administration will make to cutting spending and dealing with this unsustainable debt. >> i actually give the budget commission a lot of credit for, you know, putting out hard choices. it's kind of where the reality meets the campaign rhetoric about deficit reduction. and i think there's a lot in the plan that i could be supportive of. listen, some of this stuff is not democrat or republican. some of it's just math. for example, 50 years ago, eight retirees for every worker, now only two. folks 25 or 30 years old aren't going to get social security at 65 or 67. we're going to have to raise the retirement rate in a slow way, that doesn't affect folks 50, 55, but this is just math. we've got to do some of these things. >> defense spending should stay on the table? >> defense spending will have to stay on the table. domestic spending we need to take a big hit to as well. >> all right. now, senator cornyn, you actually have taken a pledge not to raise taxes.

and if i can look at this american tax reform graphic we have, support for the commission chair plan would be a violation of the taxpayer protection pledge, which over 235 congressmen, 41 senators have made to their constituents. so if you were, say, to sign on to the deficit reduction plan, you would have to violate this pledge, wouldn't you? could you do that? >> well, i don't think it's a question of are the american people taxed enough? or should they be taxed more? we ought to be looking at spending cuts. the problem that most families and businesses have, when there's only so much revenue coming in the door, they have to trim their expenditures. that's what the federal government ought to be doing, rather than looking for ways the grow the government and grow the tax burden and discourage job creation. >> but could you support tax increases? >> i certainly wouldn't start there, and i would say, i would be disinclined to support any tax increases.

i think we ought to look on the spending side. >> let me just add on this. we're not going to solve this problem on one side of the balance sheet alone. yes, we're going to need to look at significant spending cuts. but at some point, we'll have to look at the revenue side as well. i think one of the things that the commission draft pointed out was that statistics that i don't think most americans know. we collect $1 trillion a year in income taxes. yet we have $1.2 trillion in tax spending through tax loopholes or tax expenditures, saying that we can't even look at that half of the ledger will never allow us to get the deficit reduction that we need. >> we've seen an explosion in federal spending over the last two years through the stimulus plan and other huge growth in the federal spending. we have to go back to, i believe, 2008 levels, freeze the federal spending level at that level, and then look where the big money is, which is in entitlements. mark touched on social security.

medicare is out of control, in terms of the spending there and the debt burden on our children and grandchildren. so we need to look at where the money is and i think it ought to all be on the table. >> the american deficit is one of the issues that probably caused problems for president obama when he was on his asian trip. and there are people who say he didn't come back with very much. he wasn't able to get south korea, for example, to sign on to a free trade agreement. he wasn't able to really make any headway on the issue of american currency vis-a-vis the chinese. i guess the question is, given america's financial situation, is this diminishing our place in the world? or is the president's trip simply a reflection of him being a weakened president, say, by the midterm elections. >> i'm glad the president went to india and these other places to talk about free trade. i wish we had passed the three pending free trade agreements that have been languishing in

congress, because the administration hadn't gotten behind them yet. i hope this represents a change in approach to recognizing that markets abroad create jobs at home. so i'm really glad to see that. >> i think it's good to see the president abroad standing up for america. and pushing back on folks like china, who i believe have been manipulating their currency, and putting american business at a disadvantage. i want to see a free trade pack with korea as well. but i think john and i would both probably agree that we want to make sure that those cattlemen in texas get a chance to sell their beef into korea and american automakers ought to be able to sell their cars into korea as well. >> okay. hold that thought and stand by. coming up next, is a compromise on standing the bush tax cuts on the horizon? i know we all want to talk about that. stay with us. since i've been with the company, i've been promoted ten times over the span of 11 years. today, i'm a divisional learning and development manager. we can actually help people develop in their own careers. my job allows me to make a difference in the lives of almost 100,000 associates in the northeast.

if you think about it, that's almost 8 times the size of my hometown. my name is nick and i work at walmart. ♪ oh. about what? uh, they don't really think you're an exchange student. what? they think you're a businessman, using our house to meet new clients in china. for reals, player? [ woman speaks chinese ] they overheard a phone call. [ speaks chinese ] something about shipping with fedex to shanghai. and then you opened a bottle of champagne. that was for a science project. [ man and woman speaking chinese ] i'm late for...soccer... rehearsal. [ man speaks chinese ] you and i are cool? i'll be home by curfew. [ male announcer ] we understand.® you need a partner who can help you go global. fedex.

there is a laundry list of legislation facing congress when the lame-duck session kicks off tomorrow, but there's one issue at the top of everyone's list. >> bush tax cuts. >> bush tax cuts. >> bush tax cuts. >> tax cuts. >> tax cuts. >> in the spirit of post-election bipartisanship, both president obama and republican senate leader mitch mcconnell see open to compromise. in a press release thursday, mcconnell said, "i'm willing to listen to what the president has in mind for protecting americans from tax increases." there's only one problem -- what to compromise on? some moderate democrats want to extend the bush tax cuts for everyone temporarily while the

economy recovers. and only make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. so far, that's been a nonstarter with republicans who don't want to take a tax vote on tax cuts for the wealthy two or three years from now. but our guest, senator mark warrne warner, proposed another potential compromise in the "financial times" friday. "extend the tax cuts for just 98%, allowing the cuts for top wage earners to expire as scheduled. but instead of removing $65 billion from the economy, we should work with the business community to enact $65 billion in new targeted business tax cuts and incentives to spur private-sector investment." but will republicans buy that plan? we'll ask senator cornyn next. which provided for their every financial need. [ thunder rumbling ] [ thunder crashing ] and then, in one blinding blink of an eye, their tree had given its last. but with their raymond james financial advisor,

they had prepared for even the unthinkable. ♪ and they danced. see what a raymond james advisor can do for you.

we're back with republican senator john cornyn and democratic senator mark warner. so, senator warner, i guess the question for you is, the white house does know about this plan. have they signed on to it? >> i don't think anybody's signed on to it. let me tell you the basis for it. first of all, i think we all agree, for middle class, 98% of americans, their tax cuts ought to be extended. then i start with the premise that actually both the democrats and the republicans have a point on the top 2%. democrats are right that permanent extension adds $700 billion to the deficit. republicans are right, we shouldn't take the money out of the economy right now. the problem with the two-year extension is, i'm new in the senate, but most of these temporary extensions have a tendency to end up becoming permanent.

and most economists would say, simply given folks like me an additional tax cut right now might not be the best value. so i say, how can we use dollar for dollar, the revenue we'd take for a two-year extension on the top 2%, and instead use it for targeted business tax cuts. parts of the, literally, $2 trillion in cash that's sitting on the sidelines on the business balance sheets, back investing in the economy. a great way to engage with the business community. >> senator cornyn, is this something you could sign on to? just basically tailor it toward credits, towards business? >> the most important thing the economy needs now is certainty. the reason why we have so much money sitting on the sidelines, waiting to be invested in the private sector is because of the turmoil and churning they've seen coming out of washington, with the power grabs, whether it's spending money we don't have on the stimulus bill, this health care bill that cost $2.6 trillion. the financial regulatory reform bill, which punts the ball over to the regulators, to write the

rules that haven't been written yet, and people wonder, what are the rules of the game? so i think we don't need to raise taxes on anyone during a fragile economic recovery like this, including the people who report their business income on an individual tax return. small business. >> now, let me move on right now, because i've got three or four other places. one of the things i found was on twitter this week. you put up a tweet, one of the most controversial issues in the congress right now. "i support earmark moratorium. we hear you america!" so is it pretty clear that both the house and the senate are signing on to an earmark moisture toirm? >> i hope our friends on the democratic side will join us in changing the way we do business in washington. that's the reason i thought the message was so important. we need to listen to what the american people told us in this

election. they don't want business as usual, they want us to change on spending and debt, and that's part of the solution. >> but don't you give the president of the united states, in this case, barack obama, the power to decide what texas gets in terms of federal money? >> i think what we do if we eliminate earmarks is we control the pursestrings in congress. we cut that and put that money that would otherwise go to earmarks toward deficit reduction. >> where are the democrats on -- >> my view, i'm a new guy in the senate. in the two years i've been here, if there's anything i've fought for, i put my name on it, full transparency. but i agree with john. if we're going to get rid of earmarks and everybody's going to be done with it, so be it. >> in this lame-duck congress, another thing that could come up, might not come up, but is highly likely to be talked about again is don't ask, don't tell. do you see the congress, during the lame-duck session, repealing don't ask, don't tell? >> joe, there are two things we have to do in the lame-duck session. one is to pass a continuing resolution to keep the federal government operating until january when we come back into

session with the new people who have just been elected on november the 2nd. the second is to deal with this tax increase issue, which would result in a $3 trillion tax increase, unless we continue current policy. now, we can debate how long that will be. i would love to make it permanent myself. >> it sounds like a no on don't ask, don't tell? >> i don't think there's a lot of time and i don't think there's a lot of appetite to try to jam stuff through. the president says he wants to pass a new start treaty in a lame-duck session. i don't think that's going to happen. >> senator warner? >> who knows what's going to ham in a lame duck. i am pleased to see that the pentagon has finished their study, and changing the the policy will not affect military readiness. i think that pentagon study and report is very important. >> will it take down the defense authorization bill, which is the real question, or do you have to pull it out in order to get it through in some type of an omnibus legislation? i mean, is just a simple question of logistics, quick answer, if you will. >> well, don't ask, don't tell

is not military policy, it's congressional policy. it's the law of the land. so i expect we're going to have a continued debate about this when we see the full report from the department of defense on how this impacts military -- >> december 1st. all right, we're out of time on this. thank you so much, the both of you, for coming in, and we'll watch the lame-duck session. when we come back, an identity congress among house democrats. should they follow speaker pelosi or chart another course? aveeno has an oat formula, now proven to build a moisture reserve, so skin can replenish itself. that's healthy skin for life. only from aveeno.

as a part time sales associate with walmart. when william came in i knew he had everything he needed to be a leader in this company. [ william ] after a couple of months, i was promoted to department manager. like, wow, really? me? a year later, i was promoted again. walmart even gave me a grant for my education. recently, he told me he turned down a job at one of the biggest banks in the country. this is where i want to be. i fully expect william will be my boss one day. my name is william and i work at walmart. ♪

the shellacking that president obama said he and his party took in the midterm elections came largely at the expense of conservative and moderate house democrats known as the blue dog coalition. of the 48 blue dogs who sought re-election, 22 lost their seats

to republican challengers. so when speaker nancy pelosi announced she would run for minority leader in the new congress, the news received an icy response from surviving blue dogs. congressman jim mathison of utah said, "there's a growing number of people in the caucus saying, why's she running for minority leader in the first place? we just got thumped in this election in a major way. it just seems like a very obvious situation when change is called for." and there's evidence of that in a poll released this week. the majority of democratic voters, 54%, said their party leaders should move in a more moderate direction. our next guest, heath shuler, told a newspaper in the state this week that it would be very tough, but we need a moderate voice in the democratic party. congressman shuler joins us when we come back. how's that mach 3? it's always done the job. this has worked for the last decade.

do you think you could do any better? besides the mach 3? mhm. no. i'd like to challenge that. introducing the revolutionary new fusion proglide. -wow. -it just glides. -feels smoother. [ host ] now fusion proglide has been engineered with gillette's thinnest blades ever. so it glides for less tug and pull. 8 out of every 10 guys prefer new fusion proglide power over mach 3. turns shaving into gliding. and skeptics into believers. new fusion proglide.

joining me now from north carolina, democratic congressman heath shuler. congressman, thanks so much for coming in and talking to us. i understand you're in asheville. a simple question here, right off the top is, you've said that you would step up and challenge nancy pelosi if no one else will. are you prepared to say today that you're going to do that? >> -- we've just come off the largest devastating loss for the democratic party in almost a century, and to be able to put speaker pelosi as minority leader is truly, it's just unacceptable for our party, to move our party forward in a moderate direction, to be able to get some of those members of

congress who lost in this 2010 election, to get them back, available for the 2012 election. we're going to have to go more of a moderate direction. and, you know, to be able to take the same approach that we had during this last two years is not going to get us where we need to go as a party. >> so you're throwing your hat in the ring? >> well, i mean, i've said all along, i'm hoping that nancy pelosi will step aside and will allow the leaders that are available, who are ready to go. but because of her being at the very top right now, no one's willing to throw their hat in the ring. and if it comes down to this coming week and she doesn't step aside, then i will challenge her. >> so you've only got until wednesday. are you in or out? can you say yes or no or not prepared to say yes or no right now? >> well, i'm really hoping that when we get back to washington

tomorrow night that the speaker will realize, with so many of the members of congress, you know, knowing that we need to go in a different direction. you just saw the latest polls based on democrats wanting to go in different direction, we've got to the able to recruit. we've got to go into those moderate areas, those string districts and be able to get great recruits or get back those members of congress that we lost. be able to have them on the ticket in 2012, to be able to win back the house. and i just don't see that path happening if we have her at the top of the leadership. >> now, she's given every indication that she's in, in the race for minority leader. so given that fact, it's much more likely that you're going to be in? it's much more likely that you're going to be running, and do you have or see any chances of winning? >> well, i mean, joe, let's be realistic about it. i mean, there's a reason why -- i mean, over 60 moderates lost in this 2010 election.

so, i mean, the moderates lost. there's very few numbers of us left. the entire house is being pushed further and further apart and there are different viewpoints. the moderates have to bring the congress back together to move our country forward. and you know, i would really hope that she would step aside to allow steny hoyer, james clyburn, those gentleman to step forward in the leadership positions that they held in the majority to be leader and to be the whip and to be able to move our democratic party in a direction which we can gain backseats in 2012. >> all right. so some house democrats, of course, are justifying, saying that pelosi should be in, simply because she'll be able to keep the president moving, they say, too far toward the middle, back toward being moderate, as opposed to staying out in the wings where a lot of people say he should be, given the fact that he pushed things like the health care bill and other bills. what's your view of that

argument? >> well, the first and foremost, i mean, it's time for us to start looking. are we pushing legislation to the left, to the right, and start pushing legislation based on what the american people want. and if you look at it, i mean, the diversity within the democratic party, we want to be able to keep the big tent and not just be able to get under one umbrella. so i really think it's very important for us to be a very moderate caucus, but realize that we have to push legislation that's going to be voted on and that we can have compromise with our colleagues across the aisle, and to be able to work with the entire caucus within the democratic party. and i mean, if we can't do that, then it's very difficult for us to legislate and it's very difficult for the president to be successful. >> i know that nancy pelosi has been held out as a big problem on capitol hill by republicans, but there are a lot of democrats, privately, who say it was the president's policies and the president's positions that

led to the demise, if you will, of so many blue dogs in the house of representatives. what's your view? is nancy pelosi or president barack obama more to blame for what happened to democrats in the midterms? >> well, i'm not here to cast stones on putting -- placing blame on everyone. i think the most important thing is when we look at legislation, far too often in the house, legislation was so far to the left, it took so long to move legislation back to the center, it had been demonized by everyone involved and made it really difficult to get a real message out clearly to the american people about what legislation should be passed in the u.s. house. and in effect, what ultimately happened, they became demonized and publicized and it was very difficult to get democrat moderates to weigh in on the legislation and at the very end, to vote on it. >> so it's safe to say right now, you're neither in nor out

for the race for the democratic leadership? >> well, obviously, if she doesn't step aside, then i'm fully aware, i'm going to press forward. you know, i can add and subtract pretty well. i don't have the numbers to be able to win. but i think it's a proven point for moderates and the democrat party that we have to be a big tent. we have to be all-inclusive. we have to invite everyone into the party. and i don't like the direction in which we're going, so i want us to be able to be a big tent party. >> thank you so much, congressman shuler, joining us from north carolina. now joining me, the majority whip in the house of representatives, congressman james clyburn of south carolina. you've heard what mr. shuler has to say. what do you think of it, congressman clyburn? >> well, joe, thank you so much for having me this morning. i agree with my good friend, heath shuler, that we have to have a big tent. and that's exactly what we have in our party. and i would hope that our party

would be going forward with this big tent. i don't want us shrinking the tent insofar as our various caucuses are concerned. we're dealing with less numbers among the blue dog coalition, growing numbers in the congressional black caucus, about the same in the congressional hispanic caucus. but we are dealing with issues now where our new dems are very concerned about what kind of trade policy we're going to have going forward, and there are others who will not like to see any trade policies. so all of these issues must be discussed under this big tent. and i do believe that there's much too much noise that's being made about the leadership team. we all know what happened this past year. we had -- >> congressman -- >> -- an economy -- yes? >> i just wanted to jump in here and say, for clarification's sake, there's pretty much no chance in your view that nancy pelosi is going to get out of

the leadership race? >> oh, i don't think so. she's made the declaration. i've read two or three letters within the last week or so. i think that we all know that she will be a candidate. and as heath shuler just said, if he were to get into the race, he would not have the votes to be successful. >> now, you've put out a letter of your own, just over the past 24 hours or so, talking about the deal, if you will, that's been arranged, so that you remain in the house leadership. tell us about that deal and how you reached the conclusion that you did. >> well, because our members were very strong in discussions with me that they did not want to vote on this issue. some members told me they would not come to the meeting if this issue were not resolved. some told me, if a vote came up and they were in the room, they would leave the room. and so what we did was looked at this issue and see how we could

best keep our caucus together and not having them choosing between me and steny hoyer for whip or me and john larson for chair of the caucus. >> so you end up third in charge, right? is that what the deal is? you end up third in charge. are you satisfied with that? >> well, that's what i am now. >> right. >> that's what i am right now. >> understood. so there's no change, but you're not the whip any longer? >> no, i'm not. because in the minority, whip is number two. >> okay. >> it's number three when you're in the majority. so since we're in the minority, then we have pulled another chair up at the table and i will be offering for assistant leader. >> before all of this, you had said, "every time there's a deal, the short end of the stick ends up with the congressional black caucus." what'd you mean by that? while all this friction was going on? >> i don't think i ever said that. i think that was said, and maybe somebody attributed that to me,

but i never said that. i think all my caucus members will tell you that i did not speak in those terms. i may have said that the last time we had a serious situation like this, i stepped off of the appropriations committee, so that my party would be saved from an embarrassing situation, and i did do that. so i was talking about myself and what i have done in the past in order to maintain the integrity of decisions made by the leadership in my caucus. and i'm doing the same thing in this instance. >> one of the big questions that's out there, particularly among the moderates, the blue dogs, if you will, can democrats regain the majority with nancy pelosi in charge. you and steny ohhoyer, basicall the same leadership that was there wildfibefore this midterm election that was so devastating to democrats. >> well,ly remind them, how did we get the majority? we spent 12 years in the wilderness. four years ago, we came into the

majority. who was leading the team then? nancy pelosi. steny hoyer was in second place, i was in third place. this is a team that brought us out of the wilderness and since it's sunday morning, let me use biblical stuff, into the land of milk and honey. now all of a sudden we saw a collapse of the economy. we saw people losing their homes. we saw a global threat. and everybody knows that that is what turned this country sour. that is the headwind that we were all sailing against. and it had nothing to do with the leadership in my opinion. it had everything to do with the economic conditions of the country that turned things sour for everybody. >> it's also been said -- >> and people always -- i'm sorry? >> it's also been said that collective decisions among congressional democrats as well as the white house sort of led to the perfect storm, if you will, that ended up the midterm

elections. how much responsibility do you think the president of the united states needs to take? and who's talking to him to try to sort of turn this thing around for democrats as he goes forward toward the re-elect? >> well, i would hope they will all be talking to each other. i was out there this past year, and i can tell you, there are some things i learned that i really believe we need to take a hard look at. and that's one of the reasons nancy pelosi made this situation, so that i would be there at the table and in these discussions, going forward, because i do have some things to say to my caucus about what we need to do going forward. >> all right. thank you so much, mr. clyburn. and we will be watching the leadership races next week. >> thank you so much for having me. coming up next, we'll preview the big political battles coming up in washington with a former obama white house insider and a retired republican congressman. [ female announcer ] we can't live in a bubble.

but what we can do is arm ourselves for the ones we love with a flu shot from walgreens.

♪ [ coughs ] [ female announcer ] with the most pharmacists certified to immunize... [ sneezes ] ...and walk-ins welcome everyday, we're making it easy for everyone to get their flu shot, no matter how small their motivation may be. ♪ so stop by and get your flu shot today at walgreens. there's a way to stay well.

aspercreme breaks the grip, with maximum-strength medicine and no embarrassing odor. break the grip of pain with aspercreme. joining me now here in washington, anita dunn, former white house communications director for president obama and tom davis, former republican congressman in virginia. thank you both so much for coming in. one of the things we haven't talked too much about today, and

it is kind of interesting, the president's coming back from his asia trip, and a lot of questions out there as to whether he accomplished much, or that he was able to do what he set out to do. what's your view? if the president wasn't able to get a good trade agreement with south korea, if he wasn't able to get any concessions on the issue of currency with the chinese, what did he get besides really nice photo opes? >> joe, i think one of the things that's striking about the trip is that it's the first time that you've had exchange rates on the agenda for anybody to talk about. it's the first time that people have had open discussions about this. and it's symbolic of how the world economy has changed and where our economic growth is going to come from. that's why it was a very important trip for the president to do right now, as we move from the economic crisis to a period where we're going to be looking at growth and where we want to figure out, how do we go the economy and how do we grow those jobs?

the thing about the south korea free trade agreement, which the white house has said and which is true, that there will be one negotiated, but the president didn't go there to get a bad deal for the united states. he went there to get the best deal possible so we could have trade and jobs for the future and taking a hard line for the united states is what the jobs are about. >> tom davis, what does it say -- >> well, let me say, our markets have been open to korea. we wanted to open up the korean markets. he inherited a treaty. and not doing colombia and panama, i don't understand why they haven't moved ahead on trade. but the irony here is that the president was going to be inclusive and be part of the rest of the world and trusted the bush administration was isolated. looks now the rest of the world is zigging and we're zagging. we're trying to do a huge shot to our economy. the rest of the world is on an austere diet at this point. we're here floating more

currency and japan's latest rating agency just downgraded our bonds to a-minus. so as you take a look at it, it's kind of opposite of what he campaigned on. and it was a tough trip for him. plenty of time to recover. two years is an eternity, but he didn't come back with what he wanted. >> is the whole world turning isolationist? >> we are. we haven't done any trade agreements. nothing in the last two years has come forward. we had three on the shelf and they've both been disgarded. there are hundreds of trade agreements being negotiated around the world. as these are being opened up and we're not part of it. >> let me move on to this article, op-ed, if you will, that i just found fascinating today. it's the question of whether we ought to have a one-term obama presiden presidency. this is an op-ed by doug schoen and patrick caddell. "by explicitly saying he will be

a one-term president, obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture and resentment that have eroded our common purpose." what do you think of that? i mean, it seems on its face kind of completely against the grain, if you will, of democratic politics. >> well, i think that, you know, the two that wrote the piece -- >> two democrats. >> he was president obama's pollster and he brought us new coke, so they are democrats, and obviously everybody's voice needs to be heard. i wouldn't say they are people who have really been drivininin democratic strategy or democratic conversation, but given the fact that the process has already begun. we only have a few months to get things done before the campaign begins, why would it help to automatically make yourself a lame duck? i think that the thinking here is to get on the front page of "the washington post" outlook section. but it doesn't feel like it

really makes a lot of sense for a president to go out there and basically say, i'm going to be a lame duck from here on in. >> well, members of congress -- but members of congress have actually talked about the same idea. come to congress for a short term, make some of the very tough decisions. realize you won't get re-elected if you do that, and then go on back to the private sector. >> lyndon johnson said he wouldn't seek re-election because he was going to seek peace in vietnam. nothing came of that. you really marginalize yourself if you're not a candidate for e re-election in this very polarized environment. >> the tax cuts, realistically what do we think this lame-duck congress can do, or is it more likely, maybe i should start with you, mr. davis, is it more likely for republicans to simply push this until january, where they have more clout in the house? >> if they don't get what they want, which is an extension of everything, they'll kick it over to january and that's what they'll end up putting on the

president's desk. >> but what do they want? are they going to ask for a two-year extension or are they going to push for permanent? >> they'll push for permanent, i don't think they get permanent. i think they'll kick it down the road. but it's is not just tax cuts. amt relief, $70 billion for one year. unemployment insurance, you have the doc fix, which is $300 billion over ten years. you have a number of other tax extenders. so they're talking about deficit reduction, but they're ready to go to the buffet table before they start their diet. >> you know, joe, these tax cuts were originally put in as a temporary measure, which is why they're expiring as stimulus for the economy during the first -- during former president bush's administration. and you know, one is tempted to say, where are the jobs, as they like to say on the other side, these are stimulus. and i think what senator warner said makes a lot of sense, which is, if we need to stimulate the business part of the economy, why don't we look and see what makes sense for business.

but what is also clear, with the definite commission coming out with a series of first looks and recommendations that members of congress who have been sent here to get things done have to look carefully at whether the first thing they want to do is basically, you know, do almost $1 trillion of unpaid for spending here. >> so should the democrats compromise on this thing? i mean, do they get anything out of saying, okay, we'll give you a couple more years, because the economy's in such bad shape right now? >> well, you know, there's certainly a lot of people who say they should take a hard line next week and have the fight. and obviously, the republicans don't want to have a fight on a freestanding bill about 2%. which is why some people earlier were talking about decoupling them. because they know at the end of the day, if they go out there and say we want to do a tax cut right now for the wealthiest people in the society that's going to add nearly $1 trillion to the deficit, they're going to lose. should the democrats compromise?

they may want to compromise into next year so they can have the fight with the new members, but the reality is that this is really a core argument between the two parties, and one that i think both parties welcome. >> but the democrats, had they been smart, could have framed this 2% issue prior to the election. they weren't able to get their act together on that. they won't during this session, and i can guarantee the republicans aren't going to send it shall that way to the president. i think they extend them all at this point. nobody wants to be held accountable if the economy doesn't recover for raising taxes. >> one real wild card question i want to throw out, before it's too late, very quickly, khalid shaikh mohammed, the question of whether his trial should be in new york. it still seems out there. will we figure this out over the next week or two? any idea? >> i don't think so. i think it kicks down the road as well, as they try to figure out where they can try him or hold him indefinitely. >> yes or no? >> i agree. >> thank you so much for coming in. we appreciate it, jumping around

here. up next, a check of the top stories. then, the presidential candidates for 2012 are already lining up, as we said. sarah palin will not be left out in the cold.

don't want to deal with a lot of flibbity-flab or mumbo-jumbo. sounds like you need to name your price. no gobbledy-gook? never. do i still get all the dagnabbit coverage i need? sure. we give you a quote and you can adjust your price up and down to find something that works for you. ♪ this thing is okey-mcsmokey skiddly-doo. great! i think. diggity. oh! still not sure. the "name your price" tool. only from progressive. call or click today.

now it's time for a check of top stories. president obama is heading back to the united states after a ten-day trip to asia. his final stop was japan where he met with russian president dmitry medvedev at the asian pacific economic conference. president obama says getting ratification of a new nuclear arms agreement, the s.t.a.r.t. treaty with russia and the lame-duck congress is a top priority. myanmar's newly freed democracy activist aun sang suu kyi addressed reports today. myanmar's military junta freed her after 15 years of house arrest yesterday. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu met with cabinet members today about a

proposal to free settlement in the west bank for 90 days. the proposal could be a difficult sell for members of israel's coalition government. and there is a new super walter weight champion. manny pacquiao won the world boxing title with a punishing 12-round decision last night in dallas despite being 17 pounds lighter than his opponent. it was pacquiao's 13th straight ring win. those are the top stories here on "state of the union." up next, what you may learn from sarah palin's new reality show. we were actually thinking, maybe... we're going to hike up here, so we'll catch up with you guys. [ indistinct talking and laughter ] whew! i think it's worth it. working with a partner you can trust is always a good decision. massmutual. let our financial professionals help you reach your goals.

try capzasin-hp. it penetrates deep to block pain signals for hours of relief. capzasin-hp. take the pain out of arthritis. we close today with a question it seems everybody wants to know. will sarah palin run for president in 2012? the search for clues has hit a new low. her new reality show, "sarah palin's alaska" which premieres tonight. will she give the political pundits any hints? >> just use your legs, look for

footholds. you've always wanted to be a rock climber, sarah. >> was it a rock climber or rock star? hmm. i'd rather be doing this than in some stuffy old political office. i'd rather be out here being free. >> unless that stuffy office is the oval office? we're stretching. we know. that's because at least from the clips released so far, the only clues we're getting are her parenting skills. >> if you're planning on visiting her, she can visit you for like 20 minutes. willow, come here. no boys go upstairs. willow? willow! >> but before you rule her out, consider this. palin just announced a 13-state tour to promote her new book, "america by heart." and she's stopping in iowa and south carolina, two states critical to picking up her party's nomination. and where, according to our cnn exit polls, are presidential prospects are already very high. maybe, maybe that means more than this. >> and on a really clear day,