as popular in the whole world as you happen to be? >> larry: thank you. thank you. i have no answer. vladimir putin, prime minister of russia. thank you again, sir. tomorrow night, the former heavyweight champion of the world, mike tyson. anderson cooper and "ac 360" is next. good evening, i'm kathleen parker. >> i'm eliot spitzer. glad to have you back, kathleen, we missed you. >> thank you. >> another great show tonight. coming up, frightening new details about the depth of the federal crisis. it loaned trill trillion, to keep corporate america afloat. >> plus, president obama's basketball skills. we'll hear what the round mound of rebound had to say. >> tonight's opening argument.

we are being held hostage. everyone of us. we are hostages being held hostage by 42 republican senators the day after the republican leadership meets with the president and says we want bipartisanship. they send a letter saying no way, no how. we will do nothing until you give a tax cut to the rich. no start treaty, something endorsed by every major republican foreign policy leader. colin powell says it today. they say no way. no unemployment benefits for those looking for jobs. can't get it with unemployment at 9%, 10%. this is outrageous. this is not the way to govern. party of no has gotten worse. i think it is a shame. it is just beyond -- beyond comprehension. >> gosh, you're just so cute when you're angry, eliot. i know it's not funny. i don't know why i'm smiling -- because i got stuck on the image of being held hostage by 42 republicans. talk about a bad date. >> i certainly agree on that one.

>> to get to your point, i assumed when i heard there was opposition to the start treaty there must be legitimate concerns. i asked around and i'm convinced by the people i've spoken with who are knowledgeable certainly with this particular treaty that it is important to do it. on the tax issue alone, let's just say, let me be wild and crazy and propose a compromise that seems to be, you know, the republicans are using this as leverage obviously, doing it rather successfully, but you know what why not say, we're going to do what's best for the country and let's find a compromise position? one of which that i find rather appealing is raise the definition of rich. you and i both know that a two-income family earning $250,000 a year, that's not rich-rich certainly in urban areas. so raise the ceiling. raise it to $1 million. or postpone it to some period. bring it up to $500,000. >> as we speak there are millions of americans whose unemployment benefits have run out. >> yep. >> congress, think any person with the sense of justice would

say we need to help these folks. they're looking for jobs. there simply aren't jobs aren't there. we have unemployment that simply is twice as high as it ordinarily is. families that can't afford to put food on the table. the republican leadership is saying until we give a tax cut to the rich we won't even consider extending unemployment benefits for those folks. it just isn't the sense of justice that should permeate our politics. i'm just -- i'm almost just outraged at the callousness these issues are being played with at a moment of such desperation. >> i don't think the american people are going to be -- are feeling very positive right now about the wait congress is behaving. this is -- you know, as you say, our problems are really, really serious. we've got to do something. move it forward. digging in the healing right now is not -- >> not the way to govern. for more on the impending clash in washington, let's go into the arena. >> joining us is one of the republicans rising stars, congressman greg walden. thanks for joining us, congressman.

>> glad to be with you today. >> congressman, thank you for joining us. i just got to ask you a question. it seems as though the republicans in senate are holding us hostage. every major piece of every issue that needs to be addressed for this nation is being held hostage to the one issue of tax cu cuts for the rich. is that any way to govern right now? >> eliot, you're always good with the questions. i'm in the house, not the senate. americans spoke and the referendum in the country was on the house. the problem is the white house and the senate and the u.s. house under the same leadership as before the election hasn't gotten the message of the american people and that is it's about jobs and cutting spending, not growing the government. that's really the issue. >> with all due respect, when it comes to the economy, all the multiple facets of that issue, take the start treaty, former secretary of state colin powell just left a meeting with the president saying passing start treaty, ratifying the treaty,

hugely important. henry kissinger. james baker. republican secretaries of state have said the same thing. how can it be that the republican party opposes this critical national security measure? >> well, eliot, again, i think you have to look at what other agreements are on the sidebar there. senator kyl has been involved in this issue and raised concerns publicly and privately about what has maybe been negotiated on the side that maybe we're not fully aware of. >> i know you're in the house and the letter was of course responding to the senators. john boehner has wanted to bring in this whole new spirit of cooperation. i just wonder do you feel that letter kind of undermines that spirit? >> what we're focused on is the house. what we're trying to do is set up to run this house in the more open and transparent way than it's ever been run before. >> why is it not reasonable on the tax cut issue just to raise the threshold of the rich, say, to $1 million?

nobody feels sorry for people earning $1 million. wouldn't that be a compromise solution that everybody could agree with? >> i think what we said was pretty clear. extend this because the worst thing you can do in a recession is pass job killing tax increases. remember, taxes go up absent an act of congress. and they could go up on everybody. i was a small business owner for 22 years. i talked to a lot of small business owners. there's a lot of money on the sidelines. people can't plan right now. there's a lot of uncertainty which leads to unemployment. >> i hear what you're saying about a lame duck congress. you don't want lame duck congressman to be voting on important things. unemployment benefits have run out for millions of americans who are seeking jobs. with unemployment, really, in the mid-teens, not the 9.6 that's reported. these are millions looking desperately for jobs. do you support extending benefits to those millions of families so they can buy food for their kids? >> eliot, absolutely. look, though, here's the deal, why is it the democrats who controlled congress under nancy pelosi and harry reid refuse to allow us to offer up an

alternative that would pay for that extend of unemployment benefits? this is twice they've done that. we have options. we have alternatives. why do you think it's okay for them to shut out any alternative which would pay for that which is how it's come to the floor? we have a point of agreement here. i just want to make sure we focus on this. you would vote for a clean bill that says extend those unemployment benefits? >> that's not what i said. i know you were a prosecutor. that's not what i said. >> i think that's what most people heard you saying. >> what i said, yeah could i vote to extend unemployment benefits if they're paid for. >> here's what i'd like to do, since i'm thrilled you raise the issue of how we pay for thing because one of the issues i've been trying to grapple with and i've been asking a lot of our guests here, how are we going to balance the budget? i know you and your party in particular ran on the platform of balancing our budget, getting rid of the deficit. the tax cults that you want to make permanent and a $4 trillion hole over the next decade which, okay, i understand you're for it, but then i'm only gated to

follow up by saying how are we going to pay for it? let's ask the easy one, where do you stand on the bowles/simpson bipartisan deficit proposal that's been announced? their concepts for closing that deficit? for it or against it? >> i'm not for or against something i haven't had a chance to read and fully understand and i haven't had that chance. second, they put forward some really bold initiatives that really both side, at least from what i've heard originally, speaker pelosi and others condemned right off the bat. what they've done is really important. and that is this -- they have begun to educate the american people the depth of the deficit and debt problem we face in this nation and the severity of the changes that are going to have to occur. so why is it it's always an either/or? why don't we create a system in washington where both sides sit down, bring everybody to the table and say how do we begin to put this country back on a path to where we pay our bills like families have to do and when we take over in november, with 87 new republicans, and a class of

63 pickup over democrats, we'll have that opportunity to show how we will govern. right now, we continue to be shut out of every discussion that takes place and they continue to run it like they did that got them in trouble. >> wait a minute. i've got to disagree a little bit on that. the commission we're talking about was chaired by ear skin boel, chief of staff in a democratic presidency, and simpson, one of the conserve tich are manies out there, and just today, judd gregg said he was for it. so a bipartisan commission. we've had several weeks now. the ideas have been out there. which pieces of it do you not support? they talk about raising the social security age in terms of benefits. for that or against it? >> eliot, look, i think you have to take it all in context here. and say, what will move us forward? there are other proposals out there as well -- >> with all due respect, you

just ran a national campaign you're going to balance the budget, get rid of the deficit. i'm asking you for some singular ideas about how to do it. i'm asking you for some ideas -- >> eliot, look, look -- >> just give us a couple. >> eliot, look, you can go through -- i'll tell you what we're going to do. we're first going to pass a budget. second, we're going to break open the appropriations process so that members of congress can go to the floor like they used to do and offer up those alternatives. this is about how we govern going forward. you're going to see that happen under john boehner as speaker and what we did not see happen under nancy pelosi as speaker. that's where we'll have those specific ideas going forward. >> can we do this, given we've got a deficit over the next

decade of about $11 trillion, can you give me just ideas that would give me, you know, $2 trillion in savings? just a little old 2. >> pick a number here, elliot, look. why don't we just go in. the president has now agreed with us. let's start by freezing federal pay. that's one thing. that saves you $30 billion over the period -- whatever the number is -- >> congressman, we're talking trillions. we're talking trillions. >> eliot, eliot, i know that. first of all, let's repeal -- take over national health care -- >> no, no, congressman, allen simpson, your republican conservative senator agrees repealing it is going to cost us money. they want to strengthen many of cost-saving provisions in there, allen simpson, judd gregg -- >> well, judd gregg nor allen simpson is going to be in the congress next session, okay. >> i think everyone wants you to tell the truth -- >> you know, that's clever. >> thank you. >> here's the deal -- yeah, yeah. so here's the deal. you were a governor. you know the kind of unfunded mandates that went into new york. costs that went in there from the federal government. at some point, we need conversation with the governors about how to reform the big

programs. the entitlement programs. >> let's take medicare, far and away the biggest driver of the deficit. can you give us any cults that you're willing to make in medicare so you begin to make some progress in this $11 trillion, $12 trillion chasm? >> eliot, there are things you can do with medicare, with medicaid. both in partnership with the states. on the energy and commerce committee when i was in the majority we actually did a package that empowered the states to be able to save some money of significant amount. it was in the billions of dollars. by giving them some flexibility on how they operate. >> congressman, before we let you go, i just wanted to say one nice thing to you. i understand that one of the goals of the new house under john boehner is to have a more transparent operation. >> yes. >> and you've asked for recommendations from citizens who can go online and give -- >> yes. >> -- their idea, one of which, hope you'll stop your bipartisan bickering.

so we appreciate that. >> yeah, we have and i think they appreciate that. there's a lot of rank and file members around here that want this institution to work. it's been broken for both parties for too long. i really tell you, we're going to change how this place open rates. i hope that will lead -- process matters. i hope that process change will lead to better policy so we can come together as we've talked with this commission, you know. there are things we can do legislative. that's what the people paid us to do by the way. they should be a part of this. we're going to open it up, make it more transparent. we'll have a lot more of these discussions and debates. >> thank you, congressman. still head on the program, scary new figures from the fed that crisis of 2008 much worse than we knew.

let me tell you about a very important phone call i made. when i got my medicare card, i realized i needed an aarp... medicare supplement insurance card, too. medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. in fact, it only pays up to 80% of your part b expenses. if you're already on or eligible for medicare, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses...

not paid by medicare part b. that can save you from paying up to thousands of dollars... out of your own pocket. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans... exclusively endorsed by aarp. when you call now, you'll get this free information kit... with all you need to enroll. put their trust in aarp medicare supplement insurance. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. the prices are competitive. i can keep my own doctor. and i don't need a referral to see a specialist. call now to get a free information kit. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. and the advantages don't end there. choose from a range of medicare supplement plans... that are all competitively priced. we have a plan for almost everyone, so you can find one that fits your needs and budget. with all medicare supplement plans, there are virtually no claim forms to fill out. plus you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare. and best of all, these plans are... the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp.

when they told me these plans were endorsed by aarp... i had only one thing to say... sign me up. call the number on your screen now... and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan. you'll get this free information kit... and guide to understanding medicare, to help you choose the plan that's right for you. as with all medicare supplement plans, you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare, get help paying for what medicare doesn't... and save up to thousands of dollars. call this toll-free number now.

news today that the financial crisis was much worse than we knew. not just banks were teetering on the edge but many of america's major corporations including mcdonald's, caterpillar, general electric and more. the fed issued $9 trillion, that's with a "t," $9 trillion in short-term loans to american banks and corporations. our next guest led the fight to force the federal reserve to reveal exactly how much money it handed out and to whom. joining us in the exchange tonight, senator bernie sanders of vermont. it was his plan that required the fed to go public on all its emergency lending. senator, thank you for joining us. congratulations. you are in many respects a true american hero tonight. you have revealed $9 trillion in taxpayer spending. how does that feel? >> well, i think, eliot, what we have begun to do is lift the veil of secrecy at one of most important agencies and that is the federal reserve, of which the american people know very little. and i think what you are seeing is the incredible power of a small number of people who sit

on the fed who, in my view, have incredible conflicts of interest getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country, while at the same time ignoring the needs of the people who bail them out. >> senator, let me go back for a second. i just want the public to understand, you asked chairman bernanke, chairman of the federal reserve bank, at a hearing about a year ago, perhaps more, if he would reveal the magnitude of the loans and who the recipients were and he refused. >> that is right. it was a budget committee hearing. i said, tell us the names of the financial institutions who received trillions of dollars at very low interest rates from the american people. he said, i'm not going to do that. we introduced legislation to make him do that. >> so it's clear, that legislation, that amendment, was opposed by the fed -- >> oh, vigorously opposed, yes. >> and also by the white house. >> we went back and forth with the white house but certainly

yes. >> they did not want this disclosure. you have now opened up perhaps the biggest single transfer of taxpayer money to corporate america in history. >> i think that that's correct. >> now, the other -- you talk about the new york fed or the federal reserve bank. parenthetically, i wrote an article about two years ago, the title of which was, the most important least understood institution in america, it's about the fed. do you believe these loans should have been made? the liquidity of these companies was in jeopardy. shot companies have received this assistance? >> eliot, the more important point was, if i lend you something at half a percent interest rate, what are the conditions attached? what are you gonna do for me? for example if you are one of the major financial institutions

and we have the top four in this country that issue half the mortgages in america, what are you going to do to make sure people don't lose their homes? are you going to negotiate with them and lower their interest rates if they're about to be foreclosed? >> senator, i interrupt only because i completely agree but i want to ask something that comes before this, which is, i think at least from my perspective, it was almost necessary these companies be given assistant or else the entire economy would have ground to a halt. i think that is an equally important point to make. we could not take our economy over the precipice into a depression. >> well, i think -- i mean, that's a good point, eliot. the other half of it is, the average american is sitting home, his or her standard of living is declining, can't afford to sent their kids to college, may have lost their home. i think what this revelation, this disclosure is about, is a group of enormously powerful people who today, many instances, are making more money than they did before they were bailed out by the taxpayers. the american people say, hey, what does the government do for me? allow me to keep my house, my job, my savings? what kind of power do these guys

have who sit in closed rooms, making decisions for trillions of dollars to protect their interests? >> senator, could i not agree more. i begin with the notion the loans in fact had to be made or else the economy would have shut down but the grievous error -- i almost use the word crime but i don't want to suggest criminality in the traditional sense but the enormous error of the judgment at a minimum was not saying to these banks and other companies, now that you get this assistance, you must participate in the reform that is necessary and you must participate in helping the rest of america. that's -- >> exactly. >> there was no conversation like that was had. >> exactly. so what you have right now are the large financial institutions who are now doing very, very well, sitting on top of huge amounts of cash, and yet small billses in vermont and all over this country can't get affordable loans in order to create jobs.

you got credit card companies that were substantially helped by the bailout say, oh, thank you very much for bailing us out, now we're going to charge you 25% or 30% interest rates. >> senator, am i correct that the moment the banks had received these short-term loans and then paid them back by and large, they then came down to washington and worked against the very reforms that you've been pushing for? >> eleliot, to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying efforts. they tried to destroy any capability to bring real reform to wall street. >> citigroup got $1.8 trillion in these loans. goldman sachs that said it didn't need anything because it never had a problem, so they said, $590 billion. staggering sums. was this done out of the new york fed by and large? >> i believe that's the case. >> and that was being run by tim geithner at the time? >> i believe that's the case. >> i don't mean to seem like i'm leading a witness here, but wouldn't we have wanted to know when he was being -- you know, when the vote was being held whether he should be treasury

secretary, what he had done and what the conversations were with these banks that the time? >> you're talking to somebody who voted against mr. geithner for secretary of treasury and voted to help lead the opposition against ben bernanke, once again become chairman of the fed, those are the right questions to ask. >> senator, thank you so much for your time. this is going to be a continuing story. i hope we have a chance to continue this conversation. as i said at the top, congratulations. your fortitude in pushing for this disclosure has done a huge, huge, huge public service. >> eliot, thank you very much. coming up, we'll have a full assessment of the damage from the wikileaks dump.

it's getting worse, not better. i'm talking about partisanship in politics. it used to be there was some

issues that partisan didn't touch like foreign policy, like the start treaty or even the fed and how it ran the economy. no more. today, even those issues driven by partisanship. >> joining us on constitution avenue is mark mckinnon, a republican political strategist who worked in the bush white house as well as for some democrats such as ann richards of texas. he has a radical idea about how to fix our political logjam. civility and compromise. welcome, mark. >> hi, thanks. good to see you, kathleen, governor, how are you? >> pleasure, glad to see you. >> pleasure to see you, mark. this is a subject which i'm passion nat as well. i like to think of myself as a radical centrist. so you can make a case for no labels. yesterday, every senate republican signed a letter announcing their intention to blocany legislative action that wasn't related to tax cuts or government spend during their lame duck session. republicans are throwing down the gauntlet. no votes on don't ask, don't tell. nothing on unemployment

insurance extensions or any other democratic issues. what is the rational centrist response? >> that's exactly why we need a movement to represent the millions of americans who look at this kind of behavior and say, who's representing our voice? this hyperpartisanship reflects just a tiny percentage of people who are in washington. but it doesn't represent america. and as i go around the country, doing these no labels meetings, people are crying out for progress, for -- they just want people in washington to be civil, to meet together, to -- they don't have to give up their principles but they need to recognize people want us to move forward, to make progress. the way the system's set up now is that hyper partisanship is rewarded. and people who try and work across the aisle with one another are the punished by these partisan interests in the parties and in some of the media, and that's the problem, and so i was glad to see the president meeting with republicans yesterday. that's a good start.

we need a lot more of it. >> the thing is, again, playing devil's advocate, the republicans have been very effective with their hell no posture on things. i'm wondering if cracking heads isn't the better way to go. >> you're right, the republicans are sort of responding to this last election and they're sort of drawing a line in the sand and saying hell no, we won't go. but i think that's a -- i think that's a short-term prescription and short-term strategy that is not serving the greater interest of the country. >> i agree with your premise. we need civility. we need prague that tism. we need thoughtfulness. i am going to make a startling suggestion, we have that in the house in the form of barack obama. start, nobody disputes that the senate should pass the start treaty. you would agree with that, i presume? >> i do, and i support the president's ambitions here. as i supported president bush's similar ambitions.

>> akt absolutely. don't ask, don't tell, i think most people would agree bring it to a vote. don't you think that's something the senate should consider at this point in time? >> sure, i do. i think most republicans had said at one point they want the military to make their point of view clear and they've done that. >> we can go back in history a little bit, go back to the health care bill. which was modeled after mitt romney's bill in massachusetts in terms of some of its -- most of its fundamental pieces. compromised hundreds of times for the republicans. there again, a product of compromise. alien nated the progressive wing of the democratic party. >> i would much prefer to see more market solutions. i think people reacted to the process and politics that got involved in that. >> even the stimulus. i agree wholeheartedly with your notion we need prague that tism, rationality.

the republican party has been moving the goal post of what centristism means. they're now standing off on the sidelines saying we're the center, when of course they're not. the whole spectrum has shifted. the president is a very centrist voice. >> i agree. i think the president's doing the right thing. he's making moves towards the middle. which is exactly what he ought to do for the country. i think it's good for his long-term politics despite the pressure he's getting from the hyperpartisans on the left. >> i want to come back to a couple other issues. i think people understand where you and your organization fall in these issues and will help them sort of appreciate what you're trying to do. global warming is another issue where the republican party right now has been vehemently opposed to most of the incoming republicans who have been elected reject the science, don't want to do anything in terms of global warming. does your organization weigh in on that? >> we don't specifically because we didn't want to do that before we launched, governor.

we didn't want to dictate from the few of us who started this thing to say i've got my views pretty laid out in what i call my centrist manifesto that i just wrote at the daily beast. i don't want to impose my ideas on this organization that's really bubbling up from the grassroots. we're launching december 13th and we'll let the community decide these issues. >> it's hard to make centristism and pragmatism sexy but thanks for joining us. >> appreciate your getting out there on it, kathleen. >> all right, mark, take care. coming up, when it comes to the wikileaks, document dump fallout is not just a figure of speech. a nuclear iran, a nuclear north korea and our old nuclear friend russia with a policy maven richard haass. we'll be right back.

russia is no longer a democracy. that is one of many bombshells in the wikileaks document dump. indeed, that is not just anybody saying that. that was the u.s. secretary of defense robert gates saying it to a french defense official. as you can imagine, prime minister putin of russia did not appreciate that comment. joining us to discuss this tonight, richard haass, president of the council on foreign relations and expert on foreign affairs. you know, let us see exactly what gates said. it is kind of startling. russia pretending to be a democracy for a number of years. let's put up on the screen what they said. russian democracy has disappeared and the government was an oligarchy run by the security services. before you jump in, let's listen to what prime minister putin said and you can hear the whole interview tonight on "larry king live." this is kind of remarkable. >> translator: he's been deeply

misled. our country is led by the people of the russian federation through the legitimately elected government and the parliament authorities of the president and the prime minister of the russian federation. >> all right, richard, who's right, secretary of defense gates, prime minister putin? what does this all mean? >> that's a pretty good line. oligarchy run by the security services. just because you have elections doesn't make you a democracy. the fact that mr. putin was president, is prime minister, will probably go back to president, tells you he has consolidated power still. television in particular is highly limited. wealth has distributed in the form of crony capitalism. it's a hybrid. it's a combination. can i say one thing though? u.s./russian relations are arguably most improved bilateral relationship this administration has engineered over the last two years. >> will this affect it? >> seriously, no.

people tend to exaggerate how much personalities count in foreign policy. it will create a few moments, shall we say of -- are we allowed to use french words? it will create some awkwardness. u.s. relations towards iran, also in the wikileaks, are somewhat better because this administration's adjusted its plans for missile defense in central europe in order to accommodate russian views. >> back to putin's interview with larry king, they were talking about the start treaty negotiations. president putin said -- putin said, if the treaty isn't ratified, russia will build its nuclear mission technology. does that sound like a threat? >> nuclear weapons are one of the few things the russians have tied to their great power status. these armed control talks are a way of echoing that. i think they'll be upset if the senate doesn't ratify the

treaty. we should be upset if the senate doesn't ratify this treaty because on balance it's in our interest on nuclear grounds, on u.s./russia grounds and also on the grounds we as a major power ought to be reliable. >> you wrote an article in foreign affairs that looks what the is perhaps the lingering day-by-day crisis of debt. that is destroying our capacity to run the sort of foreign policy we want. does the debt commission, the bowles/simpson commission, address your concerns in a satisfactory way? >> the short answer's no despite my respect for what they've done. i think they did themselves a disservice. they haven't yet sold america on the need to do something about the deficit and the debt. if i had been in their shoe, i would have spent several months simply explaining the scale of the problem and why it matters. i would not have rushed to talk about this tax cut or tax increase or this spending cut or what have you. but they've done that. i think what they've done that's good is they've put this issue on the table. i'd be real surprised that they

got support from their own commission. i don't know how both of you feel. i for one am fairly pesimistic that we are going to be able to deal seriously with this challenge. >> i hope everybody will read this article you wrote. it explains everything. fairly apocalyptic terms. fairly frightening -- >> we should be frinted. >> where we will be in ten years and how dreadfully that affects not just our life style here but our foreign policy. >> this is the biggest economic challenge facing this country. our debt is also the biggest national security challenge. far bigger than afghanistan. far bigger than north korea. our ability to be a model -- our ability to act in the world, have the resources we need. our ability to sustain our economic growth which is so essential. all of this is now at risk. i don't mean to be apocalyptic but we face serious challenges. >> our ability to be a model to the world. >> absolutely. >> as you point out. the model of capitalism and free markets is suffering as a result of this. >> it took a major hit after 2008 after our own failure to

run our own economy well. one of the reasons why countries like china are getting the attraction they are is because we're not doing a good enough job of showing we've got a better way which is ridiculous because we do have a better way. >> let's go to south korea. the south korean spy chief today said the north is highly likely to attract south again. you say if the north keeps it up, the u.s. should retaliate against -- >> certainly in the first instance, the south koreans should. i don't think the right way to approach this is every time the north koreans outrageously use military force they should get a pass. the only lesson they learn is they can continue to do it. i think south korea should be careful but push back. something really interesting about korea on this. one is how the united states and south korea are beginning to talk about the possibilities of a united korean peninsula under seoul and talk about it in ways that will hopefully assuage some chinese concerns. the hope being that china will stop blocking this possibility. that to me is pretty creative diplomacy. the other thing china has found out in these cables which is really unattractive is the chinese have done nothing, or

very little rather, to thwart the flow of missile technology from places like north korea to iran. so there it's a place where china has really disappointed. >> richard haass, always great to talk to you. >> still ahead, nothing says happy holidays like no more unemployment checks. you can't make this stuff up. our political party weighs in. welcome to our political

welcome to our political party. we have annabelle gurwitch who co-wrote you say tomato, i say shut up. did i say that right? >> you say tomato, and i say shut up. >> it is a love story. >> it is a love story. we're still married today. >> ooze going to be watching this. >> dylan glenn, who advised both president bushes and was on the economic council. welcome.

>> we have max kellerman who is a boxing analyst for hbo and a cnn contributor. thank you for being here. this could be a boxing match by the time we're done. anyway, the republicans in the senate have taken the entire agenda of progress in this nation hostage. is this good for america? what's going on in washington? >> you know, reminds me of a marital issue. like when i tell my husband, i'm not having sex with you unless you do the dishes. now no one's getting laid and the dishes aren't done. this isn't a -- >> you overplayed your hand is what you're saying. >> i did. i feel like they wrote this out on a piece of paper, crumpled it up into the ball. >> which one's the congress and which one's the president, husband or wife -- i'm not sure. >> now that is a question, right? no, but, i mean, it's so immature. nothing gets done this way. the only thing i think we can

hope for is take it further and filibuster. when they start moving the cots in and do that whole sleepover thing if they make s'mores, anything can be solved. i say go all the way, baby, filibuster, you know? maybe something will get done then. >> all right. dylan, top that, good luck. >> i don't want to go after that. you know, i'm not so worried about it. think the american people spoke on november 2nd and they sent a pretty resounding message to the country that they weren't afraid of gridlock. so i'm not suggesting we're going to have gridlock but i think having a very real discussion of what the things will be, things that will affect the growth of the economy, i think that's a good position to have a conversation about. >> do you really think the american people are not afraid of gridlock? you think they're in favor of that? i think they really want change. they really want congress to work together and figure these things out. >> i think they voted for -- clearly voted for divided government. that doesn't suggest gridlock. it just means they want to have another voice at the table.

>> klein had a really interesting article a day or two ago in "the washington post" about incentives and how mitch mcconnell or whomover is considered the obstructionist may not think he's doing anything -- or, you know, destructive in terms of our country, but they're incense vised through the political climate. >> two things really bother me. one is the start treaty where i think there's across the board consensus it's good for our security, it should happen. the other is unemployment benefits for people who don't have money to buy food. that just make mess grieve. >> 2 million americans lost their unemployment benefits today. how does that jive with tax cuts for the rich? >> what's confusing is the rhetoric. on one hand people like palin saying things like, americans are -- >> this is supposed to be a sarah palin free zone -- >> she's breaking the rules. >> talking about american exceptionalism, right? cheer leading about how great americans are. but not you guys. not you unemployed people.

think they're being stigma tilzed and demonized. think it's a "blame the victim" mentality. we know that money would go right back into the economy -- >> it goes to a deeper issue. the social contract in this nation has fallen apart. it has broken. >> what is the argument here, as someone who knows this stuff what is the argument here? it seems to me that not only is there a moral issue, where there are people really suffering at this moment, in terms of up employment benefits. but there's also the stimulative issue right where that money goes right back into the economy, versus tax cuts that may not? >> i think we have to have a discussion about what actually is stimulative. i helped negotiate the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. in 2003, we forget, in the third quarter of 2003, we grew at 5.6 or 6% growth after those tax cuts were in place. the fact of what will actually govern in terms of growing this

economy and give us the juice we need to create the jobs that i think everybody wants to see. think that's the conversation we're trying to have in the united states congress. >> i hate to interrupt you but we have to take a break. we'll have more with our political party in just a moment.

welcome back to our political party. we've got time for just one more question. the media have been obsessed with the wikileaks rightfully so. and the start treaty. what are we missing? what's the big story we haven't paid attention to? >> well, i have a big story i think is very important. actually, it was the most e-mailed story from "the new york times" today. vitamin d and calcium supplements are not necessary. i personally feel really ripped off. i have been taking this stuff -- >> but wait, that was "new york times." >> yes. >> same day, "wall street journal," opposite conclusion. >> what are you supposed to do? look at this, americans are spending $6 billion a year on vitamins and supplements. we could use that money for employment benefits. >> for vitamin d, you can sit

outside for ten minutes. >> what does vitamin d do for you? >> it's supposed to help absorb the calcium. i'm so angry i've wasted so much money and time doing this. i think it's a really big issue. >> very angry. big issue. >> i honestly believe that all -- that every issue practically in the world that is important at any one time comes back to energy policy. so, in fact, i think right now wikileaks and what's going on in the congress right now are really important issues and they deserve the attention they're getting but anything that distracts from energy policy at anytime. >> max keller man, dylan glenn, annabelle gurwitch, thank you. coming up, a look at the president's basketball game. hello, i'm randi kaye. more "parker spitzer" in just a moment. the obama administration today changd course on oil exploration announcing a ban in the gulf of mexico for at least ten years. salazar called the reversal a result of lessons learned from the bp disaster in april. three weeks before the deadly explosion, prime minister prime minister said he would open much

of the gulf to drilling. salazar said environmental standards need to be in place before that ban is lifted. amazon has booted wikileaks from its servers. it had been hosting the website since sunday after a hacker targeted wikileaks old servers. amazon came under growing pressure to drop the website after it dumped thousands of classified cables on monday. a swedish firm outside of stockholm is now hosting wikileaks. tonight on "360," a crime epidemic experts say is thriving under the radar. in our series american slave, hiding in plain slight, tonight, we'll take you inside the battle to free child sex slaves in california. young girls, many runaways, preyed on by pimps and johns. now back to "parker spitzer."

we just switched ourselves and we're happy we did. [ male announcer ] make the switch to an aarp® medicarerx plan, insured through unitedhealthcare. call now for a free information kit. discover why these part d plans are so popular with over 4.3 million members. [ man ] what i wanted was simple. the most value for my dollar. so now that it's time, we're making the move to a plan that really works for us. plus, we'll be covered at like 60,000 pharmacies. [ male announcer ] call now and get predictable copays with no annual deductible, which means you could start saving with your first prescription. aarp® medicarerx plans include nearly all the drugs covered by medicare part d. so why wait? call now. december 31st is coming. i'm glad we switched. [ male announcer ] get the plan that gives you all this and more. aarp medicarerx plans. insured through unitedhealthcare. call today. ♪

time for our p.s., kathleen, you got to feel for the president, no matter what he does, they criticize him. too partisan, not partisan enough. now, they're even going after his basketball game. i thought he was pretty good. listen to what charles barkley said on "conan o'brien." >> he's a lefty. he always goes left. and if you just stand there, i'm not sure if you open up the right side he could go right at all. >> so you're confident you would do well one on one against the president of the united states? >> oh, yeah. come on, i mean, i'm an old fat guy now but i'll kick his ass. >> kick the president's -- wow, really, chuck. don't let the secret service hear that. and of course obama does only go to his left. let's take a look at president obama's game. >> i don't get it. when i watch this video, when i see the president shoot, when i see him passing off the ball, driving to the hoop, that's pretty darn good.