way of summing up their role in all of this. they would say we are the pointy end of the spear. our job is to kill people and break things and you order us to do so until someone orders us to stop. my rejoinder is, well, that may have been so. but now, unfortunately, there there are people out there in the darker regions killing people, breaking things, and doing all they can to make human life for everyone as miserable as possible. if your job is to interpose yourself between them and their victims and ordered them to stop. >> let's thank all of our panelists. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> this week marked the 47th anniversary of the anniversary of -- the assassination of president kennedy. we will talk it to secret service agents whose job it was to bridge -- to protect them. >> former minnesota senator norm coleman is our guest on "newsmakers" this week. we just learned from the daily collar -- caller that if michael steele runs again for the head of the rnc, you will not be a candidate. is that an endorsement of his leadership? >> i am grateful that ronald

reagan had an 11th commandment, republicans do not have to beat up on the republicans. he campaigned in support of me and my races. i have been very candid with the chairman. there have been some challenges with major donors. i do not think he has got enough credit for things he has done to bring the tea party into the republican coalition. i will not run against michael steele. whatever decision he makes is his dismay. i don't think it is productive from my perspective to engage in a battle with our chairman. >> let me introduce to our audience that journalists joining me. steve thomma from mcclatchy and tom hamburger. >> by the way, i have worked with both of these guys, and i'm glad to see if they are still working.

the newspaper business has its challenges. >> we appreciate that. the republican national committee is the cycle in debt, the only one of the major party committees that spent more than it raised in did not raise much. groups like yours and american crossroads stepped into the void and raised a lot of money. my question, why even have a republican national committee even more -- any more? >> clearly there is a place for the third parties like mine, the american action network, american crossroads, and on the democratic side. for years they overwhelmed republicans in terms of third- party money. they are major factors in these election cycles and will be in the future. our troops can coordinate with the rnc, -- power groups can

coordinate with the rnc. they support the get out the vote and local grassroots. there will always be a major role to play -- i suspect in the presidential election in 2012, a more significant role in the rnc then we saw in this off- year cycle. they need to be and have to be a major player. third-party groups played an active role in this cycle as they did on the left for many years before that. >> senator, great to see you. i wanted to ask you a follow-up question about the rnc. if your friend michael steele decided not to run, would you go for the chair? >> the chairman has to decide what he will do. i will say with humility that if the opportunity were there to help my party, i would help the party. part of that is to raise a

significant amount of money. part of it is to interact with the senate for committees and the house committee. part of it is to understand the roles and coordination and that they are out there. i could do all those things. but that is a hypothetical. the chairman has to decide what he is going to do. i have always been willing to serve my party. i am not out there actively campaigning for anything right now. >> said last summer word leaked out that you plan to go to the rnc summer meeting in kansas city with the purpose of signaling your intention of challenging michael steele. there was a backlash among rnc members and you did not go to kansas city. were you thinking of running then and challenging him? >> i was planning on going to that meeting, not for the purposes of challenging. my intent is never been to

challenge chairman steele. i said that to him directly. my mike -- one of my concerns, people are looking on the story of infighting among the republicans, when the real story is that the economy for 14 months, 9.5% unemployment, americans worried about the government takeover of health care, there were things we should have been talking about. they were the issues of the election. i am not out there looking to engage in any battles with our chairman. he is a friend. i don't think he has got enough credit for the good things he has done. he has faced some challenges, no question about that. that will sort itself out. my focus last summer was not to begin to those stories because the real story last summer and this election cycle was the economy, the failure of this administration, and the democrats in congress to focus on the economy, and rather get

involved in big spending, big taxes, big health care soundly rejected on november 2. >> you mentioned a moment ago that if you were a candidate for the rnc job, one of the things you would bring to the position is an understanding of the third-party groups like the one that you helped form and lead this last election cycle. tell us about how you seek third-party groups functioning in the american electoral politics? and respond to some of the critics, most noteworthy the president of the united states himself, the suggested that groups like yours that can raise unlimited funds from anonymous donations are somehow a threat to our democratic process. >> what is fascinating is that that was not the tone of the president in the 2008 cycle when the left overwhelm conservatives in terms of outside money being raised. i would suggest it is not the

tone right now. as you would admit, there has been a change in the tone. now there's talk on the left of taking more -- to win what conservatives were able to accomplish last cycle. this is not a new phenomenon. what we were able to accomplish was to level the playing field. the democrats still spend much more money in the 2010 cycle. there was a leveling of the playing field. my group, american action network, is a partner with american national forum on your policy operation headed by douglas holtz begin. our purpose is a broader social purpose. we get involved in advocacy as allowed by irs regulation and is allowed by law. we are still active in -- when the election is over. we have a forum coming up in

january cochaired by jeb bush and congress could terry harris -- and carlos guitteriez. hopefully will will get marco rubio. there is a role to be played an advocacy, no question about that. what their role -- what that role is is a balding. clearly gulf left lead with that in the 2008 and 2006 cycles. the conservatives have a level the playing field in 2010. clearly there will be a role for third-party groups that will be able to provide advocacy on behalf of conservative principles and individual policy makers to support those principles. >> cannot follow-up asking how you would respond to those that say that the notion of anonymous donors is somehow pernicious and

has an affect on elections and on democracy? your group did collect donations from individuals without releasing the names of the donors. how you respond to those critics? >> by law we cannot spend -- we do not spend bop -- dollar for dollar. if you want to spend dollar for dollar, then you engage in support of 527 where everything is fully disclosed. as the 50% of the work that we do is an advocacy. our group will have substantially less than 50% advocacy. there are rules and regulations that apply to these types. the bottom line is, if every group on the left and right were to operate on a level playing field, i would support full disclosure. i do not oppose that. what we're talking about now is leveling the playing field, following the rules that were in effect for groups like league of

conservation voters, planned parenthood on the left, and now the leftist talking about doing it again. i would fully support a more open disclosure process, a level playing bill. the unions need to be there, the trial lawyers need to be on a level playing fieldand our courts. if we can figure that out, i am not opposed to that. we're following the letter of law using resources as allowed by the law. and in many ways, leveling with the leftist and for many years. there was no appeal in cry about this when the left dominated with this type of spending and these types of groups. we level that in 2010 and a hue and cry is raised. this election in 2010 was not about big money. it was about big spending, big debt, big health care, and big government. and that is what caused the result that you saw republicans picking up at least 63 house seats and six senate seats.

>> to follow on your mention of the hispanic forum. we have some who have suggested that demographics are not on the gop side. with the increase in the population -- hispanic population, they but more heavily democratic and that is not good news for the gop. what is your strategy with regard bringing more hispanics into the fold course mark >> first the new hispanic leadership that came out of this election cycle was on the republican side. as i indicated before, to republican governors, sensible and nevada, martina's in new mexico, marco rubio. we firmly believe that the principles that we stand for on issues of small business does, entrepreneurship, trade -- trade has become a partisan issue. it is a shame that we have not gone through with the colombian

and panama free trade agreements. that is a party position on the left despite support from bill clinton in the past. it has a verbal support from this president. but the democratic party is firmly anti-trade in the stand in the way of these agreements. we think we have a message for hispanics that the principles that they hold dear are the principles of conservative principles. that would lead them to support conservative candidates. we will have a message forum. what is wrong with our message. what does it take to win in hispanic districts? we have the leadership and we believe we have the principles. this gathering in miami on january 13 and 14th will be an opportunity to listen and also to reach out to the hispanic community, which is important if you want to be a majority party. we believe that we are a majority party.

america is a center-right nation and we have to work out -- reach out to the hispanic community. >> the hispanic vote surge and a couple of states, colorado, nevada, california. and they helped re-elect democratic senators. in two of those states, republicans thought they had a shot at taking the seats. >> if you listen to marker rubio and you listen to san martinez,, a lot of it is with tongue. they have a message about legal immigration, making sure that a nation can secure its borders, but there's a town out there that was not the same tone offered by republican candidates in other areas. let's be candid. the license will were not simply about the hispanic vote. -- the elections were not simply about the hispanic vote. the need to bet -- we need to do a better job.

we need hispanic candidates who have carried a message that have done very well. a lot of his tone. i think that as part of it. and then going beyond that. are there challenges? yes. i don't think colorado or nevada was decided simply on the basis of the hispanic vote. but we recognize the challenges that we have been understand that there are huge opportunities. that is the purpose of this hispanic forum, to seize the opportunity where there a similarity of philosophy, similarity of possible -- policy, and hopefully we will get on the message side. >> one quick follow-up. you talked about home. the difference between florida republican candidates and nevada candidates -- and nevada, the republican candidate showed an

ad of a hispanic man closing -- climbing a fence in the dark of night. would you have shown that i still believe and ronald reagan's 11th commandment. i am not going to criticize my fellow republicans. i have run my own races. hindsight is always 20/20. i will not respond to whether that was a good at our bad debt. we need to do a better job of reaching out to the hispanic community. it should -- america is a center-right nation. the hispanic nation -- the hispanic community is a critical part of our future if we want to be a majority party. we will not be hesitant to reach out to the committee because they should be voting for the conservatives. >> how you moderate the tone on immigration and trade in the tea party? >> the tea party -- the focus of the tea party -- by the way, it

was part of a tremendous broad coalition that voted for conservatives that was a critical reason for us picking up 63 seats, picking up 500 state-level seats. the focus of the tea party is about big spending, big debt, and big government. i don't think there is a unified tea party position on trade. is there concern that we're losing american manufacturing jobs? absolutely. but i do not think there is that tea party anti-trade agenda, and i do not think there is a and i hispanic agenda. there is a legitimate -- an anti-hispanic agenda. there is a legitimate concern about making sure that we have concern -- secure borders. if we had secure borders, we would have a better position to deal with those in this country

illegally. most american individuals comity party included, want to know who is in the country and want them to learn english. i do not think there is an anti- hispanic or anti-trade agenda in the tea party. they're concerned about debt, spending, taxes, and big government. that was the message of this election that is something that our team is in a much better position to respond to then the left, which has been supporting the government, big health-care, big taxes, and big spending. >> stephen i had the good fortune of covering one of your early races for the u.s. senate. remember back in those days, you enjoyed the mccain-buying gold campaign finance reform law. you thought that it was a good idea. >> i would check history on that. i've always been a believer in leveling the playing field of

disclosure and i still am. the problem we had is that we did not have a level playing field. that law did not resolve in reforming this to bring more -- 527 became a big issue, outside money, that is where it has gone. i would question the assumption that somehow i was a strong supporter. >> i do not want to turn this into a memory test, certainly. you were an advocate on big money in politics for four. -- reform. rather than go back -- going forward kumho what would you advocate? you mentioned that disclosure was a priority for you in the past. >> i think ultimately, if you

can have a level playing field, it is best. i think people should be above that give. the supreme court affirms that we have first amendment rights to be able to contribute to campaigns. what you end up having, otherwise, it is a system -- half the united states senate are millionaires. i am not one of them. now you have big money on the individual level and then the outside money. ultimately, i believe that people should be able to give what they want to give so that politics is the playground for millionaires and trust fund babies. i would support full disclosure. the problem, gentlemen, is that it has not been a level playing field. the unions are able to pour all sorts of money into the political process. the biggest contributor funds in this election cycle was that the

outside groups. it was a union. the seiu continues to be one of the biggest players. if we have all level playing field of disclosure, i think that problem has been getting there. clearly we are not there today. >> the think the disclose act is something that you can support? >> notice that there was not a single republican who supported this disclose that, including many who have supported full disclosure. scott brown did not supported. susan collins did not supported. it did not level the playing field. it did not provide -- you have the built-in advantages that the union continued to have in this process. if we could find a way to work

in a bipartisan way on an issue like disclosure, that would be fine. but there was a reason why every republican voted against it, including those to support full disclosure. it continued the democratic that vantage. that is not the way politics should be done. that does not solve the problem. >> of minnesota question. you may reference to the sweeping gains republicans made in legislative races all of the country. in minnesota, big gains in the state legislature for republicans. why did you know when the governor's office? >> they were not huge gains. republicans took over the state senate. the first time since we have had designation, going back to 1972. huge gains in the senate and house. almost unprecedented. in the governor's race, but what you have there. you have an outside money coming in early in the process when tom member was getting his campaign

going. it just pounded the heck out of him. there was no level playing field of money in minnesota. there is an example where the left did manage of the rules, where they put third-party money in what it was nothing positive, simply beat the heck out of the republican candidate and all to let that race was very close. it is in the midst of a recount right now. i think that canada was at a disadvantage because of outside third-party liberal democrat union money that cost us money to -- because this race to be very close but not getting the benefit of that huge republican sweep that you saw in the house and in the senate. >> another follow-up. you have mark dayton who was a senator and now looks to be elected governor. you started out running for governor became a senator. what is the future for you in minnesota, particularly if you

do not run for chairman of the rnc? are you going to run again? >> i do not rule it out. but i am not looking for another office. i believe in service. that is what i have done. i also believe in capitalism and free enterprise. it's ok that american can make money. i like to make money at some point in time. i have dedicated 30 years of my life to public service. even over the last couple of years, billing -- building a policy organization that is supporting poles, the supports conservatives, center-right philosophy. i may choose to do other things on the private side but i do not rule out public service. i think it is a noble profession. i lament the beating that public servants have taken. some of the self-imposed, the duke cunninghams and others, but public services noble. if the rich to give the

presented itself down the role -- if it presented itself down the road, i would not rule it out. >> i wonder what you think of joe miller? >> at some point, what is step back. i understand his frustration. listening to what he is saying, if you can i use the same standards, they were not counted on election night that are now being counted. i had some of those concerns in minnesota on a much closer race. all of the ballots that were counted -- on election night i won. when they were recounted, i won. but some were not counted that ultimately change the outcome. i understand his concern. i will be very straight forward here. i think that race is over. i think this county has been done. i am not sure there is anything that would change that. i made a decision in my race at a certain point that we do not

go any further. could i have brought it to the supreme court? yes. at some time you have to have a finality to this. i do that without criticizing joe miller. i would offer him advice, the same it buys offered by others recently. it to be time to move on. there is not much that you can gain by extending the process. it has been extended. they have done this count of the absentee ballots. it is probably time to move on rather than initiating another legal proceedings. >> 30 seconds for closing statements. >> you expect that if you did not take that job that we talked about, which is stay with american action network? in our groups like this here to stay in republican politics and national politics?

>> i think that they are here to stay. my group is a policy -- it converts policinto action. what that means, who knows? we're still developing that. the third parties are part of the landscape until we change campaign finance reform and a significant way, this is what we have. hopefully what we get is a level playing field. >> senator coleman, thank you for being on "newsmakers" this week. we have a few minutes. to you want to pick up -- you ask questions about the existence of for a black american action network. what did think of the future of these and what it means for politics? >> his answers were quite interesting. he is someone who has in the past tossed out reform ideas and

expressed concerns about money in politics. we've seen in this past midterm election, third-party groups that are playing outside the traditional political structure contributing more and participating more than they ever have. senator cohen said that they are here to stay in this is a man who could become the next rnc chair. he is indulging there is a role for organizations like he founded, and karl rove, american crossroads, that collects anonymous donations and spending on campaigns. the second thing is that he is an advocate for disclosure. is suggests that in 2011, we may see disclosure in a place where you could have conservatives and democrats agreed on legislation that would at least disclose some of these donors who in the past were not revealed. >> steve, the senator talk about

symmetry with his organization and the tea party. is there is much symmetry is is it jazz? >> i do not this of. the tea party in minnesota has won strong voice, michele bachmann. it is not norm coleman. this is a politician trying to navigate the hispanic vote, which he talked about at some length and trying to navigate that. that does not necessarily coalesce with some of the messages about immigration that we heard in about a, for example. i think he is very rigid in nevada, for example. i think he is very smart. he will have a challenge doing that, particularly with this notion of never criticizing another republican. at some point bank, particularly as rnc chair, he would have to try to negotiate some of these differences. >> wha