>> republican presidential candidates to mitt romney today makes his second campaign stop in ottawa this month. you can see his speech from des moines tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. following that, another republican candidate ron paul will answer questions from the des moines register's editorial board. >> in the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, i draw the line in the dust. i say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.

>> george wallace was an ardent supporter of segregation for most of his life, outspoken against the civil-rights movement. the alabama governor ran for president four times and lost. if one of those efforts cut short by an assassination attempt. this week, george wallace, from the governor's mansion in alabama, live friday its 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> a republican presidential candidates debated national- security issues last night. that was in washington and hosted by cnn, the american enterprise institute, and the heritage foundation. afterwards, some of them to questions from reporters. this begins with former homeland security secretary tom ridge, now an adviser to jon huntsman.

>> 0, everybody. >> obviously you have the credentials. if there must have been something that made you feel one candidates had what it's up to handle the position. >> it is the area of foreign policy and national security that governor hunt's meant -- governor jon huntsman, a former ambassador to china, showed. i thought he gave a very appropriate answer regarding pakistan. we are talking about what is our military strategy. before we get excited about adding or subtracting, let's figure out what our needs are and then we can determine the budget. so there is an appreciation for building the budget around a strategy first rather than

spending money first. strong credentials. >> he was challenged briefly by governor romney. >> absolutely. governor romney, we have heard him in a lot of the debates now. when governor jon huntsman is commander-in-chief, he will bring back the troops. he has said many times that people have to be responsible for their own policing and their own borders. they have another year-and-a- half. they have been building their capacity. we will slow it down a little. special forces and support systems. what he did not have a sense to say tonight, and i want to thank cnn for giving the governor the time, because i think that he has been denied in the other debates.

>> [inaudible] >> tonight most of the focus was on the absence of foreign policy within the obama administration. tonight there was unity around libya is not a problem in the middle east. it is the book towns -- book ends, i ran being one of them. -- iran. et's figure out what our military needs are first and then build a budget. that's what a good commander-in- chief should do and that's what governor jon huntsman has done. >> a strong performance tonight.

>> finally got some time. people have positioned candidates according to the national polling data for a lot of reasons. tonight to his credit he got a chance to show a very sophisticated, thoughtful, practical approach to what a commander-in-chief should do, protect american interests and building foreign policy around those issues. i think he had one of the best lines of the debate, talking about economic issues. we have to get a lot more sophisticated as far as where and how we deploy troops. he articulated that very well tonight.

>> what qualifies him to be commander-in-chief? >> i will let the voters decide that. the most qualified man is jon huntsman. >> what is the most challenging questions facing the united states? >> mike mullen said the greatest thing facing the u.s. is getting our fiscal house in order. in order to be strong abroad, you have to build a core and me.-- at ho >> the secretary of homeland security has said that the homeland security department does not have the means to deport more than 400,000 illegal immigrants per year. some of them who have committed crimes are released into u.s.

communities. what should a republican candidate proposed to change this? >> the republican party feels strongly, you have to defend the border. there are mixed opinions as to what you do after that. the realistic approach is a system where you support legalization and you have to accept reality. you will not support 13 million people. under president bush when i was secretary we had 8000. now there are over 18th thousand agents on the border. -- 18000 agents. fewer people are coming across

the border now. use technology, surveillance tools, build a fence, defend the border and applied immigration laws. -- apply immigration laws. [crowd noise] >> one of the places to look is places where there is a high

propensity for people to do that. >> your stance on immigration? believe in people being granted any type of legal status whether they came here illegally or not. they have to go back. >> is it fair to criticize the speaker for a vote 25 years ago during the reagan administration on this issue? it was a long time ago. there were things he did not get out of that legislation. >> newt gingrich was speaker of

the house at least four and of those years where it did not seem to be a high priority issue. >> use a that he should have taken care of that when he was speaker? >> i agree with him that it's not fair to criticize him on a comprehensive bill that was supposed to secure the border. i have been around politics long enough that if you don't do something right away and you have another part of the bill which was the reason for the compromise, which was to secure the border and you don't have a secure the border portion to happen afterwards. you have a secure the border portion to happen first. and then you can see if you want to do that. they made a mistake by granting

amnesty and then never doing the second thing. >> what about the notion don't break up families that have been in this country 25 years? >> my feeling is we have to be hard and fast that we are going to secure the border and that we are not going to grant amnesty to anybody. >> thank you.

>> he wants to talk about everything but the economy. our strategy is to engage him on the issues that matter most to voters. i think we were successful in doing that. >> [inaudible] engaging with the president? >> here is our main rival. the reason mitt romney is running for president is because of a sorry state of the economy. that is the fault of barack obama. mitt romney will be talking about the economy every day and will be talking about the barack obama'a trail there every day. they want to avoid that. they want to make this contest about anything but the economy. we will try to keep the light shining on jobs and the economy.

>> you said you were upset about ad --e >> nobody caught was doing this. this is something that we proactively exposed to the press. it's the issue that he wants to avoid, jobs. i think that he hopes to get through the entire election campaign by avoiding the issue that is uppermost in the minds of voters, jobs and the economy. we're not going to let him do it. the tables have turned on him and we will make this about jobs

and the economy. we will bring the fight to him every day. i think we have successfully engaged him. >> the speaker says that is willing to take the heat on the issue of illegal administration and the vote that the cast during the reagan administration. >> newt gingrich supported the 1986 amnesty. even though he says it was a mistake, he's going to repeat the mistakes today by creating amnesty -- by granting amnesty all over again by people in this country illegally. >> families that have been in the country 25 years, how do you send pieces of those families back to mexico or wherever? >> if you turn off the magnets, if you stop providing benefits like in-state tuition to young

illegal immigrants, if you put in place a strong employer verification system with penalties for companies that hire illegals, not only will that deterrent other people from coming here illegally, it will cause the people who are here illegally now to go home, because there will be nothing here for them. there will be no jobs or taxpayer benefits. the problem will solve itself. >> plucking people out of their families and sending them back? >> what he did say was that he opposed amnesty. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> there is a major difference between newt gingrich and mitt romney on the subject of illegal immigration. the new gingrich supported the

1986 amnesty. even though he says it was a mistake, he is willing to repeat that mistake by granting amnesty to the illegal immigrants of today. mitt romney has a different view. he supports legal immigration, but he would turn off the magnet that brings people here illegally. what are those magnets? in-state tuition benefits. he would put in place a strong employer verification system with penalties to companies that hire illegal immigrants. once you turn off the magnets, the people here illegally will go home and others will stop coming here in violation of our immigration laws. >> is there a difference between governor rick perry's position and the speaker's position? >> we did not get a chance to hear from governor rick perry on amnesty, but he was the first governor in the u.s. to support in-state tuition benefits. mitt romney was presented with a similar bill as governor and he

beat it. >> the white house pushed back hard today. [inaudible] >> we have been talking about the same immigration issue all summer. it's a complex issue. bursting the needs to be done is secure the borders. that's part of the 21st century contract. until you can secure the border,

you cannot move on to any other part of the immigration reform. >> [inaudible] >> elections are a long conversation. it begins officially in ottawa on the third -- iowa on the third. newt gingrich's candidacy and has proved the era of the 32nd attack ads is over. you have to know what you are talking about. >> [inaudible] he talks about the local citizen

board. >> you cannot have a bureaucrat decides we are going to war. that is something the citizens decide. it cannot put a number on human life. >> [inaudible] >> governor romney said that he agreed in one. one part of the transcript. >> [inaudible] >> you have to secure the border before moving on to any type of

immigration reform. a citizen board could review people. deport the crooks. >> [inaudible] >> you are famous. >> does he believe this debate for the dirtiest campaign -- does mr. gingrich believe this urthered histhered his tempe campaign? >> this campaign is like a

tortoise. [crowd noise] >> we will do well in the iowa caucus and in south carolina. the governor's message has resonated across the country and we are taking it directly to the people. we will not pander to the d.c. press. >> michelle bachmann criticize governor rick perry.

do you think that his policy on pakistan could use something? >> i think governor perry was very clear and confident. he has a strong grasp. to say that he is naive is a ridiculous comment. >> what was the best moment for your guy? >> the best moment was that he set the agenda and set the tone for the debate. he said we are not going to send money to countries that do us harm. he has a strong grasp. this was a strong performance and he has had other strong performances.

we will continue to have good, solid performances and show that we have a grasp on the issues. >> what about the former speaker's comments about amnesty? the city is willing to take the heat on the issue of amnesty. did have aerry i program in texas offering in- state tuition benefits to the children of undocumented workers. what does your campaign have to say about what newt gingrich had to say tonight, that is willing to take the heat? >> the federal government and has been a failure on securing the border. as far as the gingrich campaign, we will let them talk about their campaign. >> it seems like rick perry and

ron paul like to give it to which other a little during the debates. did you pick up on that? >> i think there are some differences. they have differences on issues. that is natural in a debate for people to air those differences. governor. happens to be correct on the issues they are arguing about. >> not unusual to see two texas republican's going at each other. >> it is usual for people who have disagreements. >> what did you think of governor romney tonight? does the issue of in-state tuition of undocumented workers? a lot of folks felt that he was going to go after newt gingrich. >> governor perry had a strong

position tonight. he stepped on. we are going to focus on get an american working again -- getting america working. >> he did not break free from the attack. are you concerned that is not excelling? someone said that he is in cruise mode. can you see an explosive moment for governor. ? >> governor. was strong tonight. he set the agenda and has a strong grasp on the issues. we will continue to move forward. his best moment was setting the tone of this debate by talking about no funding for foreign

aid. we are not automatically going to send money to countries that would do us harm. >> was there a defining issue? >> it is a common-sense issue that needs to be brought to washington d.c. when rick perry is president, it will be brought here. >> we need to secure the border. gingrich believes amnesty is the way to deal with illegal immigration, but it is not. >> [inaudible] >> if someone comes here and

fights in the military, should they be able to stay? people who support amnesty never explain what happens to all the other people. they like leveraging two far- reaching and things, but they never talk about the entire middle. it's a big problem. >> just because you disagree with this policy does not mean that you don't have compassion for them. she is a woman of tremendous compassion, but she also understands the problem of illegal immigration in this country. amnesty is the wrong way to go about it. been here 25hat's years -- [inaudible] >> if after have laws.

her vies are simple -- views are simple. build a fence. amnesty is wrong for illegals. you finally. ne >> how would you rank the congresswoman's performance the nigh -- tonight? >> she did a great job this evening especially on foreign policy, because she is well versed on this issue. she demonstrated that tonight. she made an important point that we have to do everything we can to make sure iran does not develop nuclear weapons and the problems we have with the democrats and the super committee and taking from the

military makes america weak and keeps us from protecting ourselves against foreign enemies. >> how does her immigration policy -- [inaudible] >> that debate lasted two hours. [inaudible] >> this is one of the problems in these debates. it is hard to do sound bite foreign policy. america's natural partner in the world is europe. with europe and the united states working together, we can manage most of the problems in the world.

>> there are lots of issues out there. cracks in the united states we just had an incident yesterday or day before in new york city with a lone wolf terrorist. we know they are still out there. the american people were shocked in 9/11. our friends in europe have to appreciate this. during the 1970's there were terrorist incidents in germany and in italy and the ira strikes in england and so forth, but we never had that in the united states, so 9/11 was shocking. if our political system is adapting to it. in terms of the president's policy, we are moving beyond this. the president just came back from asia and reached an agreement with the australians to put the 2500 u.s. marines in australia. we are aware of the talent is and our responsibilities in the

far east. >> you are a general. >> a retired general. the men and women in uniform will take orders willingly from anyone who gets elected. the military is not political. >> it would not keep you awake at night? >> when i was in uniform i was not part of any political party. now things are different. i am enjoying the debate. you are asking a question about the men and women in uniform and not about the candidates. we have wonderful civilian controls in the u.s. armed forces. we have come a long way. this is early. almost a year away from the

elections. a lot of homework has been done. there's a lot of studying. i think when they get right down to it as they have done their homework, they will converge on the policies that president obama has in place right now. >> " what was your appraisal of intellectual caliber of the debate? >> there was little focus on russia. what was your judgment? >> it is an entirely new field of endeavor. you have to judge this will attempt to the starting position. expected.r less it was more than the last one.

we have a very effective foreign policy. the american people for the most part approve of the president's national security policy. it's not going to be a strength for the republican party. >> use a but the winner was not on the stage, that he was in the white house? >> that's true. the president from the beginning saw out to establish himself as a foreign-policy president who is very tough and very pragmatic, using all the tools in this tool kit. if people still use negotiation, international law, no-fly zones, air strikes, work with allies, and makes up decisions to put american troops in harm's way. >> are you surprised new gingrich has revived its campaign and is now the front- runner? >> i have watched the needle

moves, the needle of popular favoritism, the applause meter. it has shifted around the whole circle of candidates starting with one and going to another. it is still relatively early in the process. we don't know where the needle will stop. i think the winner will be president obama. his policy except for some empty rhetoric, his policies are pretty much knox said eligible -- his policies are pretty much not able to be challenged. we have always had good people coming into this country. this country has been built on immigration. the challenge to america is to bring in the best talent and keep it here. some people got here that should not have. but do we have to split up families? don't we stand for something as a nation?

i think the winner was president obama. >> live pictures from the white house rose garden this morning where president obama is about to pardon the two national banks -- thanksgiving day turkeys. they are from a farm in minnesota and will live out the rest of their days at george washington post historic home in mount vernon, virginia. this is live coverage on c-span. - at george washington's historic home.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> t-bill birds are expected to be pardoned today as the nation begins its annual celebration. they will spend the rest of their lives in mount vernon, virginia, after today. -- two birds. mitt romney later today will make his second campaign stop in des moines, ottawa at 8:00 tonight.

watch that on c-span. in iraq there are thousands of supporters to an iranian opposition group. that's tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. at 8:00 on c-span3, a house hearing on u.s. development assistance to china. you can see all this programming coming up on the c-span networks. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> hello, everybody. well, it's wonderful to see all of you today. happy thanksgiving and welcome to the white house. tomorrow is one of the best days of the year to be an american. we count our blessings and spend time with the ones we love and enjoy some good food and great company. but it is also one of the worst days of the year to be a turkey.

[laughter] .hey don't have it so good the rare exceptions are the two birds joining me today. only liberty is here right now but peace is somewhere. this does not require congressional approval. we cannot wait to pardon these turkeys. [laughter] literally. otherwise they would end up next to the mashed potatoes. i want to thank richard, the chairman of the national turkey federation and his wonderful family for donating the animals from his farm in belmont, minnesota. the turkey's name is liberty.

he is the luckiest bird on the face of fierce. it's probably the most confused right now. he was chosen from a flock of 30 other contestants for the honor of being here today. for the first time in history these two turkeys were raised by four students from nearby and will monetize school -- nearby wilmont high school. the students exposed them to allow noises and flashes so that they would be ready. and they learned how to gobble without really saying anything, an important part of their media training. [laughter] liberty is ready for his turn in the spotlight. after he finishes a round of

cable hits and a few sunday shows, he will retire to a life of leisure at mount vernon, the same place where george washington spent his golden years. malia,today michele, o'm sasha and i will be taking two unnamed turkeys to a local food banks for people in need. a great writer once called thanksgiving eve one day that is ours, the one day that is purely american. when we gather around our table tomorrow to share the fruits of our blessings, let's remember what that means. let's be grateful for what we have, let's be mindful of those who have less, let's appreciate those who hold a special place in their lives -- in our lives and make sure that they know it,

let's think about those who cannot spend the holidays with their loved ones, especially members of our military serving overseas. i would like to thank all our members of men and women in uniform and their families for their incredible service and devotion. that's what being an american is all about. if even in tough times we look out for tender and lived each other up and remind ourselves how lucky we are here together in the greatest country on earth. from our family to yours, i want to wish everybody a wonderful and happy and healthy banks giving. now since liberty and peace have been so patient, it is my privilege to grant them the official pardon. ready? here we go.

all right there, liberty? [laughter] you are hereby apartme pardoned. big round of applause. [applause] thank you, everybody. happy thanksgiving. [applause]

>> if you missed any of this annual event, this event in particular, you can see it again on our website. go to the c-span video library at c-span.org. presidential candidates mitt romney today will make his second campaign stop in iowa this month. you can see that speech from the one tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. on c-span 2 at 8:00 tonight, a discussion about iraq, how of thousands of supporters of will beopposition group closed. we will hear from howard dean among others. that's on c-span 2 a data clark keefer. and the house hearing on u.s. development assistance to china on c-span 3 at 8:00.

>> four days of "book tv" starts thursday morning. the winner of the nobel peace prize on her book. and henry kissinger looks back on china and president nixon. and caroline kennedy on her mother. and david mccullough on american expatriate in 19th century paris. and the grandson of harry truman and bess truman, looking at his grandparents' letters to each other and the role of former first lady played in shaping her husband's career. he is interviewed by the great granddaughter of president herbert hoover. four days of "book tv" program starting thursday at 8:00 on c- span 2. >> no discussion on the arab spring uprising and the effect on arab monarchies. we will hear from the former jordanian foreign minister and a few middle east scholars. from the carnegie endowment in

washington, this is about 20 minutes. >> i am very pleased to be moderating this session today. my name is paul salem. this is on how monarchies have dealt with the arab spring. we have a very distinguished panel. this is part of a research project that is emerging as a part of a paper in the next few weeks on the topic of arab monarchies and the arab spring. the authors of this paper are muasher marwan and marina ottaway. and our commentator for today is

jon alterman. currently vice president at the carnegie endowment in charge of middle east works here and in beirut. he was vice president at the world bank, deputy prime minister p. beasley in jordan, and prime minister, very active in heading the reform agenda in jordan and previously very much involved in the arab peace initiative and the arab-israeli peace process. senior associate at the carnegie middle east program, has written widely on political reform, political change in the arab world, and the balkans, and elsewhere and has authored many books and many studies. commentator for today is a good friend, jon alterman. his name is not jonathan, he

tells me. it is not short for anything. he is well-known to many of you, the director and senior fellow at the middle east program in d.c. he served as a member of the policy-planning staff at the u.s. department of state. he is a member of the chief of illegal operations executive and is an expert on the iraq study groups and writes on middle east affairs. today's topic is on the minds of many of you as events in the arab world are beginning. most of it seems to be in the arab republics. the error republics that got most into trouble were the ones that were trying to turn into monarchies, to give power to their sons, fathers try to give

power to their sons. dr. muasher marwan first period each will have about 15 minutes each puritans and comments from jon alterman, then to the audience or questions. >> thank you. the idea that the arab monarchies can introduce reform more easily than -- is a popular idea particularly here in the west. justifiably it so. this is because arab monarchies in general do enjoy a degree of legitimacy that is not found in republican regimes. the notion is that arab monarchies can introduce reforms from above. they can manage it from above. i like to characterize in a

simplistic way arrow governments or countries into two categories other than monarchies and republics. my categories are those who have time and those whose time is up. those who have time, arab monarchies fall within the categories of countries who do have some time. however, time is a double-edged sword, because the time can be used by a regime to argue that it can be exploited in a serious sustained reform process and go through a smooth and orderly transition and not introducing a great shock to the system. more time can be used by a regime to argue that since they

are not witnessing a people but there is in other arab countries, but they don't have to do anything. in my view, this is the more concerning the issue, which is that arrow governments that do have time -- arab governments that do have time, whether they are internalizing the notion that what is happening in the arab world is profound and that they need to use their time wisely if they don't want the streets to get ahead of them in an uncontrolled way. and so, i think that what the paper that will come out shortly will show is that the potential for reform in arab monarchies is still very high. with the exception may be of bahrain, which does seem to be in real trouble and reform from

above is becoming more and more difficult by the day. if the political will exists among arab monarchies to lead a reform process from above, they are capable to do so. but so far i think the paper will also conclude that while we have seen reforms in several arab monarchies that are meaningful, so far a sustained comprehensive reform process that leads to a power-sharing in the end and serious redistribution of power among branches of government so far is yet to be fulfilled. and whereas you can look at countries from morocco on one side and maybe by rain on the other and other countries in between, there are meaningful reforms that have been introduced or promised with varying degrees, but none

of them with comprehensive, sustained, inclusive process that will in their end result in a serious redistribution of power in those countries. i would like to turn my attention to jordan, a country that i am most familiar with. marina will talk about barack 0 and some of the other gulf states. in jordan, reforms so far it and in particular as a response to the uprisings of this year has piecemeal and notl so f comprehensive. the king appointed a national dialogue committee and to introduce a new law that is key to reform regarding elections.

and a constitutional amendment committee that ended up amending 42 articles of the constitution which now have been enacted into law after being approved by both houses of parliament. the monarchies in jordan is not under attack, as i have indicated. it is seen as a security blanket for all jordanians of all ethnic origins particularly palestinian origin and northeast jordanian. there are serious demands in the country for changes within the regime rather than demand for regime change. these changes within the regime are demands that have so far reached the king himself and the powers of the cane. -- the king.

and that is not particular to jordan, there are basically no demands in the country for constitutional monarchies. that applies in morocco as well. they are not talking about something that would result in the king being a constitutional monarchs like there is in britain. in jordan the king's powers are included in the constitution. no one is talking about taking that does not have powers. -- no one is talking about a -- a king that does not have powers. there's an increasing complaint against intelligence services in the country, which have become

too intrusive and intelligence services are seen to be the actual government and not the formal government. there are multiple -- in jordan. people like to point out that most of the process that's been going on now is from the east jordanians and not the palestinians. fault linesultiple fo and this is too simplistic. you can also talk about that haves and have-nots. you can talk about urban areas versus rural areas. people have called for an end to corruption and rescinding the role of intelligence services, the elected government through

parliament, and other such issues, redistribution of power. but there are also economic demands that have called for equitable distribution of resources to increase salaries to increase subsidies, etc.. one characteristic of jordan is that there is still an ongoing debate of who is a jordanian. the country has never defined this. people become extremely emotional and irrational about this. jordanians feel their identity would be diluted by giving a jordanian or palestinian origin more representation in parliament. some feel they are not well

represented. as such, any talk about reform in the country, which must start law a new electoral rol places the big problem of an honest discussion and definition jordanian.a legally it is the case. it does not suggest that people are treated in the same way, just because they hold jordanian nationality. we will have a new

interpretation of the constitution. amendments call for an independent electorate. instead of interest to them with the minister of interior. the government has limits as to issuing temporary loss, as to resolution of parliament -- issuing temporary laws. but of course having said that, other than some limited reforms regarding the king's power, the king's power in the country have not been tested for the most part with the new amendments. there has been almost no reform done since the uprisings. the budget deficit in the

country has reached an unsustainable level, more than 11% before grants. even with grants and with substantial grants from the west, the deficit is still over 6%. very high unemployment, 13%. very large public debt that has exceeded the legal limit of gdp. so the country has some serious economic problems. the tendency to succumb to populist demands of the increase salaries and things that the country cannot sustain, the country will face a serious economic problem dealing with these uprisings. there comes the issue of the membership, the promise by the jordan into include

.he gcc and there of course the promise is going to be more jobs for jordanians and therefore -- jordanians coming back from the gulf and the promise of more grants and foreign aid coming from the gcc countries. but the question today -- this membership would not have been contested at all let's say 10 or 15 years ago. today the public is questioning this membership and asking at what price is a coming? is this a bribe to slow down the pace of reform in the country, or what is it for and why did it come now?

in general, i think the country still needs a long-term strategy for reform that the constitution amendments are an important for step, but they cannot be the end of the road. as such a long-term strategy needs to be developed and has not been developed yet by the government. clearly i think jordanians want the king to lead the reform process. there are no demands for the king to step aside for the monarchy to step aside. they do want the king to lead the process. they want serious measures in order to do that. there remained mixed about whether the government so far has gone far enough in introducing these reforms. the old habit in jordan of changing frequent changes to the government no longer works. people are starting to

criticize directly rather than criticizing just the government. the king has indicated that in two or three years, he would like to see the government elected from parliament. that is yet to be seen. so far the electorate law is not going to result in a politically-based parliament and one not to be for some time in the country. then the king if he wants to, is going to find it very difficult to choose a prime minister. as such, i think the onus will be increasingly on him to bridge the credibility gap, which is increasing between the regime in the public rather than in

trusting the government with doing so, until such a time when jordan will have political party-based culture and government and the onus or responsibility can be on the government much of that challenge is going to rest on the king's shoulder in the foreseeable future. let me stop with that. >> thank you. a lot of debt and analysis on the changes taking place and yet to take place in jordan. thank you. i turned to marina. >> thank you. let me start with a summary mark. bahrain and morocco.

the process of reform from the top -- the most desirable for any country. we have seen what is happening in egypt and libya and we have seen what is happening in syria. a long period -- if it was possible for the government -- we are talking about the monarchy and introducing reforms. before demand becomes overwhelming that they cannot manage the process -- the problem we are seeing, that we are witnessing at this point is that unless there's a lot of pressure from below, they do not

see the incentive or they did not feel the pressure that marwan was saying to introduce those changes now. pretty close to absolute power. ast -- youay the va have a vast amount of power. organized political parties and so on. what we're seeing is is that in they do not try to introduce reform from the top. they start moving when the demand has been felt. there is a cautionary tale if you look at the arab market and in the case of bahrain where

because of the response to the protests in bahrain, the situation has come now where it seems clear to me that nothing short of a real transition for a constitutional monarchy will satisfy the protest. the market has boxed itself in an is becoming a question of losing much of its power and much of its prerogative if not losing its position completely, the royal family. it is a bit of a situation that we see whenever there is -- you have a system, the rumblings of -- people know essentially that before long, there are going to be starving people and nothing gets done until the people are

starving in the streets. the monarchies do not move until something is happening. what is striking is that the unwillingness to move which characterizes the gulf monarchies. there is extreme caution with the reform process which marwan has outlined. i will talk about morocco. all these monarchies know that they are in danger. no other country or government in the arab world that is saying -- the kind of upheavals that of taken -- that have shaken other countries. the sign is clear that the monarchy's are worried about what is going on in other

countries. we may pretend that everything is fine. we are extremely worried. in saudi arabia, the king is distributing high amounts of money, which shows that they are extremely worried about what might happen there. the other paradoxical situation is that why none of the monarchies have introduced significant reform in their countries. more and more they are reacting to another country, saying they should introduce major reform. all the arab monarchies voted in favor -- to have all come out

defending syria to make changes. there seems to be an underlying theme that reform is necessary, but not quite yet at home. it is a paradoxical reaction. let me talk about two countries in greater detail. first of all talking about morocco. morocco in many ways is an interesting example. in morocco, the king has really tried -- within two weeks, two and half weeks of the starting on the protests come at the king went on television and announced a new constitution would be drafted. they would set up a committee to

study the new constitution. the constitution came out on time. he gave the committee a few months to prepare the constitution. the constitution was presented to the king on time. it was written out and presented by a small committee. the constitution was overwhelmingly up rooted by the population. i think the moroccan government may have gone carried away when the announced the yes vote was 98.5%. i did nothing anybody finishes anything with 98.5%. there was no doubt that support for the new constitution was very large. the king presented the new

constitution and the people voted for the new constitution. the kings moved very boldly. the problem is the constitution was an ambiguous constitution. it could very much -- it could lead not to a constitution of monarchy, but could lead to a market or the parliament has substantial power. but it could also lead a very much -- it could leave the status " very much untouched. -- it could leave the status quo very much untouched. whether or not the king will uses loopholes, it will depend on how -- whether the political

parties and parliament allows him to do so. there is good reason to believe the parliament will allow the king to maintain all the power. the king is keeping for himself and is in charge of the decision. one is a religion. he's the commander of the faithful. security. strategicsions of secur interest. this is very much in the eyes of the beholder. education is not in the area of strategic importance. there should be a proposal -- the king could very well declare this a strategic

decision and he will maintain control of eigit. the king can maintain control by declaring it something of strategic importance. the question is the political parties. are they going to allow him to do so if he tries to using as much power as he has done? the elections have not taken place. the25th of november. there are two indications that there is not going to be an act of parliament. there are two main contenders for the elections. one is a coalition of parties

that is organized for maternity, which is the party -- as somebody who is close to the king. they get the largest numbers of votes in the election. the king is forced to choose an individual from the winning coalition for prime minister. what will happen is the king is trying to become the prime minister and that is not a good way to see the power of the prime minister and see the power of the government increase. there is also the possibility that the party that gets to vote majority -- the party for

justice, which is the islamist party. it is a moderate party any part of places to date very clearly that their main goal in this election is to complete the legitimization, to complete the integration of islamists in the political system. the major goal is to complete its disintegration in the political system, that is probably not going to upset the applecart very much. so the risk in morocco is that the king is taking the bold initiative of the constitution and a situation which is very much that exist like before.

what is wrong with that? morocco -- you have another islamist political organization that has so far stayed on the kind of the sidelines of the political system. it is very much opposed to not only the constitution that the king has presented the new constitution, but at least from time to time it is beginning to question the legitimacy of the monarchy as a whole. nobody knows exactly how much support this organization has because it has never competed in an election. it refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the state. this is the largest political organization in the country.

by moving so cautiously, the king may end up -- he has certainly won the first round. he has maintained the flexibility. he may find himself to be a different type of opposition. the real test of how successful the king has been will come when we see the voters turn out. moroccans have expressed the dissatisfaction by not going out and voting. the last election was about 37% of eligible voters cast a vote. over 1/3 of the ballots were deliberately protest votes. we may well see a similar low

turn out. then the monarchy has not moved fast enough. one man may not be as successful as he thought. it may mean our leaders now have to manage a protest with the population rather than being able to introduce -- let me move on for a moment and talk about one more country, bahrain. bahrain in a sense is the cautionary tale, the opposite of what has been happening in other countries. the other monarchies still have

legitimacy. i think they are missing an opportunity to move more decisively. and they still have the opportunity. the opportunity is not gone. the legitimacy is very high. in berate we have a different situation. -- in bahrain. the monarchy has lost its legitimacy. you hear the most moderate members of the shiite positions are now calling for the full- fledged of constitution of monarchy. that is a market where the king rules but does not govern -- that is a monarchy or the king rules. at 7:00 a.m. on washington time, the commission will

present the results of its investigation on how the country handled the protests. for those who have not followed by rain closely -- bahrain. bahrain has a close history where the population, the majority population does not have much power and they push against the monarchy. there was a pupil during the 1990's -- there was agreement. at the beginning of the year, the protests in bahrain began. the protest in bahrain was pretty harsh.

how harshly, we will know more clearly. we know one group says one thing and the monarchy says another thing. what comes out tomorrow is supposed to be the definitive study done by an independent commission from outside bahrain that will tell what actually happened. and i think judging on the way in which the bahraini government are becoming proactive in telling everybody their goal is to learn from the mistakes. i think that's a reason to believe that it will be critical of the government. we will know more tomorrow. but the bahraini's are very worried. they have seen the report.

it is not a good report. they reacted to the unrest by calling in the shield force, saudi tropps and iraqi troops -- saudi troops, helping to maintain order. the monarchy has lost a lot of its legitimacy and the capacity to introduce reform from the top. the kind of reform that would be required would be reform that the market probably -- it would

amount to the demise of the ruling family in bahrain. let me stop here. >> thank you, marina, for giving good context and giving an example of a country like morocco or the king seems to be meeting with reform and perhaps staying ahead of political change, and a country like bahrain which clearly has missed the boat, as it were. i turn to our commentator, jon. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be here at carnegie. i want to commend carnegie for looking at this. we got lazy. the last time we fall the marquee in the middle east was 30 years ago.

will have a sense that these problems have been solved. what we're seeing in the past year has caused us to reinvestigate this, and i commend you for doing so. it seems to me there are three pillars that monarchies rest. one is legitimacy. i find this a hard concept to grasp. it feels to me like i don't quite understand when people talk about the king. the way people are educated to talk about the king and not talk about the king is deeply ingrained by kings. it takes going to morocco and jordan and the other gulf states that you understand there is something else in there

that is deeply part of the religious structure and there's a way that the kings in this region enjoyed a legitimacy, which is very foreign to us. i think part of being a king in this part of the world, part of the way that arab monarchies work is the king is an arbiter and not a disputant. the king does not fight. the king moderates fights and that keeps the king pure. the king is sort of like a eferee. run for r nobody doubts the authority of the king to be the judge, what is in balance and what is out of bounds -- what is inbounds.

being a cane is presiding over a much more dynamic system -- being a king. you want to have a ferment within the system. the diffusion of power in monarchies. we think of kings as absolute rulers. that is not the way the arab monarchies work. they tried to give power to relatives if you look at the gcc states, a senior member is the interior minister and the former minister of every gcc s

tate. either that is a lucky oincidence -- wcakacky coincidence. you can distribute the money. if you're a senior member of the royal family -- there is often an advantage to having an incoherent among senior members of the royal family. people feel they have a senior royal fighting for their interest. the shaw held is all too closely. he had to clear of a plan. he did not have enough in clearance in his government. it was too easy for people to say, i have no stake in this system. in the successful monarchies,

will we see is the monarchs use the family, they use my to coopt important people and importing groups that a large number of people feel have a stake and the monarch is the referee. the third issue is money. monarchs tend to have money. we saw the saudis look at the neighborhood and put $130 billion into saudi arabia, gave $10 billion to the commodities -- omanis. who knows how much the jordanians will get. there is an interest in preserving other monarchies and the sense that you can use money to help to that. money lubricates the system.

it seems to me that for all this where they public fits in, if you look at the polling numbers, they are generally not overwhelming polling numbers that say we need democracy. it seems that what people want is better outcomes. if you look at perceptions of democracy in the arab world, look at a country like kuwait. the parliament is not a great advertisement -- this is a better result you get with a monarchy. a kuwaiti friend told me -- there is a sense it is not moving, that parliament holds everything up. you have largely authoritarian systems with wise but banal the

rulers who have brought -- who have presided over this welfara. for many people, what they want is better outcomes and a sense of justice. they don't necessarily need to vote. they don't have any more faith in democratic systems than the 91% of americans disapprove of the job congress is doing. people just want better outcomes. they don't care as much about the mechanics about how you get there. what we have seen paradoxically is despite a world of level of satisfaction, we see the preventive effort in qatar and in the u.e. to expand the

franchise. they have these federal national elections in the uae -- i love the system. they have picked the people who were allowed to vote for the government. they expanded that considerably. very low turnout, about 25%. there seems to be commitment to give people more of an ability to vote. there will expand the vote. this is not driven by demand. in many cases, that is something that poor states -- poorer states have tried to do.

an example to regulate the political space in the country is morocco. the king of morocco has done a masterful job for more than a decade, always on the verge of fundamental reform. always in latest and greatest that is going to change it. -- i'm notfrom 2004 saying these things are nothing. they are real. but the effects are always longer-term and more subtle than they are initially announced today. the king decides what are the issues and how the issues are debated, who are the people who decide these use. the public trust the king to do this. it is an effective way of managing a public demand.

the king was able to institute the constitution because people were talking about the constitution. the king decided, we should be serious about a constitution. there's already an elite discussion that can feed that debate down. agree -- it we seems to me one thing the king has done by having a legal so islamists in politics and an illegal set outside of parliament is he spots the islamic vote. there are people who say, i have nothing to do in the system. part of what that does is it means that islamist never overwhelm the system. you could argue it is cynical or

brilliant or that is not really what is going on. part of the strategy here is regulating who can participate and debate and how they participate in debates as a way of maintaining control over how the system works. to move on to bahrain, it seems that bahrain is a terrible war and for jordan -- is a terrible warden for jordan. in georgia, you have perhaps 40% of the population is east bound jordanian and they feel they belong to the state and the state belongs to it. if you have not had

conversations, there is a sense that i have gone that palestinians are interlopers, busy making money in the private sector while real jordanians do the hard work of building the state. it strikes me as an eerie echo of the sense that many citisunns have in bahrain. others are busy outdoing their things. they are not holding bahrain -- they are not holy. what worries me is the sense that increasingly get that the king, who relies on the army, the king identifies more with some of this subject than others. he is not above the palestinian

east bank foray. it seems there are two different elites. you have an eastbound elite and make westbound elite which is tied to business. they see each other threading one in other and threatening the nature of the state. the need for politics to help weave it. the key issue from the report -- the report will be a political document. it is not a criminal indictment. it is as much fact-finding as one can do sitting at the ritz- carlton. it is intended to enhance the

power of the king within bahrain. i was in bahrain a little more than a month ago. the perception was the king was the third or fourth most powerful person. the prime minister was extraordinary powerful. the king and the crown prince -- the king is probably a third or fourth in the power structure. this is intended to give the kings a way to reassert his centrality. the diffusion of power in some ways has gone too far. this is intended to help the king get back a more central role. but the king of bahrain is intended to be the arbiter.

a breakdown in managing politically the schism between the sunni population. of reassertingk his role. this is a cautionary tale from politics can get away from you and by the society's with minority rule, which is what we're seeing in jordan and other places of the region. >> thank you, jon. we have about half an hour for questions and answers. there are microphones on different sides. please raise your hand and stand up and introduce yourself. >> thank you. i have two questions.

it seems that in jordan you have a serious imbalance between the minority of palestinians who have most of the money, and a minority of east jordanians who of most of the power. how can the government dole about repairing this imbalance -- how come the government go about repairing this imbalance? a move by the monarchy to help some kind of an over sure to come loshamas. >> thank you. let's take a few more questions. >> thank you very much. i have enjoyed the conversation about top-down reform.

we have talked about apathy in morocco and a divided society in jordan. what could potentially trigger the kind of magnetic pull of protest movement that we have seen in other places in the region? >> one more question for this round. in the front. >> thank you. jim michael, i am a consultant. it seems to me that this top down has to interact with the society that has some values of things like equality of treatment, they believe that the institutions of governance, justice can make a positive difference for the society. where you have the different groups contending and competing

and acceptance of the idea that you get treated on the east bank then if you're on the west bank and you're treated different if you're a man, and the kind of skepticism which i found, the skepticism about whether these reforms are whether they are transformational changes in the society. i like to hear about the panelists about how you see engaging civil society. some of these reforms have not been very transparent or produce a big story -- participatory. if it doesn't develop, it doesn't is a big sustainable process. >> thank you.

>> the question of imbalance in jordanian society. the traditional relationship between the different sectors of the regime is changing. most of the protesters on the street are east jordanian. the palestinian part of the population has consciously decided not to go to the street, because they did not want to end up being blamed for what is going on. they did not want to be rid of the rights they have. i have consciously not gone to the street. it seemed to me this tradition -- you have a system where you buy loyalty with favors. this is coming to an end.

the degree of satisfaction that was there before from that part of society which now feels that the state is selling its assets and the state is moving away from that system that has proposed some at the expense of others. i firmly believe that if the reform process is to succeed in jordan, it has to be by the king because he can a lot credibly claim that he presents -- he represents all the sectors of society. he can credibly claim that, but he cannot alone introduce a reform process that is not inclusive, to go to your question.

any reform process -- that applies not just to drink but to the rest of the arab world -- that is written by the government and handed over to people, this is not a process that is going to work. if it is not developed by the different sectors of society themselves, it has no chance of succeeding. that is a necessary condition. we had successful experiment in jordan of right-wing such an -- of writing, when all sectors of society, most sectors did participate in the riding of the document. -- in the writing of the document. but then it was put on the shelf.

today people are calling for more than the national agenda. today we have had 42 and a lot of people think it is not enough. you need to do more. so a participatory process is indeed a must in the arab world, and it is a sign of the seriousness of the arab regime. one of the major criticisms is that it had no opposition members. none whatsoever. that is not credible, in my view. the question about the market and a mhamas. there's no question the regime

in jordan is warming up to hamas. i happen to believe that political islam needs to be included and needs to be talked to. you are excluding a powerful sector of society. i believe in a movement that is peaceful, but i think that is with court -- that is with regard to the arab-israeli conflict. it is not useful or credible to exclude any party. can we imagine a situation where we have a peace agreement with israel without -- that is not going to work, in my view. people have interpreted that to mean that hamas is going back to jordan.

the official position of the government is that this is not true and there are no plans to bring back hamas to jordan. on the issue of bottom up demand, this is what the arab monarchies face. so for the overwhelming majority of the political and democratic layers from the regime's are telling these leaders -- do not worry. the number of protesters in the streets in jordan is no more than 5000, at best. therefore, you have nothing to worry. the counter argument is, do not wait until the 5000 become a 30,000. because then it will be too late. the best way to avoid a

situation where the street becomes -- a reform process from above, which, in my view, is totally doable in jordan. but then the market will have to change or just the traditional relationship between the regime and the public. rule of law has to apply. they have to feel that they are being treated equitably. if people feel that and if people see as credible reform process, that might take five or 10 or 15 years. but if they see a credible one that is being implemented rather than just talk about and put on the shelf, if they see one that is credible, i think people will be patient.

thank you. >> any comments? >> from the bottom up demand. i would like to point out that -- there is no arab monarchies that does not believe a large protest as possible in their country and have to try to stay ahead of thit. i would argue a push from the bottom is necessary from the top to be implemented. nobody is going to start implementing reform if they do not feel there is a push for it. the problem is the arab monarchies, many of the arab

monarchies, with the exception of jordan and morocco, have tried to respond to the potential for unrest in the country by essentially trying to buy of the population rather than by introducing real changes. uae announcing elections and i think they are still baby steps. i don't think there's any real change. we can stay on top of this situation without giving it -- without having to be with the real pressure. but they are there and they are acting the way they are acting. i think it is crucial. but it is not going to come unless you have -- let's say

there's a deal in the participatory process. they set up a very interesting -- they are supposed to be the one that allowed the civil society -- they would ask to make some missions. they were never consulted again. i do not want to say it was their fault. they were not organized enough to force the hand of the declamation of experiments to take into consideration what they wanted. if you wanted the bottom line, reform from the top is only going to come if there is

sufficient push from the bottom. the push from the bottom came at the top. this perhaps is one reason why monarchies are so cautious. they are afraid they will lose control over the reform process. >> what drives the man is a sense of a different system will get better results -- what drives demand. in terms of justice and economics and that draws people towards it to the extent that they see democratic systems in iraq and elsewhere leading to chaos and social conflict. that is a disincentive to pursue them. liberal voices who push for more

representative governments are not the ones who always capture the government that becomes more representative afterwards. there is a kind of passivity about liberals -- lookout egypt has played out. there are active this in car that have no links to the border country -- they are active in cairo. part of opening up this system means you have to do politics in a serious way. one of the things that monarchies have been successful in doing in saudi arabia is they keep the religious conservatives and the social liberals under their wings and protect them from each other and becoming are better. -- and becomes the arbiter.

that makes both sides fearful about what will happen if there is a more democratic system and it ends of concealing the system rather than opening up to political reform. >> thank you. let's take another round of questions. we will start there. >> thank you. i have been following the middle east for many years. looking at the arab spring, i began to worry. i wonder these monarchies are damned if they do, damned if they don't. i'm wondering if any government in the middle east can manage the unrealistic expectation of instant prosperity as a result

of change, so that much of what they are thinking goes to what mr. alterman is talking about in the sense of a better life. i wonder if they can get that, even with the reforms that these governments will do. thank you. >> thank you. i have a question of my own. the gcc, jordanian situation. if you could tell us how you see that going, what offer was made, what might end up with and how might affect jordan and the gcc itself. let's go to our panelists and go in reverse order. jon, do you want to start first? >> my sense is that oil exporting states are in a pretty

good position because of twhere oil prices are. you have to start thinking about different political deals. what happens in iraq and egypt and in libya and we're still going to say what kinds of transitions we have in syria and yemen. how those play out will have a dramatic effect over the next five years on demands for opening of systems. unwrapping the package means all the worms get out. people will leave the thing wrapped up. where oil prices are for the next 10 years has a profound effect on how much demand there is for change. either people will feel greater

prosperity or less prosperity. if i know work will prices were going, i would be much wealthier than i am --i think it is a nonl variable we do not think about. in general, the higher oil prices are, the more it constrains political demand and political change in oil- exporting states, and the lower they are, the more forces change, and that is beyond my ability to project. to your question, i think there is a sort of regional interest in what people see in the region, and al jazeera has played this incredible role not only as the narrator of this incredible change but also projecting images and framing the discourse of how this all works. i think that most of the gcc

states have decided that they have seen enough of a popular revolution demanding change. my own judgment is that they are going to be looking for solutions in countries which do not involve negotiating with the street and instead will involve forces coming in and establishing control and making deals with people from on high rather than sort of opening up a very messy process of negotiation. that is a gut sense, but i think if you look at how the countries are looking at him and and looking at syria -- looking at the yen and -- looking at yemen and looking as syria and one of the reasons why they are looking at syria right now, this is the agent is going to collapse is the way they see

these countries and more broadly, the kind of demonstration effect that egypt might have. from morocco all the way to iraq. >> i am not so convinced that the problem for these countries is going to be unrealistic expectations. i think people need to know that there's not going to be instant prosperity. i was following very closely years ago the transition in south africa. everybody was saying the country was going to be bankrupted because the african population is going to expect to be paid at the same salaries that the whites were receiving, and that was simply not feasible because the reason they were paying such high salaries was because the african population was paid such very low salaries. yes, there are different --

yes, there are expectations. but by and large, the expectation of -- it is governments that have essentially tried to solve the problem, not by producing political reform but by making economic concessions. it is an attitude that has been very much encouraged by the government. you go back two or three years before mubarak was ousted where there were a lot of protests all over the country. as long as they were kept strictly economic, the government could give them limited salaries. it is not so much an unrealistic expectation, but it is the governments that have saved

money rather than facing the problem of reform. in the long run, all these countries have huge problems -- tackling the unemployment issue. not even countries that are rich enough to lay off people still have to solve that problem. >> thank you. >> i think whether you are excited or worried about the error of spring -- i never liked to call it the arab spring from day one. it all depends on the time prizm you are looking at. there's this romantic notion that immediately developed after january of last year of data? -- of autocratic regimes leaving almost instantaneously to democratic regimes, and it

was, of course, and realistic. it was simply not going to happen. if people are looking at a few months, of course, everybody is worried. if people are looking at this as a process that will indeed go through a lot of iterations before it hopefully arrives at stable and prosperous society, then it is a different board game. i am not surprised by what is happening in egypt today. anybody who thought the army was a democratic institution -- let them argue with me. of course it is not going to protect democracy. anybody could have told to that. i think we need to be realistic

that these transitions are going to take time. that there are different conditions in different countries. some countries will do better than others in eastern europe. poland did much better than russia until today. in the arab world, you ask the question of whether any government could manage transition. yes, look at tunisian. yes, it is a small country, but the transition has been going very smoothly in tunisia. they've had very fair elections. they have the coalition government. the next head of the country now is a secular leftist agreed to buy the largest party that won the elections. the head of the country is another well known secular in the country, etc. the transition is going very well in tunisia. that does not mean it is going

to go as well in other countries, but it does mean that it is possible. i think there are lessons that can be learned as we go through such transitions. people will learn lessons moving forward. one lesson that i think the arab world has already learned is that nobody wants another of iranian model. that is already learned. that does not mean that tradition will not play a role and an important one in an era of government that will emerge, but i think that there will be civilian governments and knock theocratic -- not theocratic ones. it has been six months since the gcc decided to invite jordan and morocco for membership. nothing much has been done since then.

it is clear that not all gcc countries are enthusiastic about this. the saudis are, but maybe it stops there. many questions are being raised. other questions have to do with -- is this full or partial membership? these countries go through phases. they have the customs union, and then they have free trade agreements. the last page no one has reached. for jordan, of course, the allure is that it will have free movement of labor so that jordanians can work and that more investments will come to jordan. as i said, it is very interesting to me -- and this is not a new demand. i was in government 15 years ago when we first asked for

membership. it is very interesting to me today that when you asked jordanians on the street, the answer is not an automatic yes, you know? what is the catch here? i mean there is also -- i am not saying -- i am not necessarily saying there is sort of a hedge against reform. i am only saying that people understand today that their problems are not purely economic and that there is a demand for better government that will not go away just because their pockets become fuller, at least in jordan. >> thank you very much. if there are no questions, i would like to thank you all for coming this morning and certainly like to thank our excellent panel. the paper will be coming out in a few weeks. please look for it.

we look forward to reading it. please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] be >> this coming friday, actors blair underwood, harry belafonte, and tatiana ali on race in hollywood. you can see it here friday at 12:25 p.m. eastern.

>> from the miami book fair international last weekend. >> miami was center stage in the bay of pigs. it is with the cia came to recruit cuban exiles who eventually participated in the invasion of cuba. after castro came into power, many of the people who did not like him very much like to note -- fled cuba, and where they fled to was mainly right here in miami. >> of course, the election of the first black president was a landmark that shows there has been tremendous change in american racial attitudes. had there not been that change, he would have had no hope of prevailing. >> the presidential debate, it is critical. it is hard to relax in that situation, you have to recall and up where you can listen and make a split second decision --

you have to be calm enough. >> watch coverage from miami online at the c-span video library, archives and searchable. watch what you want when you want. >> beginning tonight at 8:00 eastern, see comments from two republican presidential candidates. beginning with mitt romney, making his second campaign stop in iowa this month. we will show you the speech from des moinse. -- moines. after that, ron paul. former general and 2004 presidential candidate wesley clark joins us on today's "washington journal" for about 45 minutes.

host: it is a complicated world these days. protest in egypt, mounting pressures to do something about iran. is there a place in the world that worries you most with regard to u.s. safety? >> -- guest: i think the president has done a brilliant job of managing our way through most of these challenges. when he took office, we had two active wars and a significant terrorist threat. we have gotten rid of osama bin laden. we made high command is essentially operational irrelevant, according to what analysts say. we will have combat troops out of iraq. as president obama promised an following president bush's plans at the end of this year. we have intensified activities in afghanistan. we got some operational results

and we are on a draw down there. i think he has handled and worked his way through this pretty well. we need to be looking long-term as the united states. we need to strengthen our economy. we need to bring jobs and prosperity back to america because ultimately america's strength and influence in the world rests more on our economy than it does on the men and women in uniform. >> analyst will say that a number of major policy years -- president obama has continued many of the major bush administration policies. if you believe that thesis, i am wondering about how different things would be under a republican administration. essentially, is there a fairly unified foreign policy right now among both parties, or do you see real difference is? >> it is a great question. first, i want to say that the president clearly announced what he was going to do during the campaign. it was not always whatever bush

did, but he made it clear that he was going to, unlike president bush, put the emphasis on al qaeda and afghanistan, and that is exactly what he did. he has been a very strong president on national security. the majority of the american people support the president on national security, and it has been very hard for the republican candidates to get things right. the conventional way these debates are supposed to go is that democrats are soft and republicans are tough and democrats want to coddle the enemy and republicans want to be stronger and more decisive. but president obama is certainly -- he is not playing that role. he has been very tough. he has been very decisive. he sent our troops in to go after osama bin laden. we took him out. it is very difficult for these republican contenders to get to the right of the president on national security. >> here is one photograph of the candidates lined up for the cnn debate last night.

the headline on the article -- throughout our conversation, we're going to show a number of clips. let's begin with one from herman cain regarding iran and the u.s. and israel. let's listen in to what he had to say. >> i would first make sure that they had a credible plan for success. clarity of mission and clarity of success. remember, when you talk about attacking iran, it is a very mountainous region. latest reports say there may be 40 different locations, and i would want to make sure we had a good idea where these are located and if israel had a credible plan. if it appeared they could succeed, i would support israel, yes. in some instances, depending upon how strong the plan is, we would join with israel for that if it was clear what the mission

was and it was clear what the definition of victory was. >> -- host: general clark, there are other conversations about iran. here is a headline from the "wall street journal." similar voice on that. the lead editorial in the "washington post" today. they write -- okay, with that backdrop, talk to us about iran and the challenges for u.s. foreign policy there. >> i think the -- guest: i think the president has followed a very logical approach. he has some grip on what is happening to intelligence services, although i do not believe anybody ever believes you know anything through your intelligence activities, but you have a general sense of the pace. it is clear that has preceded first by giving ran an opportunity, and they rejected

that. some other measures must have been taken, although it is the nature of covert action that you never acknowledge these. we know that there is some kind of cyber weapon that is still moving around. we do not know much about this. at the unclassified level, we do not know where it came from. but we made some strong measures. at the same time, the president bill and work with our allies. at the time that president obama came into office, you would have said that iran was gaining power in the region. today, nobody believes that. everybody understands that iran is losing power in the region and struggling to maintain its influence. i think he has had an effective policy so far. the question is -- how far does

it go? he is ratcheting it up step-by- step. as i listened to the debate last night, i got the impression that the president should feel comfortable that his republican competitors would be behind him on whatever tougher measures he had to take. host: here is a question from a twitter viewer -- guest: first of all, when i look at the sanctions in iraq, i did not see them resulting in thousands of dead kids, but there are sanctions on iraq -- iran, sorry. and they are tough and they are going to be tougher. that is necessary to get the attention of iranian government and without means of war, persuade them to give up on their nuclear aspirations. host: the "wall street journal" this morning, a professor of iranian studies and senior

fellow at the center of american and global security is calling for western air strikes. let me ask you if in fact israel were to take this kind of action, either with the overt or covert support of the united states, what with that due to the region? >> i think -- first of all, there are a lot of elements in the region who are concerned about iran's nuclear weapon aspirations. you would get a lot of support under the table. i think there would be a lot of open condemnation of israel. i think the markets would react with a sudden jump in the price of oil, but there has always been a military option out there. we have known it. we have not wanted to take it. no one wants to see another conflict in the region, but the iranian leaders should understand that there is a military option out there.

and, as i have gone back through the list of u.s. actions in the post-cold war time, time and again, our adversaries did not believe it could happen to them. when we went into panama, noriega did not believe we would do it. i am sure when we started the bombing about cosimo in 1999 that milosevic really did not believe that nida would come together and do it. i am sure that saddam hussein did not believe that the united states was really coming for him. i can only imagine the surprise that osama bin laden must have felt when we went in and got him. host: we are going to open up our phone lines for your involvement this morning. you can also send us a fax or an e-mail. forget fax. go to the e-mail. you can be involved in our conversation with general clark. let's put another clip on the

screen. this is governor romney and governor huntsman on afghanistan. >> the fact that we have 100,000 troops nation-building in afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built, when on the ground -- we do need intelligence gathering. no doubt about that. we need an enforcement presence, a drone presence, and some ongoing training of the afghan national army, but we have not done a very good job of finding and a titillating with the endpoint is in afghanistan. -- finding and articulating what the end point is in afghanistan. i think the american people are getting tired of where we find ourselves today. >> are you suggesting that we just take all our troops out next week? what is your proposal? >> i said we should draw down from 100,000. we do not need 100,000 troops. we need a presence on the ground that is more akin to 10,000 or 15,000. that will serve our interests in terms of intelligence gathering and special forces response capability.

host: 0 clark, afghanistan and that exchange -- general clark. guest: i think that as a healthy exchange. i think it is important that the americans have exposure to that kind of dialogue. that is exactly the kind of discussion the people wrestle with. it was a recent exchange. president is pulling troops down in afghanistan. i think their goal is to do it in a way that protects the security of afghanistan while we are training the forces there. if you pull those forces out too soon, then security crumbles and you cannot do the training. if you wait too long, you override the sovereignty of afghanistan and take away the incentive of their own forces. seems to me we have got it about right and what you've got are contenders looking to drop a difference with the president. host: let me add one other thing

that came from the world bank yesterday. afghanistan to need assistance for years. $7 billion annually. here's a report it in the wpp can -- in the "washington post." will there be tolerance by the american public for that level of continued financial commitment to afghanistan and,

should there be, after the commitment we're just extended for the past decade? guest: when you look at something like this, you realize there is a lot involved in going into the country, trying to stabilize it and prevent it from becoming a haven for future terrorist spirit we have to do our best to help the government of afghanistan put in economic policies that will promote economic growth and development. governmental services and taxation that will take from the people appropriately to support the government, and there will be need for continuing support. i think this will be a task that falls on future american leadership, but you cannot do this without building our economic strength in the region and working, as this administration is trying to do it, to build nearby states, all of whom work together to stabilize afghanistan. it is not just in the interest of united states. it -- it is it is just about every neighboring country. i think what you will see over

the next few years is a lot more diplomatic activity in that regard. t on thise is a twee topic. guest: i am not privy to the actual consultation process because i am not in it, but i can assure you the plan for afghanistan would not have been put in place without consultation with the united states central command, with the joint chiefs of staff, the army, navy, air force, marines, the chairman of the joint chiefs and the commanders on the ground in afghanistan. of course the president listens to these commanders, but ultimately, the present -- the president makes the decision not just on what the commanders said on overriding u.s. interests. there are usually some trade- offs in something like this and when you are the commander, you get to ask for more than you are going to get.

i know. i have been there. host: let's take some calls. caller: i would like to remind the general that an attack by the united states on iran without a united nations security council chapter 7 resolution or an impending threat is a war crime. people were hung at nuremberg for that kind of behavior. perhaps the general could comment. thanks a lot. guest: first of all, i think there is a strong legal case against iran for violating its adherence to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty early on and then subsequently for it subterfuge, deception of the international atomic energy agency, the inspection, and when the time comes for action, i am sure the united states is going to have all of the legal arguments in order. but i think it would be wrong to

let the iranian regime believe there is no military option out there when in fact there is. the long record of over 20 years have shown time and again that rogue nations and asians who tried to break the rules in international behavior -- the leadership believes somehow that they are superior to the international community, to international law, to justice, and to, the last resort, force. it is unfortunate when these leaders believe this because they put their own people through a lot of hardship. i hope the iranian regime understands. from listening to the tone of the debate last night and looking at the president's policies, that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. from there's a news item this part of the world regarding libya.

is that the right disposition of his alleged crime? guest: i think it is. there is a brief window in time when these crimes were put together with the court handed out indictments. i think this gives sovereignty back to the people. these crimes were primarily against the people of libya, so i think it was a solid decision in this case. host: next up is a call from michigan. john, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. regarding iran, this worries me. i am not sure what our policy is in the middle east anymore. i wonder -- can you see a day in

the near future -- let's say the next five years -- where we will have very minimal involvement in that region where we do not even have significant forces in kuwait standing by waiting for something to happen? even if these people in iran -- i am speaking of the government -- if they are able to obtain a single weapon and that missile was to lift off the earth, how long would it be before the missile would be taken out? or if it was to hit somewhere -- it would not go to europe. i do not know why they are putting this thing up in poland. if it was to somehow find its way to israel, what would be the consequences and why in god's name would they be willing to take that chance? thanks so much. have a good thanksgiving. guest: you are raising some very

important issues. much of the world's oil comes from the region known as the persian gulf. from the time the united states became an oil-importing countries in 1970 and we became very aware of the importance of the stability of international oil markets, the united states has taken measures to try to assure stable access for all the nations of the world to the resources of that area. we built up our command structure. we have been engaged there for a long time. the enormous wealth in the area creates its own problems of modernization and strife, and it falls on top of historical animosity between the branches of islam there. there is going to be a lot of pushing and shoving in that region for a long time, but i do think we are on the path and moving in the right direction through the arab spring, through the gradual modernization and opening up of the economies and the political societies in these states step by step to try to reduce the requirement for

outside forces and to let these countries increasingly take responsibility for peace and security within the region. obviously, israel is vitally connected to the region because of the animosity and threats. we have done a lot of work with the israelis. they have done a lot of work on their own for missile defense, active missile defense. president has made clear our commitments there. this goes back a long way to the first goal for in 1990-1991 when we established patriot batteries for anti-missile defense in israel. there is long, historic relationships there. everyone is aware of the risks. that is why the president has the policy of tightening sanctions and putting increasing pressure internationally from all directions on the iranian regime to get them to give up their nuclear weapons aspirations. host: let me pick up on the

collar's for a statement -- the caller's first statement. do the situational responses role of into a world view of the that you can' role articulate? guest: the role of the united states must be engaged. it is in our interests to help others in the world maintain stability and access to resources and freedom of the seas. it has been a long principle of american conduct. our actions in the middle east in the largest respect falls in that area. host: you believe that the president also believes that? guest: i cannot speak for the president, but that is the long consistent direction of american policy, going back to the carter administration when we set up

the joint task force. we understood this. host: going to take a call and go back to the debate with governor harry -- governor perry on pakistan. bakersfield, california, good morning. caller: general clark, i want to tell you what it -- what an honor it is to talk to you. i supported your presidential campaign. i need to ask you about an event that occurred in kosovo in the 1990's. tell me if i got it all wrong. you were on -- i think it was a military base there, and you were basically -- you got wind that a bunch of christian vigilantes' were going to murder and terror as a muslim

village. you were given a direct order from the secretary of state not to defend that village. you did anyway. you paid with it for your career. it is why i supported your presidential campaign and why i respect you so much -- because you put a human life over your own personal career. that is what i am talking about. real sacrifice, america. this is what i am talking about. i admire you so much. tell me i have that wrong. and i wish you a good thanksgiving. guest: thanks for your question. there were a lot of incidents where a lot of us took risks. we took risks in terms of the mandate we were given. a lot of soldiers put their lives at risk, and we did our best to stop ethnic cleansing in the region after nato had forced out the serb forces. all the credit there belongs to

the men and women on the ground, particularly the commanders we had of those divisions. george casey was a division commander. men on the ground at that time like general rick sanchez, who was in overall charge of the ground operations in kosovo, and the fall of 1999 for the u.s. forces. host: today, general clark heads a consulting firm which bears his name and teaches a course at ucla. guest: i lecture out there. it is a privileged position in that i am not there on a day-to- day basis. i do not get the luxury of greed in -- greetings to the papers, but i do get to talk on national security, war crimes, international law -- i do not get the luxury of grading student papers appear increasingly, economics and how the u.s. has to move forward to strengthen our economy to maintain our influence in the world.

host: how do you find students these days? guest: they are terrific. really smart, connected students really aware of the world around them. they do their homework and ask questions. host: back to last night's debate. an exchange with governor harry n. michele bachmann on pakistan. >> the bottom line is they have shown us time and again that they cannot be trusted and until pakistan clearly shows that they have america's best interests in mind, i would not send them one penny. i think it is important for us to send the message to those across the world that if you are not going to be an ally of the united states, do not expect a dime of our citizens monday to be coming into your country. that we change foreign policy. -- not expected died of our citizens money to be coming into your country. >> i think that is highly 90. we have to recognize what is happening on the ground.

these are nuclear weapons all across this nation and potentially al qaeda could get a hold of these weapons. these weapons could find their way out of pakistan into new york city or into washington, d.c., and a nuclear weapon could be set off in the city. that is how serious this is. we have to maintain an american presence. host: general clark, reaction? guest: it is lots of shades of gray. i am sure the a lot of americans get angry that there is some support in pakistan for the people striking at our troops and so forth, but pakistan has been an ally. there is intelligence sharing going on. there is some degree of cooperation. we have longstanding cooperation. we tried to shut off the 820 years ago. did not do a thing. made a lot of people upset in

pakistan. actually helped perpetrate some of the problems we have been dealing with in afghanistan for the last decade. -- we tried to shut off the 8 -- aid 20 years ago. the assistance and efforts are not blank checks. we do a lot of work with pakistan. we do our best to shake the nation as it lurches into modernization. i think we should stay engaged. >> in the "washington post" -- guest: there's some tough times

in civil-military relations in pakistan. and ambassador hast to maintain the confidence of his government at home and do his job. hopefully, u.s.-pakistani relations will continue on a course and there will be some reconciliation in pakistan will see strong, civilian rule there. that is what we should have in pakistan. host: in the paper is this headline -- we have a tweet. guest: the administration has called for him to step aside as well, if i recall correctly. i think his days are numbered. it may be three days, three

weeks, nine months. he has shown by his conduct that he does not really respect his own people. leaders in the region are now calling for him to resign. his days are numbered. host: kentucky, good morning. caller: good morning. the first thing i would like to do as a disabled american veterans is thank you for your service. there is something about this thing that bothers me. we can look at iran and we can look at iraq and we can look afghanistan, and we can look at these as we have one and they have been put in a government that we would find acceptable. the problem that i see and the problem we are having right now is they have a government, but they do not have a tax base. they do not have a way to

support this government. we can say they have a lot of oil, and this oil is going to support this government. ok. then you have put the oil in the hands of the people that are in power and you trust that you have an honest government. the people over there do not want to pay taxes. the people in this country -- we do not want to pay taxes. we have this big thing going on in washington over this tax thing. we do not want to pay taxes. we have to have a way to support these governments when they overthrow these people. there has to be something in line, in structure ready to pick this up and to take it on and make it into a democracy. which is what we want. we want a democracy. the whole world needs a democracy. it is the only type of fair government that there is. we have the worst government there is except for all the rest. again, general, i want to thank

you for your service. host: we will stop there. thank you so for your call. guest: you raised the fundamental issue. countries that have lots of oil have lots of problems dealing with good government because that wealth does, in. normally belongs to the state. it is a lot of money coming out of the ground. we have seen a case after case that the management of these funds and using them for the good of the people is a very difficult process. in iraq, there is about to be a great opening. you see the energy company projections, you see oil production in iraq increased not 20%, not 30%, but double, maybe triple or more. their exports are going to go way of. their development program is successful, a lot of that money is going to go back into iraq

for the benefit of the people, we hope, but this is all part of good government. it is not a destination. it has to be worked every day by men and women of character on the ground in every country in the world. host: moving to non-state actors and national security. hearing ron paul talk about whether or not the patriot acts has made us safer. listen in. >> i think the patriot acts is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. everyone is about the terrorist attacks. timothy mcveigh was a vicious terrorist. he was arrested. terrorism is still on the books. it is a crime. we dealt with it rather well with timothy mcveigh. why i really fear it is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against. our founders were very clear. they said, cassette i do not be willing to sacrifice liberty for security -- they said, "do not

be willing to sacrifice liberty for security." it seems congress is too willing to give up our liberty for security. i have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. you can still provide security without sacrificing our bill of rights. guest: that is an important debate. i do not think any american wants to give up liberty for security and most of us believe we can have both. but times change. technologies change. threats change. laws change. it is the duty of government, as ratified by the will of the people in the electorate, the modifications be made and adaptations be made to deal with problems and threats and technologies and so forth. for example, we have created an entire new ports structure that looks at the ability to monitor and a eavesdrop on conversations. he went back 100 years, you would not have seen a need for that because there were no

electronic conversations. this is a dynamic process going forward. -- if you went back 100 years. we have the freedoms, the liberties, the opportunity to communicate freely not only with our loved ones but on economic and political issues in this country without fear of intimidation or misuse of the information by the government? but at the same time, can we pick up the kinds of clues we need to take effective security measures to prevent the kind of timothy mcveigh bombing that occurred in 1995? we work really hard on it. we did pass the patriot acts. lots of discussion about it. as an american citizen, i feel pretty good about it. i think we have got it mostly right. host: next call, huntsville, alabama. this is fred. caller: good morning, general.

great to hear from you again. retired air force. i wonder if i could get you to speak about the potential ramifications about these proposed budget cuts on our national security in the near term and far term future. have a happy holiday. guest: thank you. the military is always worried about budget cuts. the truth is we have been through cycle after cycle of this since world war ii when we first cut the defense, and we have had to rebuild our forces time and again. i was on pentagon active duty when we were struggling to get $45 billion or $50 billion worth of procurement a year. i remember how happy people were when we got $60 billion of defense procurement. we are way above that level right now. any defense cut is always a problem. we have the greatest armed forces in the world and i think we will continue to have the greatest armed forces in the

world. budget cuts, have to be careful. but we are still the world's leading military power and we are going to be into the foreseeable future. >> we took the transfer from the debate and put it into a word cloud program test to see how it added up and which words got the most emphasis. here's a look at it as we take our next telephone call. >> good morning. i have a question. release strategic in nature and not on any specific issue. i am a baby boomer. i grew up in a generation where we and the soviet union were balanced in power when we lived under mutual assured destruction. there was no ambiguity. if there were ever use of nuclear weapons, we knew it could spell the end of the world as we know it. is it time for a paradigm shift now? we cannot invade every single country that even entertain the idea of building nuclear

weapons. should there be a new policy where if they are going to build, we will ratchet diplomatic pressure and sanctions and isolation and ultimately, if you ever use the weapon, you really have spelled the end of your country? maybe if there were something that was articulate as a world view, but that is the policy, maybe that would dissuade salt -- smaller countries from wasting their resources on building nuclear resources -- nuclear weapons. guest: it is an important discussion. first of all, the united states is committed in the long term to the proposition that we would all be better off if we lived in the world where there were no nuclear weapons. we got nations who do not have nuclear weapons to sign a pledge to not build nuclear weapons.

in countries like iran look at the benefit. they think it gives them greater security, greater prestige, ability to intimidate, and to some degree, protection against the threat of nuclear weapons against them. it increases the incalculable the of dealing with such a country, so they see an advantage in it. the stronger the international opinion against nuclear weapons on balance, the greater our ability to deter non-nuclear powers from becoming nuclear powers. but in the specific case of iran, it is probably too late for that. they seem determined to go after their nuclear power program. even their public opinion polling that i have seen shows that a substantial minority support their acquisition of nuclear weapons. we are pulling out every tool in the toolbox. the president said no option is

off the table on this. it is not acceptable for iran to acquire nuclear weapons. this is a dynamic policy that is still unfolding. host: we are running out of time. the president announced last week that australia as a counterbalance to growing chinese exploration in the region -- can you talk about your view of china's aspirations and what threats or opportunities they pose? guest: we have very important economic relations with china, and they have the same interest in the united states. nobody wants a conflict. nobody wants strategic competition out there that threatens security. certainly the united states does not want that, but we do have vital economic interest in southeast asia. we want stability. we want opportunity for those

nations to develop as they see fit. we want freedom of navigation, so these are all important issues for the united states as a global power, and we have been asked by people in the region to help provide them a sense of security. as china grows and china reaches out, inevitably, there are different views of this. we think it is in everyone's interests if there is a strong balance of forces in the region and people recognize that disputes have to be settled through the courts. that is the purpose of the u.s. forces out there.

host: former speaker newt gingrich on an issue close at home, which is security on our southern border. this clip has gotten quite a bit of press pick up. >> i do not believe that the people of the united states are going to take people who have been here a quarter century who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expelled them. i do believe if you have been here recently and have no ties to the u.s., we should deport you. i believe we should control the borders. i believe we should have very severe penalties. i urge all of you to look. i do not see how the party that says it is the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century, and i am prepared to take the heat for saying let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding

a way to create legality so that they are not separated from the governor. host: individual states have been developing their own policies for the spirit what are your thoughts? guest: it is a very divisive issue, especially in the republican party. i felt that we should have a way to, first of all, strong border protection. people should obey the law. there are people who have been here for years and years. they have been good citizens. there should be a path for legalization for these people. if you get down to it, probably a majority of american people feel this way about it. i would like to see us be able to deal with this issue at a national level. i was really surprised at how extreme some of the candidates' views were in reaction.

i thought they were extreme. i thought they were shortsighted. the simple fact is we are a nation of immigrants. almost all of us came here or our grandparents from somewhere else. it is what has made america a wonderful place. host: our last call from logan, west virginia. caller: how are you doing, sir? is it true that basically the petraeus doctrine on insurgency was basically applied to afghanistan and, if so, do you think that is what? and that jon huntsman pretty much has it right? guest: i do think that we have done a lot of study on the insurgency with general petraeus and his colleagues produced a good doctrine. we tried to put it in place in iraq and afghanistan. it requires not only good

military efforts and a certain conduct and performance by the military, but it also requires strong efforts in what some people would call nation- building in dealing with the civilian side. u.s. government has historically never had -- at least not since the days of civil operations and revolutionary development support -- we have never actually had the structure and resources to go after the civilian side with the same intensity we have gone after the military side of the counterinsurgency equation. it has been one of the difficulties. but what we're doing now in afghanistan seems to be to make a lot of common sense. we are training afghan forces, doing as much as we can to strengthen the government's not only at the central government level, but regionally. we are trying actually to promote economic development in afghanistan. it is a very rich country,

loaded with minerals and hydrocarbons. it can be rich agricultural appear it -- agriculturally. there's lots that can be done there. what we have to do is help the people of afghanistan establish enough security that they can move forward with their own economic and political development. host: we are out of time. we'll have our next conversation on the failure of the supercommittee and sequestration. i often hear a metric stated by experts about u.s. military spending that total u.s. military spending equals the spending of -- if that is true, with significant cuts in u.s. spending be feasible without dire consequences? guest: the cuts do not take place until january 2013, so the congress has a year to rectify

it. second, does the failure itself -- it is an ugly message brought about america. we did not have to have a supercommittee, but one was set up. people do not understand it is about the election of 2012. they are saying, "why can merica worked -- why can't america work?" it is just, in my view, one party attempting to gain political advantage and see its agenda successful in 2012. it does have a foreign policy consequences. it is true that the united states spends an awful lot of money on national security, but not every country has the same budgeting categories that we do. other countries put a lot of money into national security and national defense, but it does not always show up in their

accounting. still, we are spending a lot of money. none of us want to see these defense cuts. i hope our government can find a way to reinvigorate american economic growth. if we can grow the economy in this country, a lot of this discussion about budget cutting is going to take on a diminished importance. on the eve of world war ii, the economy did not go 3% a year. it grew 8%. 17%. 18%. we were coming out of the depression. we have a lot of people unemployed in this country right now. with the right opportunities and to write with working, we can reinvigorate economic growth. i hope we will see growth on the agenda as well as deficit reduction. host: thank you for being at the table. happy thanksgiving. we appreciate it. >> tonight, see comments from two presidential candidates. mitt romney, making his second presidential stop in