we found out that john mitchell of attorney general of the united states controlled the secret fund that paid for the bugging of watergate and some of these undercover activities. woodward led -- woodward and i would meet near the vending machine every day to get our book -- to get our good cop, bad cop routine. >> guess who was a good cop and he was the badi put a dime in -t a couple coffee cost back then -- a dime in the coffee machine. i felt this little chill go down my neck, the likes of which i can remember today, literally. i said, "0, my god, this president is going to be impeached." he looked at me and said, "oh, my god, you are right, and we can never use that word in this

newsroom ever lest someone think we have some kind of agenda." and we just keep going. i think that is the answer. >> quick question for josh and the panelists. i was struck by the question raised about going after the -- i want to push back a little bit. i think that does undercut what woodward and bernstein pioneered. you cannot leave your desk if you are after one fact. it prevents you from going that night and/or stopping people. but i think it undercuts it. >> i do not agree. maybe i am not being clear enough, but there are different facts. there are facts that mean nothing out of a broader context. there are some new pieces of information that -- i have seen

this many times, and i see it every day in the paper where you have a story that is basically one key new piece of information, one new development, but in a daily paper, there is no format for a paragraph. sometimes, if you have an ongoing part of a story where your readers understand the broader story, the context, the players involved, that that is all that is really required, all that is necessary. stated in the way you say, i agree, but, yes, if you are looking for every new fact of information, you put everything up sequentially, i totally agree, but that is not what i'm saying. >> any other questions? i have one question, thinking about the big stories in the last four decades, which do you think is the closest analogue to watergate?

>> i think watergate really was the 100-year storm. there really is not anything that combines all those elements in the same way. i think that in terms of impact, great investigations, but i would hold a little bit of a switch and say that i think the boston globe investigation of the catholic church had that kind of worldwide impact where it just moved like a tidal wave. >> and still moving. >> that comes to mind. >> bob, what about you? >> i would tend to agree with that. but i also -- there is sometimes a reluctance in the reporting profession. the investigative in-depth

reporting daily coverage to not really go into the power centers, but to take on stories that are good stories, but not go after the power centers. carl and i our dear friends, but if you look at the books he has done since watergate, hillary clinton, power center, the pope -- one of the great power centers or one of the big power centers in the world. sometimes, i think that tips come in or there is a lot of low-hanging fruit were people will say, "let's do a big story on this. let's do that." and not sit around and ask the very hard question -- who has the power? how do we hold them accountable? >> i think that is a great answer. but i think you can elaborate that at every level. whether it is state college of pennsylvania -- i mean, that is

a whole community. unbelievable power center in the sports program. one of the other things i think might be worth mentioning is that an awful lot of the great reporting of the last 30 years has been in books. i am not sure why, but there are notable examples of it. partly because those reporters have had time to do it and have found the forum perhaps a little more receptive. >> as a board member of the fund for investigative journalism, i would encourage you to apply for some of the grants we have to write those books. what about you? >> i think what you are saying about going after the power center is a great thing, but that is not really what you guys did. you pulled a string that was a phone call that came to you by

serendipity, and you kept pulling the string. he believed something that appeared to be unbelievable. i think that is what the catholic church probably does, and it changed the way we thought about all the institutions. >> yes, but we knew we were dealing with the white house. >> yes, but you were not sitting around like this wondering what you do to look at the power of the white house. >> from the day the notebook i talked about showed up in the pocket, it was either that or the cia were talking about. we knew that much pretty clear. >> but i would agree that in terms of the way it change what we thought of the institution and believing something that on the surface appears to be unbelievable, and that is the same thing with the paterno thing -- you appear -- you believe something that appears to be unbelievable. >> those are great stories. all over america.

it is really important, really powerful. if you think that the role of money -- look at where these are putting their money now. more in state races than in many ways the presidential race. if you think that state legislatures are really doing the weal of the people, it is pretty easy to get motivated. >> i want to be fair, and then i'll go to questions. is there a big story you feel is an analog to watergate? >> i think there were once the thought they were watergate, but were not. the ones that come up to me. i still feel like in some ways the corruption of the intelligence process before the iraq war and the nature of it -- this goes to some extent to what happened before but in a much

more polarized political environment. that is the story that could not quite overcome the solid defense at the 40 yard line on both sides of the partisan divide. i think that is significant. it is to similar to what it in a lot of ways, but to me, in some ways, it is as much great journalism as it was about it. because of the political polarization and because the intelligence process is so dark and unexplored will, i kind of feel it never quite got off the ground as the story it should be. >> i just thought of something that i had never thought about. one of the reasons that it was different as a story, received

differently at the newspaper and received differently by the world was that the two reporters that were writing this story nobody had ever heard of. they wipe their nose, it is on page one. everybody, all of their buddies, are behind them right away. it is a great question. >> can everybody hear it? >> the amazing thing about the story, and this came up -- you were reporting the story, and the thing that is hard to believe now is there were a lot of other big, powerful news organizations in town, and you took the story seriously, and nobody else did for a long time.

you have talked to a lot of other people who were reporters in town, and you have asked them why they thought that happened, what other news organizations did not take it as seriously. >> i have only worked for the pope nine months at that point, and i was very much an employee. i was much more subservient in the period of my life. >> no more. >> that is right. we kind of work on this. you have to capture the environment, and that is when we were talking about how you get to stories like this -- it is leadership from the top. it is somebody saying, "this is what we do. this is the business we are in. this is our purpose." not doing that just from on high in a weekly meeting, but world

walking. -- for walking. -- floor walking. it was infectious. go to it, and you cannot live on high as a newspaper editor or as a bloggin editorg or at bloomberg. you have to be active stimulating. >> there is another element, and that is that reporters love great stories. you go into a newsroom, and the place is electric. it is electric because the people in that newsroom know that there are stories out there and that that is what they do.

there is fun to it. we can talk all we want about the national interests and all these heavy things, but a good story is a hell of a lot of fun. what better thing in the world to do than this? there is real purpose to it as well. i not think it should take all the motivation that perhaps we are talking about on the part of journalists. >> outstanding panel. this question is principally for jeff. i wonder how the environment has changed for investigative reporting now in light of the intensity and effectiveness of countermeasures that the state and government is using now against sources. we have a half-dozen of espionage act prosecution's under way right now, and it seems law enforcement has bypassed reporters and gondar

resources using various kinds of electronic devices. i wonder how that has changed the kind of measures you take. >> we spend a lot of time not talking about burn phones and encryption. that's enough that, i have a radical thought. i do not think watergate would unfold the same way today. too many things are different. for one, i did not think there would be any case. in the same way watergate changed journalism, it changed government officials and change the public. it would play out completely different. that original third-rate burglary would be white hot. it would be white hot news, 24/7 with an election bearing down on you, you would have incredible feat. i am not sure the time for the story to unfold in the way it did would be the same. i think prosecutors have learned more. judges have learned more.

congress has learned more. the white house has learned war. >> congress has learned more? >> i just feel this thing would be completely different. who knows, but maybe it is over by the election. maybe it is a six-month story rather than a two-year story. >> who knows? >> what if. >> one of the colleges asked students in a journalism class to write a one-page paper on how watergate would be covered now. say what's't you cool it was? that would be really interesting. >> yale. he said these one-page papers that these bright students had written, and asked that i talk to the class on a speakerphone afterward. i got the papers on sunday night and read them, and i think

came as close as i have to having an aneurysm. [laughter] because the students wrote that you would just use the internet, and you would go to -- >> leukopenia -- wikipedia. them like you would google nixon's secret funds, and it would be there. that somehow the internet was the magic lantern that lit up all events, and they went on to say that the political environment would be so different that nixon would not be believed, and all the bloggers and tweeters would be in a lather and nixon would resign in a week or two weeks. i attempted to apply some corrective information to them, but the basic point is the truth

of what goes on is not on the internet. it can supplement. it can help vastly. the truth resides with people. human sources, and that you have to find a way to build the relationship of trust with human sources that will tell you, "ok, this is what really goes on. you learn time and time again in journalism. it is a cold shower, believe me. you do a couple of interviews with somebody and think you are really getting somewhere. you say you have time, and decide you will go back for a third, fourth, fifth, and you realize on the eighth interview, you start getting the real story of what is going on. so i think if there were some story like that that required the incremental coverage, that

people would do it using the tools of the internet, but not being diluted that somehow these have been -- these are going to really -- really tell you something that is hidden and concealed. >> the watergate hearings went on for about three months, from may to july of 1973. they made a huge difference. >> i cannot remember this town being as chris. >> he makes a great point about the watergate hearings. he says he cannot remember this town being as gripped by any event. am i too was not just the town. it was the country. all three networks, live. they ran them at night.

>> [inaudible] >> that is right. but the real point is -- but the institution of the congress of the united states responded, and i have grave doubt that the institution of the congress of the united states would respond to anything today. the leader of the senate watergate committee called and said he would like our sources, and we said no, that we would not give the sources, and he said that they were going to conduct an inquiry. we have laid out our version of what we believe happened, and if you look at that, those hearings again in may of 1973, finished in august, they are the gold standard. they discovered the tapes. they laid out the whole money trail.

in the special prosecutor's office, they discovered all of this corrupt campaign money. >> it was a republican on the committee who said, cassette and what did the president know and when did he know it? >> some watch 30 hours of the hearings that went from may 17 through august 7, and they filled 237 hours of television, but really, other than 9/11, i cannot think of an event that gripped the nation for a week. and this went on for months. i have a few copies of this book. i was on a panel with them a few years ago, and they were came out -- they cannot and were signing my book, and bob looked up and said, "do you mind?" thank you all. [applause] >> stay with us for a moment. please stay with us for a

moment. i have to tell you, somewhere, i had a feeling that richard nixon is looking on saying, "so that is how you cut off watergate." i apologize for breaking in. the departure for the next event at the museum, your sotol buses leaving from the ward and park entrance which, thank god for the sign post right next to harry's pub. they will be leaving now below about 6:15, so thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> today, primary voters go to the polls in wisconsin, maryland, and here in washington, d.c. our coverage billons -- begins with analysis from the political. you can express your opinion by phone and of our facebook page. you can watch all our "road to the white house" coverage on c- span.org/campaign2012. 2012 citys campaign store takes on tv. this past weekend featured little rock, arkansas, with book tv at the high-school collection at the university of arkansas.

>> john haskell collected photographs and was particularly interested in the 19th century. the civil war in particular. these are two friends who knew each other prior to the civil war and fought against each other in 1862, survived the war, cannot live, and remained friends after the war. they are at age 100, sitting on the porch, talking about the old days. >> american history to be looked at life at a world war ii japanese internment camp. >> read a wonderful book about surviving the and survivable. it talks about how the arts and crafts were sort of how they kept their sanity, and it gave them something to do, and about how depression was so bad in a lot of the camps, and there was

a high incidence of suicide. people would make these little things of beauty to give to each other just as a way to say, "we support you, and we care about you." >> our tour continues the weekend of may 5 and may 6 from oklahoma city on c-span2 and 3. >> for the first time since launching his reelection campaign, president obama today criticized republican mitt romney by name in a speech on the 2013 federal budget. president called the house republican budget plan radical and "a trojan horse designed of a deficit reduction plan." the president made these remarks at the annual convention of the american society of news editors. this is just over an hour. >> welcome to the 18th annual meeting of [inaudible]

[applause] >> thank you. do we have it? during the 2004 democratic national convention, our keynote speaker, then a senate candidate from illinois, introduced himself as a skinny kid with a funny name. in 2006, as the junior senator from illinois, he spoke to our annual luncheon about his vision for america. two years later, in 2008, as a presidential candidate, he spoke again to the ap annual luncheon. in a q&a after his speech, i asked him a question related to how he might deal with obama bin

laden if elected. in his always genteel way, he asked, "might you be referring to osama bin laden?" it was a slip of the tongue heard round the world. thanks to the delights of our digital age and youtube in particular, i will not soon escape that, even four years later, but we do have an answer to the question. [laughter] [applause] today, there's no mistaking his name, and even i cannot mess it up. it is mr. president. president obama made history as the first minority to be elected president. even many who opposed his election felt proud of our country as he took office. he inherited the headwinds of

the worst economic recession since the great depression. he pushed through congress the biggest economic recovery plan in history and lead a government reorganization of two of the big three auto manufacturers to save them from oblivion. he pursued domestic and foreign policy agenda is that were controversial to many, highlighted by his signature into law of the most comprehensive health care legislation in history. the budget plan's proposed by the president on the one hand and republicans on the other hand are not even on the same planet. many democrats believe the agenda does not go far enough, and most republicans believe that it goes way too far. we thought the 2008 white house race was rough and tumble. the 2012 race makes it look like bumper cars by comparison. our country has become even more polarized.

the 1% and the 99% are at each other's throats. campaigns are now funded by secretive multimillion-dollar suser pac's. what is next? gigapac the only's anybody seen? want to compromise on is -- well, i cannot think of anything. who would want this job in the first place? we are honored. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states of america? -- the president of the united states of america. [applause]

>> thank you so much. thank you. thank you very much. everyone, please have a seat. good afternoon, and thank you to dean singleton and the board of the associated press for inviting me here today. it is a pleasure to speak to all of you and to have a microphone that i can see. feel free to transmit any of this to vladimir if you see him. [laughter] clearly, we are already in the beginning months of another long, lively election year. there will be gas -- gaffes and minor controversies, hot mic's and etch-a-sketch mullins. you will cover every word we

say, and we will complained vociferously about the unflattering words that you're right, unless, of course, you are writing about the other guy, in which case, good job -- the unflattering words that you write. there are also big, fundamental issues at stake right now. issues that deserve serious debate among every candidate and serious coverage among every reporter. whoever he may be, the next president will inherit an economy that is recovering but not yet recovered from the worst economic calamity since the great depression. to many americans will still be looking for a job that covers their bills or pays their mortgages. to many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit.

a debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis, will have to be paid down. and in the face of all these challenges, we will have to answer a central question as a nation. what, if anything, can we do to restore a sense of security for the people who are willing to work hard and act responsibly in this country? can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well while a growing number struggle to get by, or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules? this is not just another run-of- the-mill political debate.

i have said it is the defining issue of our time, and i believe it. that is why i ran in 2008. it is what my presidency has been about. it is why i am running again. i believe this is a make or break moment for the middle class. i cannot remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear. keep in mind -- i have never been somebody who believes the government can or should try to solve every problem. some of you know my first job in chicago was working with a group of catholic churches that often did more good for the people in their communities than any government program could. in those same communities, i saw that notification policy, however well crafted, can take the place of a parent's love and attention.

as president, i have eliminated dozens of programs that were not working, and launched over 500 regulatory forms -- reforms that will put annual domestic spending on a path to become the smallest share of the economy since dwight eisenhower held this office, since before i was born. i know that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not washington, which is why i have cut taxes for small business owners 17 times over the last three years. it is why i believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. my mother and grandparents who raised me instill the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility that remain the cornerstone of the american ideal, but i also share the

belief of our first republican president, abraham lincoln -- a belief that true government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. that belief is the reason this country has been able to build a strong military to keep us safe and public schools to educate our children. that belief is why we have been able to lay down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. that belief is why we have been able to support the work of scientists and researchers to mrs. guthrie's have saved lives and unleased repeated technological revolutions and led to countless new jobs in an entire industry. that belief is also why we have sought to ensure that every citizen can count on some basic measure of security. we do this because we recognize

that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us at any moment might face hard times. might face bad luck. might face a crippling illness or a layoff. so we contribute to programs like medicare and social security, which guarantees health care as a source of income after a lifetime of hard work. we provide unemployment insurance, which protect us against unexpected job loss. and facilitates the labor mobility that makes our economy so dynamic. we provide for medicaid. unbacked to make sure that millions of seniors in nursing homes and children with disabilities are getting the care that they need. for generations, nearly all of these investments from transportation to education to retirement programs, have been supported by people in both parties.

as much as we might associate the gi bill with franklin roosevelt or medicare with lyndon johnson, it was a republican, lincoln, who launched the transcontinental railroad, the national academy of science, land grant colleges. it was eisenhower who launched the interstate highway system and new investment in scientific research. it was richard nixon who created the environmental protection agency. ronald reagan who worked with democrats to save social security. it was george w. bush who added prescription drug coverage to medicare. what leaders in both parties have traditionally understood is that these investments are not part of some scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another. they are expressions of the fact that we are one nation.

these investments benefit us all. they contribute to a genuine, durable economic growth. show me a business leader who would not profit if more americans could afford to get the skills and education that today's jobs require. ask any company where they would rather locate and hire workers -- a country with crumbling roads and bridges or one that is committed to high-speed internet and high-speed railroads, high- tech research and development. it does not make us weaker when we guarantee basic security for the elderly or the sick or those who are actively looking for work. what makes us weaker is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell or when entrepreneurs do not have the financial security to take a chance and start a new business. what drags down our entire

economy is when there is an ever-widening chasm between the old for rich and everybody else. in this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. it has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. that is how to generation who went to college on the gi bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known. that is why a ceo like henry ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars that they made. it is why research has shown that countries with less in the quality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run. and yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the

same arguments with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. they keep telling us that if we convert more of our investments in education, research, and health care into tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, our economy will grow stronger. they keep telling us that if we just chip away more regulations and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we would all be better off. we are told that when the wealthy become even wealthier and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it is good for america and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else.

that is the theory. now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that we have tried their approach. on a massive scale. the results of their experiment are there for all to see. at the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cuts in 2003. we were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. they did not. the wealthy got wealthier. we would expect that. the income of the top 1% has grown by more than 275% over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year. but prosperity sure did not trickle-down.

instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. the typical american family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6%, even as the economy was growing. it was a time when interest companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions did not have to abide by strong enough regulations, or they found their ways around them, and what was the result? profits for many of these companies soared, but so did many people's health insurance premiums. patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most. families were enticed and sometimes just plain tricked into buying homes they could not afford. huge, reckless bets were made with other people's money on the line, and our entire financial system was nearly destroyed. so we tried this theory out.

you would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, that the proponents of this theory might show some humility, might moderate their views a bit. you would think they would say, "you know what? maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being take advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders." maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest americans another round of big tax cuts. maybe when we know that most of today's middle-class jobs require more than a high-school degree, we should not the education or lay off thousands of teachers or raise interest

rates on college loans or take away people's financial aid. but that is exactly the opposite of what they have done. instead of moderating their views even slightly, the republicans running congress right now have double down and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the contract with america look like the new deal. in fact, that renowned liberal newt gingrich first called the original version of the budget radical and said it would contribute to right-wing social engineering. this is coming from newt gingrich. and yet, this is not a budget supported by some small group in

the republican party. this is now the party's governing platform. this is what they are running on. one of my potential opponents, governor romney, said he hopes a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency. he said he is very supportive of this new budget, and he even called it marvelous, which is a word you do not often hear when it comes to describing a budget. [laughter] it is a word you do not often hear generally. [laughter] so, here is what this marvelous budget does -- back in the summer, i came to an agreement with republicans in congress to cut roughly $1

trillion in annual spending. some of these cuts were about getting rid of waste. others were about programs that we support but we just cannot afford, given our deficits and debt. part of the agreement was a guarantee of another trillion in savings for a total of about $2 trillion in deficit reduction. this new house republican budget, however, breaks our bipartisan agreement and proposes massive new cuts in annual domestic spending. exactly the area where we have already cut the most. i want to actually go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly. bear with me. i want to go through this. i do not think people fully appreciate the nature of this budget. the year after next, nearly 10

million college students will see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. there would be 1600 fewer medical grants. research grants for things like alzheimer's and cancer and aids. there would be 4000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. investments in a clean energy technologies helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly 1/5. if this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the head start program. 2 million mothers and young children will be cut from a program to give them access to healthy food. there would be 4500 fewer

federal grants at the department of justice, and the fbi, to combat violent crime, financial crime, and helped secure our borders. hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. we would not have the capacity to enforce the laws to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food we eat. cuts to the faa would likely result in more flight cancellations and the cancellation of air-traffic control services in part of the country. over time, our weather forecast would become less accurate because we would not be able to afford to launch new satellites, meaning governments and mayors would have to wait longer to avoid -- order evacuations in the event of a hurricane. that is just a partial sampling

of the consequences of this budget. you can anticipate republicans may say, "well, we will avoid some of these cuts" since they do not specify exactly what cuts they would make. this is a mass. if they want to make smaller cuts to medical research, that means they have got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement. the converse is true as well. perhaps they will never tell us where the knife will fall, but you can be sure that with cuts this deep, there is no secret plan or formula that will be able to protect the investments

we need to help our economy grow. this is not conjecture. i am not exaggerating. these are facts. and these are just the cuts that would happen the year after next. if this budget became law by the middle of the century, funding for the kinds of things i just mentioned would have to be cut by about 95%. let me repeat that -- those figures i just mentioned we would have to cut by 95%. as a practical matter, the federal budget would basically amount to whatever is left in entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the national debt, period. money for these investments that have been traditionally supported on a bipartisan basis

will be practically eliminated. the same is true for other priorities like transportation and homeland security and veterans' programs for the men and women who have risked their lives for this country. this is not an exaggeration. check it out yourself. and this is to say nothing about what the budget does to health care. we are told that medicaid would simply be handed over to the states. that is the pitch. let's get it out of the central bureaucracy. the states can experiment. they will be able to run the programs a lot better. but here's the deal the states would be getting -- they would have to be running these programs in the face of the largest cut to medicaid that has ever been proposed. a cut that, according to one nonpartisan group, would take away health care for about 19 million americans.

19 million. who are these americans? many are someone's grandparents who, without medicaid, will not be able to afford nursing home care without medicaid. many are poor children. some are middle-class families who have children with autism or down's syndrome. some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24/our care. these are the people who count on medicaid. -- that they require 24-hour care. these 80 people count on medicaid. then there is medicare. because health care costs keep rising and the baby boom generation is growing, medicare we all know is one of the drivers of our long-term deficit. that is a challenge we have to

meet by bringing down the cost of health care overall to seniors and taxpayers and sharing the savings. but here is the solution proposed by the republicans in washington and embraced by most of their candidates for president. instead of being enrolled in medicare when they turn 65, seniors who retire a decade from now would get a voucher that equals the cost of the second- cheapest health care plan in their area. if medicare is more expensive than that private plan, they will have to pay more if they want to enroll in traditional medicare. if health care costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher, as, by the way, they have been doing for decades -- that is too bad. seniors bear the risk. if the voucher is not enough to buy a private plan with the specific doctors and care that you need, that is too bad. most experts will tell you the way the voucher plan encourages

savings is not through better care at cheaper costs. the way these private insurance companies save money is by designing and marketing plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors, cherry picking, leaving the older and sicker seniors in traditional medicare where they have access to a wide range of doctors and guaranteed care, but that makes the traditional medicare program even more expensive and raises premiums even further. that result is that our country will end up spending even more on health care, and the only reason the government will save any money -- a -- it will levy on our books -- is because we have shifted it to seniors. they will have to bear the costs themselves. it is a bad idea and will ultimately end medicare as we know it. the proponents of this budget will tell us, "we have to make all these draconian cuts'

because our deficit is so large. this is an existential crisis. we have to think about future generations." so on and so on. that argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.60 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates. we are told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions. but the republicans in congress refused to lift a single tax loophole -- refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. not one. by the way, there is no way to get even close to $4.60 trillion in savings without

dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle- class families -- tax breaks for health care, tax breaks for retirement, tax breaks for home ownership. meanwhile, these proposed tax breaks would come on top of more than $1 trillion in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year. that is an average of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in this country. $150,000. let's just step back for a second and look at $150,000 pays for. a year's worth of prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. plus, a new school computer lab. plus, a year of medical care for

returning veterans. plus, and medical research grant for a chronicle disease -- chronic disease. plus, a year's salary for a firefighter. plus, eight years rebate to make college more affordable. plus a year's worth of financial aid. $150,000 could pay for all these things combined. investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all of us. for $150,000, that will be going to each millionaire and billionaire in this country. this budget says we would be better off as a country if that is how we spend it. this is supposed to be about paying down our deficit? it is laughable.

the bipartisan simpson-bowles commission that i created, which republicans were originally for until i was for it -- that was about paying down the deficit. and i did not agree with all the details. i propose about $600 million more in revenue and 600 billion -- i am sorry, it proposed $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion more in defense cuts than i proposed in my own budget. but it was a serious, honest, balanced effort between democrats and republicans to bring down the deficit. that is why, although different in some ways, my budget takes a similarly balanced approach.

cuts in discretionary spending, cuts in mandatory spending, increased revenue. this congressional republican budget is something different altogether. it is a trojan horse, disguised as deficit reduction plans. it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. it is thinly-veiled social darwinism. it is and the pedicle to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who is willing to work for it. a place where prosperity does not trickled down from the top but gross outward from the heart of the middle class -- gross -- outward from the heart of the middle classgrows -- grows out

of from the heart of the middle class. everybody cheered should understand that because there are few people here who have not benefited at some point from those investments that were made in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's -- everybody here should understand that. that is part of how we got ahead. now, we are going to be pulling those ladders up for the next generation. in the months ahead, i will be fighting as hard as i know how for this true or vision of what the united states of america is all about. absolutely we have to get serious about the deficit. that will require tough choices and sacrifice, and i have already shown myself willing to make these tough choices when i signed into law the biggest

spending cut of any president in recent memory. in fact, the congressional budget office says overall spending next year will be lower than any year under ronald reagan. i am willing to make more of this difficult spending decisions in the months ahead. i have said it before, and i will say it again -- there has toi have also put forward a detailed plan that will reform and strengthen medicare and medicaid. by the beginning of the next decade, it achieves the same amount of animal health savings as the plan proposed by simpson-bowles. it does so by making changes that people in my party have not always been comfortable with.

but instead of saving money by shifting costs to seniors like to the republican congressional plan proposes, it will go after excessive subsidies to prescription drug companies, gets more efficiency of medicaid without gutting the program. it ask the wealthiest to pay a little bit more. new incentives for doctors and hospitals to improve their results. and it slows the cost american costs by strengthening an independent commission, one not made of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need. we also have a much different

approach when it comes to tax. if we are serious about paying down our debt, we can afford to spend trillions more tax cuts for folks like me. for wealthy americans who do not need them and were not even asking for them and that the country cannot afford. at a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1% of the people in this country has climbed to levels blast scene in the 1920's, those same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. as both i and warm but have pointed out many times now, he is paying a lower tax rate and his secretary.

that is not fair. it is not right. and the choices really very simple. if you want to keep these tax breaks and deductions in place or give even more tax breaks to the wealthy, as the republicans in congress propose, then one of two things will happen either these higher deficits or it means more sacrifice for the middle class. seniors will have to pay more for medicare. college students will lose financially. working families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest americans are doing less. i repeat what i said before. that is not class warfare. that is not class envy. that is math. if that is the choice of the members of congress want to make -- and we will make sure that every american knows about it -- in a few weeks, there will be a vote on what we call the buffet rule. it is a simple concept.

if you make more than $1 million annually, then you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle- class families do. on the other hand, if you made under% $250,000, like 98% of american families do, then your taxes should not go up. that is the proposal. you will hear some people point out that the buffet rule alone will not raise enough revenue to solve our deficit problems. maybe not. but it is definitely a step in the right direction. and i intend to keep fighting for this kind of balance and fairness until the other side starts listening could i believe this is what the american people want. i believe this is the best way to pay for the investments we need to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class.

by the way, i believe it is the right thing to do. this larger debate that we will be having and that you will be covering in the coming year, by the size and role of government, this debate has been with us since our founding days. during moments of great challenge and change like the ones we're living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. that is a good thing. as a country that prizes both are individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates that we can have. no matter what we argue or where we stand, we have always held certain beliefs as americans. we believe that come in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can just think about ourselves. we have to think about the country that made those

liberties possible. we have to think about our fellow citizens, with whom we share a community. we have to think about what is required to preserve the american dream for future generations. and this sense of responsibility to each other and our country, this is not a partisan feeling. this is not a democratic or republican idea. it is patriotism. if we keep that in mind and uphold our obligations to one another and to this larger enterprise that is america, then i have no doubt that we will continue on our long and prosperous journey as the greatest nation on earth. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you. thank you, everyone. thank you. >> we appreciate you so much being with us today. i have some questions from the audience. the republicans have been sharply critical of you as well. americans want both sides to stop fighting and get the job done. >> i completely understand the american people's frustrations. the truth is that these are

imminently solvable problems. i know christine lagarde is here. the kind of challenges they face fiscal is a much more severe than anything we can confront if we make some sensible decisions. the american people's impulses are absolutely right. these are solvable problems the people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise. the challenge we have right now is that we have, on one side, a party that will book no compromise -- and this is not just my assertion.

we had presidential candidates who stood on stage and were asked would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involves $10 of cuts for every dollar in revenue increases -- a 10-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue. not one of them raised their hands. think about that. ronald reagan, who was a recall is not accused of being a tax- and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that come when the deficit started to get out of control, for him to make a deal, he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases.

he did it multiple times. he could neither did through a republican primary today -- he could not get through a republican primary today. let's look at bowles simpson. slightly lower defense spending cuts. the republicans want to increase defense spending and take in no revenue. which makes it impossible to balance the deficit. unlessif you essentially eliminate cut it, everything we think of as being pretty

important, from education to basic science and research to transportation spending to national parks to do environment of protection, we would have to eliminate them. i guess another way of thinking about this -- and this bears on your reporting -- i think there's oftentimes the impulse to suggest that, if the two parties are disagreeing, the near equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. and and equivalents is presented, which reinforces people's cynicism about washington in general. this is not one of those situations where there is an equivalence. i have some of the most liberal democrats in congress who are prepared to make significant

changes to entitlements that go against their political interests and who said they were willing to do it. and we could not get a republican to stand up and say we will raise some revenue or to even suggest that we will not give more tax cuts to people who do not need it. i think it is important to put the current debate in some historical context. it is not just true, by the way, of the budget. it is true of a lot of the debates that we are having here. cap and trade was originally proposed by conservatives and republicans as a market-based solution to solving environmental problems.

the first president to talk about cap and trade was george w. h. bush appeared now we have a party that essentially says we should not even be thinking about environmental protection. let's gut the epa. healthcare, which is in the news right now, there is the reason why there is a little bit of confusion. in the republican primary about health care and the individual mandate. it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace and health care while still ensuring that everybody got coverage as opposed to a single-payer plan. suddenly, this is some socialist overreach. as all of your doing your reporting, it is important to remember that the positions i'm taking on the budget and a host

of other issues, if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, it would have been considered squarely centrist positions. what has changed is the center of the republican party. and that is certainly true with the budget. >> [inaudible] the need for a lower deficit and lower taxes. how do you respond to that? >> she is absolutely right.

when i travel around the world to these international forums, i have said this before. the degree to which america is the one indispensable nation, the degree to which -- even as other countries are rising and their economies are expanding, we're still looked to for leadership, for agenda-setting. not just because of our size and our military power, but because there is a sense that, unlike most superpowers in the past, we tried to set out a set of universal rules or a set of principles by which everybody can benefit. and that is true on the economic front as well. we continue to be the world's largest market, an important

engine for economic growth. we cannot return to a time when, by simply borrowing and consuming, we end up driving global economic growth. i said this a few months after i was elected at the g-20 summit. driving economic growth by taking imports from everyplace else, those days are over. we do have to take care of our deficits. i think christine has spoken before and i think most economists would argue as well that the challenge, when it comes to our deficit, is not

short term discretionary spending, which is manageable. as i said before and i want to repeat, as a percentage of our gdp, our discretionary spending, all the things that the republicans are proposing to cut, is actually lower than it has been since dwight eisenhower. there has not been some massive expansion of social programs, programs to help the poor, environmental programs, education programs. that is not our problem. our problem is that our revenue has dropped down to between 15% or 16%, far lower than it has been historically, far lower than it was under ronald reagan. at the same time, our health care costs have surged and demographics show that there's more and more pressure placed on financing our medicare and medicaid and social security programs. at a time when the recovery is

still gaining steam and unemployment is still very high, the solution should be pretty apparent. even as we continue to make investments in growth today, for example, putting some of our construction workers back to work rebuilding schools and roads and bridges or helping stage rehire teachers at a time when schools are having a huge -- or helping states rehire teachers at a time when schools are having a huge problem retaining quality teachers in the classroom, all of which would benefit our economy, we focus on a long-term plan to stabilize our revenues at a responsible level and to deal with our deficit in a responsible way. and that is exactly what i am

proposing. let's go back to levels that were not in placeduring the clinton era, wealthy people were doing just fine and the economy was stronger than it had been. and let's work on medicare and medicaid in a serious way, which is not just taking the cost of the books, of the federal books and pushing them on to individual seniors, but let's actually reduce health care costs. we spend more on health care with not as good outcomes as any other advanced developed nation on earth. that would seem to be a sensible proposal.

technical means to solve it. the problem is our politics. that is part of what this election and what this debate will need to be about. are we as a country willing to get back to common sense, balanced, fair solutions that encourage our long-term economic growth and stabilize our budget? it can be done. one last point want to make that i think is important because it goes to the growth issue -- if state and local government hiring were basically on par to what our current -- all part to past recoveries, the unemployment rate would probably be about a point lower than it is right now. if the construction industry

were going through what we normally go through, that would be another point. part of the challenge we have right now in terms of growth has to do with the basic issues of huge cuts in state and local governments and the housing this massive bubble. those two things are huge headwinds in terms of growth. if we put some of those construction workers back to work or we put some of those teachers back in the classroom, that could actually help create the kind of virtuous cycle that would bring in more revenues just because of economic growth, would benefit the private sector in significant ways, and that could help contribute to deficit reduction in the short term, even as we still have to do these important changes to our health care

programs over the long term. >> president, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for the supreme court to overturn law passed by an elected congress. if the court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do or propose to do for the 30 million people who would not have health care after that ruling? >> first of all, let me be very specific. we have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by congress on an economic issue like health care that i think most people would consider commerce.

they'll like that has not been overturned -- a lot like that has not been overturned at least since lochner. that is pre 1930's. the point i was making is that the supreme court is the final say on on the constitution and our laws and all of us have to respect it. but it is precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our congress. so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. as i said, i expect the supreme

court to actually recognize that and abide by well established precedents out there appeared to have enormous confidence that come in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the court will exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our supreme court has. as a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies. what i did emphasize yesterday is that there is a human element to this that everybody has to remember. it is not an abstract exercise. i get letters every day from

people who are affected by the health care law right now, even though it is not fully implemented. young people who are 24 or 25 who say, you know, i just got diagnosed with a tumor. first of all, i would not had it checked if i did not have health insurance. and i would not have had it treated if i were not on my parents' plan. thank you and thank congress for getting this done. i get letters from folks who have just lost their jobs. their cobra is running out. there in the middle of treatment for colon cancer or breast cancer and they are worried that, if there cobra runs out and they are sick, what will they be able to do if they cannot get health insurance?

the point that was made very ably before the supreme court, but i think that most health care economists have acknowledged, it assures that people will get coverage even when they had had bad illnesses. one way is the single-payer plan. the other way is a single system like medicare. the other way is to set a system in which you do not have people who are healthy but do not bother to get health insurance and then we'll have to pay for them in the emergency room. that does not work good as a consequence, we have to make sure that those folks are taking their responsibility seriously, which is what the individual

mandate does. i do not anticipate the court striking this down. i think they take their responsibilities very seriously. i think what is more important is for all of us, democrats and republicans, to recognize that, in a country like ours, the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth, we should not have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick. or and waiting until they do get sick and then go to the emergency room which involves all of us paying for them. >> you have been very generous with your time. we appreciate so much you being here. >> thank you so much, everybody. [applause] thank you.

[applause] >> there are a couple more hours for primary voters. our election night coverage begins in about a half-hour with an analysis from politico. then results with live candidate speeches. you can watch all our "road to the white house coverage" online. >> saturday at noon on c-span2,

joined the live call-in program with chris kyle as he talks about his life. at 10:00 p.m. -- >> if you think of yourself as a team, she said when i get a raise, he is so proud of me, because our family got a raise. i felt as if she had redefined providing to include what her husband does. >> the richer sex offer on the changing role of women as breadwinners of the family and how that impacts their lives. also this weekend, america the beautiful. ben carson compares the decline of the empires past with america. tv every weekend on c-

span2. >> @ today's state department briefing, the offer of a cash award for information leading to an arrest. other topics, the recent news from syria, iran, burma, and colombia. this is a half hour. >> happy tuesday, everyone. i have a brief statement on mali, and then we will go to what is on your minds, and we will be putting the statement right out after the briefing. united states remains concerned about the ongoing crisis in mali. their territorial integrity is at stake. their institutions will be further weakened if the

supporters do not release their grip immediately. we commend the leadership of the group to restore full civilian role, and the echo but returning power to the civilian leadership. at the same time, the united states calls on all armed rebels in the north of mali to cease operations that compromise the territorial integrity, to ensure all the safety and security of the northern population. as leadership is restored, we urge all armed rebels to engage in dialogue the civilian leaders to find a nonviolent path forward, national elections, and peaceful coexistence. let's go to what is on your mind.

>> just on that, before when this was -- before the coup, were you not fully supportive of the fight against the rebels, and now you are saying they should talk to whoever is in control? >> the concern has been that as a security forces of mali have split, some of them joining the junta leaders, they have stopped fighting in the north. we have seen the north. they have made in march not only on timbuktu, but the situation has become considerably worse. we have always said that the government in mali needed not only to be fighting, but also to be providing an opportunity to address legitimate political grievances in the north. our call now is not only for the

civilian government to be restored, but for the -- to cease their violence, and once we get back to a civilian government, for that government and those with grievances in the north to engage in dialogue rather than to settle these issues by violence. >> did you figure out how much aid you have suspended? >> we are continuing to work through these programs one by one. it is relatively complicated because we want to continue the humanitarian aid while the cut off anything that provide support to the government. we are continuing to work to that, but we're looking at other ways we can bring pressure to bear on the captain. >> like what? >> i will have more to say that -- to say about that in coming days. my understanding is the security

council is discussing malik today, and there may be a presidency statement today, and we would support that. >> relatively complicated? i can understand one day, two days, four days, maybe even five days, but now it has been 10 at least. is it that complicated? that would be more than a relatively complicated, a problem of such immense proportion that the entire -- is unable to come up with --in 10 days. >> my understanding is the agencies that manage these programs were given about a week to report exactly what they are doing, what the programs fund, so for about a week we were waiting for accurate information to come into washington. now we are going to the policy

and a legal review and have to notify congress. i am frustrated, and i know you are frustrated. there anything the night it's states can do? >> my understanding is ecowas imposed sanctions today, including closing borders, suspending flights, those kinds of things. we support their efforts to pressure captain sanogo. >> imposed travel bans? is that something the united states will follow? >> that is something we're looking at. [unintelligible] we have to see the text, but the presidency statement is the

first step in the council expressed its concern. let's see what the text says. obviously they are -- thereafter, one can do more. >> today the prime minister made a statement they are cooperating with the international community in facilitating access to all the areas that need to be accessed. they are cooperating with them. do you know anything about that? >> our understanding is a drought this current crisis -- had given them an additional $10 million in humanitarian aid. we decided to increase that, because we were seeing some of that aid flowing to the syrian people in need. our concern had been the humanitarian organizations have not been getting to the areas in greatest need, when they are

under assault. i would refer you to the -- for their view of how they're doing. our understanding is their access is far from complete. more importantly, as you know, the assertion to kofi annan was that assad would implement its commitments immediately to withdraw from cities. i want to advise that we have seen no evidence today that he has implemented those commitments. >> they made a statement that they are withdrawing from the cities, some areas in homs. you have no way of verifying that? >> our information is the opposite, that nothing has changed. >> there is more to plummet in those areas? >> have been able to verify no withdrawal of mechanized units, which is what he is claiming

credit for. >> de you have -- do you have confidence they will fulfil their commitment? >> will judge this died by his actions. >> one thing that came out yesterday, the report that the russian position that say explicitly to back the demand on assad to take the first set. do you read that as a change in their position, as the committee tries to get a coherent view? >> i will let the russians speak for themselves as to whether their position has changed. you know we have been feeling convergence on the security council for some two weeks now. that was highlighted by the presidency statement that endorsed the kofi annan 6-point

plan, and everybody was together yesterday in agreeing there needed to be a time line and we were waiting for the regime to demonstrate that. >> the plans to send 250 monitors -- when are you going to decide? >> as the ambassador said yesterday in new york, the peacekeeping arm of the u.n. is preparing to be able to send monitors in the event that assad keeps his word, so they could move immediately in and provide eyes and witness etc.. we are a preparatory stage, but they cannot deploy unless we

have movement on the ending of the violence. >> with the embassy not there, and all the dramatic missions have lowered their presence, how do you keep -- stay -- how do you get verifiable information? >> we have maintained broad contacts with folks inside syria, robert ford, speak to people in syria every day, and in addition we work with our allies and partners to live in the same neighborhood and have their own context, and we have other means for evaluating things like troop movements. >> [unintelligible] >> he is special adviser to the

secretary. i will get you the precise title. >> burma -- following up on your response to a question yesterday, is there a time line to decide any further steps prove it is the united states waiting supporters to enter parliament? >> we congratulate all participated, and it appears to be a big victory. we have the preliminary results and our statements were based on that. over the next few days those results will be confirmed in the final period as we said, we are prepared to match positive steps of reform in burma with steps of our own the. we are now looking at what might come next on the u.s. side. i do not have anything to

announce. i would look for more movement from us in the coming weeks. >> is there something specifically in terms of the process? >> we are consulting with partners in the e.u. who may be making similar steps. [unintelligible] >> the party backed by the military government, were you shocked by the size of the tree that they had put the situation at this time, as in 1990, election in 1990 [unintelligible] that is what many people are asking? >> our expectation is the government will honor the results as they are certified. as you know, the initial

reporting is that she wants her own seat, so she will be able to join the party, and she has 42 other members of her party who appear to have won their seats. our expectation is these results will be honored. >> [unintelligible] they should have now a kind of a fair general national election so she can have a place -- >> as the secretary said, it was on sunday, when we were in istanbul, it is now going to be critical for burma authorities to continue to work on reform of the electoral system so it fully meets international standards. and it expeditiously looks into any irregularities.

we are hoping for a continuing evolution of the burmese political system, heading toward the next scheduled election, which i think are in 2015. >> have you had any reaction from india or china? >> undersecretary sherman is in india today. >> the u.s. has put out a $10 million reward for their arrest and prosecution of said, was that head of the affiliated charitable organization. he is suspected of being the mastermind behind the mumbai killings? why now, as it happened over three years ago? >> this effort to arrange a

reward for justice county, if you will, for said has been in the works for quite a number of months. these things are somewhat complicated to work through all the details. the announcements able to be posted when the process was complete. we have been working on this for some time. >> more than a few months? less than a year? >> less than a year, but more than three or four months. >> can you tell us about what is so complicated about offering the money? >> there is a review process to determine whether offering a bounty of this kind in this case, $10 million, for said, is

likely to lead to any results in the case. there has to be an intelligence evaluation, a policy evaluation. there has to be discussion with conagra s. this is a lot of money for the taxpayers to put up. things have to be correlated there. there is an entire review process, committee that has to look through this, and then the secretary has to approve this. >> it only started a couple months ago. when did the process begin? >> i cannot speak to whether right after the bombing, but sometimes what happens is intelligence and other information comes later with regard to whereabouts of individuals, which leads one to think that offering a reward might cause citizens who know where they are to come forward. sometimes that is evident at the

time of the crime, and sometimes later. one of these individuals has been appearing on television and has been quite abrasive. the sense has been that this kind of a reward might hasten the judicial process. >> you are saying -- >> he did speak to aljazeera today, and he suggested this is being done because he has been putting pressure on the government in islamabad to not reopen the transit routes. is this because of his suspected of involvement in the attacks? >> has everything to do with mumbai and his brazen founding of the justice system. >> has there been communication with the press stand authorities seeking his arrest? >> absolutely.

we have been in communication with pakistan on this issue. >> have they acceded to his placement on this list? it has been suggested that doing so could put even more strain on the u.s.-pakistan relationship. is that something that the deadly secretary will deal with in his meetings in islamabad? >> on the latter question, the full range of issues related to issue nash crist international terrorism, terrorist threats is one of the subjects that the deputy secretary will be talking about. we have continued to impress on the government of pakistan that we believe it has a special responsibility to fully investigate and bring those responsible to justice to the extent that it can. the government of pakistan has regularly in our conversations with them pledged its corp. in

the investigation. we fully expect they will follow through on those commitments. i would guess that this case will probably come up. [unintelligible] my understanding is the primary work that is done before we offer these awards is internal, that we do advise affected governments that we intend to do this, but it is not a consultative process. >> the reward is for information that leads to the conviction. conviction where? >> wherever he can be found. >> you are trying -- has he been charged with the murder of the six americans? >> i do not have any -- >> why is it for the united states to offer reward?

>> because we want to see him brought to justice. i believe he has been charged. >> you want him brought to justice here? india? pakistan? if i gave the information that he was on such a corner and he gets picked up, where does he have to be convicted so i can get the money? >> a understanding of this is that he has actually been charged in india, in connection with this case, that he has been at large and has not been able to be either arrested or brought to trial. the precise formulation and the rewards for justice announcement is $10 million for information leading to the arrest or the conviction of either this

individual, to marion dollars for the other individual. >> are the indians offering a reward? i do not understand why the united states -- >> we have had americans killed. >> seems to me that vast amount this individual has done is to india, and i am not aware they are offering any or warts. i want to know why the american tax payers are offering awards. >> i will refer you to the indians. this is a program we have had -- we have had for a long time when we are concerned that people who have killed americans overseas are not being able to be brought to justice. again this is a case that has been going on for a long time. this is with regard to justice being served on people who have

killed americans. there is no impunity for them. >> can you find out where this guy has to be convicted from? >> we will get you more information on that. >> what about the overall program? it has been noted that upwards of 100 main dollars have been paid. is there a breakdown -- $100 million have been paid. is there a breakdown per case, how much was paid out and when they were paid out? >> i will take that -- as you know to protect those who come forward, we do not advertise these things. whether we do an accounting of how much has been authorized and for what cases, i am not sure, so let me take it. [unintelligible] yesterday there was a meeting between the undersecretary --

you tell us what transpired? >> i will take that one, too. >> members of the freedom and justice party, the political arm of the muslim brothers, and one of them is a member of the parliament, they are going to meet different people in washington. is there a meeting that is going to take place in this building? >> i do not know if we're going to meet the delegation in this building. [unintelligible] and what the united states hopes happens next? >> yes, and thank you for your patience yesterday. the operation was on going and we wanted to be careful, but the colombians and the brazilians and let them complete their operation. united states is pleased these officials are now free and they

have been reunited with their families. we commend the icrc, government of brazil, for the roles they played in its release. as you know, president santos has welcomed this release has called for calledfarq renounce all violence and to release all remaining hostages as a central condition to move forward. i think he used the term that this was a positive development, but insufficient, and we want to see further progress in this regard. >> do you believe farq tinias to have support from other governments in that region? >> we have had concerns about that and i do not think they have to change. >> are you worried about ongoing

violence in karachi -- [unintelligible] if you have access to them, because they had information about osama bin laden? >> i am not going to speak to our relationship with pakistan. it is now and internal matter between pakistan and as governments about the position. >> ongoing violence in karachi? >> do not have anything on that. >> in addition to the launch, north korea is preparing a bigger long-range missile test, and there have been reports that u.s. officials are saying it could be more concerned than cordially thought. do you have anything on this? >> any missile launch is of

great concern and would be a violation of the u.n. security council resolution. >> the president of kurdistan is in town. he is to meet with a deputy secretary. why is he not meeting with the secretary? >> he is being posted by the vice president, and in this building he will have a chance to talk to the deputy secretary. >> on iran, the expectation that there will be talks next month? do you have any clarity -- if that has been nailed down? >> we are where we were yesterday, that we have made a proposal, we think it is appropriate, and we are awaiting iranian confirmation.

>> there was a statement from a russian official criticizing u.s. funding on democracy. does -- does the united states have anything new to say to these charges? >> would call your attention to the interview the secretary gave to cnn over the weekend. we put out the transcript yesterday, where she spoke clearly about our support for russians' rights to work to speak openly about their interest in more freedom, democracy, more transparency, more openness. we have as the secretary affirmed proposed to congress the creation of a new fund to empower russians in civil society, to protect human rights, to enhance free

information environments, to work with ngo's to increase the dialogue they have with american ngo's, to support the american development of political leadership among young people. this would be a $50 million fund that would be drawn from liquidated assets from the former u.s.-russia investment fund. we're working with congress on this. it is designed to support a vibrant civil society in russia and to allow us to work with developssian hgo's to their skills and their voice and their ability to represent the aspirations of russians to deepen and stricken -- and strengthen their democracy. >> in your proposal, do you include istanbul as a venue? >> yes.

>> take a position -- >> a criminal court? we have seen the announcement by the prosecutor. this is within his mandate, so our focus as it has been all along. >> countries take positions on things. >> to my knowledge, we did not take a position on this. thanks, everybody. i will now be off. mark will be on the podium tomorrow and next week. >> up next, road to the white house continues with primary results.

on c-span2, at 8:00 eastern, biographies of pat buchanan and ronald reagan. on c-span3, thomas jefferson and the founding of america. as part of a republican primary coverage tonight, which will go live to politico to see how they are reporting on the election. ♪ ♪ welcome to politico live. this gives us plenty to chew on throughout the program.

we are being aired live on c- span and globally across all political platforms. we plead with you to make this interactive, to make a conversation between the three of us. you can get me live at politico.com. and on twitter at #polticolive. what should people care about? >> maybe wisconsin. >> there are two other primaries. your state is where the action is. i think we all think that mitt romney is going to win. >> why are we paying so much attention to wisconsin that's why all the attention on wisconsin and not maryland? >> wisconsin is the last opportunity for rick santorum.

>> this morning, you set the bar. what is the bar back captain rick santorum exceed expectations -- what is the bar and? how can rick santorum exceed expectations? >> when are we going to say that it was soft? i think he is in great shape. >> mike has a reputation for making terrible predictions. what do the campaign thinks will be the final tally? >> 7. going to say seven. there's so much a great injury inside that book about what is happening in the romney campaign. but tonight in perspective.

where are we? >> we are not pass the end. no. >> we have dented the shows and we know you are wrong. -- 10 of these shows amino you are wrong. >> it is functionally over. we all believe me romney is going to be the nominee. he does not have it yet. the magic number is 1144. he can have our rick santorum on this debt march. 10.let's say it is 7- romney has an advantage in in wisconsin. he has an endorsement from anyone who matters in my home state. this is not that big of a victory. he has a fundamental weakness

that speaks to why rick santorum should stick around. >> i am curious to see how mitt romney does. >> would you change your tune if mitt romney could get 95 of the delicate? -- delegates? rick santorum was not on the ballot. he is not eligible. his spokesperson got called out today. rick santorum might get zero delegates. d.c. insiders are against him. let no one in the whole of d.c. i think mike is right about wisconsin. 24 is the number you get if you win the state. it is winner-take-all.

if you win the district, a u.n. three in0 yi-- you win all. >> we are bogus on the two. they are trying to say tonight we're going to do what? >> a better than expected. they expect to get within a couple of points. they made clear that they are not expecting this. there were scouting wisconsin for a party. now it is pennsylvania. >> we are going to see a little bit of that imagery. mitt romney thinking people in milwaukee pirie directed toward will speak in pennsylvania -- milwaukee. said rick santorum will speak in pennsylvania close to his cell.

we're going to hear rick santorum hearing this -- speaking of this. he is talking about pennsylvania playing a pivotal role in the nation's history. he is willing to talk about how he is a candidate do can snatch your freedoms back from. >> he can tweet us at #politicolive. tell us what you want us to answer. we have everybody. we have 50 people downstairs. any question you have the will be able to answer. is there any drama whatsoever in maryland? it is romney is going to win? >> there is more competition than you saw in wisconsin.

newt gingrich will not be a factor tonight. we are not placing the importance on the state. perhaps we should be focused more. >> maryland on not have a role in the general. >> wanda summers is traveling with rick santorum. let's start with you. tell us, what are you hearing from the small band of advisers that there is a small team of people that advises -- advisers? there's a small team of people that advises rick santorum. >> there'll be a hint of an upset. he will be using this as a lot of is pennsylvania campaign. if they see a chance in the small rural communities.

the turnout is high. they're hoping they can keep its clothes. this is what they're really hoping for. sites are ahead on pennsylvania. that is where the campaign feels is their best chance. >> i will let you interpret this spin you are getting from a santorum on why they stand. give the scenario they gave you on how they win the nomination. >> april showers bring may flowers. april will be a rock for months for them. they think they can pick up a large number of delegates. the delegates will -- rick santorum told us going to the convention is a good thing for

democracy and the party. they're looking at this for the long term strategy. rick santorum is planning to campaign in arkansas in mid-in may. they're looking at this as a marathon and not a sprint. >> what do people in your bubble think of this spend? rick santorum says i do not want to be embarrassed in my own state and get out if it looks like pennsylvania is trending the wrong way. is that something mitt romney is trying to see d? >> i hear that argument. there is no chance that rick santorum get out before pennsylvania. he plans on sticking around. the latest polls showed him up by six points. that is a tight race for his home state. when you lose your home state, and makes it hard to carry an argument for yourself.

>> what is the mood in bubble? is there still a lot of reporters with the santorum? you can often read the body language of a candidate to tell how they feel they are doing. >> rick santorum has been doing a lot of bowling. we have gone bowling with rick santorum several times. i am not an athlete. we have gone bowling with him. he seems to be in good spirits. there have been reporters pulling away. there has not been much of that here. there is a little bit of a presence here. he has been in great spirits recently. he seems to be at ease on the trail. he is having a beer or two. i think he made a grilled cheese

the other day. >> can you make sure to talk to the advisers between now and the next time you are on? but lay out what the next couple of weeks look like. will they have money to spend? we will bring him into the conversation. irani got a lot of big endorsements the past few weeks. center johnson is backing him. in both cases, -- mitt romney got a lot of big endorsement in the past few weeks. senator johnson in backing him. tell me what is happening in romney world right now. they say he will probably win the low double digits. what are you hearing? >> they feel good about tonight.

they are optimistic they looking at a 343 night in the district. did they feel that will put a lot of pressure on rick santorum. he can stop attacking romney so much. names. they're hoping to see a lot more of that starting tomorrow when the campaign moves to the northeast. >> talk about their strategy after tonight. they have a lot of money left. one of the state's ban will focu ross date when they think they can and will wrap this up? -- rough+++ when they think

they can and will wrap this up? >> they will be of pennsylvania tomorrow and thursday. we will not have a date certain to wrap it up. we know the dates coming up are more advantageous demographically. what we're going to see them iim nudging folks. there will be a lot of movement with people from the romney campaign to lean on the hand of the republican party to try to push on santorum to ease his way out of this race. >> we will check back with you momentarily. we have a question from ashley. what caused romney to pull so well? what drives his supporters? one of the great things, we're pitching the book. it is loaded with this stuff. you for the first time ripped the curtain opened and to show a

big division inside the romney campaign. they show how to let romney be romney and whether they should let romney be romney. likes how much do you script in? do you take the risk of loafer in in mouth you have been getting what romney. there is a bit of arguments that you are better off to take that risk. the authenticity issue outweighs the scripted issue. interview people for this but, they had years to campaign. that is why you had him off the grid. he has still not been on the "meet the press." he was rusty when he did the interview with fox news.

>> you're saying they're winning the debate? we have seen it. we had moments where he has been out there. correct what you hear is that he's a bad joke and shy after the remarks to some of the things he has done wrong. he put his hand on the burner. he gets worried about saying something off the message. as the result, you get these convoluted things. that is why you had that terrible answer in south carolina whether they asked him whether he will follow his father on the tax returns. he said need be. that really helps set the narrative in south carolina. >> you work as well.

>> you wrote about the five things you think people should be paying attention to tonight. >> the margin is the big one. this will be a big one. you can probably speak to this as a native. the milwaukee suburbs are much more conservative in the suburbs around illinois. matt did very well dinner -- mitt did very well there. this will be seen as a sign of some strange on his part. i think his delegate count is something else worth watching. i think seeing the extent to which the democrats turn out will be a real issue. one thing we talked about last week was in new taking bridge's percentage. that is the key to watch -- newt

gingrich's percentage. that is the key to watch. i think closer to 10 is a better answer. >> let's bring in charlie. he is the guy who edited the almanac for american politics. he did not necessarily write it. there he is. god bless you. we're talking about the things to watch tonight. let break down the state. other parts of wisconsin as indicators of how the knights will unfold and how -- of how the night will unfold. >> racine county is a traditional bellwether. the top one is waukesha county.

there is a huge mccain march. there was an obama state out of waukesha county. it is a very republican plays. all through the fox river valley will be important. the key for rick santorum is going to be how well to do in the more rural parts to the west. wisconsin is different from illinois. it is a lot more worlrural. this will have a very big impact on the vote. >> other than looking at the breakdown of the individual areas, is there a specific demographic people should be looking at? it has been impossible for romney to broaden his base for richer people. he needs to prove that he can get the you were earlier.

>> he has been doing better there. he has been having a problem. his main problem is evangelical voters. this is a huge percentage of the population. it is enough of it. if you see him doing well in good margin with tea party he should do, thatshould do is what you want to look for. this is going to be a struggle for him throughout. >> you are from real america. do you think that there is ever going to be a day where romney could connect with rural voters?

>> he is never going to be joe biden or lots of other politicians that control of their sleeves and throw back. that is not to he is. over time, he will be able to hold his message and connect in a different way. there are a couple of places tonight that'll show some indications of that. in the suburbs of milwaukee are different than the suburbs of chicago. they are economically more downscale. that is more of a sweet spot for both candidates. romney does really well in milwaukee, he could be connecting. know when is paying attention to maryland because it looks to be a blowout for maryland. the eastern shore is a good place to look to see if romney is making inroads with the state

that is most culturally southern by heritage. >> just to jump ahead, can you give us a snapshot at how wisconsin looks and the general? how is romney versus obama looking today? >> there is a perception that wisconsin is a lot lower than it really is. it is a 50/50 state. it is really competitive. both will be completely up. i think you are going to see a hyper competitive state become even more competitive. it will become one of the most marquee states to watch. >> this leads to a great question from colin campbell.

please e-mail me live at politico.com. this came from australia. is there a fear of reporting to about the in evokee-books romney campaign that they used to do this after the election was over. do you have to strike a balance so you and politico do not lose access during general elections? >> that is a great question. we do not think of it as positive or negative. we try to catch the reality. it depends what ended the telescope you are looking for. chime in if you agree with this. you used to be here. she told me this which is covering the clinton white

house. what ever you get by playing ball is never as important of what you get by building the trust of reporting and being known inside and outside as a straight shooter. >> we were working on a story and we got threatened by a local official about losing access if we continued. i think i was 24. i said, what do we do? he said we cannot respond to pressure. that is what we do. you can not respond to the threat of losing access. >> you need people inside also to know you played down the middle. if you're going to play pickup basketball with somebody, you do not want to play with someone that will let you win. >> one thing that was interesting would be that you

really get inside this push/pull about how to manage them as a candidate and how to message him as a candidate. they are still having this discussion. >> pullbacks occurred. you were saying the romney folks were their. they note that you were able to nail it on the head. -- folks that were there. they know that you were able to nail it on the head appeared >> florida is where mr. romney really found his voice. he was reluctant when he was being coach before the debate to really go for the jugular with the gingrich.

he said that is not my forte. i have done better when i have not mixed it up. neythe end it was mrs. romen that convinced him to be the off the mail. >> the role she plays is very interesting. -- alpha male. >> the role she plays is very interesting. we do know that. it was interesting to see it in print. >> we have another question from john who is watching from old town maine, about 20 minutes from lincoln. comment on the influence of super pacs. >> explain them to the folks or just tuning in.

>> if you do not what stephen colbert and you have never read anything on our side, here is the down low on super pacs. they can take unlimited money. you can collect up to $1 million. it is a huge amount of money. >> that is more than you make annually. >> just a little. >> shelton has kept newt gingrich's campaign for months. hast romney's super pac helped demolish his opponents. they spent about $40 million in at time of the majority of which have been negative. that is money mitt romney would have had to have spent himself out of his own pocket. >> are you here to defend?

>> do not forget the chinese wall. >> it is a real wall. they cannot court in a baking communicate publicly about the same consulting teams. the walls of what we bacall a bit porous. there are no ways around it. >> we have a graphic here that looks at the super pac spending in wisconsin. restore our future is mitt romney's period's $3 million. ;s. -- mitt romney 3 to 1 with rick santorum. they believe negative advertising is the most

effective tool. >> they are right. >> he is pounding on everything. it has worked. he is not doing this on the power of the rodney personality. >> he is running very effectively. >> what did he do not good 2008? >> he was working for a mitt romney. he has done what he had to do. the campaign needed to be focusing on a positive message, something defining mitt romney. there has been a debates as to when to start doing that and when to start defining mitt romney and do policy speeches. they're pleading to work on this for a while. they do not want to get too much that the democrats can attack him on. i think that they are out of

time on that. it is time to start looking bigger. >> >> lessee of charlie is working. let's pull back and talk about wisconsin politics more broadly. it is not today. you have the recall election for the governor and a senate seat that will factor into whether republicans can win back control. you have partisanship like i have never seen. politics were defined by having an independent streak. talk about wisconsin politics and the importance on november? >> wisconsin is the center of the handful of states where

action will occur. it has spanned decades. the country has led to wisconsin for the rise of the progressives. you have all of these races heating up and turning the environment here. it is a hyper politicized arina. you have the recall action. did you do not say let the states where you have that going on. when you layer on top of that, you still had the presidential election. there are a couple of states to watch. wisconsin will be one of them. >> this night is obviously about the presidential race. talk about the recall election. what chance do you see that governor walker ends of getting

defeated? everything in politics is copycat. you can get them in the middle of their cycle. >> it was tough in the past. there is a tremendous amount of energy on the left and animosity toward governor walker. i think you saw that through the protests. it has galvanized the labor. it is also galvanized republicans. compared to most other efforts, and they have a better chance. republicans and knowledge that. that is reflective of the republican candidates. is that going to be enough to oust an incumbent?

this is far more advanced. >> thank you. we will keep coming to you throughout the night. if you see anything on the exit polls, we will be back to talk about it. santorum is going to be strong. we are blessed. >> what is this? >> that is a dangerous question. i want to see. is it personally years? >> it is personally mine. >> how lucky for you. there you go.

you have a great piece this week. you have the romney that voters really like and find appealing. talk about her. >> she is terrific. she has a terrific personality. she is warm and fuzzy. they have a woman problem. they're hoping she could help with that. >> how where are they of that problem? >> they are very aware. how can you not to be? there have been several polls as are widening. reproductive rights of birth control became bizarre issues. when women vote, democrats do better. you look at this poll yesterday that has obama leading him by 18 points and leading him in a number of states where romney was leading. the difference is because of

women. >> how do they use the would be first lady? how is she deployed? everything is about stagecraft. how do they deploy its? >> she obviously can help soften him. people want to get to know him more. she talks about their life. she talks about their 43 years together. she talks about what a great husband he was when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. the other thing she does is she is trying to go into these then news and talk to women. she says you need to get involved. jobs and the economy are about women also. where she can advance the dialogue, where they are going to run in still a little bit of

not resistance but she can only go so far, she is not a woman's active this. -- activist. she is never been involved in the movement. she has never fought for women. >> let's watch a clip of the candidates himself trying to link the women's issue with the economy, which she tries to move everything back here. >> the thought of being out with my wife the last several days on the campaign trail, as you point out that women tell her their number-one concern is the economy, getting good jobs for themselves and their families, understanding their kids will have good jobs. women are really struggling. the way we will get women voters is by talking about how we're going to get this economy going again. it will not be by attacking the

business like this president is doing. >> let's look at this graphic here. women might be struggling but he is struggling with women. to be down 18 points, which really attracts other pulling we have seen, that stinks. it is so hard for republicans when they are getting crash with women. they do better with men at in elections. you cannot lose women by 18 points and win the presidency. >> i do not know what he is suggesting to do. he is saying women are having a hard time, but what is the next turn of the will? their talking about the draconian cuts that would be made that would affect people across the board. romney can say we know women are hurting. so it? what are you going to do? >> 1 head the things that came

up, romney was saying the democrats are taking our word and distorting them. we have to take care message to the women of america. he has talked about the funding plan km -- defunding planned parenthood. it's not necessarily help on the specifics. you talk a lot about this, about the didynamic of romney. talk about the history with health problems and how this affects how the campaign utilizes how effective he is on the campaign trail. >> she has multiple sclerosis. he watches out for her. there is a to event and a a daym -- twpo event

maximum. she reported that one week a month she is off the trail of in california horses which is part of her therapy. it took a while to make romney official that he would get in when she was well enough. >> when your reporting, what did you find out? >> excuse me if i am redundant. >> they are very protective of her time. she has one day where she tries to go off and do therapy including riding a horse in california. what did you find out about how much they can use or how much your health factors in? >> she controls that to a large extent. she has not had an incident in

about a decade. one thing that could trigger it is stressed and being over exhausted. she is extremely exhausted. the moment she says she need to get off, and they get off the trail. her son see the schedule every day. they say it does been two weeks or six weeks is to is not ridden a horse, they are protected. she does not eat junk food. he's very disciplined. -- she is very disciplined. >> please hit as at politico.com for #politicolive -- please hit us at #politicolive or politico.com. >> number one, too, at 3 at the moment, i'm going to say portman, tim pawlenty, and

marco rubio i do not think he is high up on their list. others that seem to disqualified. >> no one else would have pawlenty in the top. >> it is my day job. >> pawlenty could win. he is also a comfort zone pick. one of the things he talked about before, comfort is very important to mitt romney, of who he is personally comfortable with. >> i am throwing that one in there. paul ryan is someone in the

sphere there. they did very well on the trail together. i think he is using a look. i think he remains very dangerous because of the budget. they will say it is a bold statement. i do not think they believe that. >> marco rubio, people will say he is at the top of the list but he is not internally. there is concerned about whether he wants it and whether he has been thoroughly enough vetted. he does not like to take big risks and chances. it is about risk assessment. is there anyone else he would throw on the list? >> i agree with you on rubio. i think they are intrigued by it. i think he would do it. i think they are worried about him being too young.

some of the obama people think pawlenty would be the pick. i do not know what he gets with portman. i think portman may be too boring. i think huckabee could be a wild card. he is conservative but he does not satisfy the base. >> he's a very unserious program. >> we spent three hours lying. >> he said he is not running for president after making his audience play cat scratch fever. >> it was a good jam. we're not talking about someone who is seen as a serious person right now. >> who will be the vice-

presidential nominee? you are your top three picks and y? >> i like the plenty idea. before i heard what she said, my picks would be far ahead portman, two paul ryan, and three huckabee. >> catholic, rust belt, young. if libya were chosen, -- if marco rubio were chosen, it would incite conservatives. it would be a big ideas pick. that is why he is very much in the pick.

they tell you huckabee. christians will feel better but he will never pick them for the reasons you said. >> we did not really have any people on the list. >> they have a huge problem with hispanics. this is a politico user. and then not being able to win. this is someone who has gotten very serious. >> a couple people said this. she went from local office to a statewide office. she has a minimal attraction. >> that is a good reminder. the desperation and the recklessness with which she was chosen as a vice-presidential

candidates, you cannot dispute that it was a reckless choice. she was not inventevetted. it made republicans very nervous. >> i think this will be a tortured process. i do not think romney will jump out there and do game changes. we will see a lot of contortions. we are about to watch a show here as this goes on. >> we have a question from courtney moseley. if you e-mail us, i will give you on their out the night. this can serve as a model that will be were long former investigative journalism is going to survive. >> there has been a ton of interest on publishers' row in new york. rather than subscribing to the new yorker, why don't you

subscribe to articles. this is of less than a cost of a latte. the factor able to sell it for the price is very attractive. people pre subscribe to it. we do not really know where this is going. it was an experiment to say could you do this behind it? some people were skeptical. it turns out you can. >> especially on twitter. in general, it is only an emerging market of e-books. stick with us.

sugar daddies can influence presidential elections. if you sit there all the data, what do you see the most? >> the most important factor here has always been the super pacs and how much they are spending. i think they are still spending twice as much as the campaign is. that is a good indication of how things are going to go from this point forward. what we know from finance reports, you can look at the end of february. the santorum super pac had a row problem holding onto the cash. they had to go theories of the biggest number of primary sense them. the romney super pac has had 10 million in the bank. there is a huge difference of

what they have to hold onto. >> the conventional wisdom several months ago was that president obama el would slump republicans in spending. i think republicans are going to raise so much money that they are going to be on parity or have an advantage. are we seeing signs of that? you think they will come in and see the same? >> that is true. the obama campaign is likely to have a significant amount of money. it'll probably rival mitt romney's campaign. they will probably not go as-. -- as negative. obama has not had the money to spend on ads. if there's not someone willing to counter this, on obama's side

it will be hard for him to keep up and to counter what is on the airwaves. >> mike he is going to join us in the newsroom. he has some exit poll data to walk us through. what do you have a? >> the network exit polls are showing in eligibility for this. bashan believed that mitt romney will be the nominee. -- they believed that mitt romney will be the nominee. i ran these figures. he agrees that this sounds like a very romani electric. only 1-10 are democrats. 3 in san our independence. there are more independent voting this time than there

were in 2008. in maryland, very educated, more postgraduate voters in any place. half of voters in maryland say they have an income of more than $100,000 a year. heavy voting in maryland urban areas. it is the highest income elected we have seen this season. these are very romney voters. >> we have gotten tons of e- mails. mary howard says how about olympia snowe? omey in theat to m mix? they're probably all in the mix.

republicans outside the main are not hugely thrilled. >> they are trashing the party and where it is going. toomey, sure. i think he will nominally get mentioned. i think portman is seen as someone that they would rather deal with. >> he probably regrets not running. >> like so many. >> i do not think he is someone who is high up on the list. >> people look very presidential. if you assume there is a list of a dozen names, i do not think he is at the top. >> we will get back to money. in totality, republicans are getting way out spent by president obama. it tends to be directed at

organizing in early states. is there anything else you are seeing from the fund-raising side that is a red or yellow flag for democrat? >> for democrats it will be about a bombing keeping his base of donors pretty wide. -- about president obama keeping his base of donors pretty wide. there is some indication that the democratic party who can expect much larger tax is not getting that much money from the people you can get this on the table. this will be necessary. they will be working on making sure they can make this argument that they have a very grassroots head the campaign. they have to do these two things

simultaneously. >> they're fighting against people who, we have said that romney has had a lot of troubles. they are feeling good. the polling is showing obama up. they are worried the democrats will stay at home. i think they're hoping is that they can and use some sense of urgency into their donor base. and think their hope is that people will get off the sidelines as are donating more. >> we will start interviewing people on the outside. hit him hard on some of these issues. we are going to have gov. o'malley.

he will give us a better read than anybody on the state of what is the mood right now with conservatives in wisconsin. now they had not romney who does not really throw them like some other conservatives might. we will pop back into the politico newsroom. >> we are getting a couple of vp.keets about the gov. chris trustee of new jersey, bought and donald e. still want to keep on your list. the-- governor chris chris tie new jersey and bob macdonald, still keep on your list.

the romney campaign is worried about getting christians. taylor says we need khandi. >> not feeling it. our understanding there are some books that will be coming out that will be pretty critical of her and her role in the bush administration. she is pretty moderate on social issues. she has stated that she does not want the job. she has many great attributes. she would be a fabulous spokesperson. it does not seem like that is in the cards. >> i do not see condoleezza rice at all. >> we're talking to people that wanted more than anybody. christie once it appeared he

may say he does not, but i think that is why he is israel. he would be beloved by a lot of republicans feared he would overshadow mitt romney every single day. people would be reminded of how they wanted him to run in the first place. mitt romney has a very bad problem with women right now for that would not help at all. that is a real problem here i. who will be vice president be? >> marco rubio. he has the portfolio of the republicans are looking for. >> young, conservative, a fabulous spokespeople. >> he does the one thing that romney will never do. he brings real energy to a very conservative ideology.

that is exactly what republicans want. conservatives certainly have issues like democrats do. there is a lot of the republican agenda that independents like. if you go back to the 2010 elections, a look at barack obama and democrats. in wisconsin, you have the recall election. he had not only walker in office, you have governing majorities for very conservative members in the states. that happened in indiana and ohio. when you talk about shrinking government, that is a good place for them to be. >> one thing i did go back to, we talked about mitt romney. there are ways from ronnie to do that in do it with more of a comfort zone pick.

market rubio was among the least enthusiastic endorsements except for jeb bush. >> we are going to go to juana summers whose into being a candidate you have zero chance of being the vice president's nominee. what does he really think that mitt romney? >> i do not have audio. of rates. >> when you are in these campaigns, you say nasty things

and run nasty ads. you never really know what is the press the relationship between the two. rick santorum would say what about mitt romney? >> he would say some the things he says without the nastiness. he would say to a different positions. he did endorse the iran may not could 2008. he said he was against john mccain. i think there is a relationship between the camps. they both the tone down the rhetoric. i do not think they dislike each other. i do keep mitt romney take some of these attacks on them. i think rick santorum does, too. but there is this nasa does with nook being rich. this is keep him in the r