>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and "politico," reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> i will in the acceptance speech chalice the president to 73-hour debate. >> this week, newt gingrich soaring in the polls and brimming with self-confidence. >> if i am president i will be true to my family, my faith, and my country. >> mitt romney, family man, targeting you know who. >> i did not think anybody has been flawless. >> this is the deciding issue of our time. this is a maker great moment for the middle-class. >> president obama channels is entered teddy roosevelt and gives a preview of his campaign. secretary of health and human

services overrules the fda. if you are a republican who wants to be president, why must you seek the blessing of donald trump? >> it was a great honor to have newt up here, amazing how well he is doing. >> let's start by acknowledging that poles cannot predict the future, especially in places like iowa and new hampshire. but i feel compelled to note according to a recent poll, newt gingrich had double-digit leads over mitt romney in florida, pennsylvania, and ohio, well ahead of romney in iowa and getting close in new and way out in front and south carolina. this is making a lot of democrats get with happiness. it has some mainstream republicans rebelled with

anxiety, but new thing but says he will take the high road matter what anybody says. >> i am going to stay positive. i have one opponent, barack obama. >> i am not inclined to be a supporter of new gingrich, having served under him for four years and experiences leadership. >> i don't think newt gingrich cares about conservative principles, he cares about the gingrich. >> that was former million for governor john sununu. what happened to run on reagan's 11th command, you shall not speak ill of a fellow republican? >> i think it is inevitable that mitt romney -- he is using surrogates, not doing it himself. newt has tremendous vulnerabilities, and romney will try to exploit them. >> charles, what is going on? >> new gingrich said his main

opponent is a >> , but that is not true. the main opponent is the media. the reason why he was so popular in the debates, he took on every moderator. he is on a rocket ride -- can he sustain himself without having an apollo 13 moment? >> taking the high road, his numbers are to go down. mixing it up with mitt romney, he has to. romney even put out a commercial that it's ok hit at newt gingrich because of the criticism of a paul ryan plan. >> richard nixon came back of the political boneyard, why not newt gingrich? >> he could. you have seen an explosion and

public of what you heard in private, from republicans who know him and don't love him. it is across the board. the people served with him, who came in with him in congress and you think would be grateful to them. they don't trust him, they do not think he has what it takes to be president and they worry he will take them apart with him. there is pressure whether it will sell to the rest of the country. >> his positives, his -- he is a good and entertaining debater and not afraid to take on the moderator, which everybody likes. he will attack in any direction, don't know where he is coming from. also he has a track record. he claims of the credit, does not give any to bill clinton -- >> i discovered attacking the moderator is an excellent tactic. to put it in the least invidious

way, people are worried about him because he gets seized with enthusiasms. if there is an intellectual fad with global warming or a new kind of management techniques, he is on board. people are worried if he is president, who knows what side of the bed he will wake up on and what way he would involve government? he is a big government republican in the tradition of george w. bush and many others in the past, so he is not out of the mainstream in that way. the party is now small government, at least the main element, and i think ultimately it will be his problem. >> let us give him his due for a second, when he was speaker of the house, getting there was an achievement, and he got the house to vote to cut medicare in the summer of 1993 -- no, 1995, excuse me.

that was an active leadership, a hard thing to do. he got his colleagues to cut entitlements and that will be the no. 1 job as president, to cut entitlements. and he knows a whole lot more history than his colleagues -- which may be a low bar, relatively smarter than the people he is debating. having said that, he is somebody who just cannot help himself -- he can make a lot of sense until the 59th minute and then has to exaggerate, just in his dna? >> when i say the democrats should be careful of what they ask for -- i mean, this is a weird year. >> a very weird year, and the democrats thought having ronald reagan as the standard bearer was good for them, they could beat him. they were wrong and it could be wrong with this. but newt gingrich as a way of stepping in at. let's not forget, but he did plead guilty essentially to an

ethics violations and paid hundreds of thousand dollars when the republicans control the house. >> and ronald reagan -- newt gingrich will get it from his own party. the establishment lining up to take shots. if he got a nomination -- >> as of a co-author of " the right fights back " what is this where they want to go? >> i don't think so. i think the right will eventually destroy him. but mitt romney, the right of not really want mitt romney, either, and they did not have an ideal candidates of they are filling a around and having a hard time warming up to mitt romney. >> the rise that newt gingrich

is having now is the rise perry was supposed to have, and he blew. >> i think the anti-romney cents has been very strong and constant. it is about 30% of the electorate and it has looked for a vessel each time. what i think it -- is in his favor is he is last on the list. i am sure there are plausible alternative is. he is the best on his feet, a lot of ideas that are attractive and debate and he might be the one that does not come down. >> president obama's preview of common political attractions. >> president but roosevelt came here and he laid out his vision for what he called a new nationalism. for this, he was called a radica he was called a socialist, even a communist. >> in his kansas speech, the

president said his political opponents have been on the wrong side of history for a century. >> the philosophy is simple -- we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. i am here to say they are wrong. >> robert reischauer says the speech president obama gave in kansas this week with the most important economic speak of his presidency. the president said the future of the american middle-class is the defining issue because what is at stake is whether this is a country working people can raise a family, build their own savings, have a secure retirement. teddy roosevelt talk about income inequality. what does it tell you? >> does this is what he will run on, leaving out of philosophical differences between barack obama and his republican opponents. i don't think it was an economic speech that he gave, because there were few economic prescriptions, but he did discuss -- he put into

perspective how we got here. the question of collective amnesia about our past, and what we had to do as a country to get to where we are is completely different ball what you would get from, say, paul ryan. >> charles, i read your column. you said he was not channeling teddy roosevelt as much as hugo chavez. >> yes, he talked about how we got here. except that he left out a critical three years -- his presidency. it is as if it did not exist, that we jumped from 2008 until today. this speech was intended to say everything that happened in the past three years have nothing to do with my administration of or policies -- economic stagnation, high unemployment -- it is a result of the malice of

the rich. he talked about that at length. a classic example of how little it takes to stir the erogenous zones of liberals. you give them a speech with social justice, and little bit of class warfare, directed and the patina of intellectualism. it is essentially a speech that exonerates anything he has done and obviously not done. it says all the problems today are as a result of the plutocrats. that is why he is more like hugo chavez and then teddy roosevelt and his speech. >> starring verizon as the zones of liberals. >> not hard to do. >> you got to love it. >> i thought this was a piece of rhetoric, history, a really good speech, although the combination does not tell you what he wants to do next. having said that, the rhetoric of our country over the last 30

or 40 years is increasingly in praise of wealth and greed and not any sort of community values of a greater good. we have to remember -- i think at the inaugural he said something like, they hate me and i revel in their hatred. no democrat would say such a thing today. yet, things are " class warfare. >> there are things going on -- the tea party, occupy, and all the polls show how upset people are. >> it is a real tribute to occupy wall street that the president is using this 99% and 1% thing. but where is the beef? teddy roosevelt when he gave a speech gave a real platform -- income tax, child labor laws and all sorts of progressive legislation.

the only substance -- substantive thing at all was about taxing the rich and taking away the tax break a have. a real beef would be going after income tax reform but it is not there. i did not think it will be memorable unless there is substance. >> clearly it did not happen to your erogenous zones. >> it left me cold, actually. [laughter] i am not going to go there, charles. this is a family show. [laughter] he did something else in this speech that is important -- describe a situation which we found ourselves in in 2008. 2008, we were facing tremendous prospect of a financial collapse.

digging out from under that takes time and he was too optimistic when he said he could get it down and the first couple of years. we were in the deepest slump since the great depression. people want to forget that. people want to forget the million jobs lost because of the collapse of the housing industry and the construction industry. those are things that will take time. the fact of the matter is, he can point to trends in the economy now as a result of some of the things done in the first two years of the administration, including the stimulus, that would stop the economy from falling further below than it was going . >> be the first term, or his presidency, if he has won, he spent the years of doing nothing about a major drain on our economy and productivity. the entitlement reform and tax

reform, he would have had support on the left and right, he left it out, and what he says it is if you raise the income of the rich by 4.5 points, that would be a panacea of the taxes on the rich and it is complete nonsense. >> to stop the decline. >> plan b board controls over the counter? not everyone. the first-time the secretary overruled the fda. fda administrator margaret hamburg said there was adequate and reasonable science based evidence that plan b is safe, effective, and should be approved for non prescriptive -- prescription used for all females of child-bearing potential not so fast, says secretary sebelius, and their 16 you still need prescription

politics and science? that looks like politics to me. the second time and fda board has recommended this -- bush administration and now this time. now the pill is very easy -- not complicated, you take until the day after. if you say 15, 13, 14, 12-year- olds to -- need a prescription because they might know how to take it, you would have to say it about aspirin. i know there is emotional freight and that is why she did what she did. >> are there health reasons? >> there does not have to be. science does not did take a jeep dictate policy, it informs the.

like stem cells, on mammograms. i would defend it as a political decision. it ought to be made what about is of a country in mind. a lot of stuff is safe but we did not allow what -- marijuana, drugs, and other stuff. you make a political decision. i think it is reasonable. it is an arbitrary age, 16. a 12-year old a boarding herself is a big deal and not a casual and and adults ought to be involved. >> what is political about requiring a 12-year-old girl to get medical -- before she gets -- >> she could get her sister to do with. you guys are so realistic. >> as a parent, would you want that to happen? would you want it to happen? would you want your 11-year old

to get a bill that would abort a child? >> the question -- what the act -- these pills promote promiscuity? i doubt it. >> also, is a 12-year-old able to handle all the consequences of such an event? the regret. a part of the increase, as might expect, of promiscuity. it is not an easy issue but the idea somehow science will determine how we act on this is nonsense. >> let me ask another question unrelated about a payroll tax cut. the senate blocked it this week. that is pure politics, on both sides. >> that is political, but it is also not the last word. they will do something about it because politically they cannot let the so-called tax increase take place.

>> 76% of the american people in the latest gallup poll saying i do not want members of congress reelected and 55% saying let's boot the president -- they do have a problem. >> the republicans are looking to get something in exchange for its. they want to see a -- they also want to get something out of the administration. >> it sounds like it will be a last minute -- but, you know, in any normal year -- doing this show for a long time -- they are just so crazy and screwed up. >> they did it last year but without the fanfare. >> i think republicans are smart and tying it to the keystone pipeline, which was a purely political decision, meaning a decision obama made that would help them in his reelection in which he postponed for a year approval of a pipeline that the state government had approved

for three if republicans hold onto it as a jobs action, it puts obama in a really tight spot. >> let's switch to europe. there is a key element of the global living room. is it time for the imf to step in? >> the problem does not the response of the imf or the central bank, the problem is with the individual countries themselves -- the day of reckoning is here. they will have to rein in their spending, get their budgets in order. the same issue we are facing in this country -- political will, though will be able to take some real heat internally, domestically, to make these changes. >> if you believe there is no tomorrow as well. >> it suddenly struck me, what

you are looking at this sort of what the united states was like when it was a confederation and it was not a united states. you see the value of a strong, central government. they don't have one that can actually act. they may not have one for different reasons, because of political paralysis, but our structure is sounder. they are struggling. the u.k. saying we will not participate in new treaties because we do not like one part of it, and they can't do anything because of that. >> and the running out of time. europe as far as i can tell the not have the medicine or jefferson, and it could easily collapse. that is one problem. you may notice, the secretary of state has been over there because obama's reelection depends on this -- excuse me, treasury secretary.

because, if europe collapses, that is america's biggest market, and unemployment in the united states is going to go up and it will defeat obama. >> i don't really think that politics played that much of a role. i think -- this would be the first year or the last year of the obama administration, the secretary-treasurer must get involved because it affects not just the reelection prospects of the president but it affects the economy of the united states and all of us. this is an institution of response, not political. >> issing colby was right in saying the real problem was living beyond europe's means. the europeans developed to an extent that is obviously not sustainable. of course, the greek and spanish and italian systems -- compared

to the stronger northern economies. as a social democracy run wild, with the on means, and now is the reckoning. america, as we look at this, we are not quite where the europeans are but we are also -- that is one out of 17. >> scandinavian countries even more so -- it is the question of paying for. >> the germans have a peculiar work ethic not shared in the rest of europe and that is why germany alone will have to hold up 17 other countries, and it resents it. but i think the two people who determine who gets elected next year, angela merkel and ron paul -- they will have more say on who becomes the next president than anybody in this country or anybody in the world. if ron paul runs as an independent, obama wins. it is over, save all of the money, eat ice cream with the

campaign spending and let us have a coronation around july. >> interesting. >> riots or demonstrations, with everyone to call them, united russia, the first time a president of russia has not gotten a majority. >> if you want to be present, what the heck did pay homage to donald trump? then he is also a great businessman -- th >> a new way of doing things and approaching things. >> that includes pissing and donald trump's wing. >> the celebrity culture -- but what interests me -- an endorsement from donald trump, what does it mean? most and not care. with 18%, it actually hurts.

i guess only two people will show up to the debate, newt gingrich and rick santorum. >> the last one before the iowa caucuses. >> i want to give props to ron paul saying this would be a showed beneath the dignity of a republican debate to pay homage to donald trump. >> what is the attraction? then i don't know, but i would like to say new and innovative ways of doing business like donald trump, like declaring bankruptcy more than once, i believe. then i understand the next debate will be hosted by the kardashian sisters and a rebuttal will be held by lady gaga. [laughter] interesting bridge hand -- five no-trump. actually had to work on that one. >> newt gingrich and rick

santorum have agreed to appear. all five of undecided -- >> i need another career after this one. >> a possibility. >> it will be just before the iowa caucuses and we should remember one thing -- people talk about the organization in iowa. mr. for democrats because it is a complicated system but republicans just have to show what. >> thank you. we will show up last week's -- next week. thanks. next week. thanks.

steves: the dramatic rock of cashel is one of ireland's most evocative sites. this was the seat of ancient irish kings for seven centuries. st. patrick baptized king aengus here in about 450 a.d. in around 1100, an irish king gave cashel to the church, and it grew to become the ecclesiastical capital of all ireland. 800 years ago, this monastic community was just a chapel and a round tower standing high on this bluff. it looked out then, as it does today,

over the plain of tipperary, called the golden vale because its rich soil makes it ireland's best farmland. on this historic rock, you stroll among these ruins in the footsteps of st. patrick, and wandering through my favorite celtic cross graveyard, i feel the soul of ireland.