this sunday, the showdown in washington over taxes and spending. a tax hike to not ask the u.s. house of representatives. it's not just a bad idea, it doesn't have the votes and can't happen. >> budget talks break down as the president steps up his involvement. can a deal be reached to raise the debt ceiling or will america fail to pay the bills? a view from outside washington, the gop's rising star, governor of new jersey, chris christie. who just this week took a major step toward closing his state's budget deficit. then, obama's wars.

the president announces a timetable to withdraw the troop surge. >> the time of war is receding. >> some say the withdrawal isn't fast enough. >> we can no longer afford to rebuild afghanistan and america. we must choose and i choose america. >> the debate inside the democratic party this morning, plus mixed messages from the house on the military campaign against libya, with us two prominent members of the senate armed services committee, senator jack reed of rhode island and senator jim webb. our political roundtable weighs in on 2012 politics. john huntsman makes it official. michele bachmann announces tomorrow and the president taps the oil reserves to drive down gas prices for the summer. with us the bbc's katty okay and columnist for "the new york

times," dave brooks. good morning, it's high level talks over raising the debt limits stalled last week, the president himself steps directly into the negotiations with top republican leaders, senator mitch mcconnell and house speaker john boehner in a white house meeting set for tomorrow. a new poll out this weekend by the associated press shows a deeply divided american public, 41% opposed to raising the debt limit, 38% in favor. yesterday i sat down with chris christei coming off a big budget victory. late saturday night the state assembly passed landmark cost cutting legislation to close the budget gap due to the health benefit obligations to public employees. the victory came after months of i tense budget back and forth and capped off a day in which

the union protesters protested. it will increase the amount public employees pay for health care and pension plans and end the ability for unions to collectively bargain for benefits and cut off automatic cost of living increases by giving authorities over those adjustments to an independent board. it is expected it will save the state of new jersey more than $120 billion over the next 30 years. governor christie is expected to sign on tuesday and said the approach should be a national model. welcome back to "meet the press." >> happy to be here. >> i want to talk more about the pension victory in just a minute. what you're dealing with in new jersey is obviously the big battle in washington too. that is the debt. that is closing the budget deficit and we have an impasse in washington, the president will have to step up his involvement. the battle between spending and taxes. what's the way out of this mess here? >> the first thing is that the president has to get involved personally. what i found in new jersey in our experience in dealing with what you just talked about was,

there is no substitute for the three leaders in the room having to look at each other and having to hash this out. everybody has got to put skin in the game, david. i gave on things i wanted. obviously the senate, democrat senate president in my state and speaker gave on things they wanted and we came to a compromise that didn't violate our principles. that's the key. there has to be a way to find principled outcome where people are also compromising. what the specifics will be are up to the president, the speaker and senator reid. they need to get in the room and finish this off. >> the president himself has a certain leadership style. you said yours is different. >> yeah. >> how so? where do you think the president has gone wrong, particularly in this fight over the debt and deficit? >> here's what i did. i put out this pension of benefit plan first in september. and i did 30 town hall meetings across my state selling the plan, increasing the public pressure on the legislature that something needed to be done and

convincing the public that my approach was a reasonable one. now i compromised off my approach but i think if you're the executive, you've got to be the guy who's out there pushing and leading. you can't lay back and wait for somebody else to do it. if the president has made a mistake here, it's this laid back kind of approach where he's waiting for someone else to solve the problem. some people say it's a political strategy. no matter what it is, it's not effective in solving problems. i think what we did in new jersey proves that's the way to do it. the executive needs to lead and bring people to the table to forge compromise. >> do tax increases of some stripe have to be on the table in the national budget talk, whether revenue increases that don't come from changing tax rates but some other way to increase revenue at the same time you're cutting spending back? >> i don't know. but i'll tell you this, they are the best ones to make the decisions. they have studied the federal budget and what's going forward and they have to decide what the elements have to be. but i will tell you i get a

sense in new jersey, at least from our perspective that our straight is extraordinarily overtaxed. we're the most overtaxed state in america by all calculations. and so i know there's not an appetite in my state for increased taxes because people think government spends too much in our state. >> you hear a lot of national republicans and tea party republicans like senator demint, he said, look, there's got to be a balanced budget amendment if we're going to ultimately raise the debt ceiling, which is what is at issue in the debt talks so america doesn't default and can't pay ilgts its bills any longer. without that there would be extreme political peril. >> i think based on what i can see around the country, not only are those individuals gone, but i suspect the republican party would be set back many years. >> he's saying if they don't vote for it, republicans could be voted out of office and the republican party could be set back. is the tea party going too far? is there too much of a purity test. >> i don't think there should be

purity tests i think we have to make common sense judgment on things, as i said before, we've got to stand by our principles and i do think that the republican party here in washington has said that they want some significant commitment to long-term deficit and debt reduction, i think from a common sense economic perspective we have to have that. let's get to the table and decide how we do that. and i don't think there should be any litmus test on it when you walk in the room. we have to trust speaker boehner and senator reid, president of the united states to sit around that table and make these determinations. but what i will say, if you're not going to have significant debt and deficit reduction, this country is careening into an economic crisis that none of us will will be to handle. >> is it worth forcing the issue, forcing the issue to ultimately risk america defaulting on its obligations? >> if the president and these guys lead, we'll never get to the point. >> why are we so entrenched?

what you achieved in new jersey, pension reform that other states haven't been able to accomplish, you say it's a national model but of course the democratic party the politics are different there, what's different where you are and how entrenched washington remains? >> well, listen, because what we did in new jersey was -- you remember, democratic controlled legislature conservative republican governor but we didn't demagogue each other. what happens here and both parties are guilty of, demagoguing each other so it makes it impossible to sit across the table and bargain with each other. you've read some of the things i've said over time. i'm no wall flower and disagree strongly and bluntly. but i'm not demagoguing people. and i think that the difference in what we've done in new jersey, i'll sit down with the democrats and discuss it any time. any of the issues they want to talk about. but we've got to treat each other with some sense of fairness. >> can you get back to where you were in new jersey in terms of the promises made and promises

kept to union folks who work throughout your state in terms of pension contributions in the state or does this mark a new day? >> in part, part of the deal is we say now the right to the payments are a contractual right by those employees, which means they can now sue if the state doesn't make the payments. that was one of things i gave on, to show them good faith. also, i'm making the first pension payment this year that's been made in years and only third made in 17 years. i'm putting my money where my mouth is as well in making pension payments into the fund. this is not about hurting union workers, in fact, what this is, it's helping them because you know what, one independent study said our pension system could have been insolvent by 2018. that's unacceptable to me. so we brought a bipartisan group together to say, we've got to fix this. those people earn those pensions and deserve to get them. but we can't have this always on the back of the taxpayers of new jersey. the middle class was suffocating

in my state. >> afghanistan, do you think he's pulling troops out too fast? >> i'm not going to put my judgment in the place of the president of the united states who is briefed on this more extensively than i am. i'm not going to go there with that. i'm not a nation building guy and i do think that we have achieved a lot of what we wanted to achieve in afghanistan, especially after the murder of bin laden. but he knows a lot more than i do. i won't go down that road. >> what about gas prices? do you think it was the right thing to tap the strategic reserve? >> i'm concerned about that. i think the strategic reserves are for strategic purposes and not political purposes. >> you think it was a political move? zbli think it looks like that, i don't know if it was. that gives me concern because it hurts the credibility of the program if people feel that's the way it was used. >> what about the economy overall? do you believe in cutting spending in your state and on

the national level? what about the fed chief this week who warned if we're too aggressive about cutting spending we're going to hurt recovery and restoration of jobs. >> we're at no risk of being too aggressive in cutting spending. you see what we're doing down here? i think we have a long way to go before we have to worry about what chairman bernanke had to say. we had to prove we could do it. you saw the min xul amount of >> on taxes, you believe in standard republican fare, less taxes, less regulation. the reality in terms of middle class wage growth is is that it's not growing. even in better economic times than we're in right now with tax cuts, the middle class is still not making more. what are republican going to do about that? >> what we're trying to do in new jersey, three of the last four months, we had private sector job growth, 30,000 new private sector jobs over the last four months. and we're also seeing wage

growth in new jersey as well. we're seeing our income tax revenue increase. we have $500 million more than we projected for this coming year. we're starting to see that happen in new jersey a little bit. one of the reasons why is because we're giving them certainty regarding taxes and regulation and not concerned about it going up so things are starting to bubble up and grow again. overall for our country, there has to be greater economic growth if we don't have greater economic growth, the middle class will not see great wage growth at all. that's what we need to do to grow the pie bigger and we haven't been doing that of late. >> let's talk about politics. the newspaper has said the most coveted political endorsement you're in the top ten. will you endorse? >> not necessarily but i might. i'm under no legal obligation to. how about that? we'll see. you know me, i'm not a halfway kind of guy. if in fact i feel really strongly about someone, that that person would be the best president of the united states,

then i'm going to get out there and go full force for that person. if i don't feel that way, i won't. >> do you have a chris christie somebody not in the field that you think should be in? >> no, i think at the end of the day i don't make decisions who should be in the field or not. having gone through that, that's a personal decision. >> what about michele bachmann, she'll announce tomorrow early part of the week, is she a viable candidate in your mind? >> listen, i think she's a person who is serious about what she believes in. i don't know her all that well. i only know what i've seen on tv and that sometimes isn't the most reliable in the world. i'll wait to watch her and make my judgment as to whether i think she's someone who can win. i don't know her all that well. i met her a couple of times. she put herself out there. let's see how she performs. >> what are you looking for? you talk about bigness of of politicians in terms of loftier politics. who represents that? >> listen, i think what any one

of them could, if they are willing to be authentic. i think what the american people want more than anything else, someone that will look them in the eye and tell the truth, even truths they don't like. but they have to believe the person is speaking from their heart and are authentic. that's what allows you to do the big things like in new jersey. it's not i'm universally loved, we know i'm not in new jersey. what they do say in new jersey, we like him and we think he's telling us the truth. i think we need to have that type of politics on the national level. >> a couple of questions about social issues. there's been some questions raised about an abortion pledge within the republican field. is that something that you would sign? >> listen, i haven't seen the abortion pledge, i don't know what it says. here's my position. >> all pro-life candidates, only pro-life people working for you promised to back anything, that coincides with the life agenda, defunding public payments for abortion across the board. >> my name is the name on the

ballot, i am pro-life and believe in exceptions for rape and incest and life of the mother. that's my position, take it or leave it. >> what about same-sex marriage. do you think states like new york should have the right to do what they did, or do you believe in a constitutional amendment that would bar states from passing same-sex marriage laws? >> in new jersey we have a civil union law and we a debate in 2010 before i became governor about same-sex marriage and failed in the state legislature under democratic legislature with democratic governor john corzine. my view on it is in my state we're going to continue to pursue civil unions. i am not a fan of same-sex marriage, it's not something i support. i believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. that's my view and that will be the view of our state because i wouldn't sign a bill like the one that was in new york. >> let me ask you about your own political standing, you made tough choices doesn't always make you friends.

this is your standing, you have over 50%, down more, disapproval at 47%. if your critics could grasp some things to build a narrative. this guy is tough talking, no nonsense, he is who he is. there's been a number of incidents that make you to some come across as not somebody who likes to be questioned. you've been asked about this repeatedly. here's one example -- >> you feel that way, you're sitting there questioning me. i'm happy to be questioned. >> i think you are in a format like this. there have been examples the question having to do with why you send your kids to parochial schools. here's a portion of it. >> you don't send your children to public schools you send them to private schools so i was wondering why you think it's fair to be cutting school funding to public schools? >> you know what, first off, it's none of your business. i don't ask where you send your kids to school. don't bother me about where i send mine. >> i'm familiar with the substance of which you said, you're a taxpayer, pay property

taxes, you're the governor of everybody, you're working for the best public schools for religious reasons you decided to send your kids to parochial schools. should the chief executive speak to people that way? >> damn right he should. you know why? this is who i am and the public knows they get it straight from me. what i said to her, don't question my wife and my parenting decisions that's the most personal thing that you can say to someone. you're a father, you know this. these parenting decisions we make from the heart. there's no one more precious than my wife and four children. when we make those decisions that's not appropriate for public inquiry. i made that decision because i believe, david in my heart, that's the right thing. you know what, i am very blunt. i'm very direct. you know what, so was she. you'll get her tone and her demeanor in that question, so was she. she's questioning my ability as a public office holder to make

decisions about every child in new jersey in their public education because my children go to parochial school? i went public schools in new jersey. i'm a product of public schools. absolutely, i wish more people in public life would respond that way. >> authenticity is one thing, but we can be better how we interact with people. are you too abrasive, too stubborn? are you too tough when it comes to people questioning you? >> i'm huggable and loveable. i'm not abrasive at all. i'm honest. i wish we had more of it in politics. you know what people are tired of in politics, they are tired of blow dried tested answers that are given by political consultants, the politicians and everybody sounds the same, everybody sounds the same. i don't sound the same. you know why? because i say what i believe from my heart. if people are offended, i'm sorry. i really am. i think more people who see that will say, you know what, i'm

glad he stood up as a father and wife's rights as mother not to be questioned about it by anybody. it's not costing anybody anything to send my kids to parochial school and i think every parent should have the right to decide that most important decision how their child should be educated. >> your team posted a web video. i want to a play a portion of it. >> step by step, we are putting ourselves on a better, more sustainable path and pushing ahead on the road to growth. that is the model for the way forward. >> that looks like an ad you could run in iowa and you'll be in iowa in july. >> i am, july 25th, i'll be in iowa to talk about the last of the three big things, david. in january, i said three big things for new jersey, keep our budget under control and i will do that by june 30th. pension and benefit reform will be done on tuesday when i sign

it and the last bit, educational reform to improve our educational system for every kid in new jersey, that's what i'm turning to next. then we can do one that says all three big things are done. >> you said you won't run for president in 2012, won't rule out 2016. if they said be on the ticket, you said you're not a vp kind of guy. do you feel that way? >> can you imagine? the person that picked me as vice president would have to be sedated. seriously, forget it. >> right. i thought you have loveable and huggable. >> you think i am but you saw the answer i gave to gail. that's who i am and i don't think that's vice presidential material. >> do you think you could weather the kind of scrutiny you would get in that position well? >> i think i've been scrutinized as much as any governor across america. i had plenty of criticism and scrutiny thrown my way. what you're misunderstanding about that piece is, that was

personal, that was about my children. you ask me about taxes and spending and all of other issues, you asked me about a lot of tough issues this morning, you didn't see me react in any way, i gave my answers that i feel from my heart but my children are different. i'm a father first. and i'm not going to let people question my parenting decisions in public. >> final question, what would you like your role in campaign of 2012 to be? >> to try to help whoever the republican nominee is to become president of the united states so we can make our country a better place for our children and grandchildren, whatever i can do to help and contribute to that that doesn't interfere with my primary duties which are as governor of new jersey, a husband and father, i'll be happy to do. >> we'll leave it there. thanks very much. >> thanks, david. >> coming up, president obama announces a timetable for withdrawal in afghanistan. was it too much or too little? plus, the house vote to formally authorize military intervention in libya fails but so does the vote to defund the operation. mixed messages. what does it mean for president obama and the strategy.

we'll get reaction from two prominent voices, democrats with differing views, jack reed and virginia senator, jim webb. our political roundtable weighs in for the race for the white house 2012. katty okay and matt bai and david brooks of the times coming up. meet the press is brought to you by the boeing company.

coming up, a debate over the role of the u.s. should continue to play in afghanistan and libya. joining me, senators jack reed and jim webb. up next after this brief commercial. armed services committee, senators jack reed and jim webb. it's up next after this brief commercial.

we are back, joined by two military veterans and members from the democrat armed services committee, jack reed and democrat from virginia, jack webb. this is what the president announced this week in his speech. i'll put it on our screen so our viewers can see in terms of the drawdown. due to be withdrawn by the end of this year is 10,000. the surge groups in total will be out by the end of next summer. public opinions on the side of a faster withdraw, the latest pew poll shows that clearly, 56% say remove troops as soon as possible. did the president make a

political decision here and say it's time to get out? >> no, i don't think so. it was a difficult decision in 2009, a speech at west point about a strategy taking down al qaeda, building up the afghan army and beginning to reduce our forces in july of this year. he's falling through on that strategy. the pace is appropriate. it recognizes that we do have to maintain a presence. that presence is changing quickly to an afghan-led president. >> the problem is, senator webb, in the view of many he rolled the military. the military made a recommendation, don't pull out so fast. general patreaus who's going to be the head of the cia spoke about that agreement. >> the ultimate decision was a more aggressive formulation, if you will, in terms of the timeline than what we had recommended. again, that is understandable in the sense that there are broader

considerations beyond just those of a military commander. >> what are those broader considerations for the president? >> well, first of all, i met few generals in my life that didn't want more troops. the president as a commander in chief as the republicans are so often quick to point out as he makes decisions that other people get upset with. when i look at this, first of all, i don't want to second guess decisions that are made with a great deal of consultation with military leaders, with political leaders, and with diplomats. my concern on this is that we do have to get back to rebuilding our country and this model, per se, is not the model of the future. secretary gates said that a couple of years ago. >> big model. >> it's not the model of the future. >> and we right now are in a situation where we have to look at this in terms of the broader national security interest in addition to the nation building questions, we have 45,000 troops in iraq that are supposed to be out by the end of the year.

i'm not holding my breath. we have a new situation in libya where the president made a unilateral decision that i among others have serious problems with. most importantly, this is something that does not get discussed, as we have focused on the last ten years on this part of the world, our respect to china and china's expansionist military activities has deteriorated. we're in a point in the south china sea right now we're approaching a new moment with china. it's not being discussed. >> get back to that. but i want to keep it framed here about what's going on inside the democratic party. you're both democrats, of course. we spoke with our weekly conversation called press pads which is available on our log and website with barbara lee that california democrat and the house and i asked her if there was a political will among liberals to keep funding the war in afghanistan? >> you would vote to end funding now? >> oh, yes, i'm going to offer an amendment to do that. that doesn't mean i do not want

to -- i'm going to make sure we have enough funding to protect our troops and provide for what they need and to bring them home safely and orderly. we need to cut the funding, as appropriator, that's our job, that's the congress' job. we have to cut the power of the purse strings and do what we need to do to secure the security of our country. >> senator reid, there's a lot of people, particularly in the democratic party that say, look bin laden is dead. al qaeda is not a prebs in afghanistan. we have to draw it down quickly now. there's something vague about the mission. >> there's a failure in the country not just the party. particularly afghanistan because it's been ten years but ten year of starting and stopping. the president has laid out a very clear strategy. we're coming out of afghanistan. we're shifting on the emphasis and indeed shifting, we hope, the requirements to support the

troop there is to the afghanis. he's done the same thing as he's done in the campaign to bring our troops out of iraq. >> is it that clear, senator webb, the mission. what we're actually still doing there seems a bit unclear. gene robinson wrote the following in his column in "the washington post" on friday. the most disheartening thing he said is the absence of clear thinking. it was hard to tell if he was sticking to his strategy or switching, perhaps doing a little bit of both. no evidence that he considered the possibility that the war was being perpetuated not by rational pursuit of the national interest but by its own inertia. is there too much compromise that leads us to an uncleear wa forward? >> there's a legitimate question of what the end point should be or would be. we don't want it to be a negative end point given what we put into it.

this is a careful process that result in the president's decision. and it's time based. it's -- it's time and circumstances based. one thing secretary gates and admiral mullen had been clear about. it could be quicker. we don't want to be in the process, from my perspective, of sending the wrong sickal a sign people like the taliban to be part of the end point of the negotiation. >> i've been saying all week, keep your eye on the diplomacy here. the taliban, the ebbmy there, is really the key, in many ways, senator reid to the future. they're going to have to be back and become a part of the governor with afghanistan, a central government, pakistanis have to be involved. where does that rank? >> it should be at the top of our priorities as we shift out of a military-led presence. we have too have a strong diplomat president. it has to be reasonable. it has to re-engage taliban to

reinject and be partners. it has to involve the pakistanis. one of the reasons why we have to be somewhat measured as we do come out, and we are coming out, is because you have great instability not just in afghanistan but pakistan. you have a country that has nuclear weapons. long-term animosities between the pakistanis and the indians. so we do have to pursue a much more aggressive diplomatic approach. so i think the key here is within afghanistan, we're no longer, i think, talking about nation building. we're talking about stabilization, we're talking about creating a military force that can stabilize our country and take the lead from us. and continue, and i think we have to continue to have some kind of presence there, slim down so we can strike any type of extremist group that's happening in the united states. >> we don't have stability yet. senator mccain and others warn about withdrawing and what the consequences of that could be.

david rose of "the new york times" held captive in afghanistan and wrote a book talked about that experience. and talked about leaving without stability. this is a portion of what david rohde writes. at the same time simply walking away from afghanistan and pakistan and hoping for the best is not an option in an increasingly interconnected world. based on my experience in the tribal areas a sweeping taliban victory of afghanistan would move to impose sharia law across the world. their belief is they can defeat westerners who fear death and are unwilling to endure sacrifice to be reaffirmed. no clear message has emerged. in our war wariness in this country, do we risk not stabilizing in the country and getting a result? >> i don't think very many

people were able to find a result. the model we're using isn't an appropriate model in the future and in afghanistan. one of the key points -- this is an area that senator reid and i may disagree on. i do not believe we need a permanent presence in afghanistan. i think it's counterproductive to what we're trying to do strategically. it's enormously costly. we are ignoring -- excuse me, we are ignoring the realityings of a serious emergence in asia that will have more impact on our strategic future than anything going on in this region? >> what about libya? >> i don't think we need a permanent presence in iraq and i think we need a presence in afghanistan, pakistan, but that presence hopefully one day is going to be diplomatic more than military. but if we need military options to go in, we have those options. >> can i ask you quickly about libya? mixed signals being sent to the president about the mission there. are you concerned about what we're doing? >> i think the president would have been better served more

forcefully come up and ask for a resolution in favor of his activities. now that the house bill is so confused, no support but they're still going to fund the operation. i hope in the senate we can pass a kerry-mccain resolution. given another year. >> it gives a certain -- gives approval for the limited kenyan operation. no ground troops, no intention to put ground troops in. we're supporting nato. we're doing that because there are two u.n. -- there's an arab league revolution. this is an unusual moment where the arab league, the united states, the european community, are all committed to trying to get rid of gadhafi. >> is this the right fight, are we still there? should we get them out sooner. >> no one wants to get rid of power. you expect the united nations resolutions that the security council vote was taking with the

abstention of india, the u.s., china, and germany. this was not the ub saying this is a great thing to do. the president did not come to the congress. the reason he knew this going in defied historical precedent. we weren't under attack, under imminent attack, we weren't honoring treaty agreements. we weren't rescuing americans. this is a serious precedent here. on the oh, we need to be clear that once gadhafi is gone, we won't have americans in there as a peacekeeping force. we've got to stop this addiction. we've got to focus on our true strategic interests. >> and would you vote to cut off funding for the operation? >> senator luger is putting a series of amendments together on the kerry-mccain legislation which i'm going to support. he's had the wisest brain on this problem. >> what's the bottom line of that? >> clearly say no ground troops. there's like six or seven amendments that are still being worked up. but i think his approach is

rational the one the senate needs to take. >> going to leave it there. senators, thank you both very much this morning. >> thank you. coming up, decision 2012, john huntsman first week on the trail. and rumblings that rick perry may throw his hat in the still unsettled republican field. and michelle bachmann announces her candidacy tomorrow, the latest on the race for the white house imposing the new poll for the key state of iowa. a political round table coming up. "the new york times" magazines, matt bai and david brooks of the new york time ms. >> "meet the press" is brought to you by the all-knew audia-7. luxury has progressed.

we are back, joined by our political roundtable, washington correspondent for the bbc, katty kay, columnist for "the new york times," david brooks, and chief political writer for new york agazine, matt bai has a big

piece in today's "new york magazine." welcome to all of you. there's criticism mounting towards the president whether it's the debt ceiling talks, afghanistan, trying to have it always, compromising too much. you heard governor christie say, look, he can't wait for the other people to solve these problems. he's got to do it. is it a fair wrap? >> yes. christie is like a big man theory, literally. which is he wants to be in every room. he wants to be doing the town meeting and negotiating little bitty details. obama is different. convener in chief. you guys take care of that, you guys take care of that. as president, he's proving he can be a good senate majority leader. you guys do that. i'll hang back. and when the time comes, i'll breathe it together at the end. it has some advantages. it gets a lot of pele on the table. it has a lot of disadvantages. it's like trumpeted to battle by miles davis. huh? you think about it? that's good. you appreciate it but not charging. a lot of democrats in particular

think, he needs a charge once or twice. that's not who he is. he's more of a convener. >> afghanistan is a good example where, again, the search for consensus and compromise leave some people saying, well, what exactly are we doing now? "the economist" wrote something that caught my eye this week. mr. obama tried to give everyone something, to the political strategists worried about re-election, his message was that nation building should start at home. to his generals worried about any withdrawal, he can still claim that he will end worried about his troops in afghanistan. the middle ground is often good politics, it is less comfortable in warfare. in this case, history will probably judge that mr. obama probably took out too many soldiers too early. >> if you ask the white house whether the surge in itself was another form of compromise. the generals asked for more and obama gave them something in the middle, was that worth it? was that a compromise that didn't pan out?

they aren't clear that this is been the last two years of having extra troops there has been something that won them very much. if president obama had gone with the biden strategy and not added surge troops, we could have ended up in the same position that we're in today. would that have been a more effective use of american resources? you have the thought that the president was caught back then between the surge and his generals and the white house said don't push too far. went for middle path and has that gained very much. >> apply this to the ceiling talks. the gain right now, the president is willing to give on medicare some, how big that some is matters. and would that create some space for republicans to get something, not on tax but on revenues, to get some sort of grand bargain. now it's time for the president to lead this charge? >> i think the problem here is -- they're probably going to get a deal. the problem here is it hasn't been in public.

the president share add lot of this in secret in the back negotiation. and that's what dislodges this kind of disagreement, what builds compromise is public opinion. if you look back to 1996, say in the budget crisis, right? what made republicans fold up the tent was the obvious poll that said they with respect going to survive it politically. if you do everything in secret and don't take your case to the public and plead it out, what happens is both sides think they're politically viable. they can get away with their positions. until one knows they can't, it's hard to get a deal. >> it looked like we're moving toward this final phase for a long time, right? and i think the public opinion thing is key. christie went out there and held the 30 town meetings obama has not done that. he's not done that with the pie charts and say here's what we've got to do. i doubt they'll be able to sell it. very pessimistic about what's going to happen here in the next several months. the second thing is both sides think the political advantages with them has gone over the wall. they think if the economy

crashes, people are going to blame obama. let's take it to the wall. the republicans say -- or the democrats say, hey, if they schlep down the government, we'll send letters out telling recipients, sorry, you won't get the checks because they'll have the advantage. that makes me think it will be over the wall. >> right, right. >> the pessimism here. because i think there's a broader issue about the value of having this debating public and the financial markets have come out with the biggest electric shop in 18 years. they seem skiddish at the moment. this may be political playmanship. if you look at the markets at the moment, you think american politicians seriously talking about the prospect of this country defaulting. they could impose some sort of financial penalty on the states. they could raise rates. that would put us back in the recession again. this an extremely dangerous debate. >> you go around the world, asia and europe, there's a sense that

pax americana is over. even in a more positive way, david, that american influence is waning because the politics is not up to the task of some of the challenges we face. >> we've got a government program. we don't have a country problem. we're an entrepreneurial country. the only big country where people from all over the world can magnify their talents. we have a government problem. we have to do three things, fiscally sustainable, we have to do it in a way that increases growth and increases equality. those are three things. for any of us think our system is created to do three things intentionally to each other all at once. borrowing from column a and column b, i haven't seen that level of borrowing. >> i want to get to politics here for a moment on the republican side and go to the cork board we see each week. notable of who's in is michelle batchman is going bachmann is going to announce tomorrow. those on the fence is

interesting. palin will make a trip to iowa. giuliani, rick perry, still buzz about him. look at the polling. first polling we've gotten out of that important state. look there, romney and bachmann, neck and neck. this is met by good news for bachmann. a strong debate, from iowa. bad news for pawlenty that needs to show strong here. >> how many times can a person announce? >> going to announce three times. hope this one helps. reminds me, you play the games like the amusement parks where you put the water through the hole. we're two squirts into this. the first poll, it started more than usual, it's the first poll out of iowa, obviously if you're someone down to 3% to 4%, you have cause for concern, if you're michelle bachmann, that's a great start. but we need something to all talk about and we write and talk about, david, which is largely meaningless at this point. these folks have to get out there, introduce themselves, make their case. that process is continuing to

unfold. >> john huntsman was there in front of the statue of liberty but you could only see it in the camera shot of him announcing. this is in part of what he said. >> and today, i'm a candidate for the office of president of the united states of america. my kids can't believe i just said that. >> david copperfield made the statue disappear. >> he fits in this race? >> particularly in this. you can paint a plausible scenario for giving president obama a run for his money if he managed to get the nomination. if he can get the nominations with the positions, he supported civil unions for trade. cap in trade seems to be the new litmus test for conservatism. it's hard to see him winning over primary voter else. he's running as the self-style thinking managed republican.

i think grassroots of the republican party, that comes across as offensive. >> the -- >> the republicans themselves aren't thinking people? >> there's a big market here. people think that the tea party is the entire republican party. john mccain won the nomination. a lot of moderates, a lot of independents. in new hampshire, a public primary. >> the thesis of your piece was his theory at the case at the movement is trying to fill a vacuum. in other words, why were republicans unhappy with the choices? >> david says, i reject the view. i have no idea how it will turn out. i reject the view that the republican party in the grassroots is so monolithic and unenlightened that nobody can come in and have that. the impact on history is -- i mean, look, not to -- not to beat on the same dead horse, but this is about making your case in a sense. we talk so much about the math and the path and the numbers and how' hess going to get there and get that constituency and that stitch web si. he's yet to go out. tim pawlenty is yet to go out.

mitt romney has yet to go out to tell the people what they feel about the country. >> if huntsman is going to be coming out as the guy who has the policies and thinking, i'm not sure what john huntsman stands for. >> i don't think he did. it would be better if he did. i'm not saying he can get there. i have no idea whether he can. but i think if you look back to barack obama in the summer of 2007 had not figured out exactly what he wanted to say, what his pitch was. there's an evolution that goes on with presidential kabd dates. the problem with huntsman is he's mind the curve. >> the rival to pawlenty and romney is he fumbled it. the biography of the working class guy. my dad is a truck driver. his agenda is the silicone valley agenda. corporate tax kupt chlcuts. >> what about palin, going to

iowa for the documentary about her that's premiering. she's doing that this week when michelle bachmann is making the announcement. is she the spoiler role? >> the multimillion dollar question of this campaign. increasingly, a palin candidacy looks less plausible than more plausible. her negatives have been rising. she saw a couple of key events she hasn't handled particularly well. it's harder to see her now running successfully. >> let's get a break in here. we'll come back with our trends and takeaway segment. a look at what was said today and a look ahead to the week ahead. and the hot political stories trending this morning. that's coming up after this.

final moments with the round table. i wanted to show you the political trend tracker. big moments this sunday morning in the political world. one of the things there is something we've been talking about, romney and bachmann leading in the iowa poll. the debt ceiling talks continue

to round out the top three. on this program, one of the things that strikes us as news this morning -- senator webb talking about libya. and being quite critical of president obama on the strategy. listen. >> the reasons that he used for going in defy historical precedent. we weren't you should under attack, under imminent attack. we weren't rescuing americans. so on the one hand, there's a serious issue of precedent here. on the other, we need to be clear that once gadhafi is gone, we won't have americans in there as a peacekeeping force. >> david brooks, this fight over libya is far from over as the house sent mixed messages. what's the next step? >> well, there's a lot of fatigue in the country that the obama administration did not help itself by not consulting anybody. but the fact of the matter is we're in an historic moment. no president is not going to want to do something good. any president, republican or democrat will try to lean forward and try to impose people like gadhafi because this is a unique moment. >> we've monitored the

conversation going on on-line this morning. as to our debate about afghanistan, tweet deck, the conversation there about afghanistan included this observation -- david rohde quote on "meet the press" was spot on. that was the end game. taliban would come back emboldenened. i worry about the welfare of afghan women if talibs do come back. a big concern. spent a moment looking at the week ahead here for decision 2012 and a few important things on the calendar coming up this week. monday, of course, michelle bachmann is announcing in waterloo, iowa tuesday. the president continuing to talk about manufacturing and the economy. we mentioned sarah palin is going to be in iowa. tim pawlenty with a foreign policy speech. and on thursday, this is important, matt bai, second quarter fundraising deadline. we're going to get a barometer of who's doing what on the republican side, quickly. >> it's something to look at. mitt romney has solidified front-runner status. i assume he's going to do that

in the fundraising numbers as well. it's supererly. a lot of the money is sitting on the sidelines waiting around. >> we will be watching. thanks to all of you. we'll be away next sunday during nbc's sports coverage of wimbledon. but we will return the following week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." [ waves crashing ]

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] and just like that, it's here. a new chance for all of us: people, companies, communities to face the challenges yesterday left behind and the ones tomorrow will bring. prudential. bring your challenges.