"new york times," david rohde. good morning. high-ledge talked stalled last week the president himself stepped directly into the negotiations with top republican leaders senator mitch mcconnell and house speaker john boehner and a white house meeting now set for tomorrow pap new poll out this weekend, a deeply divided american public, 41 percentpercent opposed to raising the debt limit, 38% in favor. yesterday i sat down with chris christie coming off a big budget victory this week in his home state. late thursday night the democratic controlled new jersey state assembly passed landmark cost cutting legislation to close the massive budget gap to public employees. the victory came after months of a tense budget back and forth and capped off a dramatic day in which union protesters gathered outside the deept protest the

legislation. the new plan increases the amount public employees pay for health care and pension plans and the ability to collectively bargain for medical benefits and cut off automatic cost of living increase bice giving authority over those adjustments to an independent board. no total, it is expected the deal will save the state of new jersey more than $120 billion over the next 30 years. the approach in new jersey should be a national monument. governor, welcome. >> nice to be here. >> what you're dealing with in new jersey is obviously the big battle in washington, too. the debt, closing the budget deficit and we have an impasse here in washington now the president's going have a 20 step up his involvement. the battle, of course between spending and taxes. what's a way out of kniss mess here? >> the first thing, the president has to get involved personally. what i found in new jersey in deal wig what you just talked

about is there is no stut f substitute having to hash this out. everybody la to put skin on the game, david. i gave on things i wanted. obviously the democratic senate president and the democratic speaker, he lost things they wants and we came to a compromise that didn't vile late our principles. you can't ask people to violate their principles. find a way where you're compromising, too, and what the specifics are up to the president the speaker and senator reid but they need get in a room and finish this off. >> the president himself has a certain leadership style. you said yours is different. >> yeah. >> how so and where do you think the president has gone wrong? particular will a particularly in the deficit and the debt? >> a benefit plan first in september, and i did 30 town hall meeting ace cross my state selling the plan increasing the public pressure on the legislature 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. the president's made a mistake it's this laid-back approach where he's waiting for someone else to solve the problem. some say it's a political strategy. no mat wlaer it is, it's not effective in solving problems. what we did in new jersey proves that's the effective way to do it. executives lead and bring people to the table for compromise. >> do tax increases of some kind have to be on the table? whether revenue increases, not from tax rates, but other ways to increase revenue at the same time you're cutting spending back? >> i don't know, david. i'll tell you this, those guys sitting around the taenl are the ones in the best position to make the decision. the ones that study the national budget and what's going forward and the ones that will have to decide what the elements have to be. i will tell you i get in new

jersey at least from our per smective our state is extraordinarily overtaxed. the most in america by all cal chase. there's not an appetite in my state for increased taxes. people think government spends too much in our state. >> tea party republicans, the senator from south carolina. there's got to be a balanced amendment if we're going to raise the debt ceiling, what's at issue in the debt talks. raising so america doesn't default and can't pay its bills any longer. without that there would be extreme political peril for republicans. what he said to abc. listen to this. >> i think based on what i can see around the country, not only are those individuals gone, but i suspect the republican party will be set back many years. >> you're saying if they don't vote for it republicans could be voted out of office and the republican party could really be set back. is the tea party going too far? too much of a purity test here? >> i don't think there should be

purity tests on people. i think we have to make common sense judgments. however, 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 for long-term debt reduction and just from a common sense economic perspective, david, we have to have that. let's get to the table and decide how go that, and i don't think there should about litmus test on it when you walk into the room. trust speaker boehner, and senator reid, president of the united states, to sit around that table and make these determinations. what i will say is, if you're not going to have significant debt and debt reduction, this country is careening into a economic crisis none of us can handle. >> is it worth forcing the issue, you're a national republican, as well as governor of flch, forcing the issue to risk america defaulting? >> if the president and these guys lead we're never going to get to that point. >> why are we so entrenched?

what you achieved in new jersey, pension reforms other states haven't been able to accomplish. you say it's a national model. of course, the democratic party is in a different snat new jersey. politic, different there. what's different where you are and how entrenched washington remains? >> listen, because what we did in new jersey was, remember, democratic controlled legislature, conservative republican governor. but we didn't demagogue each other. what happens here and what both parties are guilting of over time is democrat gaagoguing. it makes it impossible to sit across a table and bargain. you've read what i've xed over tile. i'm not ball flower and i disagree strongly, bluntly but i'm not demagoguing people. the difference what we've done in new jersey, i'll sit down. any 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 w were in new jersey in terms of promises made and promises kept

to union folk whose work throughout your state in terms of pension contributions from the state or is this marking a new day? >> in part, david, part of the deal is we say now the rights to that payments are contractual rights by those employee, which means they can sue if the state doesn't make those payments. that was one of the 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 the third that's been made in 17 years. i'm putting my money where my mouth is as well in making pension payments intoed fund. this is not about hurting union workers. in fact what this is, helping them pup know what? one independent study said our pension system could have been insolvent by 2018. that's unacceptable to me. we put a bipartisan group together. those people earned the pensions and deserve to get them, but we can't have this always on the backs of the taxpayers in new jersey. the middle class is suffocating in my state and needed relief and this is part of it.

>> the president's performance and a couple other area, afghanistan. do you think he's pulling troops out too fast? >> you know, david, as the governor of new jersey, i got to tell you i won't put my judgment in place of the president of the united states who is briefed on this much more extensively than i am. i'm not going there with that. ip will tell you -- i'm not a nation-bidding guy building guy. we achieved a lot afternoon the murder of bin laden. i'm not going down that road. >> what about gas prices? tap the reserve to drive down gas prices? >> i'm concerned about that. they're for strategic purposes not political purposes. >> you think it's a political move? >> it looks like it. 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 wlamplgts 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, look, if we're too aggressive about cutting spending we'll hurt recovery and restoration of jobs? >> right. cutting spending, see what you're doing down here? no risk of being too aggressive in cutting spending. we have a long way to go before we have to worry about what chairman bernanke has to say this week. we have to prove he can actually do it. you saw the miniscule amount of money arguinged in spring of this year. no in terms of how much overall spending of the federal government is. >> on taxes you believe in standard republican fair. less taxes, less regulation. the reality any terms of middle class wage growth it's not growing. even in better economic times than we're in now, with tax cuts, the middle class is still not making more. what are republicans going to do about that? >> i think what we're trying to do in new jersey is, three of the last four moss, 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. and seeing income tax revenue increase. about $500 million more in income revenue than 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 center regarding taxes and regulation and they're not concerned about it going up. things are starting to grow again. overall for the country there has to be greater economic growth. if you don't have greater economic growth the middle class will not see great wage growth at all. that's what we need to do, grow the pie bigger and we haven't been doing that of late. >> talk a little about politics. a newspaper has the most coveted political endorsement, you're in the top ten. will you endorse in the primary season? >> not necessarily. i might. i'm under no legal obligation to, how than? we'll see. you know me. i'm not a half way kind of guy. if, in fact i feel really strongly about someone that person would be the best president of the united states, i'm getting 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 out there? by that i mean, somebody nots in the field you think should be in? >> no. i think the end of the day, i don't make decisions on who should be in the field or not. having gn through that, that is a very personal decision. >> what about michele bachmann? she announces 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 not on i only know what i've seen on tv. i'll wait and watch her and make my judgment as to whether i think she's someone who can win. i met her a couple of times. don't know her well. she's put herself out there. let's see how she performs. >> what are you looking for? you talk about bigness of politicians in terms of loftier politics, something you'd like to see and something you're trying to bring to new jersey. who represents that? >> listen, i think what any one of them could, if they're

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

ballot. i am pro-life believe in exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. that's my position, take 0 or leave it. >> new york passed same-sex marriage. historic for the state. should states like new york have is a right to do what they did or do you believe in a constitutional amendment barring states from passing same-sex marriage laws? >> in new jersey we have a civil union law and a vigorous debate in late 2009, early 2010 before i became governor and it failed in it state legislature with democratic governor jon corzine. my view in our state we'll going to continue to pursue civil unions. i am not a fan of same-sex marriage. it's not something that 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 that is like the one that was in new york. >> let me ask you about your own political stand. you made tough choices. that didn't always make you friends. your public approval in

february, over 50%. down now. disapproval, 47%. if your critics could grasp at things to build a narrative against you, they would say, look, this guy is tough talking, no nonsense. he is who he is. been a number of incidents that make you, coming across as not somebody who likes to be questioned. you've been asked about this repeatedly. one example. >> you're sitting here questioning me. you feel that way? i'm happy to be -- i. think you are in a format like this. there have been examples, why you send your kids to parochial schools. did a recent show here, here's a portion of it. >> you don't send your children 20 public schools pup send them to private schools. 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'm actually, where you send your kids to school. don't bother me about where i send mine. >> i'm familiar with the substance. you're a taxpayer. you pay property tax, the

governor of everybody, working for the best public schools, religiously you and your wife decided to send your kids to parochial. question, more about your temper. should you speak to them that way? >> dpam n right. because this is hooey am. the public knows they get it straight from me. what pie 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 in my life than my wife and my four children and 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 slr blunt, very direct and what, so was she. you'll get her tone and demaine meaner in that question. so is she. questioning my ability at public

office horde to make a decision about their public education because my children go parochial school jl i went to public schools in new jersey. i'm a product of the public schools. absolutely. i wish more people in public life would respond just that way. >> authenticity is one thing, we can be better in the public jere. are you too abrasive? too stubborn? too tough when it comes to people questioning you? >> i'm huggable and lovable. not abrasive at all. listen, i'm hon effort and i wish we had more of it in politics. you know what people are tired of in politics? they're tired of blow dried, tested answers given by political consultants, the politicians and everybody sounds the same. rrr -- rrr-rrr. everybody sounds the same. i don't sound the same because i say what i believe from my heart. if some are offended by that i'm sorry. i really am. but i think more people in new jersey and around the country have seen that are going to say you know what?

i'm glad he stood up for his rights as a father and his wife's ritsz as mother to decide what they want to decide and not question about it by anybody. it's not costing anybody anything for me to send my kids to proarochial school and everybody parent should have a right to decide that most important decision how their children are educated. >> talking about the web video. i want to play a portion of this. >> 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 a campaign ad in iowa. you'll be there. >> july 25th in iowa to talk about the last of the three big things. david, in january i said three big thingss for new jersey. keep our budget under control and i will do that by june 30th. pension and benefit reform 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 and then able to do one that says, all three big things are done. >> you said you will not run for president in 2012. you won't rule out 2016. if they came to you and said, be on the ticket, you said in the past you're not a vp kind of guy. still feel that way? >> can you imagine? the person who pick immediate at vice president would have to be sedated. >> you're huggable and lovable? >> i think i am. you also saw the answer i gave to gail. that's who i am and i don't think that's vice president's material. >> interesting point. temperamentally, do you think you're not somebody who could weather the kind of scrutiny ute get that position to be a presidential candidate well? >> listen, no. david eeshgs think i've been scrutinized as much as any governor across america. i've got plenty of criticisms thrown my way and scrutiny. understanding about that piece is, that was personal. that was about my children.

you ask me about taxes, spending, about all the other issues, you asked about a lot of tough issues. you didn't see me flaect any way. i gave you my answers that i feel from my heart, but my children are differ. 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 duty, governor of new jersey a husband and a father, i'll be happy to do. >> governor, we'll leave it there. thank you very much. >> thanks, davids. coming up, president obama announce as timetable for withdrawal in afghanistan. was it too much or too little? plus, the house votes to formally authorize military earns sflengs libya fails but so does the vote to defund the operation. mixed messages. what does it mean?

reaction from two prominent voices in a senate armed services committee. democrats with differing views. rhode island senator and weighing in on the race to the white house 2012. katty kay, "new york times" matt bai and david rohde of the "times" coming up. we know why we're here. to give our war fighters every advantage. ♪ [ man ] to deliver technologies that anticipate the future, today. ♪ and help protect america, everywhere. from the battle space to cyberspace. [ female announcer ] around the globe, the people of boeing are working together. to give our best, for america's best. that's why we're here. ♪

and all we need to do is change the way we're thinking about them. a couple decades ago, we didn't even realize just how much natural gas was trapped in rocks thousands of feet below us. technology has made it possible to safely unlock this cleanly burning natural gas. this deposits can provide us with fuel for a hundred years, providing energy security and economic growth all across this country. it just takes somebody having the idea, and that's where the discovery comes from.

coming up, a debate over the role the u.s. should continue to play in afghanistan and libya. joining me, two members of the armed services committee, senators jack reed and jim webb. it's up next after this brief commercial. supply is lost to spoilage. that's 458 billion dollars worth every year. on a smarter planet, we're building intelligence into physical things. so we can know how far our food's traveled... monitor temperature all the way to the market... and know it got to the table fresh. it's already happening in places like canada, norway and vietnam. when we make food smarter, we make it safer. that's what i'm working on. i'm an ibmer. let's build a smarter planet. bridgestone is using natural rubber, researching ways to enhance its quality and performance,

and making their factories more environmentally friendly. producing products that save on fuel and emissions, and some that can be reused again. ♪ and promoting eco-friendly and safety driving campaigns. ♪ one team. one planet. bridgestone. one team. one planet. or creates another laptop bag or hires another employee, it's not just good for business -- it's good for the entire community. at bank of america, we know the impact that local businesses have on communities, so we're helping them with advice from local business experts and extending $18 billion in credit last year. that's how we're helping set opportunity in motion.

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. >> h

d#d#d#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 what if every atm was free ? tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 if you could use any atm, at any bank, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 anywhere in the world... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 without having to pay to access your own money. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 it'd be like every atm in the world was your atm. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 the schwab bank high yield investor checking® account. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 zero atm fees. a great interest rate. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 no minimums. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and it's fdic-insured. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 the schwab bank high yield investor checking® account. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 the biggest thing in checking since checks. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 open an account at 1-800-4schwab or schwab.com. a living, breathing intelligence that's helping drive the future of business.

in here, inventory can be taught to learn. ♪ machines have a voice. ♪ medical history follows you. it's the at&t network -- a network of possibilities... committed to delivering the most advanced mobile broadband experience to help move business... forward. ♪

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 magazine, 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 people 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

test test test tical 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 wimble th our kids,

making sure their homework gets done, or attending those parent-teacher conferences, parents play a critical role in helping our kids succeed in school. so this year, let's do our best so our kids can do their best.