this sunday, the fight for michigan is now the fight of the campaign for mitt romney. and senator santorum's momentum threatens to turn the race for the white house upside down. >> in michigan, michigan, is in the center. >> the santorum surge is for real, but are republicans relying too heavy on social issues to ignite the base? and the all-male image that promises to energize female voters.

>> where are the women? >> we will break down the race for us, and with us, ed gillespie, and chief foreign affairs correspondent for msnbc news, andrea mitchell, and helene cooper. first this morning, a preview of the fall campaign. a debate about what government can do to spur economic recovery. you saw the headlines this week. >> manufacturing is coming back and companies are starting to bring jobs back. the economy is getting stronger! the recovery is speeding up. >> what impact will the extension of the payroll tax cut have on jobs? with us this morning, republican chairman of the house budget committee, paul ryan, and democratic congressman, chris van hollen.

captions paid for by nbc-universal television nine days to go for voters to go to the polls in arizona, and contraception issues back in the news. and rick santorum with a range of issues in what he called a phoney agenda. listen. >> it's not about you. it's not about you. it's not abouter quality of life or about your job. it's about some phoney ideal. some phoney theology. not a theology based on the bible, a different theology, but no less a theology. >> and paul ryan, republican of wisconsin and the ranking member, and chris van hollen. we are in the heat of a presidential campaign here, and a primary fight on the

republican side and i want to ask more about the serial issues. rick santorum talked about a phoney theology, as he put it, that the president has, and he went on after that speech to stand by the remarks. here's what he had to say. >> the president has come to owe pressing religious freedom, and it's a position of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the obama administration is forcing on them. >> chairman ryan, let me start with you. is that what we can expect from republicans in this campaign, as a faith-based broadside attack against the president's leadership? >> i could not hear all the click from rick santorum, but what we are getting from the white house, it's not an issue about contraception, it's an issue that reveals a political

philosophy that the president is showing that basically treats the constitutional rights as if they are revokable privileges by the government and not rights we have from our creator, and it's a political philosophy that puts new government-granted rights in the way of our constitutional rights. it's an argument for freedom in protecting the rights. it's really not about contraception, it's about violating our first amendment rights to a religious freedom. >> you think it's an appropriate part of the debate for a republican contender for the white house to say things like if he says he's a christian, then he's a christian? haven't we been through this before trying to demonize the president? >> i wouldn't say it that way. he believes he can mandate

certain benefits and activities of the american people which conflicts with their constitutional rights. he believes these two government-granted rights trump our constitutional rights such as our first amendment rights to conscience and freedom of relidge yuns. i would go after him on his political philosophy that violates our founding principle. >> congressman van hallen, how do you see it? >> you see that as the economy is improving and more and more people are going back to work, and the policies on the economy are working, you find republicans going back to the old red meat social issues that helps to rile up their base. that's what is going on. the president put on the table a very principled compromise on this issue making sure that women would have the health care that they need, including contraception, and in making sure that people could pursue their own religious liberty. that's why groups like catholic charities and the catholic's

hospital association says it's a fair compromise and accomplishes the goal of women's health as well as religious freedom. >> how do you respond to more generally of what santorum said about a phoney theology he thinks the president asident at to. >> he's questioning the president's faith, and that's a new low in politics and it has no place in our political dialogue. he should retract and apologize for that statement. >> and republicans in the house are taking on this issue of contraception and what they see as a religious freedom test. this was the image at the first of two hearings in a oversight committee, all men, all religious leaders, and all men and no women. you heard nancy pelosi, she had

a few things to say about that. listen. >> where are the women? and that's a good question for the whole debate. where are the women? where are the women on that panel. they are having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel. duh? >> this was a duh moment, and there was a second panel where there were women, but there's a larger question, there are democratic leaders who are woman that are using it for fund-raising, and saying a lot understand contraception is not about birth control but women's health. are you concerned as a republican that republicans are overdoing this issue and it can hurt the party's chance in november? >> no, i am concerned the issue might get miscontrued. everybody in america is free to use contraception as they want to, and that's not the question. the question is should the

government have power to mandate these things of us. the compromise is a distinction without a difference, and it's mandating that everybody pay for everybody's free birth control and contraception. can the government mandate that people violate their freedom of religion, the conscience. the catholic charities don't interpret document, but it's the bishops, and they are saying it's a violation of the constitutional rights. it's an issue of constitutional rights and of the government having the kind of power to trump them. the way i look at it, if the president is willing to trample on the constitutional rights in a difficult election year, imagine what he will do implementing the rest of the law when he doesn't have to face the voters again if he gets re-elected? >> you heard what ryan said, or whether it's a women's health issue and protection of

accessibility in key aelmentes to a women's health, is that what you think will play out here? >> yeah, that's the debate. when the chairman refused to allow a woman, a democratic witness, to testify on the full first panel. i do think it strikes the american people as strange that has a panel talking about this issue, trying to protect women's health and religious liberty without having a woman on the main panel and denying her the right to testify. look, i think republicans are making a big mistake. after the president made the principle compromise that he did to make sure we protect a women's health and her liberty, we also have requirements that also meet that balance in that test and that's all the president has done in this case. >> i want to get to one more issue before i turn to the economy and the budget, and that's gay marriage. you saw the veto in new jersey,

and in maryland they passed it and we will get to eight states. if it's signed in maryland they have recognized same-sex marriage in their state. it's a significant part of the population. is this -- should this be a campaign issue as we move in this country towards a situation where blue state america, if you will, is supporting the rights of same-sex couples to marry, and red state america is voting against it or doesn't want to have it on the ballot. go ahead. >> certainly this is a legitimate issue and part of the debate we should have. i support a civil marriage equality, and people have different views on this, but the focus remains on the economy and jobs. that's why it's interesting to hear republicans trying to switch the subject in so many areas. what we are seeing is the president's plan has been working.

he inherited an economy that was in total free fall. we passed the recovery bill and helped to rescue the auto industry, and now we have seen 23 months of consecutive private sector job growth, and 23 million new jobs created -- >> we will get to the economy. but i asked you a question about same-sex marriage. you don't support same-sex marriage, do you? >> no, i do support same-sex equality. the maryland legislation is being worked on -- >> but you don't support what maryland has passed as a state, do you? >> i support what maryland has passed, yes. >> same-sex marriage, is, in your view constitutional and same-sex couples should be fully recognized as a marriage? >> i support the maryland legislation, yes. >> and mr. ryan, do we have to have a way of looking at same-sex marriage? >> actually, i came on to talk

about the debt crisis and the budget, and that's the driving issue of this election. but i supported the wisconsin amendment to define marriage between a man and woman. bill clinton signed into law the defensive marriage act. if i recall from the last presidential campaign, president obama, vice president biden said they supported marriage as being between a man and woman. i don't know why we spend all this time talking about this. we have a debt crisis talking about it, and the administration gave us a budget that just failed to tackle the challenges. i think that's what we ought to be talking about right now. >> there's a presidential campaign, and you are a republican leader in congress, and these issues are talking about the bandwidth. and that's why i wanted to get your views on them. i want to move on to the economy. let's talk about the payroll tax cut that was passed this week.

neither of you actually supported it. my question for you, congressman ryan, do you think this has any economic impact on spurring economic recovery or jobs? >> i think chris did support it, so to set the record straight on that, i did not because i don't think it grows the economy. temporarily tax rebates and spending, they didn't work when president bush tried them and didn't work when president obama tries them and it's a poor substitute for pro-growth economic policies. that's the problem is these are crowding out what we could otherwise do to bring more certainty to job creators. this does not do that. what drives me crazy is we couldn't get the democrats in the senate and white house to support cutting $100 billion over ten years to make sure that this did not hurt the deficit. $100 billion over ten years of spending cuts they could not come up with, and the president gave us a $47 trillion budget, and wouldn't agree to spend 46.9

trillion to pay for this. we pay for these with spending cuts, and i voted for that. and we talk about not paying for these things, and i don't think it works. it's not good economic growth policy and we have proven the temporarily sugar-high economics, they don't work to grow the economy and they are a poor substitute forgetting rid of capitalism, and addressing the drivers of the debt which would do so much more to grow the economy than doing these sorts of things. >> and i spoke at a panel here in washington, and you can't argue this is a big profile encouraged to extend a tax cut not paid for during a great fiscal imbalance in washington. >> i do support the extension of the payroll tax cut and the democrats did want it to be offset. we proposed we offset it by closing corporate tax loopholes and by asking folks at the high

end of the income scale to pitch in more, and we did not think it made sense at all to provide $160 million working americans with a payroll tax cut to help them and at the same time cut things like medicare support and increase the premiums to help offset it. that didn't make any sense -- >> that's why you voted against it? >> yeah, i voted against it because of one of the pay fors disproportionately impacted the federal employees. your question is did you support the payroll tax cut, i do, and very strongly, because paul is not right on this. it will help economic growth. it could add up to 1% gdp this year. it's common sense. you are putting more money in the pockets of the american people, and then they can go out and spend that money buying goods and services, and that means small businesses and businesses could sell more goods and services and hire more people. just as the congressional budget

office had the recovery act, and they said it saved jobs in the economy, and like the auto rescue helped to save 1 million jobs. it's an important step. >> chairman ryan let me ask a larger philosophical question. budget of government. they have not passed one in over 1,000 years. budgets seem not to matter. what you have are campaign blueprints, and i had the chief of staff, jack lou here, head of omb for the president, and i asked him about what was necessary now, and i want to you respond to what he said. >> i think that there's pretty broad agreements that the time for austerity is not for today. we need to be on a path where over the next several years we bring the deficit under control.

if we were to put in owe stair tea measures right now it would take the economy in the wrong way. >> congressman ryan, do you agree with that, to protect the recovery, and don't get into the realm of austerity where we are belt tightening to the point where you see what is happening in greece where you can hurt recovery that is occurring here in the country? >> well, first of all, the white ouse's rhetoric doesn't match the substance. what chairman bernanke said to us, if you put in place the long-term plan to help the crisis it will help today. the white house is not trying to solve this problem. when you strip away the budget tricks and accounting tricks, they gave a budget that gave a net spending increase of $1.5 trillion, and a tax increase of 1$1.9 trillion. if you pass the president's budget, it goes up 76%. so what they are doing is they

are not leading. they are ducking responsibility, and that threatens our economy. that will make us more like greece. here is the issue. if we keep kicking the can down the road and don't face up to the great fiscal challenges we have. we have a debt fuel economic crisis ahead of us, and you might have to impose the kind of austerity they are imposing in greece. let's fix this now and put something in where we can broaden the base, and we are giving the country a clear and specific plan to get us off the path of debt on to a path of prosperity. what we think we will achieve is that we will give the country a choice of two futures. we feel we owe the nation an opportunity to choose which path they want for america, and we will be specific.

what is frustrating about the white house is they have had four budget submissions and they decided to duck this challenge every time. more debt, more spending, more taxes, and that hurts our economy. that will lead to austerity, and we think that's wrong, and that's why we put out alternatives. we had tim geithner who game to the committee on thursday and said, quote, we don't have a definitive solution, we just don't like yours. i can't think of a better example of what stems up the crisis. >> congressman van hallen, respond. >> jack lew and ben bernanke are right. if you have a strict austerity plan right now, we will lose the gains we made. we need to follow-up with the rest of the president's plan in addition to the payroll tax cut, and the president proposed last september we have a major infau

structure investment, and we have roads and bridges and airports that need to be renovated and built, and we need to put those things together. that's the one piece of what this president's job plan and budget does. the second part is we need to balance the deficit and deal with it in a balanced way. thiss not a question about whether or not we should reduce the long-term deficit. it's how. the republicans and paul ryan's budget does this, it's a one-sided lopsided approach. they want to take it all out on middle-income amerans. the result is that you are going to have folks on medicare, seniors with a 23,000 median income taking in the burden for increased medical costs because they don't want to ask folks at the very high end to pitch in by closing corporate tax loopholes and by going back to the same top tax rate in place in the clinton years when the economy

boomed and we balanced the budget by the end. they all signed a pledge saying they won't close one tax loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction. the first action taken by the house of representatives when the republicans took charge was to change the house rules to say that you don't have to pay for tax cuts for the folks at the very top. you can put that on your credit card. what we need to do is take a balanced approach to deficit reduction, and that's what simpson-bowles did and other bipartisan groups did. we need to make cuts and the administration's budget makes $2.50 in cuts per $1 in revenue. that's what the american people want. >> you have two visions there. i want to do one for each one before we're out of time. i do want to ask you a straight up political question, congressman ryan first, which is if mitt romney who i thought at some point was the frontrunner

loses michigan, do you think it's possible and advisable that somebody else should get into the race on the republican side? >> i don't see how that can happen. it's just too late. it's february. these things have a way of taking time. i assume it will drag out well into april, so we will be relevant here in wisconsin, so i have a hard time seeing how somebody could get in on this late date. i hardly think a budget that never ever proposed a balanced budget is a balanced plan. we proposed closing loopholes for economic growth. there's a bipartisan consensus that the best way is to lower tax rates by closing loopholes and doing the entitlement reforms in a gradual way. the president's plan does the opposite. he's got massive tax hikes and massive debt increases that threatens the economic security, and his budget hollowed out our

national defense and that threatens our national security. >> i would like to respond to that. >> we are for the bipartisan consensus and the president is not. >> paul is talking about tax reform, but not the way the bipartisan commissions have. we all want tax reform, and it's just the republicans don't want one penny of tax reform to go towards deficit reduction. if you don't do that, it means you have to cut deeply into critical investments in the national infrastructure and education and we don't need to ask the middle income and seniors to bare the entitle burden. that's what it's about, whether you want a balanced approach. it's not when but how to reduce the deficit. >> on "meet the press," we can talk social issues and faith and

the budget and economy. see, we can do it all. i thank you both very much. coming up, the republican race for the white house rolls into michigan. a must win for mitt romney. so what happens were he to lose? plus the social issue to go away, does it help or hurt republicans to help the white house. and al hunt, and helene cooper, and our own, andrea mitchell right after this break.

coming up, our political

roundtable. they will break down the state of the race. joining me ed

we're back with the roundtable. joining me is with the new york times, helene cooper, and andrea mitche mitchell, and ed gillespie, and executive editor for bloomberg news, al hunt. al, we don't see you enough. glad to have you here. i like reading about how

enticive you have been about this campaign. political i thought captured the headline here, 2012, the year of birth control moms. i thought we were talking about the economy, and paul ryan wants to talk more about the economy, but the reality is, in the republican race, social issues seem to be energizing the base and fueling rick santorum. >> the question is whether it will energize the base and help to win the primary, and perhaps go on to the nomination, or whether this is going to debill tate the republican party when they need to go up against barack obama, and women who generally accept birth control. >> this aspirin business, foster freeze, a santorum supporter said to you on your program the best would be an aspirin, and

rick santorum said that was a bad joke. and then patty murray wrote this based on that, and also that all-male image of the contraception hearing. i feel she wrote like i woke up on the set of "mad men." and when women could put aspirin in between their knees to avoid getting pregnant, this after republicans opened up a hearing on birth control and banned women from testifying. we already accumulated 65,000 signatures on the agenda, and i am too bad to stop. it's time to punish people by taking away their jobs. >> i see it as a trampling of rights. this is a distraction and not about birth control. nobody is talking about birth control. this is about whether or not a church and members of a church

in an arc diocese should be compelled to pay for something, abortion and sterilization, and yes, contraception, should be compelled to pay for something they hold to be morally wrong and in fact a sin. and at the end of the day, it will cost president obama a lot of votes with catholic voters, and it's reminding people of the obamacare bill and itself and all the hidden perils there, and his response to it was arrogant. it's not a compromise. a compromise is when we disagree on something and come to an agreement. i think it will cost him three states in the general election. >> al hunt? >> i don't agree. i think they handled it badly, and i think they recovered to a degree, and i don't think it will be a dominant issue in the general election. i think republicans need to get

back to the economy. that's the issue that people care about. that's the issue that urban independent women care about. and most are not focused on that, but the debate is dominated by the social issues. >> and it's interesting, helene, because we know how many americans are feeling the economy, and feeling it in a huge way in their lives, and there may be signs of economic improvement. as i mentioned, gay marriage has been a big story this week between what is happening in maryland and the bill vetoed by chris christi in maryland. and it's on capitol hill at well, and inside the white house that you cover, do they say privately, hey, this can help? >> they absolutely think that the more that this issue gets stuff the better off they are. president obama -- al is completely right, they mishandled it from the start. but now that president obama has

come out with the compromise, they think that basically the republicans are overreaching. this is something that they talk a lot about, about the republicans propensity to overreach. the white house wants to discuss this and frame this issue as one of contraception, and that's what the democrats want to do. you hear the republicans, and you heard paul ryan just a few minutes ago wanting to frame this as an issue of religious freedom. at the end of the day the white house thinks this is something that will galvanize women and further alienate and drive the republican candidates so far to the right that they will more alienate women and they at the end of the day will be better off. >> and also, andrea, i mentioned rick santorum talking about a phoney theology for president obama. >> i was going to raise that point, because when rick santorum has some appearances in new hampshire, he's a strong

candidate for the republican party for the jengeneral electi. but when rick santorum takes that shot at the president, which many people believe including i think moderate republicans, and they think it crosses a line. when rick santorum, when you go through his record and some republican leaders are concerned, because he did say that he doesn't believe that birth control is appropriate. there's a track record there, and so every time that he veers into the social issues i don't think it's useful for him to energize the base, but i think the base will be energized because they are cool to mitt romney, and i think it hurts the republican party. >> i think we should be careful in defining catholics as mono livic, because they are not. there's a whole population of catholic women out there who are very conflicted as well about the church. when we start to talk about losing catholic voters, we should be careful about that.

>> i think paul ryan made a good point. and the bishop sets terms in where the catholic faith is. and some don't practice what the teachings are when it comes to contraception. that's different from the government saying this is what you must do in contrast with your beliefs and teachings. i think the president has benefitted from muddying the waters with what was not a compromise at all. and i think the greater clarity injected, the worst off it is. i think we will see a big drop off with catholic voters, if you want to make a wager on that. >> santorum has an edge, and it's probably socially more conservative, even though it's an open primary, and romney is at 30%, and mike murphy who

advised governor romney, and i will put it on the scene. can mr. fix it fix himself. they look at washington and do not want a skilled repairman, they want a demolition team. and romney now finds himself trapped between two big political trends, the rise of rich fashion class warfare in national politics and a republican elect toreut, welcome to the riot primary. >> well, i think that puts it well. and michigan, he's the army of the potomac and gettysburg. it's the fourth game of the series and he's down 2-1. if he loses michigan, he is likely to use ohio the next week. and that has more delegates. and you look at the exit poll from last time and i am not sure how much it will change, but 30%

of the voters in michigan are catholic, and this time it's a big party group out there. two things to watch this week, which are critical for governor romney. what kind of attack will they mount against senator santorum. that's not freddie mac, it doesn't resonate. he is giving a important speech, and will it be what he said before or will there be something bold and radical. >> and one said he feared if you asked mitt romney why he is running it would be a technocratic response other than what santorum says on the stump, the passion fueled set of beliefs with which he wants to run the country. what do you say? >> i think governor romney's speeches, he talks about the need for economic growth and upward mobility but at the same time he is running on a rational

of successful business running. and it's more of a gut-level response from the republicans at a time when there is a demand for that. >> a gut-level response, andrea, this is mitt romney, who is trying to talk about how he is a severe conservative and definitely a conservative, and he is trying to shoot from the gut a little more, and speak from the heart. here is one example where he waxed on about why he loves michigan. >> i was born and raised here. i love this state. it seems right here. trees are the right height. i like seeing the lakes. i love the lake. there's something very special here, the great lakes, and the little inland lakes that dot the parts of michigan. i love cars. i mean, i just -- >> did he forget what the next paragraph of the speech was? what was that? >> well, that was a bit of ref kuns -- >> it's not passionate in a

really national way. and that's the great edge that santorum has over mitt romney here, and that's why this thing is still open. i agree with al and the rest of you all in talking to republican leaders, if he loses michigan, he then is at risk in ohio. and he is then in terrible jeper -- jeper de. he will go into tampa at the convention without anybody having a majority, and you have a contested majority. >> and he also said he was a tiger's fan. he said i remember one time, turning to the guy at the next box. >> and i want to talk more about the what if

we're back with more of our roundtable. i want to talk about what if scenarios as we talk about michigan. should romney lose, what would happen? would there be a renewed call for somebody else to get in the republican primary fight? i asked paul ryan that question earlier and here is what he said. >> i don't see how that can happen. it's too late, i think. it's february. these things have a way of taking time. i assume it will drag out well into april, so we will be relevant here in wisconsin, and i have a hard time seeing how somebody could get in at this late date. >> ed gillespie? >> back in december on the show i said we were looking at a long primary because of the process.

and that's the case now. on the republican side there may be more demand in terms of supply for the candidates, and that's the nature of the process. and we're not used to long processes, and that's an appetite to wrap it up and get to challenging president obama, but i think paul raise add good point when you look at the calendar and filing deadlines. >> let's put up the calendar and remind our viewers about what is coming next. we don't talk a lot about arizona, assuming it's a romney strong hold. and then washington state, super tuesday is big throughout the south and even the mid-atlantic, with virginia. and then as we look at the calendar. helene cooper, one thing i keep hearing about is people say it's stillanti-romney. what is the problem? >> it's a republican party dissatisfied with their no longer presumed frontrunner, and that's sort of the issue that

mitt romney has been having over the last few months, this constant auditioning of the next anti-mitt. that's a problem. when you look at -- i was traveling this past week with president obama throughout the west coast, and if i had a dollar for every time he said some have said let detroit go bankrupt, it's like as if the white house is trying to put their finger to make sure that mitt romney loses in michigan, because he is the one that president obama at the end of the day most does not want to run against. he thinks he could crush santorum or gingrich, and he thinks he could beat romney, but he thinks he would crush the other two. >> if you look at the calendar and the way the republican party has changed the way delegates are selected this year, the earliest mitt romney could nail the amount needed to go into the convention would be june 5th or 26th, and the "wall street journal" added it up yesterday,

and it would be the end of june if he wins every single race with 49% of the vote from now through june, and he could not nail it until the end of june. we will be in the mold for quite sometime. >> i think that piece was misleading. if he wins michigan and ohio he wins most of super tuesday, and he is not close to the 1170 he needs but he's on his way. and i think ed is absolutely right, if he loses michigan, there will be panic in the republican establishment. they will look for a magical figure to come in, and it doesn't exist. jeb bush i am told definitely does not want to run this time. chris christie, he is compelling, but he said he is not ready for it. and paul ryan, he's a fabulous talent but he's a minor league player, you are rushing him too soon. there's no natural saver. >> do you think of santorum as a

nominee, really? >> sure. >> could he be more dangerous against obama than romney? >> well, conventional wisdom has been turned repeatedly on election year, and i have been in the business for a while with the understanding and be careful what you wish for. if i were president obama i am not sure i would wish for rick santorum, i think that could turn out to be trouble for him. but the voters will sort it out. like we saw in the democratic side, it's a contest of whoever emerges to be a better nominee against the president. and at the end of the day, it's about the president and his report on the economy. >> santorum or -- >> with the caveat about wisdom, it looks like it's coming down to those two. gingrich will stay in for a long time and maybe he can rise a third time, and ron paul has a stable base of support inside

the process, and -- >> gingrich is getting $10 million from a super pac out in -- it can't hurt. let's talk about the president's record for a minute, helene. this is interesting. here is the numbers out of michigan, and we're talking so much about the unemployment rate. if you go back to september of 2009, mind boggling 14.3%, and it's 9.3%, which is, by the way, still high and above the national average. and we're talking about manufacturing coming back and the auto bail outs worked, and i see the bumper sticker, gm is back on top and bin laden is dead. that's the record this president wants to run on. >> absolutely, he has gotten a boost for the national numbers coming out for unemployment, and

he is still challenged that there's things happening around the world, europe and the european debt crisis, and they are worried about it -- >> but he doesn't talk about it. >> he talks about it behind closed doors. and some people asked him, what are you most worried about right now, and he said europe. that's something that the u.s. has no control over, and that could really bring our unemployment rate -- send it back up again. you have the iran situation developing and that could affect oil prices, and that's something republicans are looking to run on in the months coming up. we're in a little bit of a lull right now, and things are looking not too bad for president obama on the economy, and he certainly wants to run on manufacturing, and he wants to run on what he has done so far to stay the crisis, but i think we may still have problems. >> speaker boehner was pointing

out to the caucus about gas prices. a few blocks from here yesterday, $5.17, admittedly full serve and supreme, and there's already a premium because of concerns of what iran might do. >> what else do they do at that price? >> they wash it and duty fires. >> i am glad to see the unemployment come down and i am glad we created jobs last month, and i hope we continue to create jobs, but the labor force participation rate has gone up 2 full percent points since president obama took office. that means 5 million americans left the labor force and that's why the number is coming down. and i hope we create jobs, and it will be difficult for the president to get the rate down below 8% between now and november. >> another quick break and we november. >> another quick break and we will come back, al, and look at

[ male announcer ] for a better-looking tomorrow. vicks nyquil cold & flu. the nighttime sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, fever, best sleep you ever got with a cold...medicine. [ deep breath ] ♪ 1, 2, 3, 4 ♪ . ouncer ] vicks dayquil. defeats 5 cold & flu symptoms. ♪

final moments with our roundtable. we keep seeing al as we come back on the shot. the head shot right there, anyway, i want to go to the political trend tracker right here. we talked about the santorum attack on obama over faith. and there are earmarks to support the olympics, and the caucus did not overtake it. the caucuses have been a problem

in iowa and maine, and romney still appears to be a winner in maine. al hunt, back on barack obama? >> i think obama was born on third and thinks he hit a triple. they benefited because the jobless and unemployment numbers have been good, and it could head back up but they benefited because of the republicans have wreaked havoc, and that's why obama is doing so well, not because of anything he has done. >> the case against him will boil down to what, especially in light of some economic recovery? >> i think it's principles, and he's transforming the country to make us look like greece, and the debt going up, you know, $4.6 trillion at this point, and he said he would cut the deficit in half and clearly has hasn't,

and the unemployment not good. it's a result of his policies. >> and i want to pay tribute, as you both know, this was an inspiring journalists. >> yeah, he was. he did things that we all will still stand back and be in awe, and when tyler hicks been the to the photographer that brought his body out -- >> he died of an asthma attack while covering the story in syria, and he will be in our thoughts and prayers, as will his family. i sat down and took a break from politics, and i did so with tony award winning brian stokes mitchell. you can hear his exclusive review now, and this is big, of president obama's and mitt romney's singing