magazine deputy washington bureau chief, michael crowley. erin mcpike, patricia murphy joining us of citizen jane politics and contributor to the daily beast and of course, buzz feed editor in chief, ben smith, also known as the heart and soul of the internet. the presidential election is exactly four months away and today, there are some new responses from president obama and governor romney about these disappointing june jobs report. basically, the president said that these 80,000 jobs that were created last month is a step in the right direction, but not good enough. >> we can't be satisfied because our goal was never to just keep on working to get back to where we were back in 2007. i want to get back to a time when middle class families and those working to get into the middle class had some basic security. that's our goal. >> meanwhile, governor romney called a press conference after

the numbers were released from his vacation in new hampshire and said the report is another kick in the gut and it reflects the president's failed policies. >> the president's going to have to stand up and take responsibility for it. i know he's been planning on going across the country and celebrating what he calls forward. well, forward doesn't look a lot like forward to the millions and millions of families that are struggling today in this great country. it doesn't have to be this way. >> well, we will get right to it with cnbc's power lunch co-anchor, tyler mathisen. what do you see as the big take-away? >> i don't think there's any way to put lipstick on this pig. this is a nasty looking jobs report. in fact, in the second quarter of this year, april, may and now june, we created exactly the same number of jobs that the economy created in the single month of january. that tells you that the economy is slowing. politically speaking, you can go

back and you can look and see that when you get to that four-month point before the election, three, four months before the election, if the economy is not performing, that's the sort of tension point where these numbers begin to stick in the voters' consciousness. so even if things start to turn around come september, october, they're going to remember this weak spring, this slowdown summer and it's going to be difficult for the administration to overcome being tarred by that. >> what kind of number would be a decent turn-around, you think? >> you got to get up above 200,000 jobs created monthly to really say the economy has some forward traction. remember that the economy basically adds 100,000 workers every month to begin with, so we're basically creating jobs at a sort of steady stasis level. in other words, we're creating jobs to equal or absorb the new workers who are coming on. if you really want to make traction, you've got to get back to where we were in january or sometimes last year when we were

above 200,000 monthly jobs created. >> i want to open this up to the panel. michael crowley, that's the problem. you can't sell 80,000 when it feels like sliding backwards. >> yeah, no, it's wheels stuck in the mud and look, i think it could have been worse. it's been a rough year so far. europe has been a huge drag on the economy and i think that the silver lining for obama here if there is one is that it looks like europe is not going to collapse. they're not out of the woods yet. unfortunately, the bad news yet to come is the fact that we have this fiscal cliff we're confronting and that creates a lot of uncertainty. i think that is going to replace europe as the big drag in the next few months. there's not a lot of light at the end of this tunnel. >> some people aren't as optimistic about europe. talking to mort zucrerman, he said europe is like a man falling out of a 60 story building and passing the sixth

floor says nothing happened yet. >> neither mitt romney or president obama said anything different in the last few months so i'm not sure this particular jobs report means all that much. the october jobs report number might mean a lot more. but we just haven't heard much different from either one of them. neither mitt romney nor president obama has said much about what they will do to create jobs. we haven't seen any projections from them, not much of anything. >> well, you see, both of these guys trying to make it a referendum on the other guy. we see mitt romney saying president obama, stand up and take responsibility. that is a very powerful argument after three years in office. but then the obama campaign, so interesting to see them trying to make mitt romney the worst possible messenger on jobs, we see him going into these swing states with his ads calling him, you know, somebody who is outsourcing so if you want to create jobs, mitt romney's the last person in the world you should trust to do that. so that's the angle they're going off with. it's working a little in the swing states but i think obama has the much tougher job compared to mitt romney on these

numbers. >> ben, one of the things that folks in chicago and at the white house say is look, there is action. they got transportation money here that they think will affect 2.8 million jobs. does that cut any ice? >> i think where there has been some federal spending, obama has tried to say he would like a lot more stimulus spending. they have introduced legislation that will go nowhere for the last six months to a year, kind of calling for some form of new federal spending. i think that message, people don't really like that message of the government should spent more money which is really the core of the democratic policy, what they have done, what they would like to do. >> people want a government that gives them things but doesn't cost anything and there's sort of a tension. >> i want to pick up on something michael said in terms of what congress is doing. congress is jumping out of the 30th story and they just want to dare each other to see who is going to have the rope once we get to the first floor. i think that's a huge destabilizing influence. we don't feel that right now but

once they come back from august recess, that is going to be a major drag on the economy. we saw what happened to the economy before the debt ceiling increase, the debt ceiling they wouldn't increase it, this is the exact same congress, exact same players. that much closer to an election they're not going to do anything before the election. that's just going to be a major problem. you want to know where the leadership is going to come from. is it going to come from the president, from the republicans, are they just going to point fingers. we all know they're just going to point fingers. >> that's what mitt romney is saying. he literally said today the president is out of ideas. tyler, i want to get your reaction to specifically something that governor romney said on the trail today. basically, there were some people attacking him because while governor of massachusetts, he had said look, politicians don't run the economy and that's something a lot of folks say is a defense when they are an incumbent. he was asked about that old comment today. let's take a listen. >> any jobs figures, there are going to be factors that come and go that you can't control. but the things you can control,

you want to get right. his policies have not worked. that's just not a short period of time. that's over a four-year period of time. >> tyler, is that accurate on the economics? do you think it's effective? >> i think his point basically is he wants it both ways which some people have accused mr. romney of being repeatedly on a variety of things. he is saying basically that the underlying policies, high taxes, not business-friendly, too much spending, have crippled, paralyzed the economy and that's why we've got this kind of zombie economy with no job creation or very little, and very minimal growth, and not much wiggle room involved here. but i think his broader point is in fact, that the politicians are not the major job creators in the country. private businesses are. and if private businesses don't feel comfortable enough, confident enough as they seem not to right now, to create lots of jobs, you really are kind of

stuck in the mud. we have tried in this country for a very long time, both at the government level and personally through consumer credit to substitute borrowing for real underlying organic growth in the economy. we've tried, we haven't been growing very fast, so what have we done, we've tried to borrow our way to growth. and that is the pauper that we're paying right now. >> michael, how about that. what tyler is saying is a little depressing, that we have zombies out there, you don't like, and that the two main ways the government can get in on the action, hire people directly through government spending or free up credit and borrowing, aren't working. but politically, what do you do with that? that's not a very optimistic message for the challenger, is it? >> no, it's not. there's not really a good message right now. also, he put his finger on something i think is important to keep in mind. he said i think we overestimated a president's control over the economy. but it is possible to do harm. so we have a situation right now

where the uncertainty over the fiscal cliff is probably creating a drag or will increasingly create a drag on the economy, and it's very important that we sort of sort this out but a presidential campaign is a terrible time to do that. once the election time is over and we get into 2013 and beyond, we overstate the power a president has to change the economy. a lot of it has to sort itself out on its own and there are global factors that have a huge influence over it. to some degree, the obsession over the jobs numbers is a bit narrow and what these politicians can do, sometimes is just to get out of the way, is to clear up the uncertainty of something like the fiscal cliff. so the debate is skewed in that sense. >> if what you want is less uncertainty, a republican sweep will certainly deliver that. if all you want is somebody who knows what they want, i think part of what romney offers is a kind of clarity on that. >> sure. >> a vote for clarity from ben smith. tyler will stay with us and we will talk more about money and

also, the way it goes beyond fund-raising in politics but also money as a message. what do i mean? those who increasingly are affecting our politics, next. [ male announcer ] if paula ebert had her way, she would help her child. no. no no no no no. mommy's here [ male announcer ] with everything. but instead she gives him capri sun super-v. with one combined serving of fruits and vegetables. new capri sun super-v. for a cookout with world champion grill master brett gallaway. he's serving his guests walmart choice premium steak. but they don't know it yet. they will. it's a steakover! the steak is excellent. very tender... melts in your mouth... so delicious... tonight you're eating walmart steak. what? it's good steak. two thumbs up.

look, i ate all of mine. it matches any good steak house if not better. walmart choice premium steak in the black package... it's 100% money back guaranteed. try it for your next backyard barbeque.

it's 100% money back guaranteed. a little snack. on a wednesday. at 2 am. get that great taste anytime with kingsford match light charcoal.

in recent years, republicans and democrats have all revealed who's raising money for them, the so-called bundlers. you have no idea as we sit here who's raising this money for mitt romney. this is the most secretive candidate since richard nixon. >> that was obama campaign

senior advisor david axelrod criticizing what he claims is the secrecy of the romney campaign. last month, mitt romney and the rnc raised more than $100 million, that's serious cash. a gop fund-raising record. it will be bolstered by the unlimited donations that wealthy business leaders are giving to outside political groups. these moguls are doing more than laying cash on to the eltion. they're also sounding off like never before. ben smith, you have covered rupert murdoch for several of your employers back when you were writing for "the daily news," politico, and his relationships with politicians. what we've seen here, axelrod is saying there's a secrecy about the money. we're also seeing something like transparency with rupert hitting the twitter really hard. what is going on? >> there is this sort of new openness with some of these donors who want to be stars and have voices. rupert murdoch seems to be going around and just sort of asserting himself directly. what people around him say is kind of an undisguised personal

disdain for romney stems from a couple things. one is that rupert murdoch's a guy that made his career and fortune taking huge risks, huge aggressive risks and romney is just unbelievably risk-averse, came up through the inside, through constantly making the safe choice. there's sort of a character issue there. i think it seems like the central issue that murdoch says to people around him, he thinks romney's weak. >> weak. as a personal characteristic? >> yeah. that's the one thing if you look through his whole career, what rupert murdoch likes, he likes strength. >> let's look at a couple tweets that had everyone abuzz. tyler, i want to bring you in as i tell you about the tweets. we will go to a full screen and see where it all started. murdoch first wrote met romney last week, tough old chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from teams and hires real pros. doubtful. that's a prediction. then rupert wrote romney people upset with me. of course i want him to win. save us from socialism, et cetera, but should listen to

good advice and get stuck in. alex wagner and i were talking about the great use of the word et cetera. after socialism. but this isn't just us in the media only focusing on his tweets. the romney campaign responded and then the "washington post" politico and front page of today's "new york times" have all picked up on this. so what do you make of it, tyler? are we seeing a big businessman get small or do you think this is a good move for mr. murdoch? >> i think mr. murdoch is an outspoken businessman who would like to see a republican candidate more in the vein of chris christie. mr. murdoch and the chairman of fox news, who was a nixon campaign type way back when, they like politicians who are out there and like to deliver the smart punch right in the nose. mr. romney is not that kind of candidate and so i think that that's what is being expressed there. the broader point is about business people whether they are media folks or in other fields

who are being much more expressive right now. i think on the one hand, some of them, the earlier guests said they want to be stars. that's probably where sheldon adelson is giving $40 million to the super pacs. but i think there is also a real underlying concern on the part of business leaders in this country about the direction of the country. in that sense, i believe that we are having the kind of -- it may not be pretty or civilized, but we're having the kind of conversation about the future of the country that we probably need to be having right now. >> i think it's so interesting to see what's happened over the course of this campaign with somebody like donald trump, at one point three million twitter followers but the way he's been able to wrap this republican party around his finger and bring these candidates into basically genuflect to him, have the conversations, have a birthday party, whatever donald trump wants, he gets, because he's a personality, a celebrity. if you're rupert murdoch, yes, you could either give $10

million to a super pac as adelson did and maybe have an influence on israel policy, or you could send out a tweet that romney camp goes bananas and responds to it. why not use your influence in that way. >> you talk about the megaphone these people have, look at three examples where the president and mitt romney have actually responded. donald trump got the president to put out his birth certificate. >> crazy. >> there's a tax proposal now named for warren buffett and you know, i mean, as far as rupert murdoch, the romney campaign responded with a "washington post" article saying they are going to add staff. so president obama and mitt romney are responding to the megaphone that they have. >> i agree, i think there's something -- there's something unsettling about the idea that people who have so much money seem to command a special kind of attention and reverence not for the quality of what they have to say but just for their power and influence. by the way, this is also magnified by the supreme court's position that money equals speech. so there is some logic by which if you have more money, you have

a larger megaphone in basic legal definition the supreme court handed down. in the case of murdoch and media moguls, i actually like more transparency. instead of parsing editorials in the "wall street journal," let's just hear what he has to say. it's kind of refreshing to know what he thinks. >> i kind of do, too. >> you know, rupert must also feel as a strategic person, no one would say no matter how terrible you might think some of his policy positions are, no one would say he is un strategstrat. he must feel there's not a great cause to saying it one day and it ending up as an editorial the next day. >> i wouldn't overread the strategy. murdoch is in a very unusual place in his career right now, a lot of people think near the end of it. he's in huge trouble in the uk, splitting his company and is just out there saying stuff. what's so interesting, he's really like a chamber of commerce republican, where trump was channeling this nativist

instinct. where romney is seen as weakest is pandering to the tea party on immigration. >> nativist is co-word for race baiting. i want to be clear. >> you said that, not me. >> because the birth certificate stuff was a real ugly patch. >> murdoch, that's not where he is. he wants open borders and way more immigration. romney is caving in to the right and murdoch acts like a tea party brawler. he's certainly got -- but that's not where he's coming from. >> i want to throw up one other thing and go to ben and bring in tyler, because i heard you there. this is t. boone pickens who some have heard of because he's a big oil magnate but he got into it with the rapper drake, who tweeted the first million is the hardest. that sounds possible. t. boone responded actually, the first billion is a hell of a lot harder and i just want to go back to ben on this because buzzfeed covers the tweets a lot and ben is one of the unofficial people in charge of the internet, i believe, now. >> i'm on the board. >> he's getting promotions on this show.

>> but people eat this up, right? why is that? >> because i think the social media are now not just -- not just where our conversation about politics is playing out but where these things are in fact happening. this is this authentic conversation that would have happened in private before and is now happening in public. >> but -- >> got to bring in tyler real quick. what did you want to get in? >> i just hope mr. pickens doesn't go to the same bar as drake and his posse because it didn't end well for chris brown. the narrower point about transparency, in america, we fundamentally like people, men and women, who say what they mean and are not afraid to say it. number one. number two, on the transparency point, a lot of people are upset about the massive dollars that mr. adelson and others have donated to the super pacs. i kind of am comforted by the idea that well, at least i know exactly who's putting the money in. their name is on it, they're out there saying yeah, i'm not ashamed to make that kind of

contribution to something i believe in, and that tells me hey, at least i know where the money's coming from. >> how about that, patricia, for the last word? tyler is saying basically some rich people are doing what the law does not require but are putting their name on it like i approve this message just because they care. others are hiding. >> i think the important question for these men and women is are you enlarging yourself, improving your image or reducing yourself. when john mccain is tweeting with snooki and rupert murdoch is tweeting katie holmes, they're reducing themselves a little bit. i think it's actually, i love to see the transparency, i love to see where rupert murdoch is coming from on these issues but there is a very fine line when they start to tweet with rappers or start to tweet about scientology. i think that's where you get into dangerous territory. >> i hear you on snooki but yes or no, would the situation be okay?

>> i can't answer that. >> luckily, we have a whole hour left. we will return to that. thank you to tyler mathisen for joining us. we will have more after the break. this is new york state. we built the first railway, the first trade route to the west, the greatest empires. then, some said, we lost our edge. well today, there's a new new york state. one that's working to attract businesses and create jobs. a place where innovation meets determination... and businesses lead the world. the new new york works for business. find out how it can work for yours at thenewny.com. thor's couture gets the most rewards of any small business credit card. your boa! [ garth ] thor's small business earns double miles

on every purchase, every day! ahh, the new fabrics, put it on my spark card. [ garth ] why settle for less? the spiked heels are working. wait! [ garth ] great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? [ cheers and applause ] wow! it's even bigger than i thought. welcome to progressive. do you guys insure airstreams? yep. everything from travel trailers to mega motor homes. and when your rv is covered, so is your pet. perfect. who wants a picture with flo? i do! i do! do you mind? got to make sure this is -- oh. uh... okay. everybody say "awkward." protecting your family fun. now, that's progressive. call or click today.

what ? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it ? hello ? hello ?! if your bank doesn't let you talk to a real person 24/7, you need an ally. hello ? ally bank. no nonsense. just people sense.

welcome back. bill crystal had harsh words for governor mitt romney in his latest column in "the weekly standard." the prominent republican basically said that voters want to hear what romney's going to do about the economy. he can quote, speak about how bad the economy is all he wants, but doesn't the content of what mitt romney has to say matter? what is his economic growth agenda, his deficit reform agenda? no need for any of that, i suppose. the romney campaign believes basically they can keep on

speaking about the economy. erin, that speaking about the economy is in some very angry scare quotes. bill kristol thinks that's the wrong strategy. what do you think? >> i agree. as a reporter i would like more answers from the romney campaign. we keep asking and they keep on not giving answers. he's absolutely right. >> i think there's an obligation to say more about what you're going to do. i would also say the economy is really bad, there's no question, but it's not enough of a disaster i think for the romney's entire campaign to be just pointing at the jobs numbers and hammering the president. if you go back as i did recently for a piece i wrote and look at bill clinton's 1992 campaign, ronald reagan's 1980 campaign, both campaigns against an incumbent presiding over a sick economy with roughly equivalent unemployment rate, both candidacies were about a lot more. clinton had health care, welfare, he was a new democrat, he was kind of an inspiring character, and reagan had the soviet menace, afghanistan, iran

hostage crisis, big foreign policy argument that romney may be getting ready to make. i just don't think romney kind of has enough right now to seal the deal. i think republicans are naturally looking for the next shoe to drop. >> right. as a vote for bill kristol's argument you can't run a prevent defense when you're down. coming up, we look at house republicans' preparation for the big repeal of the affordable health care act. the president just wants to know what governor mitt romney really believes, next. ♪ [ male announcer ] introducing new dentyne split to fit pack. it splits in to two smaller, sleeker packs that fit almost anywhere

so you can take them everywhere. dentyne split to fit. practice safe breath.

he doesn't look like a heart attack patient. i was teaching a martial arts class and it hit me. we get to the emergency room... and then...and then they just wheeled him away. i had to come to that realization that "wow, i am having a heart attack." i can't punch this away. i'm on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] aspirin is not appropriate for everyone. so be sure to talk to you doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. i'm a fighter and nowadays i don't have that fear. [ male announcer ] learn how to protect your heart at i am proheart on facebook. i'll work with anybody who wants to work with me to continue to improve our health care system and our health care laws, but the law i passed is here to stay. >> not if house republicans have anything to say about it. the rules committee will meet on

monday to talk about, yes, the repeal of the obamacare act. which majority leader eric cantor vowed to hold a vote on next week. this is not going away. meanwhile, the president is opening a new line of attack on governor romney, criticizing him for quote, abandoning his principles and suggesting a weakness of character. >> the fact that a whole bunch of republicans in washington suddenly said this is a tax, for six years he said it wasn't, and now he suddenly reversed himself and so the question becomes are you doing that because of politics, are you abandoning a principle you fought for for six years simply because you're getting pressure for two days? >> six years versus two days. ben smith, the president often issues his strongest rebukes of governor romney in these rhetorical questions. are you doing that, are you abandoning your principles and what he's saying is of course mitt romney is. later in the same interview with a local nbc affiliate, because the president is focused on being out and getting press in these states, he also said

explicitly that governor romney changed his arguments here about taxes to echo what rush limbaugh said. do you think this is an effective way to get beyond the tax word choice debate and get into what's inside mitt romney's heart? >> i think they're trying to get him in this box where if he stays with his, you know, basically everything he's done for the last year has been selling out, where his entire campaign for the president has been a demonstration that in axelrod's words, that romney has no core. i think that's an argument they didn't feel was really sticking and they kind of moved away from, actually, over the spring. it seems they're getting back to their core character attack on him. >> a bit of a double whammy where they are also trying to say he's a hostage. there was some debate, do you paint him as an extremist or a man can no core, a flip-flopper. to thread the needle, they say he has no core so he follows

what the extremists are saying. >> right. there is sort of this, as you said, this hostage idea of you might not even blame him for being a hostage. it might be really tough to be a nominee in the tea party year of the republican party, right? it might be a hard thing. >> oddly it's why they love what murdoch said, that's his weakness. >> it might be hard but if that's how he's going to govern, it is extraordinary because everything we have seen in the polling suggests that the public is not especially interested in the difference between the commerce clause power and what kind of partial tax penalties you could administer under the taxing clause of the constitution. i just got really bored talking about it. i do this for a living. but obviously, the president is opening what looks to be a new chapter in the health care attack. here we are on friday, jobs numbers, a lot going on, and he's saying don't believe mitt romney on health care, because he is rush limbaugh's sock puppet. >> listen, we were talking earlier about republicans trying

to go after this and repeal it, but on and on and on, we've got republicans trying to repeal it, we've got this vote that's not going to mean anything but be a messaging vote. as far as mitt romney is concerned, i just -- we'll have to see -- >> are you speechless? >> i am. i have no idea where to go from here. >> it's a talk show. go ahead. >> i am not speechless. i will jump in here. if you look at what the house republicans are doing, they have already voted to repeal this bill. they are all already on record. this was the first bill that they did out of the box after the elections. all they're doing is redoing what they've already done. if you look at the messages out of the democrats today about the jobs numbers, democrats are saying now look, republicans are just trying to fight the fights we've already fought, trying to relitigate old battles. that's where the democrats are going. i think it's still interesting that the house republicans are pushing forward on this vote. i don't think they trust mitt romney to be the messenger on this. >> exactly. >> they know he's not doing a good job and they know he's a flawed messenger on the health

care message so they want to be out there on their own, on the record, saying this is what we're going to do, even if we have a republican in the white house, it's going to go all the way. they're making the message for mitt romney because they don't trust him to do it on his own and it seems he can't do it on his own. >> there's a strong point to the historical record which is they have taken this position, there isn't a lot of ambiguity about it. >> they're getting really good at it. >> i want to bring in mitt romney. he's not here with us on satellite but he did take questions today for the first time in 35 days on the campaign trail and he has a different view of the history here. let's take a listen. >> i've spoken about health care from the day we passed it in massachusetts and people said is this something that you would apply at the federal level and i said no. i said the right course for the federal government is to allow states to create their own plans, and by the way, the proof is that i was right, because obamacare is costing jobs in america.

>> michael, does it work for him to say he's just always been consistent because that's what he said today, a few hours ago. >> look, i do think that as a simple sound bite to say that you can do something at a state level but it's different to do it at a federal level is a reasonable, defensible position for him to make and he can say it concisely. the problem is, there is so much noise around it, so much push-back, so much kind of almost absurd debate over commerce clause versus tax versus penalty that i think he gets drowned out. i actually don't think it's a totally crazy position to take. >> there is also a lot of old video of mitt romney saying certainly not caveating it in the way he said, that's not how he said it from the beginning. he talked about it, he may not have explicitly said here's my plan for national policy but he talked about the mandate, why it was a good idea in the 2009 "usa today" op-ed has these caveats where it shouldn't be national model. >> he called it a model for what the country could do on health care. he's getting himself so tripped

up. while i agree with the supreme court they said it's a tax, it's a tax, but i also agree with the dissent. i don't agree with the majority on one piece but the majority said this on that piece. health care is just not his wheelhouse. >> it's so unpopular. if he can just be you know what, whatever i said in the past is past. i'm the guy that's going to repeal it. that is true. that's his campaign promise. that is appealing to a lot of people. >> what they say in chicago is what is true today is not always true tomorrow with him. that undercuts that ongoing credibility. what is striking here ultimately is the president's out here saying as a matter of precedent this bill, this law now, is not going away. a lot of pundits thought as a political topic, it might, and that doesn't seem to be the case either. we are here now in july, both candidates trading volleys on health care. after the break, we are now going to look at a very important agreement that has opened a critical supply road between afghanistan and pakistan, after seven months of closure based on diplomatic

difficulties. we will touch on the questions that confront secretary of state clinton after the break. [ male announcer ] if paula ebert had her way, she would help her child. go! goooo! [ male announcer ] with everything. but instead she gives him capri sun super-v. with one combined serving of fruits and vegetables. new capri sun super-v. with one combined serving of fruits and vegetables. that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company.

like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about. and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today.

remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. for a cookout with world champion grill master brett gallaway. he's serving his guests walmart choice premium steak. but they don't know it yet. they will. it's a steakover! the steak is excellent. very tender... melts in your mouth... so delicious... tonight you're eating walmart steak. what? it's good steak. two thumbs up.

look, i ate all of mine. it matches any good steak house if not better. walmart choice premium steak in the black package... it's 100% money back guaranteed. try it for your next backyard barbeque. a major breakthrough this week in pakistan. after the pakistani government agreed to reopen nato trucking routes into afghanistan, there was a very costly seven-month ban that ended this week after secretary of state hillary clinton said she was quote, sorry on behalf of the united states for the deaths of two dozen pakistani soldiers who were killed in a november air strike. joining us now from washington is nbc news pakistan bureau chief, amna nawaz. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> how important are these supply routes? >> it's really impossible to underestimate how important these are to the war effort in afghanistan. these routes that run through

pakistan, these overland routes, start from karachi and go up further north over two border crossings. these are the cheapest, fastest way for the u.s. and nato forces to move supplies into the effort in afghanistan and not having them for seven months meant the u.s. was paying almost $100 million more a month to be able to move goods via a northern route that is longer and more expensive. >> walk us through a little bit of the diplomacy that went on here. it was obviously a very long break, there were discussions reported in the "new york times" and elsewhere regarding what the pakistanis felt was a bare minimum for what was obviously even according to the u.s. a very regrettable incident and loss of life. but it took a long time and there was a lot of discussions over just how far the u.s. would go. >> it did take a long time. some people are saying this is an agreement that could have been reached after a week or maybe even a month of that incident back in november in which 24 pakistani soldiers had been killed, after which these routes were closed in protest. but really, the way this

agreement was reached is sort of indicative of the entire relationship between the u.s. and pakistan. there was a series of negotiations, a number of high level delegations from the u.s. that went to pakistan and a few times, they came very close to a solution and inevitably something would happen that would force the two sides back apart. remember, we're also dealing with election year politics in both countries and that certainly played a role in how these negotiations were carried out as well. but seven months later in the end, what came to be the most reported and most important information in this was the apology that pakistan was waiting for. the language had been worked out months ago but the timing could never quite get -- they couldn't get right. finally they decided once both sides were happy with the terms that they set, this was the time to do it and the routes are now back open. trucks have started to move yesterday and more are moving through today. >> when you say apology, of course, secretary of state clinton was careful to stop at the word sorry. that was a distinction, right? >> it was indeed. this was very carefully worded in the statement.

even the statements before this that the u.s. was giving were also incredibly carefully worded. they had been saying they regretted the loss of life, that they were offering condolences for the 24 pakistani soldiers that were killed, and tuesday's statement that came out was the closest they have come to an actual apology. the exact wording in that was that secretary clinton said the u.s. is sorry for the losses suffered by the pakistani military but that was enough, it seemed, for pakistan to reopen those routes. >> i want to play something for you. you talk about the election year politics in both countries as well as the geostrategic interests and that's always an issue in any diplomacy but particularly given what's going on in both these countries as well as the drones which i want to get to. but here at home, in the united states, this president has faced criticism for apologizing too much in the past. i want to play you some examples of that. >> i will not and i will never apologize for america. >> mr. president, stop apologizing for our country. >> when the president of the

united states says i apologize, he is basically taking on blame. >> did your reporting indicate that any of that back home has affected the way that the state department has been able to deal with this? >> i think it's clear that the anti-pakistan sentiment within the u.s. has been growing and it's probably the most vocal it's been in the last year of the alliance. likewise, i can say that the anti-american rhetoric and sentiment in pakistan has been growing in the last ten years and is the most vocal it's ever been. so clearly, both leaders, leaders on both sides, would have trouble coming together and making conciliatory statements when they know they're going to face fire back home for whatever agreement is reached. just after the statement was issued on tuesday, secretary clinton's apology, there were protests back in pakistan, people saying they planned to take to the streets and the taliban said they would attack any trucks and containers on that route. so we're far from back on track in this alliance. >> we have seen reports that up to 4,000 trucks are now sort of

beached in karachi in relation to that. i want to bring in the panel and michael, who has reported extensively on this region and the battles in the white house over drone policy. on the screen, we will put up just a general indicator, not strictly in the region but just overall, the type of attacks we've seen at the low end of estimates from the new america foundation which charts what happens when we have these unmanned drone attacks. starting from the last year of the bush administration, you had about 274 deaths at the low end estimate. that's risen all the way up more than double to the 600s under the obama administration. what have found in your discussion with the white house about how they are both using drones as a military strategy and then thinking through the diplomatic cost? >> well, again, it's a very fine needle to thread for them. i think it's surprising to look at a president, when president obama was a candidate in 2008, remember people were saying he was going to be apologizing for the country and trying to negotiate with al qaeda, he was

soft on terrorism, and he escalated this drone campaign and really in a cold-blooded way. in the white house i think they have been trying to figure it out. they are muddling through this policy, muddling through what the law allows them to do, muddling through a conflict between i think wanting to show the president as being very tough and unflinching on terrorism. at the same time, i picked up in my reporting a little bit of squeamishness about that "new york times" story that showed him checking off the boxes -- >> the kill list story which got a lot of attention. >> i wrote a thing with a head line maybe trumped up, "executioner in chief" and they didn't really like that kind of commentary. >> you had white house officials reach out to you and push back on that, although their main point was we are killing in a really precise way. >> yes. they do emphasize that although this may seem very cold-blooded and ruthless, the drone strikes and they often have collateral damage and civilian casualties and that's really important and one reason why there's anti-americanism in pakistan. you have less of that than you would if you had carpet bombing,

boots on the ground, soldiers running house to house with machine guns blazing. so they are trying to say to people who are concerned that this is getting a little bloodthirsty, this is actually the neatest way to do it if you want to use that phrase. can i say one last thing about that clinton apology? it's almost like when a politician says i'm sorry if anyone took offense at what i said. it's we're sorry those people died, i thought it was a very executiveful skillfully worded apology. >> it's not just spin we think about on the home front. wish we had more time. i want to say thank you to amna nawaz for being with us. coming up, can you put a price on secrecy? the government has.

juicy brats grilled up on a thursday. the perfect use of the 7th inning stretch. get that great taste anytime with kingsford match light charcoal.

welcome back.

time for "what now." can you keep a secret? if it is for the u.s. government it could be pretty pricey. according to the information security oversight office, the federal government now spends over $11 billion with a "b" dollars to protect their secrets per year. ben smith, the price went up but the government won't say why. >> it's a secret. i do think wikileaks was this amazing experiment. what was the damage, what was the cost of just totally opening the books. it's something people are still trying to figure out. >> the bradley-manning tax. the extra spending. they're doubling down on security. i really mean it. >> when the pentagon is attacking iran's own infrastructure, then i think we know whatever we can do or israel can do to another country, they can do back to us. they know it's a huge vel nes t vulnerability. when you put this in front of congress they will vote for any dollar amount to keep secrets. it's not the same as food stamps or other programs.

>> there's no push-back and the transparency constituency is fairly limited. we will jump to another good one. the california senate passed a bill yesterday that aims to protect illegal immigrants from status checks by local police. the measure is dubbed the anti-arizona bill because it prevents the local police from referring a detainee to immigration officials unless they have been convicted of an actual serious felony. the thing about this is it's sort of like beyond the policy, it's like if your neighbor put up a really big fence and you didn't like that, so then you just put out like a giant welcome mat, just to show a contrast. is this the way states should be pitting off each other? >> it's one of these business development plays like one state puts up a big sign that taxes are lower in their state. you know who cares about this is agricultural companies, high end immigrant workers. it's like being seen as open to immigrant labor. a real economic development issue. >> want to jump to the last one which i'm really excited about. this was an inspiring story and also should make you feel bad about ever complaining about just about anything.

oscar pistorius is a double amputee runner from south africa who will now be the first amputee to compete in track at the olympics when the games start in london. can you ever go back to like complaining about when the dry cleaners close when you see this guy? >> never. >> i know. i have trouble going for a jog after work for a couple miles. it's amazing. inspiration inspirational. >> people are walking down the block in the heat. >> you can see the footage. this is the first time it happened. this is the olympics. they don't change the standards for anybody. but he has qualified. it's a remarkable story. i want to thank a great and lively panel today, michael, erin, patricia and ben smith, and that is all for now. alex will be back monday. join us at noon eastern, 9:00 a.m. pacific. until then, follow this show on facebook. you can always find alex wagner on twitter. "andrea mitchell reports" is next. good afternoon, andrea. hi, there.

thanks so much. have a great weekend. coming up next, the fallout from the jobs report. the political winners and losers besides, of course, all of the unemployed. joining us, labor secretary hilda solis, romney's senior advisor, kevin madden, we ask him about his expanded role. l.a. mayor, antonio villaraigosa, major garret and susan page. an all-star cast, next on "andrea mitchell reports." omer. would you mind if i go ahead of you? instead we had someone go ahead of him and win fifty thousand dollars. congratulations you are our one millionth customer. people don't like to miss out on money that should have been theirs. that's why at ally we have the raise your rate 2-year cd. you can get a one-time rate increase if our two-year rate goes up. if your bank makes you miss out, you need an ally. ally bank. no nonsense. just people sense.

why let constipation stry miralax.? mirlax works differently than other laxatives. it draws water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. don't wait to feel great. miralax.

right now on "andrea mitchell reports" stuck in low gear. today's jobless numbers add up to the weakest employment quarter in two years. mitt romney sees a glass half empty. >> doesn't have to be this way. america can do better. this kick in the gut has got to end. president obama sees the glass half full. >> that's a step in the right direction. that's a sin