and kelly ayotte not so much. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> i want to say i'm more troubled today, knowing, having met with the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice. >> senator ayotte seized on one of the headlines from the meeting that ams about dor rice apparently admitted she was wrong. >> clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong and that's troubling to me as well why she wouldn't have asked i'm the person that doesn't know anything about this and going on every show. >> richard wolffe, reader of tea leaves that you are. >> yes. >> how much of this is because president obama would like to see susan rice as his secretary of state?

>> well, let's say 50% and -- >> you're putting it at a fair 50. >> 50% and the other 50% susan rice is a proxy for this president. i've said it again and will say it again there has been a witch hunt for every person of color that has served alongside this president. there are really serious things, if that's actually english -- >> only you would know, yes. >> about benghazi that they should be investigating. what is troubling is that four foreign service officers died. what is truly troubling on top of that, is that these senators apparently believe that going on a talk show, even a series of sunday talk shows, makes you responsible for the security of people in the field. they know that's notes the case. they know that susan rice isn't the line manager responsible for security. didn't block the right security for these officials or funding thereof. she's in the part of the cia.

she was out doing what they do on sunday talk shows which is talking about a whole range of subjects. i suspect that if you asked john mccain in an honest moment about whether he was truly expert in all the things he talks about -- and his many sunday talk show appearances, he would say occasionally he ventured into territory he wasn't personally responsible for and that's where you get into the question of why it's not just me, it's the op-ed board, the editorial board of the "washington post" that said this is bizarre. why are they pursuing susan rice like this? there are troubling questions about these senators and their witch hunt that they have engaged in. >> david, john mccain said i am upset by answers that were given and answers that were not given. he's just upset generally about everything that happened. i will ask, is this the best thing the republicans have going for them? we have polling from cnn/orc that asks about a benghazi cover-up. 42% of respondents believe there was a cover-up. 54% believe the statements reflected the information that

the white house with susan rice had at the time. >> that poll getses to what the republicans are trying to pull over here. they are trying to suggest that the issue is not what happened in benghazi, not the death of four -- of people working at the american government, including the ambassador and what the state department did, cia did or didn't do, they're trying to suggest what's here is a cover-up that barack obama right before the election wanted to cover up -- well something. i don't know what they're trying to cover up. but he didn't want it to be an act of terror. if he had said this is an act of terrorism, probably would go shooting up in the polls at the time. so there's no sense -- >> he did say it was -- >> there's no point, no sense to their charge of a cover-up. but saying that the state department security office screwed up, doesn't get you at the white house, doesn't get the president or susan rice or anybody else of a high position in the line of fire. which is what they want. so this is again and again they're trying to suggest that

something is wrong, said what the cia told her and it is i think as richard said, kind of an immature exercise and the common ritual you go up to capitol hill after weeks of this and they come out and say we kind of sorted this out, still have other questions, but their appearance, if they don't back up their troubles, the fact that they're troubled by this with some details, it just shows you they're not for real. >> that's the thing. i feel like i have and america has a better understanding of which sunday shows susan rice appeared on than what happened to chris stevens. in terms of revealing some grand new sort of details from this we got nothing so far. >> but the addition to that, the implication of what mccain principally and his two merry band of buddies are saying is that she should have given the classified version of what she was told from the cia. that's the implication. what she did is gave the declassified version given to her by the people responsible for getting it, the cia. i guess what they're saying is,

she should have said no, i'm not going to stop with the declassified version, i'm going to put it all out there, everything i've learned from the classified version which they then would have criticized for exposing national security secrets. either way they were going to attack her because they want to attack obama. >> mccain has been tenacious as far as leaks from the white house and looking under every corner there's not a piece of information that should have been kept from the public. i want to play sound from him on sunday where he seemed to suggest he would have more of a conciliatory attitude towards u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> is there anything that ambassador rice can do to change your mind about her? >> sure. she can give everyone the benefit of explaining their position and the actions that they took. i'll be glad to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. >> she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position. >> is this a case of bizarreo

john mccain, the same guy that defended president obama against critics that said he was a muslim and can't be a president, and then he nominated sarah palin. >> i think it's another iteration of the game john mccain has been playing for a decade, goes on fox news and sounds like a moderate and then the "today" show and. how micro the republicans have kept this. susan rice owns libya in a real way. one of the people inside that room that pushed for the invasion. if the republicans thought they had some broader leverage here, if they thought they could make something out of libya as a whole, which maybe they could, they would be going after that. instead they focused very narrowly on these purported security, you know, misstatements and i think that tells you something about what they do and don't have. >> but the insistence upon the tick tock on "meet the press" versus what happened that night in libya.

>> you know from covering this, alex, when prominent administration officials go on shows like this, they get talking points. we've seen the talking points. they've come out. they're briefed on what they can and can't say. that's not really the issue at hand. the fact that they're drilling down on that, i think ben is right, shows they have nothing about nothing. they have no other -- you know, they're not attacking the president on syria, they're not attacking the president on afghanistan. they're focusing on what one person said on a talk show as if it's a major deal comparing it to iran-contra. it's ab surd. you would like to say -- i used to say this, i won't anymore, john mccain knows better. i no longer believe that. >> you're saying that but not saying that. >> that's wonderful. >> we have to go to break. how do you get two different answers to the same arithmetic question. ask republicans to add. we will off remedial math when economist justin woolfers joins us next on "now." ♪

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] everyone deserves the gift of all day pain relief. this season, discover aleve. all day pain relief with just two pills. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out

medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral. see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. don't wait. call now. [ man thinking ] oh, this gas. those antacids aren't working.

oh no, not that, not here! [ male announcer ] antacids don't relieve gas. gas-x is designed to relieve gas. gas-x. the gas xperts.

what do you do when they're screaming for entitlement reform on the right, demanding more tax revenue on the left and only a very small stretch of common ground? take it to the people. for the next two days the president is at the white house sitting down with small business leaders. tomorrow he will host middle-class americans who say they can't afford to see their taxes go up. >> if you take away the $2200 from my paycheck it will severely impact my family. >> it begins again with this question of fairness. everybody needs to pull their

fair share. >> and on friday he'll return to the stump speaking at a manufacturing plant in pennsylvania. the message is clear, president obama's number one priority is ensure that tax cuts for middle-class families are preserved and tax rates for the wealthy expire. according to warren buffet that idea is already being accepted across the country. >> there's a general feeling among the general public and congress, that the rich like me have been getting away with low tax rates and time to make the tax rates more progressive. >> while the president seeks an audience with the american citizenry he's limiting his face time with his republican adversaries on the hill. missing from his schedule the meeting he was supposed to have with top congressional leaders. having learned his lesson during the payroll tax fight. >> modern day washington is a little different than it was in 1801. the notion you can solve all problems over a cocktail i think

is a little overrated. engaging with not just the denisons of washington but with the broader american public is very important to him. >> while president obama spoke with senate leader harry reid and speaker john boehner by phone on saturday when you see him this week he will be getting by with a little help from his friends ordinary unelected americans. joining us professor of economics at the university of michigan justin wool fers. great to see you. before i ask for your economic analysis i want to pose one question to my colleagues in new york, that is really about the optics of the president going straight forward and straight to the kisser as it were on the bush tax cuts, not really even talking about the fiscal cliff or the debt limit which looms in february or march. >> as we know there is no real fiscal cliff. it's more of a curve or a mole hill. it's serious and real but not going over the cliff. if there is something of a cliff-like situation, it's playing to the president's advantage. december 31st what he doesn't

want, the bush tax cuts for the rich, will be gone. they'll also be gone with the middle-class tax cuts. two years ago the republicans tried to hold the president hostage and said listen, if you don't give us the bush high-end tax cuts we're not giving you the middle-class tax cuts. the president ju jitsued that into a second stimulus. the president this time around has a little advantage. he can let all tax cuts expire on december 31st which is what democrats are advocating, first week in januariry when the congress comes back in, he can say, guys, we have 98% of the public i want to give tax cuts to right now, we can keep arguing about the top 2 but do this right now for the 98%. how come you're not with me on this? that's i think is a card for him to play heavy and gives him an advantage over the spending cuts and debt ceiling issues that will come up. >> justin, let's talk a little bit about the effects of a tax cut for high-income earners on the economy. there is this supposition, in

fact i would call it bedrock republican philosophy economically speaking if you cut rates for top earners it benefits gdp. i will point to everybody for consideration a chart by the david leanhart of the "new york times" that shows what happens when you cut the top income tax rates. it doesn't help gdp. in fact, it falls. explain to me why republicans keep insisting on this fact when it doesn't appear at least to be true? >> well, the basic idea is that if you get to keep more of the rewards for each hour you work you'll work more hours or a little harder or be more likely to start a business. that's not a crazy idea on its face. in fact, it's probably right. the real question, though, is, is it a bigger effect or small effect? so republicans claim time and again this is a huge effect. democrats often claims it's a small effect. in the language of economics this is an argument about elast tisty. like my colleagues here go out

and try to measure this. it's a difficult concept to measure. but that's basically the idea. are people going to be responsive to a big tax cut? there's an important point to get in here. republicans worry that the rich are going to be really responsive, stop working and creating jobs if you raise taxes on them, worry just much about the poor. the largest disincentives to work are those faced by the working class who are -- the working middle class on much lower incomes. there is an idea if you cut taxes on them you may actually increase labor supply, getting more people back to work. >> justin, this was i think a largely underdiscovered story because everybody was obsessed with the election that was coming up, but the congressional research service report -- research service provided a report that showed that changes over the past 65 years with regard to the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate did not appear to be correlated with economic growth. republican leadership in congress was furious not happy

with this, and effectively had the crs report pulled down. and i think, you know, what we're looking at with all these questions over economics and the tax code and tax reform and what actually leads to economic growth, there seems to be a woeful disavowel on the part of the gop to sort of debunk or undermine the validity of these nonpartisan reports or institutions that were previously accepted by both parties as sort of i won't say deciders but accurate readers of how economics works, whether that's a congressional research service or the tax policy center, the congressional budget office. i mean they are systemically debunking these institutions that have heretofor been the places to go, our source materials. >> absolutely. it's a disgraceful episode and it's not how we do economics and shouldn't be how we do public policy either. you're actually getting at a very important point. what we're talking about here and not huge ideological debates that are about the future of society, they're actually very narrow technocratic debates

where nerds, economists, wonks are sitting there trying to figure out if we move taxes, what's going to be the effect on the economy? and the best studies out there say there will be an effect, but ta is not going to be the miraculous effect that the republicans often claim they are. the claims that cuts in taxes will pay for themselves or would stimulate an enormous boom, a big part of romney's tax plan, there's no basis of it on our current understanding of economics. >> ben, when we talk about the cultural shift one way or the other, the person whose name has come up frequently in the last week is grover norquist. eugene robinson writing perhaps an optimistic op-ed yesterday that says maybe the fever is breaking, maybe the delirrium is lifting. maybe republicans are asking themselves what were we thinking when we put an ya surds l unrealistic pledge to a lobbyist in washington. this comes on the heels of a few

saying they might be open to tax. >> [ inaudible ] there's also, you know, the republican study committee and all of the kind of ideological mechanisms that have been pushing the republican party to the right. >> and the whole tea party. >> the tea party. >> and wealthy people. >> so that's the key here. for me what's interesting about this, this is a probe into the ceo's soul. if you look at cnbc, the ceos are going like the apocalypse. >> december 21st. >> and what's interesting here is, is the business community, the chamber of commerce, which has real leverage over the republicans, going to back up that emotion and push them to cut a deal even if at the risk of giving something on high marginal tax rates or will they not? will they put their long-term interests over the fiscal cliff? i think that's one thing to

watch out for. >> justin, before we let you go, in terms of the fiscal -- calling it a mole hill, curve, take your -- >> fiscal bump of various height depending on what side of the aisle you sit on, what are the ramifications if the president or congress decides to go over that to your mind? >> so, both a good side and bad side. if we let -- go over the fiscal cliff, it's going to solve our fiscal problems. the deficit will essentially go away. the bad side we're in a deep recession and the deficit will go away. this is an economy that can't afford to have 4% of our spending disappear just next year. we'll see a recession next year almost for sure and for certain. so that's the sense in which i think this is something to worry about. we want -- the recovery is faltering right now and we really don't need congress clubbing it over the head again, pushing us back down yet again. >> yet again. justin, thank you, sir, from the university of michigan. great to have you. >> thanks, alex.

>> catch one of the key players in the fiscal cliff negotiations right here on "now" when senator patty murray joins us tomorrow at noon eastern. and coming up after their romney nominee received just over a quarter of the latino vote republicans say they're ready to put up when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform. what are they doing about it? so far putting up a lot of window dressing. the display when telemundo's jose diaz-balart joins us ahead. want to try to crack it? yeah, that's the way to do it! now we need a little bit more... [ male announcer ] at humana, we understand the value of quality time and personal attention. which is why we are proud to partner with health care professionals who understand the difference that quality time with our members can make... that's a very nice cake! ohh! [ giggles ] [ male announcer ] humana thanks the physicians, nurses, hospitals, pharmacists and other health professionals

who helped us achieve the highest average star rating among national medicare companies... and become the first and only national medicare advantage company to achieve a 5-star rating for a medicare plan... your efforts result in the quality of care and service we're able to provide... which means better health outcomes... and more quality time to share with the ones who matter most. i love you, grandma! [ male announcer ] humana. ♪

listen to the voices from the left and many say, don't touch any of the entitlement programs. i don't think that's a responsible approach. >> i think we've got to put aside all of the sacred cows and we've really got to be willing to as dick durbin said, to sit down and negotiate. >> those were senators dick durbin on "morning joe" and

jeanne shaheen on chris jansing discussing entitlement programs. richard and joy, how much leverage does president obama have with the left in terms of making a deal with republicans on medicaid, medicare, social security? >> none. he never does. are you kidding? the left will be disappointed like the day after inauguration day. at the end of the day -- it's kind of a subversive thought but we just had wealthy seniors, seniors in general, vote to get rid of medicare, right? they voted to get rid of medicare as long as no one touched them. if there's some changes that need to be made to the medicare ben fits of wealthy seniors i don't think democrats should make that the hill they die on. that's me. i think democrats are still going to want entitlement programs held harmless. that is true for medicaid and social security. there are things you can theoretically do in terms of raising the cap on how much income is taxed for medicare. things that wouldn't hurt poor seniors. >> richard, i've been citing polls all morning, a poll regarding how to approach the fiscal cliff deal.

67% believe spending cuts and tax increases are necessary, only 29% think it should cut with spending cuts. that would seem to be -- >> they are going to be unhappy. the question is what they -- what they're going to get in return. is rising taxes on the wealthy enough to sort of deal with the wounds that will come from the nibbling away at certain parts of entitlements, whether it's on some kind of means testing, some kind of lower benefits that filters through the system. you know, the president -- you asked about leverage. he's in a unique position about getting votes, but he's also in a unique position he doesn't need to go to the country for an election again. he's not going to get attacked in the same way, in a way that his advisors will say well you got to be careful here and who knows how that positions you. the leverage point of view, can

he get to 60 votes. if he has a balanced package he is. he's going to get republicans and democrats. the harrer part is in the house. can he convince john boehner to say i'll take the majority of the house -- >> and behind the crazy people. >> once bitten, twice shy. a remembrance on the part of the left what happened during the last grand bargain and the president put it on the table and it fell apart. >> the president had managed, going through nancy pelosi and reid, to keep the democrats more or less in line on the grand bargain even though there was grumbling about the entitlement changes. i think the same thing would happen again. progressive democrats are talking ought more, want to go over the cliff -- >> the curve. >> the curve. >> you know, the mole hill. and put pressure on the republicans. i do think the fundamental dynamic hasn't changed and that is, can boehner bring any votes to the table? if 20 -- if 20 or so tea party republicans rebel against him,

he doesn't win the speakership vote on january 3rd. i don't though how you get around that because i still think even if the last election there are at least 20 or so crazies or whatever you want to call them extremists, die hards in the house republican tea party caucus. >> and they're still there. >> they're still there. >> he has compared -- herding frogs in a wheel barrow. >> he should be so lucky. >> the republicans primaries produced a nominee who's most -- whose most memorable comments about immigration included this -- >> you don't deport port them, how do you send them home. >> the answer is self-deportati self-deportation, people decide they can do better going home because they can't find work here because they don't have legal documentation to allow them to work here. >> somewhere i hope self-deportation is someone's ring tone. what are republicans doing now to repair their record on immigration and relationship with latino voters. we will ask jose diaz-balart next on "now."

[ male announcer ] take dayquil... [ ding! ] ...and spend time on the slopes. take alka-seltzer plus cold & cough... [ buzz! ] ...and spend time on the chair. for non-drowsy 6-symptom cold & flu relief. take dayquil. use nyquil d... [ ding! ] ...and get longer nighttime cough relief. use alka-seltzer plus night cold & flu... [ coughs ] [ buzz! ] [ screams ] ...and you could find yourself... honey? ...on the couch. nyquil d. 50% longer cough and stuffy nose relief.

kr cro and washington state's decision to decriminalize washington this month has many believing the nation is abandoning its war on drugs and entering a new phase of passive acceptance. since california passed the first medical marijuana law, 18 states and the district of columbia permit it for medicinal use. rhode island and maine are the next states looking to legalize the drug. the movement reflects an increasing acceptance. half of all americans support legalizing it, up from 31% in 2001. what are the implications regarding legalization both at home and south of the border? and are the new laws in washington and colorado a game changer in mexican-american relations. for the current issue of "new

york" magazine benjamin wallace-wells pens the title "the end of prohibition" he argues u.s. drug policy has shifted, quote, without really acknowledging it, we are beginning to experiment with a negotiated surrender. benjamin, there are many people i know not naming names who would like to see the white flag waved on the war on drugs. i will point you to a "washington post" editorial yesterday that talks about decriminalization but warns it is not yet clear how a quasi legal pot industry might operate in colorado and waugs or what its public health effects will be. it could be these are harbingers of a slow national reassessment of a marijuana policy or it could serve as a warning for the other 48 states. a middle of the line road. you seem to argue that -- well, based on the title of the story, that this is the beginning of the end. >> yeah. i think we can talk about marijuana and also about harder drugs, but with regard to pot, i mean if you look at what happened in washington state which is where the dam broke and

where the first state legalized recreational use of marijuana, we're now presuming everything holds they will treat marijuana like alcohol, licensed and regulated market. people who are in favor of legalization, the groups that supported legalization, put in $6 million. the people who are opposed to legalization put in a grand total of $16,000. there is nobody who is -- i don't think there is anybody in american life anymore willing to stand up and put a bet on holding this line against marijuana legalization. >> especially when you look at the fact that both sides of the aisle see a reason to legalize it. there's the economic argument, which is that it raises millions of dollars in taxes, and then there's the theoretical argument about the libertarian argument that the government shouldn't be regulating this in the first place and then the efficacy of the war on drugs and in your story you write the war on drugs has always depended on a morbid equilibrium in which our costs

is balanced against the consequences in illness and death of widely spread use. thanks in part to enforcement addiction has receded in america meaning that benefits of continuing prohibition have diminished. >> yeah. one of the things that's fascinating to me about what's happened in the last five years you've had the case that the war on drugs has failed five years ago, you heard from left wingers and libertarians and now you hear chris christie say it, former reagan secretary of state say it, and what's happened in the last five years in is two ways that equilibrium has shifted. the use of cocaine in this country has declined. >> because cocaine users are almost dying off. >> dying off. the age of the average user has gone from 27 to 41. we're seeing a rapid aging out of that population. so the costs of illness from drug use have declined. at the same time, following the mill terization of the drug war in mexico has seen almost 60,000

people die to try to hold that line of prohibition. the cost of enforcing the line have gone up. so in both those ways, these politicians now saying, the war on drugs failed, has failed, are either intuitively sensing that or looking at those numbers and saying on the ground something real has changed. >> and you have the fact that you have chris christie and the president agreeing, saying literally, i think we have -- listen to our chris christie sound in case people don't believe us. >> the war on drugs, while well intentioned has been a failure. >> president obama back in 2004 while running for the u.s. senate. take a listen to what he said. >> in terms of legalization of drugs, i think that the battle, the war on drugs, has been an utter failure. and i think that we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws. i'm not somebody -- but i'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana. >> the question is, richard, how

much the president's stance has changed. we know it's not as if the department of justice is out with s.w.a.t. teams trying to shut down growing farms and to what degree holders will pursue pot farms giving the states having different positions on its legality. >> it's trying that the tape of the president is that old and that grainy. >> block black and white grainy tape. many public pronouncements on drug policy. as far as i can tell, the drug policy unit in the white house is really engaged in a lot of public education primarily as well. i don't think that is going to end under any administration whatever the state of the marijuana laws across the country. you know, the question is, who is going to grasp this easy one? right? the next presidential round, someone who's going to pretend this is a bold position to at least question, not propose or

advocate for decriminalization or legalization, but to say, that drug policy has failed and that there needs to be something else and maybe chris christie is that candidate. >> i think this is a case, though, where the public is far ahead of leaders. if you look at these votes in these states. you had obama saying that eight years ago and then really doing nothing about it. then you've had -- and the policy think tank world. people who get out of office, like george shultz is a great example. once they're out of office and have no authority they say, of course, it's a failure. everybody knows that. it's only, you know, the people on the ground who are taking these votes who are sort of leading the way and maybe creating some space for those folks, you know, in power to actually start reassessing policies. >> the other aspect of this and i'm sort of teeing up our next segment, the president is meeting -- president obama is meeting with president elect -- the president elect of mexico today and they're going to talk about a number of issues but certainly the war on drugs affects boarder relations. you say that the mexicans effectively say why stop at legalizing pot?

legalize all of it. >> and just this morning, the president-elect of mexico said in advance of this meeting with obama, that he thought we needed to have a broad rethinking of mexico's participation in the war on drugs and to think about alternative first principles. i think that richard is right there will be a kind of long-term political question here, but there's also a very real and present diplomatic question. we have a whole bunch of countries south of the border that are sick of putting in their own lives, their own people's lives, to keep a product expensive for american users to get and so i don't think that legalization of hard drugs or the transit of drugs is on the table but i think there could be some rebalancing we could see and what we expect mexico to do, what we expect guard mall la to do and provide them. >> it is a great piece to read on a day like today before a bilateral meeting like this. also a great piece to read generally speaking and talk about shifting cultural and political attitudes.

congratulations. >> thank you so much. >> drugs will be on the agenda when president obama meets with mexico's president elect but mention inco's leader has a message for the u.s., ties between the nations must go beyond the drug war. immigration reform with jose diaz-balart just ahead. [ female announcer ] a classic meatloaf recipe from stouffer's starts with ground beef, unions, and peppers baked in a ketchup glaze with savory gravy and mashed russet potatoes. what makes stouffer's meatloaf best of all? that moment you enjoy it at home. stouffer's. let's fix dinner. open enrollment is here. the time to choose your medicare coverage begins october 15th and ends december 7th.

so call to enroll in a plan that could give you the benefits and stability you're looking for, an aarp medicarecomplete plan insured through unitedhealthcare. what makes it complete? it can combines medicare parts a and b, which is your hospital and doctor coverage with part d prescription drug coverage, and more, all in one simple plan starting at a zero dollar monthly premium -- no more than what you already pay for medicare part b. an aarp medicarecomplete plan offers you benefits like an annual physical, preventive screenings and immunizations for a $0 copay. you'll also have the flexibility to change doctors from a network of providers dedicated to helping you stay healthy. there's more. when you enroll in an aarp medicarecomplete plan insured through unitedhealthcare, your benefits could also include vision and hearing coverage, and prescription drug coverage

accepted at pharmacies nationwide. the pharmacy saver program makes prescriptions available for as little at $2 at thousands of pharmacies. unitedhealthcare has worked with pharmacies in retail locations like these to get low costs for our members. when you enroll, you'll enjoy advantages like these for as low as a zero dollar monthly premium. this includes plans with part d prescription drug coverage. now is the time to look at your options start getting the benefits of an aarp medicarecomplete plan insured through unitedhealthcare. remember, open enrollment ends december 7th. call unitedhealthcare today about an aarp medicarecomplete plan. you can even enroll right over the phone. or visit us online. don't wait. call now. why use temporary treatments when you can prevent the acid that's causing it with prevacid24hr. with one pill prevacid24hr works at the source

to prevent the acid that causes frequent heartburn all day and all night. and with new prevacid24hr perks, you can earn rewards from dinner deals to music downloads for purchasing prevacid24hr. prevent acid all day and all night for 24 hours with prevacid24hr. even birther in chief and kind of sort of romney pal tomds trump agrees, republicans have a big latino problem. do they have solutions? we will talk immigration reform with jose diaz-balart next on "now." [ emily jo ] derrell comes into starbucks with his wife, danielle, almost every weekend. derrell hasn't been able to visit his mom back east in a long time. [ shirley ] things are sometimes a little tight around the house. i wasn't able to go to the wedding. [ emily jo ] since derrell couldn't get home,

we decided to bring home to him and then just gave him a little bit of help finding his way. ♪ [ laughs ] [ applause ] i love you. i love you, too.

mitt romney cannot escape the 47%.

in the clearest indication yet that there is poetic justice in the universe, 47% is the share of the electorate that romney captured on november 6th. that number might have been higher if romney had gotten more than 27% of the hispanic vote. his dismal showing among latinos has republicans scrambling to rebrand themselves. according to the radical birt r birtherist and fair weather romney pal donald trump -- romney had a crazy policy of defl deportation. it sounded as bad as it was and he lost the la teen no vote. he lost the asian vote. he lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country. underscoring the importance of hispanic concerns, president obama with meet with mexico's president elect enrique pena nieto. here to help explain that importance is telemundo's jose diaz-balart joining us from miami. it is always a beautiful and sunny day in new york when you join us on this program. >> thank you so much. i've missed you, alex.

what day to talk about these issues that really matter, not only the 6th of november but going to be important going forward for both democrats and republicans. >> jose, let's talk first about the immigration piece because there's been a lot of talk in republican circles about what the party needs to do to increase hispanic electorate. as of recent days we know that republicans on the house are touting support for an immigration bill that effectively focuses on highly educated immigrants. it's a stem science technology, engineering and mathematics visa that targets those who have gotten college educations or higher and allows them to stay in the u.s. or longer. it takes away money from other visa programs which is a double edged sword although it does increase visas for the families of immigrants that want to stay in the country or permits them to stay in the country longer. i guess i wonder does that -- do those programs, the stem, does progress on the stem front help

republicans with the latino electorate. >> it does and doesn't. let me tell you why. if you look at the list of the countries that would benefit under this visa proposal of the republicans announced they'll be talking about, the first top five countries, not one from latin america. so that kind of makes it a moot point as far as if it would be helping latinos or their family members that want to come in. but on the issue of residents who are here already in the united states and want to bring their families into the united states, the immigration system is broken. republicans and democrats can agree on that. one of the things that is clear you can't have a country where legal residents that have gone through the process and that have done every check and balance needed, can't bring their family members in for decades. so in that sense, it helps. but this is really a drop in the bucket for what is the big 3,000

pound elephante in the room. that is, there are 11 million people living in this country that have been contributing to this country, that have been contributing to this economy, and to this culture, and they are the 800,000 pound elephante that the republicans -- >> this el fane -- elephante -- why not actually try and tackle immigration reform if everybody realizes your party is in deep trouble come 2016 and beyond with this section of the electorate which is only growing by the week, why not try and do something real if. >> yeah. well, look, the fact is, let's be fair, i think there are some members of congress both republicans and democrats, who have started talking about going off cameras and talking to each other about what steps can be

taken. what baby first steps can be taken to try to reach some bipartisan agreement on immigration reform. that's important because before you run you have to learn how to walk. the republicans don't know how to walk on this issue yet. there have been some positive steps taken, baby steps, by the republicans in the house to try and deal with a bipartisan agreement. but the problem is, how do you brink the fringe of the republican party in to immigration reform? you know what, this whoopin' that the republicans got from the latino electorate is going to help them realize that they have to take some steps. >> joy, over here in new york, what is amazing to me is that george bush won -- george w. bush won 40% of the latino vote when he was running for president, might have been 2004. the republican party has regressed -- >> 2004. thank you, jose. >> they still -- i mean, as the whooping as jose points out,

hopefully will teach them some lessons and open their eyes to the reality of america, you had an incredible piece i thought about new america versus old america and the republican party has been so resistant to open its eyes to new america. karl rove and charles krauthammer saying this isn't as hard as we think it is. latinos are just as conservative as we are. aaron carmon writing in salon. focus on the family values that latinos supposedly share with the party but that magic solution proposed by rove and krauthammer to the republicans demographic problems that some contives are touting -- look at exit polls among latino voters on abortion, 66% think it should be legal, 29% say illegal. >> the problem who is going to do that new messaging, rush limbaugh? who do they think the base of the republican party listens to? the problems the republicans

have they spent 30 years messaging negatively to minority. you can't just dangle a couple brown people in front of minorities and say look at that guy and think you can wipe away 30 years of negative messaging. the base of the republican party is anti-immigration, they don't want they consider to be amnesty for the 11 million living in this country. they are going to reject it. so i'm not sure how republicans think that a democratic president signing a dream act will help them. on substantive issues outside of mim i gration the latino population is trending towards democrats on other issues, economic and social. >> that's a good point. if the dream act is signed into law, doesn't president obama get credit for that more so than republicans? >> sure. sure. no look, it's -- when you box yourself into a corner, you're in the corner. you can't all of a sudden not want to be in that corner if you box yourself into that corner. yeah. it's a fact that if president

obama signs a dream act, even though it's a bipartisan bill, he will get much of the credit. i disagree a little bit with my dear friend joy in that i think in the whole, latino population in the united states is a little bit more socially conservative. now, that doesn't mean they don't, for example, think that people should have, you know, the right to choose if they have an abortion or not. but on other issues much more religious. i think that the churches matter much more to the latino population than they do maybe to mainstream population. so i think that there is a possibility for republicans to make some leeway. let's remember 44% of the latino votes for george w. bush wasn't because it was, you know, out of the sky. he actually worked for it and remember, that the last immigration proposal had that

was seriously discussed on capitol hill was done under george w. bush. and he pushed very hard for that kennedy mccain bill which didn't pass. so, you know, there is a change, semantics and then actions maybe they can get 44% of the vote next time around. >> one thing is for sure, it is a very grand elle fante, 3,000 pounds, 8,000 pounds. >> correct amente. >> you can catch jose diaz-balart every night at 6:30 p.m. eastern on our sister network telemundo. thank you as always. thank you to my friends here in new york, david, benjamin, joy and richard. i will see you back here tomorrow at noon eastern, 9:00 a.m. pacific when joined by the governor of "now," former governor ed rendell, maggie haberman and eric baits, my interview with senator patty murray. check out photos of us playing with our new office toys on

facebook.com/now with alex. "andrea mitchell reports" is coming up next. humans -- even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely, other humans. which is why, at liberty mutual insurance, auto policies come with new car replacement and accident forgiveness if you qualify. see what else comes standard at libertymutual.com. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? is a thrilling, dual-flavored ride to mouth fun-town. but it's not like everyone is going to break into a karaoke jam session. ♪ this will literally probably never happen. try this... bayer? this isn't just a headache. trust me, this is new bayer migraine. [ male announcer ] it's the power of aspirin plus more in a triple action formula to relieve your tough migraines. new bayer migraine formula.

well, having a ton of locations doesn't hurt. and a santa to boot! [ chuckles ] right, baby. oh, sir. that is a customer. oh...sorry about that. [ male announcer ] break from the holiday stress. fedex office.

right now on "andrea mitchell reports" critics corner susan rice's three inquisitors challenge her explanation on benghazi. >> it is clear that the information that she gave the american people was incorrect when she said that it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. >> my belief is, not only is the information bad, and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified. to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama. three weeks before an election. >> ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that information was wrong. and they knew by the 22nd it was wrong. yet, they have not cleared that