it may help but it's main stream. this sunday, nine days left before election day, 2010. the final countdown and the final argument. will it be a gop wave or more of a split decision? both sides are fired up and fighting hard to get their voters to the polls. >> we need all of you fired up. we need all of you fired up. we need all of you ready to go. >> get ready to win! get ready to fire pelosi! get ready to take down harry

reid! >> can republicans send majority leader harry reid back home and remove democrats from power in the house? how will their embrace of the tea party play out on election day and beyond? with us exclusively this morning, the man at the center of it all, the leader of the republican party, chairman michael steele. plus, we'll look at the latest polls. who's up, who's down, and who's pulling out all the stops? as the president spends the week, trying to rally the democratic base out west, the right declares war on national public radio after the abrupt firing of news analyst and kmn commentator, juan williams. we look at it all with our expanded roundtable, david brooks, e.j. dionne, former democratic congressman harold ford jr., msnbc's rachel maddow and cnbc's rick santelli. congr ford jr., msnbc's rachel maddow ford jr., msnbc's rachel maddow and cnbc's rick santelli.

captions paid for by nbc-universal television good morning. here we are, final countdown to election day 2010. with us exclusively this morning, the chairman of the republican national committee, michael steele. welcome back to "meet the press." >> it's great to be back with you, david. >> let's get right to it. it's final argument time. the president is on the campaign trail. he has been out west, was in the midwest and friday he leveled probably his most potent charge against republican leaders in washington, saying that they made a cold, political calculation when he came into office, basically not to work with the obama white house. let's listen to what he said. >> the republican leaders in washington, they made a different calculation. they looked around at the mess that they had made, at the mess that they had left me and they said, boy, this is a really big mess.

and they said it's going to take a long time to fix. so, maybe if we just sit on the sidelines, say no to everything and then point our fingers at obama and say he's to blame, they figured that maybe y'all would forget that they caused the mess in the first place, and they would be able to ride anger all the way to election time. >> chairman, what's your answer to that? your vision of what the story of the last two years has been? >> well, actually, it sounded more like a pity party than a rally. i can't believe the president is sitting there, with hindsight, saying we didn't cooperate, republican leaders did not cooperate with the president. i think from health care to the environment to the economy, republicans in the house and the senate had made very clear this is what we would like to do. let's talk about health care reform that includes tort reform, doctor/patient relationship and not put government in the middle of

that. let's talk about job creation by stimulating small businesses and not the federal government. and so the ideas that were put on the table, a lot of them propounded by folks like mr. boehner, eric cantor and paul ryan were summarily rejected. as you recall, david, republican leaders, particular members, couldn't get meetings with the president. they tried after sending letters and requests to go through the president's agenda, to see how we could help. we're hoping for a better relationship between the white house and republicans come january. >> let me ask you about the landscape right now. what do you see out there? what are we looking at on election day, a huge gop wave that takes the house and senate? what are your views at this poi point? >> david, there is a vibration out here that's unlike anything i've seen before. i've been on my fire pelosi bus since september 15th. we get off the bus on october 30th. in that time i've seen a consistent ground swell of

excitement and energy toward this election. the voters are tired of the fact that the federal government has not listened to them over the past two years, has moved in its own direction, at its own rhythm and they want to pull back on that. i think you're going to see a wave, unprecedented wave on election day that's going to surprise a lot of people. >> what does that mean? what does that mean in terms -- >> and state legislatures. >> what does it mean to the house balance of power? >> we need to get to 39 seats to get control. but i think we're more than there. >> you say the house will go to the republicans. what about the senate? >> the senate is a little bit tougher but i think we're going to be there. if this wave continues the way it's been going, and over the past few weeks especially, you'll see the senate as well go to republicans. >> tea party-backed candidates, sharron angle, speaking to latinos in nevada or ken buck's

statement about gays on this program last week or christine o'donnell, who has gotten so much attention, except for the fact that she's so far behind in that senate race. she's had misstatements or gaffs in her statements with chris coons. >> folks make mistakes, lord knows. i'm familiar with foot in mouth disease. i understand how that is sometimes. you get in the heat of the battle and you have the passion and fire in your belly and you really want to get out there and speak to the issues, speak to the people. you say things that don't come out correctly. you create misperceptions. that happens a lot in campaigns on both sides. what really matters is how the voters receive that, how voters look at those candidates. despite those flaws, if you will, of the misspoken word, people understand where their heart is. people understand these folks are going to go out there and fight for them. as i said a little bit earlier, david, this reality right now

for people is that we want a leadership that's going to listen to us. we want someone that's going to take the fight to congress and not fight against us. whether it's christine o'donnell, sharron angle, whoever it happens to be, who has this ground swell of energy behind them, that's what matters to the people right now. >> is she qualified to be a u.s. senat senator? would she be a good senator? >> i think she would be. i don't get to make that judgment. the people in her state get to make that judgment. they're the one whose vote for her. they're the ones who nominated her. for the establishment in washington or anyone else to sit back in judgment of her abilities to be a senator, to be effective on the senate is misplaced. all that matters is that the people have decided this is the standard bearer we want and the push now is in the general election and broad population of voters in the state of delaware, florida, around the country, are going to make the judgment about the standard bearers that we

have and at the end of the day i think we'll do very well. >> let me ask you about a big area of debate. speaker nancy pelosi appeared on "countdown with keith olbermann" this week. she, as the president, describes it as a threat to the nation's democracy. >> this election is about our nation's democracy. if they win, which i fully intend to stop them from doing. if they win, we are now an oligarthy, whatever leads to wealthy, secret, unlimited sources of money are can control our entire agenda. >> our investigative correspondent, mike izikopf has said not since watergate have we seen this special interest money washing into an election cycle. are you worried about this? >> no. i don't know what they're talking about. no one has produced one shred of evidence that any of that is happening. you know, when the president, then candidate obama was asked

to disclose some of his donors because there was suspicion of there being foreign source of money into this campaign, they refused to do it. don't give me this high and mighty, holier than thou attitude of special interest flooding the political marketplace. the democrats have been dabbling in those areas. if you think that there's something out there, disclose it, nancy. disclose it, anyone else who has that evidence. don't just make the charge, sit back and say, see. give the evidence. put it out there and then we'll have the discussion. >> are you denying there's special interest money, outside money that's coming into the campaign that is not being disclosed, we don't know who the individuals are in some of these groups? >> how would i know that? i don't run those organizations, number one. i'm prohibited, by law, by engaging in such activity, number two. so, i know we don't take it and i suspect that those organizations out there, those 527s and others know what the

law is and are complying with the law. if you have evidence to the contrary, produce it. otherwise, put up or shut up. that's it. put up or shut up. >> chairman, i'm putting up with this question, which is are you concerned? as you know, there are laws that you do not have to disclose. that's the question. is that a problem in our politics when you can put a great deal of money into the campaign without disclosing your agenda or who you are? >> that's a fair question. >> you said put up or shut up. >> then the put up part by the congress would be to change the law, but the law is what it is right now and everybody is complying with the law. if the law does not require disclosure of certain individuals -- >> i'm asking you, is that a problem? >> i don't know that it is so far. i haven't seen any evidence that it is. why are you saying it's a problem? >> i'm asking whether you think -- certainly candidates who are running, who are republicans, think there should be more transparency. ken buck says you should say where the money is coming from

in a campaign. >> absolutely. at the end of the day i'm absolutely all for transparency. it's the appropriate part of the system and instills trust that people have in the system and avoids questions like this, because that information is out there and it absolutely will avoid the allegations and charges just thrown out there in the middle of a discussion about health care and the economy. so, i agree, the transparency should be there. the law is what the law is right now. if people are that bothered by it, then congress needs to change it. >> let me ask you about the firing of juan williams, analyst at npr and fox news channel. it's become a point of debate in the course of the campaign. >> yeah. >> eric cantor, the republican whip, issued a statement on friday, overreaching political correctness is chipping away at the fundamental american freedoms of speech and expression. npr's decision to fire juan williams not only undermines that, it shows an ignorance of

the fact that radical islam and the terrorists who murder in its name scare people of all faiths, religious and beliefs. in height light of their rash decision, we will include termination of federal funding for npr as an option in the youcut program so that americans can let it be known whether they want their dollars going to that organization. >> i think what npr did was overreaching, it was an overreaction to his comments. he was expressing a personal perfect expectativ i the more appropriate thing would have been, as we've seen in other cases, when outlandish comments were made about, you know, strom thurman or others getting aids, you take them aside and say, wam, that's a line you don't need to cross. immediately firing juan over this was an overreaction. you've seen the reaction not

just by republicans but a whole lot of folks out there around the country as they -- really? this is not the appropriate way to really handle this. and i think that, you know, npr is paying a little bit of a price for it. >> should federal funding for npr be cut? >> that's not my decision. i'm sure members of congress who have raised that as a concern will address that at the prescript time. but i think right now my focus, and the focus of those of us who are on the political side of this equation are much more interested to getting to the election on november 2nd so we can win and put in place a new congress to look at questions like that. >> let's end with a couple of points about politics. what does the mid-term result, in your mind, say about 2012? >> good question. i think it's a transitional pattern. it puts us all in a point where, you know, you kind of look down the road to 2012 and say for the republicans, what kind of leader is going to emerge to deal more

precisely with the economy, with our relations overseas, with, you know, those concerns that people have about jobs here in the country. i think it may be a harbin gech ger campaign in 2012. you would still have the additional house seats that would be out there as well as some state legislative races. and governors' races. this election cycle in 2010 really lays an interesting foundation for how we go forward. you're looking at two very different philosophical views of the country. >> do you think president obama is a one-term president? >> i don't know that. again, you know, my job is to make sure he is. but, you know -- because we philosophically disagree with the direction the president is going. the spending, the debt, the deficit, the burden that's been

placed on the backs of future generations is unsustainable. we see that the administration, along with nancy pelosi and harry reid, are whistling past that graveyard, ignoring the hard facts that we cannot sustain nor afford the continued spending policies of this administration. and there are other concerns out there as well with respect to, again, our relationships with israel, our relationships with north korea. all of these concerns need to be addressed. and i think have pretty much not been effectively by the administration. you'll see over the next two years, i think, the president try to step up his game a little bit. but we'll be there, step for step on all of these issues, clearly delineating the difference between a government that wants to take and redistribute wealth and a free people who are there to create that wealth and save it for the future. >> finally, chairman, let me ask you about your own leadership. you say you will be judged on whether the party wins this fall or you can raise money.

hard truth is that the rnc has fallen down in terms of raising money. the committee is in debt. you've been outraged by the democrats and yet this is such a positive environment for republicans and the criticism has been harshed. it's been summed up by fred barnes in an op-ed piece. mr. steele and the relative rnc, many congressional republicans and governors no longer trust mr. steele as their spokesman they tend to work around the rnc rather than engage mr. steele. are you irrelevant? >> no, i'm not irrelevant. and god bless fred barnes. if he only called me and talked with me, i would have shared with him some very interesting information. it's easy to write that without knowledge and, clearly, he is without knowledge here. the fact of the matter is, number one, we have been outraged recently, recently by the democrats, because they have the white house, the congress and the senate. we don't. yet in 2009, we out-raised the democrats in seven out of eleven months. we're keeping pace with the democrats right now. i really appreciate the

question. i've said from the very beginning, i would be a different kind of chairman, because this is a different time for us, for our party. i wanted us to play on all 50 states. i wanted us to be out in the communities. i wanted a grassroots, bottom-up party that was focused on what the people want out there. we put in place around this country a network now that you're going to see unleashed on november 2nd. >> so you'll run for re-election? >> so, i don't know if i'll -- we'll worry about my re-election after we get through this re-election. we have smashed the records in fund-raising for a party out of power, not having those white house, congress and senate. to date we've raised over $75 million in this cycle, 34% more than the democrats did in a very similar cycle in 2006. and, furthermore, we have also -- just to be clear about this -- exceeded the amount that was raised by the rnc in 1994 in today's dollars.

so, we have kept pace and we have 360 victory centers around the country. we have made 35 million voter contacts since january this year because of the work that the rnc has done early. we spent the money early. we didn't stockpile the money, david, as the old rnc's would do so they could have a good cash on hand at the end of the month. we wanted the money in the state. that's where it is and come november 2nd you'll see the effect of that planning. >> chairman steele, we'll leave it there. thank you very much as always. >> you got it, friend. take care. a look at all the very latest polls and all the big races. the 2010 landscape as we head into the final week of campaigning. can democrats turn out their voters? what role will the tea party play? our round table put it is all in perspective, david brooks, e.j. dionne, harold ford jr., rachel

maddow and cnbc's rick santelli.

will election 2010 bring gop to washington? our round table breaks down the to washington? our round table breaks down the [ manager ] you know...e i've been looking at the numbers, and i think our campus is spending too much money on printing. i'd like to put you in charge of cutting costs.

calm down. i know that it is not your job. what i'm saying... excuse me? alright, fine. no, you don't have to do it. ok? [ male announcer ] notre dame knows it's better for xerox to control its printing costs. so they can focus on winning on and off the field. [ manager ] are you sure i can't talk -- ok, no, i get it. [ male announcer ] with xerox, you're ready for real business.

we are back. we want to go to some of the latest polls that are out this week in some of the most high-profile senate races, the seats currently held by democrats. in krasz, this california, this information from "the l.a. times," barbara boxer is now 50% over the challenger carly

fiorina. boxer, 50%, that's a big deal. in colorado, a new poll out also this morning from "the denver post." you saw them debate right here last sunday, the senate race between mike bennet and ken buck. it is now a dead heat, 47-47. chris dodd retiring there, democrats coming home a bit, dick blumenthal against linda mcmahon, he is up 57 over 39%, widening spread there. president obama's senate seat in illinois, the candidates both debated here, that race between mark kirk and democrat alexi giannoulias, mark kirk has a slight edge over giannoulias. the president's benefactor in that race. joe sestak in pennsylvania has surprised a lot of pollsters.

on the right, sestak has an edge and on the left, toomey has the edge. russ feingold in an unexpectedly tough ride, in danger of losing his seat to republican ron johnson with the edge, 49-47%. and some recent polling in republican-held seats now. the contest in alaska, a wild run, lisa murkowski is waging a write-in campaign against joe miller, who defeated her in the primary. the two of them in a dead heat at 37%. you have scott mcadams at 23%. in florida another three-way contest. marco rubio leading charlie crist and kendrick meek. rubio at 41%, crist at 26% and

meek at 20%. and finally in kentucky, rand paul, close and increasingly nasty race against jack conway. rand paul at 48%, five-point spread over jack conway. so, those are some of the latest polls. let's talk, overall, about the landsca landscape. i'll do it with my round table here, as i make my way over to them. joining me to break it all down, e.j. dionne of "the washington post," "new york times" david brooks, msnbc's rachel maddow, cnbc's rick santelli and harold ford jr. that was a mouthful. david brook, again, a snapshot of where we are, what's the big picture landscape of what's going on here? >> sort of two big pictures. if you ask generically on the national level, republicans are still doing quite well, huge

leads among independents, a 59-31% lead. if you look at those numbers nationally, republicans are still building momentum. in these individual races you're seeing a bit of a mixture, a lot of tightening. i'm a little dubious about that l.a. times poll that showed her so far down. if you average them, she's down like 2%. most races in opposite directions, pennsylvania got a lot more tight in the democratic direction, illinois moving a little republican. but basically i think you have a situation where it's candidate-driven, people are disgusted by the candidates in both parties and they're basically flipping a coin. >> rachel maddow, look at the national overhang here, a new poll out this week. he's still upside down, disapproval at 49%, approval at 47%. senate stays with the democrats. you heard michael steele say the house will go to the republicans, in his view, and key governor races showing some tightening and good news for democrats. what do we see? >> initial diagnosis that

democrats don't care and weren't going to be able to turn out, get off their hands and get out to the polls this year has turned out to be a little bit of -- a little bit wrong. high democratic numbers in terms of early voting, for example. but it was less than two years ago that this country turned out and elected barack obama by seven points, by 10 million votes and for the second straight election, elected a hugely greater number of democrats to congress and the senate than they did republicans and that was less than two years ago. i don't think the country has changed that much. that time in 2008 we saw people screaming about the president's birth certificate and imaging everybody was a muslim and fainting at the sight of sarah palin. those people existed in 2008 as well, but they lost. the narrative has been exciting on the republican side but i don't think the country has changed that much since 2008. >> the president has been out there, campaigning and campaigning hard. he has made statements that's certainly gotten some attention.

fund-raising dinner, some of the reason our politics seem so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared and the country is scared and they have good reason to be. >> i think that comment is overrated with regard to the politicians being afraid. if you look at the fear factor, the anomaly was the last election cycle, there was fear. there was fear over the credit crisis. there was fear over the big hiccup in globalization. there is a certain amount of level-headed thinking that's coming back into the electorate and they'll vote out the incumbent. the fear cycle was the last election. the fear cycle at this point is in the politicians trying to hold on to what was the anomaly of a changing regime in the '08 cycle. >> bill clinton has been all over the country, another stop

planned. there's been reporting he has been baffled, that there isn't a tighter message on the democratic side about jobs, j jobs, jobs. the president talked about bo. ehner, karl rove and clear thinking not winning out. is this the right way to campaign? >> a lot of democrats are struck by the fact that there was not a clear, overriding message from the beginning, whereas the republicans have had this list. it doesn't really answer any problems but they talk about taxes, unemployment and the like. joe sestak in pennsylvania is a good example. i was up there yesterday. the ones saying, yes, i voted for the stimulus and here is why. here is the good it did. yes, i voted for health care. here is why and here is what good it did. democrats would be better served by embracing what they've done, explaining it and even bragging about it a little bit. but on the overall race, i walked into a sestak headquarters in harrisburg and this lovely man at a call center was making calls for sestak and

he said what we democrats are procrastin attachment. ors we engage late. the best hope that they have for closing these gaps is that that gentleman is right. that's the fight right now. >> harold, the big driver, the big change election of 2006, 1994, is whether people think the country is headed in the right or the wrong direction. people feeling the country is on the wrong track. 61% and 55% respectively in terms of being on the wrong track. where are we today? new polling out this week october 2010, 59% of americans think the country is on the wrong track. >> the number doesn't bode well. the question is whether people believe democrats or republicans can lead us in a different or better direction. i think one of the things the president has been able to achieve is get out and remind democrats why they elected him, what he represents and that he's

still president and he needs help of democrats, not those tea partiers or way out of the mainstream. there's a chance we absolutely could. the likelihood is that we won't but the chance is we could. the president and democrats will have to take a very different approach than they have up to this point. they'll have to be willing for more reconciliation. they'll have to be more focused on growth and jobs and there might even have to be some admissions about mistakes that are made. one thing is clear. even if we hold, the approach has not been the right approach over the last two years. goals have been laudible, and the right ones, but the approach needs some tinkering if not major reshaping. >> chairman steele seemed to be dismissive of this as a problem, real factor in the race. he says he's for transparency but doesn't see a problem that you've had such big donations coming from outside groups where we don't know where they're

coming from and who they are. mike isikoff, who i referenced in that interview, has done some reporting on this and has talked to us about what his reporting shows him. take a look. >> not since the days of watergate have we seen special interest money pouring into political campaigns with no transparency, no disclosure about where the money is coming from. you've got groups being set up around the country with names that voters have never heard of bombarding the airwaves with campaign ads and what this is doing is con fusing voters more than enlightning them. they have no idea who is behind these ads or what the agenda is of the people who are running them. >> you wrote, david, this week, this isn't a big deal. you think it's more hype than real. >> does it affect the electorate? first, it's important to remember that outside money is only 10% of the total money. most money is still candidate driven and it's party driven.

the second thing is the money is flowing in on both sides. naa $40 million. there's a ton of money. >> you do know where they're coming from? >> that's exactly right. untransparent money is a genuine problem. the third and final thing, does it affect voters? we have $3.5 billion being spent on this election. karl rove, american crossroads, they're spending $20 million. the democrat and the republican in colorado, each are throwing 5,000 ads at each other, do we really think if one candidate throws 7,000 as opposed it to 5,000 it will make a difference? >> you do? >> i don't think so. >> karl rove's group is spending a lot more, by their own account. >> that's not true. >> secret conservative groups are going to spend about $200, $220 million, according to the current estimate. m money matters and secret money is corrupting secret money is dangerous. secret money, as mike isikoff said, leads to scandal. a lot of big pieces of the

watergate scandal was secret money. to say this money doesn't matter is to say that karl rove, who really care ace lot about politics, is wasting his time, trying to raise all this money and gillespie, who knows a lot about politics, is wasting his time. voters -- people will know about this money. the congressmen will know who helped them get elected. only voters will be kept in the dark. >> the rove money -- i don't know where you're getting the $12 million number. they're bragging on raising and spending $52 million. they said that was their initial goal and now they say they will blow past that and spend significantly more. one of the issues is that they're not disclosed. 72% of people in the last nbc/wall street journal poll said it concerns them that they do not know who is funding these political ads. individual people, the owner of the chicago cubs could legally contribute $2,400 to sharron angle, who doesn't live in

nevada, but is spending $6,000 personally for sharron angle. that's a concern. >> this is the law of the land. now, is there a political will and democrats are in control to actually change the law -- michael steele was right. this is the law. you want to change all of this, democrats and republicans have to agree to change the law, because this is what the supreme court has said. >> the pendulum of money swings both ways and depending on the year, state of the incouple bin different sides cry foul. any politics on any level is horrible. i would like to see a set amount, have every candidate spend it, and be completely transparent. getting to that spot, as we have learned through the decades, is very difficult. whether it's the supreme court or some of these issues regarding transparency, this is a process. i'm a firm believer in process. >> we're going to take a break here. harold will start us off on the next segment. we're going to talk about some of the key issues in some of

these races as well as the controversy over juan williams. more from our round table after this brief station break. don't go away. breathe in, breathe out. as volatile as markets have been lately, having the security of a strong financial partner certainly lets you breathe easier. for more than 140 years, pacific life has helped millions of americans build a secure financial future wouldn't it be nice to take a deep breath and relax? ask a financial professional about pacific life. the power to help you succeed.

we're back with more of our political round table. the conversation hasn't stopped, even during the break. i want to talk about the vulnerability and the strength of the tea party in this race. rick santelli, everyone knows,

of course -- you're a mild-manored man but the father of the tea party, as you sit there. you look at some of the impact. the delaware senate race, chris coons, christine o'donnell. she was supported by the tea party, sarah palin. she's way behind. you wouldn't know that by all the attention it's getting. some of her statements in the course of this campaign, beyond having to say she's not a witch in a campaign ad, she's gotten a lot of attention for the debate, whether she understood what was in the first amendment, separation of church and state. does she hurt the republican brand as someone who, a lot of people feel, is not qualified to be a u.s. senator? >> there's a lot of people in congress who didn't know all the ins and outs of the constitution. we have a whole roomful of people that have record legislation in terms of quantity of pages who didn't read it. who am i to say or put words in the mouth of the electorate in delaware? the tea party movement is terrific. it's created discourse that might not otherwise have

occurred, it's happened at br k breakneck speed against all odds. neither of the media, left or right, were very happy that they showed up on the doorstep. as far as o'donnell, she's a lot more normal less elite, and she's going to make mistakes. whether she has or not, it's not for me to say. but you are bringing in outsider. >> harold, if you look at the impact she may have had on the pennsylvania race, you watch tv from delaware if you're sitting in philadelphia. a lot of democrats say if that's the republican brand, maybe i want to go to sestak? >> if christine o'donnell had answered the question like rick santelli did and say, look, i don't know the full answer to that. let me tell you why i'm running. she almost celebrated the fact that she didn't know it and even went further and suggested that what's clearly in the constitution isn't in the constitution. michael steele's answer was a pretty good one on it, when asked whether or not she was

qualified. voters in delaware, like a lot of voters around the country are saying, if the guys in washington are so smart, maybe we ought to send people not as smart or not as smart as people in washington think. i happen to think that christine o'donnell is not qualified for a number of other reasons and i think chris coons has done a good job of pointing out where she is weak. what president clinton ais sayig and what president obama is trying to do. look at the mess, we've got a long way to go. give us two more years. if we don't get this right, you have a right to remove us from power. if you push us the other way, we're going to go back to the mess that got us into this problem we're facing today. >> rachel, look what's happening in nevada. harry reid, majority leader, sh sharron angle, who has come back. both really disliked and yet it's a close race. she's running an ad reminiscent of what was done to tom daschle, catching that anti-establishment

out there. >> harry reid lives at the rilgs carlton while thousands are losing their homes. the country needs a new direction and nevada needs jobs. >> say no who harry reid because of where he live sincere remarkable. sharron angle campaign is obstructive. the money has just poured, poured into that race. she also ran an ad in that race that i think is the most overtally racist, showing a group of white college students being menaced by a group of tough-looking latinos. for a lot of democrats there is no national message. that's absolutely true. democrats decided they didn't want a national message. in almost every race, the democratic message to get out the base are three words, google my opponent. look at this guy i'm running against. sharron angle says conservatives should be expected to use guns to get what they want. the second amendment remedy

thing, a woman who is raped and gets pregnant as a result of that rape to be forced to bear that child. you may not like me but look what you're being asked to choose instead of me is the most power fful statement. >> views so far outside of the mainstream. at the end of the day only thing on voters minds is jobs and the economy. >> the unemployment rate. >> exactly. what would help at the end of this last week, in addition to obama and clinton -- clinton is a great messenger on this -- to talk about what we're going to do to create jobs. stay away from attacking these guys personally, stay away from foreign money. money is in politics. it's been there. i was in politics ten years and had some of the worst ads run against me ever, the most money spent by a guy in my state running against me. that's not the issue. the issue is getting out, making the case for what we're going to do to create jobs and make the economy for individuals and families better. >> how difficult it is for the

government, really, to move something on the economy. here is a portion, i'll put it up on the screen. this is something for the republicans to deal with. the latest tax cut screed the republican party's pledge to america is economically incoherent. it has no meaningful numbers, proposes no changes in programs and asks no sacrifices of anyone, yet says it can balance the budget. good luck with that. what can they make to put them back in power, if they are in power? a question for democrats, too. >> it might be offensive to talk about the issues but the reason the democrats are in a mess here is that first the economy is bad. second, the policies are unpopular. health care has 38% approval. going back to those core issues, voters are not insane. they'll vote on those core issues. the problem is the country -- the polls are pretty clear about this. the country is not willing to make the sacrifices the way that british people are, that is necessary to get them back in the fiscal situation that is

stable. we have to take away some of the middle-class tax subsidies and raise taxes. we probably need to raise taxes on consumption and probably will have to repeal the bush tax cuts, middle class and rich at some point. that's what has to be done. the american people sort of don't accept that yet, polls show that and, as a result, neither party is willing to face that. >> something you wanted to talk about and it's been a big issue this week, juan williams being fired as analyst at npr. you heard michael steele talk about it, saying npr's money should be cut. did npr get it wrong here? >> there are two issues here. npr is quite simply one of the best news organizations in the world. and anybody who thinks that they are liberal biased, i challenge them to take a week of transcripts, a month of transcripts and examine it for political bias. you won't find it. fox news, on the other hand, is a republican propaganda network

that put into circulation the false idea that president obama went to a madrosa and stoked the tea party -- not the tea party movement but the death panels. npr handled this wrongly. they should have sat juan williams down, he has done a lot of good work for them and said you have a choice here. look at the context you were on. you could barely get your points out in the middle of propaganda. you want to work for fox, that's okay, you want to work for us, that's okay, but you've got to decide, to use fox's slogan. >> rick, does this belong in the campaign? >> i think a company can make any choice from a management/employee standpoint that they wish. the one issue i see in here is the funding from the federal government. it's not an issue. to me, i think the funding could be an issue, but it's not going to alter the election results in

any way. what mr. brooks is talking about is the issue of austerity. you don't sell belt tightening, you don't knock your opponent. you need to tell america get behind us. it's going to be a bit painful. the reason americans aren't buying into it is because they don't trust congress. that's the whole epicenter of this electric. maybe we can put some people we trust in and maybe they're not going to fit the normal mold. that's a good thing and maybe if we trust them we'll pay higher taxes and not feel bad about it because the outcome will be a better country. >> to address the juan williams' issue, too, i want to get your thoughts on that. >> it may be an election issue if jim demint leads the issue and they're going to go after big bird and go after him like they went after the nra. belt tightening is the right thing, american people need to be told. we need the right politicians.

in the real world when you talk about the real politicians and what they're putting out there, the protypical tea party candidate, marco rubio, his plan is to add $3.5 trillion to the deficit. he is being marketed as the fiscal conservative, outsider, new guy. >> the governor of pennsylvania -- no, npr should not have fired juan williams. >> we argue politics on npr all the time. i should disclose that. i'm always countered by david or someone more conservative than david. >> is that possible? >> thank god, it is. >> we'll leave it there for a moment. election day predictions, hear from the round table on the keys

[ advisor 1 ] what do you see yourself doing one week, one month, five years after you do retire? ♪ client comes in and they have a box. and inside that box is their financial life. people wake up and realize i better start doing something. we open up that box. we organize it. and we make decisions. we really are here to help you. they look back and think, "wow. i never thought i could do this." but we've actually done it. [ male announcer ] visit ameriprise.com and put a confident retirement more within reach.

we're back. just a couple of minutes left. harold, what do you see on election day? >> i think the democrats can hold the senate and the house very narrowly, if the president promises to set the reset button. >> you're not ready to pronounce the house as gone? >> no. >> rick santelli? >> i think we'll send a record number of incumbents to disney world on november 3rd. >> rachel, break it down. does the house go? >> i don't know. i'm a bad predictor. i do not think it will be a republican land slide but do think we'll get a lot more red and i do think christine o'donnell's new show on fox is

going to be awesome. >> democrats actually go to the vineyard, not disney world, when they lose. i'm guessing it will be -- it's a guess, 52 seats the republicans pick up, but not as many in the senate as they think. >> you think democrats hold on to the senate? >> yeah. >> white house is looking at california, florida, ohio, saying that would be good for 2012. >> ohio, republican, california, democratic. nobody knows who will show up. that's the big mystery. >> if the far right in the republican party wakes democrats up and find a coherent economic message, they still have a chance of holding on to both narrowly. >> sarah palin was out this week, saying we can see 2012 from my house. a play on her slip up from 2008. harold, what is the relationship between this mid-term race and barack obama's run for re-election in 2012? >> again, after the race, the president has to set the reset button on a number of funds.

if he does not do that -- if we think by holding a narrow majority, we've completely misread the public. they want answers on debt, and most importantly on growth. it will be a worse year in 2012. he's a smart guy and the white house is even smarter. >> ten seconds. >> the goldwaterization of the republican party is a possibility. if they do very well in these electrics we're seeing a jesse helms vibe revival and that may push candidates way to the right. >> a few quick programming notes. watch msnbc 9:00 pm eastern for the documentary "the assassination of dr. tiller" reported by rachel maddow. i'll be moderating a debate between the three candidates for the florida u.s. senate. the