this sunday a showdown over nuclear weapons between the president and republican opponents. >> there's no other reason not to do it than the fact that, you know, washington has become a very partisan place, and this is a classic area where we have to rise above bipartisanship. >> is the new start treaty a matter of immediate national security, or will it get held up in post election politics? plus, the opposite of the

nato summit in portugal this weekend presses allies for support of the u.s. end game in afghanistan. even as new questions arise back home about how and whether to try terror suspects in u.s. courts. our guests this morning from the summit, secretary of state hillary clinton. then a leading voice from the republican party unleashes a blistering attack of the president's leadership during the gulf oil spill. how does the gop lead as it sees the presidency in 2012 in my guest, author of the new book, "lip in crisis," republican governor from louisiana, bobby jindal. finally, our political round table on the fights ahead in congress over taxes and spending. an early look at battleground 2012. sarah palin's new book sets the stage for a presidential run. with us, robert draper with a piece about palin's inner circle appears as the cover story of "the new york times" magazine. editor of the "wall street

journal," paul gigot, richard wolffe, with a book about president obama, and incoming tea party-backed republican congressman from florida, allen west. good morning, breaking news. in "the new york times" this morning, the nancy built a large nuclear facility to scene rich uranium. american scientists visited saying they were stunned by the sophistication of the plant. this further complicates the president's nuclear disarmament agenda from north korea to russia to iran, which was front and center at the nato summit in portugal. the president used the world stage to press his republican opponents in congress to ratify a new nuclear arms deal with russia. secretary of state hillary clinton was with the president at the summit. and i spoke with her before she departed lisbon. secretary clinton, welcome back to the program.

>> thank you very much, david. >> i want to talk about this showdown between the president and senate republicans over the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, saying to politicalers, nobody's going to score political points in 2012. is that the president's belief about what's standing in the way? and in your view, is this a litmus test of whether there can be bipartisanship in washington after the election? >> well, i think the president believes strongly, and i agree with him, that this treaty is in the nuclear interest of the united states. and it's not only americans who believe that. i'm very impressed by the number of leaders at the nato lisbon summit who voluntarily told their own press or american press they were chasing down reporters to say this is so much in the interests of europe and others. so the president sees this very clearly. but i don't think he considers this a political issue. it's a question of whether we have the time and whether we can make the case in the limited

time that the lame duck provides to satisfy the concerns of 2/3 of the senate. i think we can. i think that everyone has operated in good faith. we have looked hard at this when it came out of the senate foreign relations committee. it came out with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 14-4. i think that the questions are being -- that are being asked by republicans deserve thoughtful answers, and everyone in the administration stands ready from bob gates to jim clapper, the head of the -- director of national intelligence. because we all see it in the same way, and we're in the tradition of both republican and democratic presidents going back to ronald reagan, who famously said "trust but verify." we have no verification without a treaty about what's going on in russia's nuclear program. so i think whether you're already convinced or can be convinced, i think we want to get our inspectors back on the ground, and the only way to do that is by ratifying this treaty. >> is there an issue, though, of

american prestige? the president was dealt a setback on fair trade when he was in seoul. when it comes to trade or economic policy, there's a feeling america can't always get what it wants. is this going to be a problem with the president not getting what he wants on the world stage because of republicans? >> well, first of all, i think that the president didn't agree to a trade deal in seoul because he didn't feel like it was enough in america's interest. that's what a president is supposed to do. obviously he's still working to get one finalized that is. and in respect to s.t.a.r.t. which concerns not just trade but life or death because we're talking about thousands of nuclear war heads that are still pointed at the united states, the president believes it does go beyond politics. you can argue about a trade deal, but what the tradition has been in the senate going back to the 1980s with president reagan is that once people have had a chance to carefully consider

these arms control treaties, they have been passed overwhelmingly. we've seen it with the reagan and the bush administrations, the clinton administration. now, of course, we are in the obama administration. and in this one area, this goes beyond politics. this should be nonpartisan, not just bipartisan. >> secretary clinton, let me get to other areas including the war in afghanistan. listening to the president, listening and following the events that have happened at the nato summit, i wonder whether the washington clock for the war has changed and that americans should expect that by next july there's a token number of u.s. forces that are with drawn and really the war doesn't end for america until 2014. >> no, david. i think that we've been very clear about this. that the transition to afghan security leads begins next year, in 2011. it is conditioned space, so where it can happen, what pace it can happen, how many troops can be substituted for, that is what general petraeus and the military leader are going to be working on to recommend to the

president and the leaders of other countries. >> let me get on a key point, then. is it possible then even in 2014 when you envision and hope that a transition is complete, might the united states have a long-term presence there, say, in the form of permanent air bases to maintain a presence in the country? >> well, we're intent upon reaching a goal of transitioning to afghan security in 2014. but both the united states and nato partners have said that of course we'd be willing to continue to help train and equip the afghan military. what we do with countries around the world. there could be other missions in other countries taking on in terms of civilian aid and supporting the government. so the security lead, the fight if you will does transition to the afghans. support for that fight will continue to be provided by the united states but others -- >> permanent basis? >> there's been no decision whatsoever about any of that. >> but is that possible?

that something that the u.s. is considering? >> there's no consideration, it's just not on the table at this point. >> let me ask you about -- as secretary of state you don't have to deal with airport security. but many americans do, especially coming up this thanksgiving week. >> right. >> there's obviously a security threat, a terror threat, which is why you have advanced technology and have you ha-- an you have the invasive pat-downs across the country. is this excessive or is it a response to the threat environment that the americans face? >> well, the people responsible for our security such as secretary napolitano oubls believe that this is necessary, and i'm not going to comment or certainly second-guess their considered opinions. at the same time, i believe everyone including our security experts are looking for ways to diminish the impact on the traveling public. i mean, obviously the vast, vast majority of people getting on these planes are law-abiding citizens who are just trying to get from one place to another. but let's not kid ourselves.

the terrorists are adaptable. they start doing whatever they can to try and cause harm. and when you have people who are willing to die in order to kill americans and others, you've got folks putting explosives in their underwear. who would have thought that? so striking the right balance is what this is about. and i am absolutely confident that our security experts are going to keep trying to get it better and less intrusive and more precise. but at the same time, we want people to travel safely. >> to follow up on terrorism, the ahmed ghailani case that was concluded this week with a conviction has raised new questions about whether it's wise to put these terror suspects in civilian court. as secretary of state, why is it important to the rest of the world that these hardened terror suspects go in u.s. civilian courts to be tried? >> well, i think it's important first and foremost to americans, which is my highest priority. what is best for the united states and for our own citizens. the civilian courts, known as article 3 courts, under the

constitution have a good track record of convicting terrorists. and in fact if you look at the comparison between terrorists who are now serving time in our maximum security prisons compared to what military commissions have been able to do, there's no comparison. we get convictions. we send people away in our civilian courts at a much more regularized and predictable way than yet we've been able to figure out how in the military commission. secondly, i think there's a misconception in our own country about what's admissible in terms of evidence in a civilian court versus a military commission. they don't have the same rules, but the rules are close enough in terms of what can or can't be admitted into evidence. so there's a very strong argument that what the judge in the ghailani case said could not be admitted, would not have been admissible either at the commission. >> that's a narrow issue. but the real issue is if there's a lot of uncertainty in the criminal justice system, as you well know as a lawyer. but my question is, are we

committed with these terror suspects that if they are acquitted in terror court they should be released? >> well, no. don't forget -- >> then why hold up the american systema the right route if you're not going to release them? that's what the american systems you have to do. >> david, our system is the best system in the world. we all know that. it is good enough and strong enough to either convict and sentence the guilty or even execute where appropriate skbrp you can't convince an american jury which is certainly obsessed with terrorism. might be there's a question about the strength of the case. and i think what we are trying to do is get the best result consistent with our laws and constitution. and under our laws, military commissions are legal for certain cases. but it should be the primary decision to use our civilian courts whenever and wherever possible. so i think this this has become a kind of strange argument. on the one hand, people say we

want to convict these people. the civilian courts have a better record of actually convicting and imprisoning than we do yet in the military commission. but we also don't want to have security problems or publicity problems for particularly dangerous leading terrorists. so we should look at the military commission. so i think that this is a difficult issue, but i really hope that everyone can look at carefully and consider all of the facts concerning this. >> all right. secretary clinton, before i let you go, i have to ask you this -- this as a political observer, what do you make of what happened on election day? all this talk about sarah palin -- when i interviewed you a while back, you said you'd be willing to sit down and have coffee with her. she may be someone in a position to try to equal what you accomplished in the political arena. what advice might you give her, and what do you make of what's happened political? >> you know, david, the best thing about being secretary of state is representing the united states around the world. the second best thing is i'm out of politics. so with all due respect, i am

not going to comment on the political scene right now other than to say that i'm focused on making the case to 67-plus senators in the senate to pass the s.t.a.r.t. treaty because that's to me the most important task facing the senate and it goes way beyond politics. >> and here i thought i'd lulled you into a moment of candor. secretary clinton, thank you very much as always. >> thank you. we turn to the author of "the leadership in crisis," republican governor of louisiana, bobby jindal. governor, welcome back to the program. whether we talk about politics -- when we talk about politics, you have to answer all the questions. i'm putting you on notice. >> thank you for having me great. great to be -- having me back. great to be back. >> we'll talk about the gulf oil spill in a moment. but let me pick up on an area that i asked secretary clinton about. the tsa and airport screeners, and some of these searches that are really disturbing people around the country. is this excessive? >> absolutely. now look, let's start off, we can not be lackadaisical about protecting our country about

terrorists, make no mistake about that. i have two primary concerns with how they're doing this. first, george will, others have made this point -- >> conservatives. >> they've made the point they're not common sense, not using intelligence. there's no reason to be doing body searches of 6-year-old, 12-year-old girls traveling to louisiana visit grantparents. we're not talking about profiling but to not stop them but use it to apply our defenses to those most likely to cause us hrm. here's the second concern, it feels like from this administration that we're playing a defensive game in the war on terrorism. yes, we need to harden our infrastructure, but if you have a committed terrorist willing to give up their lives, you look at the past patterns. we got lucky with the bomb in times square. we got lucky with the cargo packages, lucky with the underwear bomber, that the devices didn't go off. luck is not a strategy. we need to be routing out networks, killing terrorists. i think the american people, when they see an administration worried about reading miranda rights to the underwear bomber.

they wary when they see a administration committed to civilian trials, what about the rights of the individual traveler? i'm concerned out of political correctness, they're screening people they don't believe -- >> you think profiling is a better option? >> i don't think it's profiling, i think it's using information we know. you look at things, for example, travel patterns, you look at how they purchased their ticket. you look at thing in, intel we've got. we know -- and george will and others make this point, we all know that the grandmother who's being body searched doesn't really pose a threat. we know the little girl going to visit her grandmother -- here the third thing that is odd. the administration rolled this out before the busiest travel time of the year, never making their case to the american public. if they really believed this was a response to a genuine threat, why didn't they make their case to the american public? the bottom line is, yes, we need to secure our country. but simply playing defense isn't enough. we need to harden our infrastructure. i think that it's hard to listen to the administration that's reading miranda rights, stopping interrogation of the underwear bomber, and it's so hard to

understand why they're so worried about the terrorists' rights and not our rights. >> you write about this in your book. you talk about a therapeutic foreign policy. we'll get that portion of your book and put it on the screen. you write that "our current therapeutic approach to national security is dangerous. i'm just not interested in emphasizing with the grievances of our sworn enemies. let's figure out where they're vulnerable and destroy them." hearing what you said, i think a lot of people would say, is that a serious commentary? i mean, you keep mentioning the christmas day bomber who actually confessed to what he was doing. and the miranda rights were not read until later, number one. how could you say that this administration which has so many areas of continuity and is more robust in targeting terrorists in pakistan, surging of forces in afghanistan, continuity with regard to the treatment of terror suspects and detainees, how could this be a therapeutic approach to foreign policy and security? >> i think the bush administration was also wrong, by the way, the way they treated richard reed, the shoe bomber. i don't just criticize this president. >> you think president bush got

lucky? there was no strike -- >> how does a bomber get lucky or -- let me answer your question. i think he was wrong and the administration was wrong in the way they approached that bomber in the same way. you go back to the miranda rights for the underwear bomber. they caught him with a device. what was the purpose -- you asked a great question of secretary clinton -- why are we doing civilian trials if they're not going to release him, compromising sources? the second point, look at some of president obama's rights, he says we have to understand the disadvantaged background, this is a matter of social justice and more northeforeign aid. nonsense. the disproportionate share come from disadvantaged backgrounds. this isn't about people with disadvantaged jobs and social aid, this is a enemy that hates our way of life. a clash of cultures. i think it's important to warn terrorists that we understand -- this isn't let's figure out a way to apologize for americans. this isn't how we offended them because we're supporting israel. i think our foreign policy needs to be based around the

understanding this is an enemy that hates -- and disagrees with our fundamental freedoms. >> let's bring it home and talk about your book, "leadership in crisis." here's some video back in may of you having a heated discussion with the president. we don't have to relitigate the whole issue. it had to do with expanding food stamp assistance for those affected by the spill. he was concerned about a letter that you sent out and some of the timing issues. you make a larger point as a result of that discussion. and you write about it in the book. that encounter with president obama served as a reminder to me of why americans are so frustrated with pearl harbor. the feds focus on the wrong thing -- political posturing becomes more important than reality. in washington, they live by the motto perception is reality. they worry about things they shouldn't, and fail to do things that they should focus. it's called core confidence or lackthereof. was the administration incompetent in dealing with the gulf oil spill? >> absolutely. the conversation and in the response to the book, the administration doesn't get it. they were mad -- he says of mad about food stamps. the point was two weeks after the explosion, the main issue wasn't food stamps. we were frustrated by the lack

of resources, lack of a plan. i write in the book, for example, that there was really one case, there's boom, there are resources, there are people, there are boats sitting on the dock. i think the federal government official in charge of the program with the black hawk helicopter is in charge of at response message. he admits to oil, the resources there, he told me because of bureaucracy it will take 24 to 48 hours to move the resources, get them mobilized, that's too late. a second instance. we have a locally devised solution, barges to pick up oil out of the water. the federal government shut them down for over 24 hours so it can check and count the number of life jackets and fire extinguishers, so they can do routine inspections after being embarrassed publicly. 24 hours later they admit we don't need the inspections, but they waste time. the white house comes back and says, well, we talk to the governor every day. it wasn't access. we had plenty of access. it was not getting timely action. you and i were talking about

bureaucracy five years and the federal response to katrina. we saw some of the same impediments again in response to e oil spill. at what point -- we pointed out there was boom, materials all over the country sitting in warehouses and facilities. it took too long to relax the regulations to move those resources to the gulf coast. that would be like fighting a war, running out of ammunition on the front lines, having ammunition sitting in the warehouses because that's what the rules say. they didn't cut through the red pe and bureacracies, they didn't real what was most important to get done. >> the white house was struck by decisions. you talk about being more concerned with the p.r. strategy, yet the title is "leadership in csis." a picture of you in response to the gu the gulf oil spill. this could be seen as a way to show your political standing and use your own p.r. this is a statement from the white house about stuff in the book, i'll put it on the screen, "the governor requested the national guard. we approved and he never put them to work. governor jindal pushed for his berms which everyone has agreed were a mistake.

governor jindal said he didn't have a plan for skimmers or boom when he knows we did. national commander thad allen described it several times in the governor's plan which approved the plan. he got a daily update on the booms from the coast guard in advance of the daily call. this is nothing more than trying to sell a book." >> look, when he comes on, he tips off the washington reporters, watch this interaction. he tells them, i'm going to be mad with the governor -- the president, the white house, i'm not sure he called the reporters up and said "watch this." the second time he comes to louisiana -- at the end of the second week, we have a meeting with parish presidents, elected officials. at the end of the meeting he tourns me and billy nungesser says i don't want you to criticize me. he's more worried about guys, here's the plan, how we're going to fight the oil, here was the problem -- you look again at the response. yeah, we talked to him every day. the frustration was getting a response, actually moving assets on the ground. time and time again, they wouldn't listen to local fishermen, to people who live there and know the waters like

the back of their hand. from the beginning they continued to be overreliant from experts, they underestimated the threat. the first several days -- >> what about your role, governor? your issue is pushing to build this chain of sand berms to get the oil -- stop coming ashore. by all accounts it had a negligible effect at best. >> that's not true. we were pleased -- two things about the sand berms. it covered over 12 miles. would be the largest coastal island restoration project in our history. something good for our coast. independent of the oil spill, good for texas as far as hurricane and oil spills. we pushed oil debris off the berms, stopped oil off the surface and submerged oil. took almost a month to approve the permits. even after they approved them they wouldn't allow us to dredge the sand from areas they approved. we could have built many more miles. sand berms are a great success. here's another great example. they weren't willing to think outside the box. the federal government themselves approved the u.s. corps of engineers said the positives outweigh the

negatives. admiral allen and the president intervened to approve six segments. they said this was a preapproved coast guard response to an oil spill, very effective. we are thrilled with these did those sand berms. >> scientists will disagree. >> wait a minute. there -- let's not say that everybody disagrees. there are smifts who say this is -- scientists who say this is the best thing for culture. now that we've convinced them not to make temporary berms but to con vermt them into coastal islands, the restoration of the original footprint, many scientists have praised this as one of the most significant steps. >> bottom line question. haley barbour from mississippi, a mentor to you, important republican figure. he said on this program in june, the federal government's done more right than wrong. what do you know that he doesn't know? what did you see that he didn't see? >> you go back to that day. louisiana at that point, it continued to bear the brunt of the oil coming to our coast. and our frustration was, again, when we wanted resources, they weren't there. when their resources weren't available, we came up with

solutions like jacked up barges to deploy in real-time. literally, it took meetings with the president of the united states to cut across the bureaucracy to get it done. they wasted time in the meantime. we wanted solutions like using hard pipes to deflect oil, took too long. all we said was, you have the resources, let us protect our own coast. at least either lead or get out of the way. and the problem was, either they didn't provide the resources and when we tried they interfered with our efforts. >> just a minute left here. some politics questions. do you think the president's a one-term president? >> i think it's up to him. i think the voters said a couple of weeks ago they want less deficits, less spending, $14 trillion is too much, gdp is too high. they don't want the administration focused on obama care, cap and trade. they want this administration and congress folks to get the private sector economy running and growing again. if he changes directions, he can certainly make a stronger case. but if he doubles down on his current path, i think it will be hard to make the case two years from now that he deserves to be re-elected. >> you don't want to be president in 2012?

>> i don't. >> would you be be in a ticket? >> i'm running for re-election in 2011, running for governor of indiana. there will be other candidates -- >> would you rule out being number two? >> i'm not going to turn down something that's not offered to me. >> would you like to be president someday? >> my only obligation is being re-elected for a second term. we cut spending in louisiana. we've got second best economic performance in the country. we're not raising tax. i think we can prove a great example in louisiana of what washington should be doing instead of borrowing more money. >> sarah palin gets a great deal of attention. the movement conservative. can she unite the republican party and be a nominee? >> i think she can make a compelling case. there are several former governors and others. i said this before, i like governors because they have to balance budgets, run their states. they actually have to -- >> she was a governor. but the question is -- i'm sure she could make a compelling case. do you think she could unify the party and get the nomination as you survey the landscape? >> okay, i leave it to the pundits. i think there's a focus on the mortgager, what's more --

messenger, what's more important is the message. we're on borrowed time. four years ago we blew it. the republican party defended earmarks and spending we would never accept. now the republicans -- i'm glad they shifted their position on earmarks, they've got to cut nondiscretionary defense spending. we've got to show in two years we're worthy of being a majority party by cutting spending back to historic norms, cutting tax, getting the private sector economy growing. let the pundits figure out who's running in 2012, who the nominee is going to be, the rnc chair. what's more important is to show the american people we've learned our lessons, we deserve to be the majority party again. >> we'll leave it there. governor, thank you very much. >> thank you for having me. up next, growing controversy over new airport security rules. as we've been talking about, including what many say are invasive pat-downs. an early look at the fights for the white house 2012, as sarah palin sets the stage for a possible presidential run. our round table weighs in. robert draper who has written about the inner circle for "the new york times" magazine. "wall street journal's" paul gigot, and allen west, author of

revival about the obama administration. and incoming tea party backed republican congressman from florida, allen west.

coming up the round table looks at taxes and spending. plus, a 2012 preview. does sarah palin's new book set

we are back with our round table. joining me, editor of the "wall street journal," paul gigot, contributing writer for "the new york times" magazine, robert draper, the cover story on sarah palin in "the new york times" manage. author of the new book, "revival," is with us. "the struggle for survival inside the obama white house," all a -- richard wolffe, and republican-elect allen west. remember, as we look at the video that people think is disturbing, these are people making a choice not to go through the actual machines that provide a rather revealing look at our bodies. and if they don't do that, then they get the pat-downs. you heard him say clearly excessive. is this going to become a bigger issue? washington? >> i think it will become an

issue, especially when we come to politics season. we see how it affects -- the holiday season. we see how it affects the economy. it comes back to marketing. we should have put out some type of feelers and talked to the american people about this before we go and implement this type of plan. also when you go back, you look at after september 11, we have the opportunity with israel coming and talking to us about improving our security screening procedures. we turned them down. i traveled to israel, and i tell you what -- they have good procedures and you don't have to go through these draconian practices. >> this is a day where whether the israelis do more psychological profiling through an interview, whether there's an element of patrol fieging -- the question is is there a better way here? >> let's be clear, this isn't about marketing. this is about national security. you've got a risk-averse president who have -- as i explain in the book -- was unhappy with the way the christmas day bomber was proceeding and berated his national security team. with respect -- i don't understand why a democratic president or democratic administration introduces intrusive security measures and that's an invasion of privacy.

but a republican president can have no-fly lists that take up thousands -- >> but one thing we need to say is -- >> it's about trend analysis, not about profiling. i think when i talk about marketing, i'm talking about talking to the american people. >> instead of -- >> about these changes. >> where does the debate go, you think? >> i not the issue is that the public begins to revolt against these security procedures and you risk losing public support not just for airport screenings but for the whole war on terror and the national security regime post 9/11. soy think we've got to think carefully what this intrusive pat-down is what we want to do. we've seen them move on children, no children under 12, they're not going to be -- >> pilots exempted. >> pilots exempted now. i think there's going to be real push-back here. and the administration would do well to listen or lose support more broadly. >> right. we have to remember that i always say, you know, the country was here after 9/11. maybe it's gone down to here, in terms of individual, back up here in a heartbeat. all you need is another christmas day attempt or another attempt that we've heard about

in months after that. this is an effect evive way to l with it. >> absolutely. i'm struck listening to congressman west of how this is not so much a debate between libertarian tea party types and the obama administration, but a debate between them, the former group, and the former head of the republican party, president george w. bush, who in the wake of 9/11 believed that no price was too dear for security. so granted there are a lot of arguments we can make about what's working and what is not, but this is about the price that we pay to be secure. >> congressman, is there -- the tea party candidate or tea party sentiment within congress now which i think you are a part, is there going to be a battle with the republican party on issues like this that become more about libertarian concerns? >> i wouldn't say it's about libertarian concerns. i think when you look at the tea party, it's about a grassroots constitutional conservative movement. one of the parts is national security. i think that we need to focus our efforts and focus our national security efforts and not come up with a lot of these

someat seemingly kneejerk reactions that we're seeing with the pat-down procedures. i think we need to understand -- define who the ensubcommittee first and fore -- who the enemy is first and foremost. make sure we have procedures in place. >> do you think profiling is good? >> i don't call it profiling, i call it trend analysis. having been a commander in the battlefield, you look for trends and focus resources on trends. profiling has become this negative, contative phrase, but if we continue -- and i do think, you know, from the previous administration to this administration, we have been somewhat lucky in the thwarting of attacks we've seen. we've got to focus our security apparatus and resources. >> richard wolffe, let me go broader. this is the snapshot of our nbc news/"wall street journal" pole in terms of what will happen in washington between the president and republicans. a pretty -- pretty dire view. americans think there's going to be a lot of division, a lot of gridlock, little willingness to compromise by a margin of 72% to 19%. whether the s.t.a.r.t. treaty or

tax cuts, what's going to get here? are republicans saying to the president the price is higher to do business with us? >> they've been explicit, haven't they? the question is does this play -- especially for independent voters. if you think that independent voters are what swung the last election where the obama administration had lost support in the last couple of years, what do they want to see. now you have an alignment between democrats and independents. they want the two to work together. if the republicans are serious about this stuff, about moving to the more libertarian side of things, whether on s.t.a.r.t. or on the tsa pat-down stuff, you'll have a serious threat to republicans about giving up a national security credential. we saw in 2004, there's a risky position against an incumbent president at a time of war and terrorist threats. >> look at the headlines, paul gigot, from "the hill" newspaper, and others about liberals in the president's party. "the washington times" headline, show muscle in the tax cut battle. "angry left to obama: stop caving." the president's in a position where he realizes he's got to move on the tax cut debate,

extending bush-era tax cuts. but the left and nancy pelosi as back as leader of the democrats saying not so fast here. >> the president's interest is separate from the democrats on the hill. when you're in the minority, you want to oppose everything that the republicans in the majority do because your interests are becoming the majority again. the president and senate democrats, many of whom are up in 2012, have an interest in accomplishment and getting things done. what i think you'll see is a president who's going to have to move to the center at least symbolically and substantively on some -- symbolically i think in a tonal sense, but substantively on some issues. i would look for it to happen on taxes, on some spending cats. and richard and the democrats might not like that but he had to do it if he wants to re-el t re-elected. >> congressman, do you buy the president's argument, let's extend the bush-era tax cuts for the middle class first, then we'll do the upper earners? have you had that conversation? >> no. i think we need to extend the tax cuts firmly across the board. i come from an area in south florida where unemployment's at

13%. foreclosures are high. we're seeing closed storefronts. when you walk in washington, d.c., you don't see people getting laid off. you don't see anyone suffering. yo don't see the foreclosures. there is a belief that things are not going well down on main street. and they need to be heard. there is a belief that it has to start from up here with the right type of cuts and the spending. the right type of cuts and the growth of government. so i think it's so important this we understand that we have to invigorate the growth of this country, the long-term sustainable growth of this country which comes from our small businesses, comes from our business growth. >> leadership moment here. look at some of the responses to the deficit commission and whether folks are uncomfortable with the proposals. look at the poll, pretty big numbers. 70% uncomfortable with cuts some medicare, social security, and defense. 59% uncomfortable with increased taxes and eliminate some deductions. 57% uncomfortable with raising the social security retirement age to 69 over the next few years.

>> i think everything has to be on the table. we need to have an honest conversation with the american people. i think that when you look at some of the things up here with the public sector compensation, you know, we could find about $47 billion if we align government compensation with private sector. we need to look at our defense department and need to look at, you know, how do we -- you know, not reform but how do we repair social security? how do we get social security back into the independent trust fund picture? we need to look at how do we set conditions economically so maybe we have less people that have to be on social security, medicare, and medicaid. i think that's one of the critical challenges we have to make going into this. >> richard, do you see the president advocating for this tough medicine here? the commission was political cover, i don't know. doesn't look like a lot of cover. >> i think he's serious about the deficit stuff. one of the stories i tell in the book is we don't have any republicans on the commission. that's how bad the politics are. but the president spoke about a deficit a lot, he knows that's what voters care about. this is a moment when we can say to incoming members of congress,

you talk about the deficit, but if you take tax off the table, how are you going to be serious about doing that? that's not a reasonable discussion. his position is, natural default is to say the left is here, the radical right's over there, i'm the serious grown-up in the middle. that's where he's got to play it. >> is there a grand bargain regarding tax and spending? >> i think on taxes it's a politically weighing argument for the republicans to say let's keep the bush tax cuts. but as richard is saying, it presents president obama with an opportunity to say you just left $300 billion of a way of lopping off the deficit. you've left that off the table. so show me something that's worth $300 billion. you can't say the earmark is $18 billion. check see. >> beyond the tax cuts and spending cuts, we think it will happen in two years. the real student tax reform. you saw the reaction to lower the lower top rates and corporate rate to as low as 23% is one option. then you broaden the base, giving up certain deductions which would be hard to do.

but i think both parties see this as a possibility to come together. i don't know if it upon happen in the next two years, but you saw the reaction, the republican reaction to this from paul ryan and others. let's talk about this. and nancy pelosi said, no way, we can't talk about it. the president has an interest. >> let me take a break. we'll come back, talk about the battleground, 2012, as the campaign's already started. whether we like it or not. we'll talk about specifically the sarah palin effect. did you know prilosec otc can stop frequent heartburn before it begins? heartburn happens when stomach acid refluxes into the esophagus. prilosec otc uses a unique delayed-release system that protects the medicine as it passes through the stomach's tough acid. then it gets absorbed into the body, turning off many acid-producing pumps at the source. with just one pill a day, you get 24-hour heartburn protection all day and all night. prilosec otc. heartburn gone. power on.

we're back. want to talk about battleground 2012. governor jindal says he doesn't want to be president yet. didn't rule out being on the ticket in 2012. when you write a book like "leadership in crisis," i think you're positioning yourself. let's talk about sarah palin. here is "the new york times" magazine that folks are waking up to around the country. on the cover, the palin network, how the gop's loading shadow candidate runs her guerrilla organization. robert draper, you wrote this piece, you talked to her. a portion of this is from your interview with governor palin. she says this, "i know that a hurdle i would have to cross, that some other potential candidates wouldn't have to cross right out of the chute, is proving my record. that's the most frustrating thing, the warped and perverted description of my record and what i've accomplished. it's much more perplexing than what the mainstream media has wanted to go about my personal life. other candidate haven't faced this criticism the way i have." her ability to be seen as karl rove says in the wj this week,

is can folks look at her and imagine her in the oval office? she's not there yet. >> that's the question. she was referring to her record as governor of alaska. i don't think that moves the needle on her approval ratings. i think that the question that she's going to have to answer is if "common sense conservativism" is shorthand for i haven't learned the issues. and she has done more to close the substance deficit. she says -- increasingly want to speech. there's the disdense of seeing her climbing the cliff. >> she spoke on the show tlc, five million viewers. an interesting clip from her really show. want to show you that. >> you know, having every word, every action scrutinized and in some cases mocked, i can handle it. you know, i kind of asked for it, right? >> congressman, it is interesting. she's out there in the arena. look, she endorsed you.

what kind of impact did that have, and what is your assessment of her strength after the midterms? >> i have to tell you this. right now i haven't even been sworn in. i think the most important thing to focus on is how do we take care of the problems that are facing this country because if we don't do that, if this republican congress and the house of representatives says let's not do that, it does not matter who you put up there as president in 2012. >> fair enough. >> that's what the people are looking for. i will tell you this -- she did endorse me with four other military candidates in march of this year. it was good to have her endorsement because she does have a reach to the grassroots movement. but it is also incumbent upon me to be able to, once i get that trust and confidence, to prove myself worthy of what the people have shown. this is what's so important -- the world is machiavellian, not so much content. the next president of the united states has to understand that their world's out there. the next president will have to sit down at the table and stare down tough customers. i think that's the number-one

criteria to think about. >> it's interesting, ron brown has written some about this for "the national journal." the idea that there are similarities. if you look at the right on how a candidate palin could draw votes away from a mitt romney or candidate, he describes it as a beer-wine track phenomenon. the working class white voters in the way hillary clinton got the voters in her primary fight with obama. that's the space that she could occupy, as well. >> the basic problem is she has a 35% approval rating with independents. when you start that low among a group that has essentially decided every election in recent memory, you've got a huge problem. a mountain to climb. combine that with the popularity of the grassroots among the primary voters in the republican party, it's a dynamic that is going to tear this thing apart. it reminds me of howard dean, 2004. strong grassroots support. people looked and said he's not going to make it. i think that's one of the reasons why sarah palin did well on the house level but not so well in the senate race.

her senate-backed candidates did not perform well. the wired appeal is not -- wider appeal is not there. >> she's going to shake things up for iowa. >> i think so. politics, though, is additive as richard points out. you've got to built on your base. i think the field is wide open, republican field. i think she has a chance to get the nomination if she runs. she has likeable, people love her sincerity. she comes across as real. not practiced, not canned. she does have to make the case to people that she can do the job. she has to look presidential. and that will play particularly to people in the suburbs around philadelphia and the suburbs -- republicans are very long in wisconsin, for example. are you going to make the sales to those swing voters and independents? you win a state like that -- >> what did you learn about how the palin world operates, though, that is clearly unconventional and is not following any script? if republicans are known for the next one in line and a lot of order, she's not playing with that script. >> it is the polar opposite of, say, the bush organization of

2004. people playing outside their length, no one has a title. people simply do what's in front of them. and paul and i were discussing it before, it's those of us in the media who try to readjust the palin administration are faced with delays and pocket detailing. it is not an organization that can in any way transfer itself to a campaign structure. palin, herself, recognizes that. she said as much to me. but the question is will she be able to bring in people whom she trusts, who are capable of doing this sort of thing? trust is a huge issue with the palins. they feel like they were burned in 2008. the question is, how much of an informing characteristic will that be going forward? >> all right. we'll take a break quickly. we'll come back, we'll have final thoughts in

we're back with the round table, closing thoughts, richard wolffe, the book is "revival." how does the white house see the recovery? >> one of the reasons i call it "the revival," is he was close to being dead, finished, two months later he gets health care. and a treaty with the russians. it's happened time and again. through the primaries when sarah palin was nominated, this guy was over. there is something of the comeback about him, and they're hoping it's going to happen again. how you does he do it? he's got to get back to where he was in 2008. the change guy, change the way business is done. if he's another insider, washington politician, he's going to be in trouble. >> everybody i talked to said this is not somebody who doesn't play smallball, was not a

tactical player. that becomes a choice for him just as conservatives have a choice about how they want to use this power they've got. >> absolutely. i think a critical thing to look at the first 90 to 120 days, what is the relationship between the house gop and the senate and the administration. i think you have to look and see what is going to be the impact of this incredible freshman class coming in, 1/3 of the house gop. i think it was very -- the historical metaphor i use comparing nancy pelosi being brought back as minority leader, pickett's charge. if he had told pickett to try it again -- i think those things will be the interesting dynamic. >> what is your mandate as you come to town? what is your mandate? >> my mandate is to listen to the american people, the people who sent us here. the mandate is to do something about the growth of government, the spending of government, and get back to a constitutional based principle of government. >> quickly, do republicans have a mandate to actually cooperate

at some level? do they need something tangible at this point? >> i think they do need something tangible on taxes, and i think in terms of spending cuts. they ned to show a reduction in the growth of government. i don't think they need to get a huge, all-encompassing budget deal. but they need to show that they're attempting to do that in the house. >> are they willing toeda voekt really draconian -- to advocate really draconian cuts? >> i am curious to see. we've been hearing a mantra from freshman about blowing up the process from the inside. i'll be curious if they do that or if they succumb to the temptation when they're seated on the appropriations committee to throw money around for pet projects for constituents. >> we are going to leave it there. thank you all very much. before we go, a little piece of history. commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the election of john f. kennedy. nbc news has launched "john f. kenne kenne kenne kennedy: 50 days," it combines text and archival video. not seen in 50 years