this sday, another capitol failure. in a clash over spending cuts and tax increases, the super committee fails to reach agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit. setting in motion a trigger for across f-the-board spending cuts that go into effect in 2013. now, some lawmakers want to rewrite the law, but the president vows to block any efforts to change the rules after fact. >> i will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts, domestic and defense spending. there will be no easy offering on this one. >> so what now? is there any hope for compromise in the senate? and will the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits set to expire at the end of the year be extended? we'll ask the senior senator from new york this morning, chuck schumer.

plus, the other side of the debate. as democrats assign blame for the super committee failure. >> grover norquist, a lobbyist, got a whole bunch of people to sign a pledge that became more important, i think, than the pledge that we face. pledge that we take to fully and factly execute to defend. i believe that that was the 13th member of this meeting, this committee. >> we will hear from the man behind the taxpayer protection pledge, grover norquist. and our political roundtable this morning, what is the fallout from the super committee failure? why is it so hard to get anything done in washington? the politicians would rather have the issue in this election year than a deal. plus, only 37 shopling days until the iowa caucus. will the republican field remain volatile up until the votes are cast? and what are the big leadership tests for the president in 's re-election efforts? we'll ask author and professor

at georgetown university michael eric dyson, editor of the national review, rich lowry. former editor for "newsweek" magazine, now executive editor at random house, jon meacham, and presidential historians, doris kearns goodwin and michael beschloss. good morning. big political news this morning from new hampshire. the first primary state in the 2012 election, a key endorsement and big boost for the candidacy of newt gingrich, from the conservative new hampshire "union-leader's" saying in its editorial this morning that the former speaker of the house has the experience, leadership, and vision to lead this country in trying times. the endorsement was a blow to former massachusetts governor mitt romney. the newspaper saying, quote, we'd rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear. the jockeying on the campaign trail comes as washington is still trying to manage fallout from the failure of the super committee to deal with the

government's budget deficit. here with us live this morning to continue that debate and find out what is next, democratic senator chuck schumer of new york and grover norquist of americans for tax reform. his anti-tax pledge played a key role in the super committee showdown. welcome. senator schumer, i want to begin with you. i hope you had a good holiday. welcome back to "meet the press." >> i did. >> let's talk about the fallout and what comes next from the super committee failing to get a deal. one big question before the end of the year is the payroll tax holiday. the president would like to see it extended. what's going to happen in the senate? >> well, the first thing we're going to do when we get back this week is put the payroll tax holiday on the floor of the senate. it would give middle-class families about $1,000 extra in their pockets. the average family would get that. it would boost the economy. and we paid for it with a small surtax on incomes over $1 million. it's essential that we do this. we're going to keep at it and at

it and at it because it's so important for the economy. >> why do you think the republicans will go along with that in the senate? do you have the votes? >> well, it's hard to believe the republicans would oppose this for two reasons. first of all, they spent so much time fighting to preserve the bush tax cuts for the millionaires, it's hard to believe they wouldn't want to preserve a tax cut for the middle class. that's number one. and number two, most of them have supported things like this in the past. they say the way to get the economy going is cut taxes. they don't like increased they don't like increased spending on infrastructure and things like that. and, in fact, certain people have made favorable noises about this. marco rubio, mike simpson, and even newt gingrich, who you just mentioned. on the other side, of course, is the man who has a great deal of clout, who you're going to have on the show right after me, grover norquist. he believes that raising this tax -- or letting this tax expire does not violate the pledge that people signed, even though raising the bush tax

cuts, letting those expire, would. it's hard to understand the logic of saying one is a tax increase and one isn't. >> do you predict passage? >> well, i would hope we would pass it. i think it's very hard for republicans to vote against it given their past history of defending the tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. if they don't, if it doesn't pass once, we're going to put it on the floor again and again, and we would be open to other ideas of paying for it if this one fails. >> the other prospect is unemployment benefits, emergency unemployment benefits that would expire at the end of the year. would you push for those to be extended as well? >> yes, those are very, very important. the economists tell us that unemployment benefits give the most bang for the buck to get this economy going. because, obviously, unemployed people don't have much other money and they spend it and pump the money into the economy. that's essential. and it's also humane. i have so many constituents, david, who have been searching and searching and searching for jobs. they're not lazy. they've worked their lives, 20

years and then lost their jobs. and to now put them down and out would make no sense at all. >> do you support a work-around on these defense cuts? nearly $600 billion. the president says no easy off-ramps. republicans are saying we can't gut the pentagon, even though that's what the failure of the super committee always said would happen. >> quell, let me say this. that would be a huge mistake, and it would basically make deficit reduction impossible. the whole purpose of what was put in place in july, with the debt ceiling vote, was to have very sharp knives hanging over the heads of each party. and the fear that those knives would come into effect is supposed to bring us to an agreement, and i think, actually, we can get an agreement in 2012. that's contrarian. i'll talk about that in a minute, if you want me to elaborate. but if you take one of those knives away and one side or the other can sit back and say, i'm fine without the fear of sequestration, you lose it. so the president is right to offer the veto threat. and i believe we democrats would fight to take any piece of this

-- of these sequestration cuts off the table because it would mean no deficit reduction at all. >> a lot of blame about why the super committee failed. you mentioned grover norquist who will be my guest in just a moment. >> yes. >> senator john kerry said, in effect, he was the 13th member of the committee, that his taxpayer protection pledge is a stranglehold on republicans and they don't dare defy him. is it a little easy to blame an anti-tax advocate in the failure of congress to do what it said it would do? >> well, he does have a great deal of clout, and one of the members of the super committee, democrat, said to me that when they started talking about revenues, the republican members all said, we'll never pass anything with any revenues in either the house or senate, because of the pledge. but let me take a step back here. because i think it's important to outline this. the one good consensus we have on both democratic and republican sides, is that we have to reduce the deficit.

we're sort of like a blindfolded man walking towards a cliff. and if we keep walking, we're going to fall off and die. some may argue the cliff is 50 yards away. some may argue 500. but we all agree if you keep walking, you die. now, how did we get into this problem? first, there is the growth of entitlement programs, medicare and medicaid. in 2000 we had a surplus. in 2010, we have a deep deficit. what changed? first, the growth of the entitlement programs, as i mentioned. second were the tax cuts put in place by president bush. and those are the two leading reasons. third, lesser important, but still important is the war in iraq and afghanistan. you have to deal with both of the first two to get this done. >> well, let me ask you about that because you say there's orthodoxy. the other democrats say there's orthodoxy on the right, they'll never pass anything to do with tax increases. what about the pressure democrats are under having to do with entitlements. with entitlements? you talk about grover norquist. what about the aarp which ran ads like this, warning members of congress not to mess with social security and medicare.

watch. >> so, washington, before you even think about cutting my medicare and social security benefits, here's a number you should remember, 50 million. we are 50 million seniors who earned our benefits. and you will be hearing from us today and on election day. >> so, senator, isn't it true, that, in fact, democrats wanted to make the price so high for tax revenues, so high for actually touching medicare or social security, that there was no way you were going to get a deal? >> absolutely not. first, we put a reasonable amount of tax revenues on the table, and when the republicans said that was too high, our people lowered the amount. but, second, we were willing to put significant entitlement savings reform on the table. the amount of entitlement savings that was proposed by democrats on the super committee, senate democrats, exceeded the amount of savings proposed by simpson/bowles, and everyone said that's a very, very serious measure.

yes, there were some democrats who didn't like it. but, we knew we had to do that, and we did. and just one other point, everyone in the room agrees that democrats put entitlements on the table. rob portman, one of the republican super-negotiators, said when asked did democrats put entitlements on the table, he said, yes, i give them credit for that. that's his words, not mine. >> senator, let me ask you about simpson/bowles. this, of course, was the panel that was convened, it was set up by president obama, alan simpson, former senator of wyoming, republican, erskine bowles, a democrat. it did call for tax increases. it did call for cutting benefits to social security and medicare. it did call for sweeping tax reform. is there a prospect of some revival of simpson/bowles now? >> yes. i believe this is a contrarian view, but we have a good chance of actually getting the big

package, big deficit reduction in 2012 for two reasons -- three reasons, really. first, the knives that i mentioned that were over our heads, the bush tax cuts expire in 2013. sequestration goes into effect in 2013. now that seems a year and a month away. but as we get closer and closer and closer, the pressure on both parties to come together in the middle, provided we don't remove one of those knives, like taking defense off the table, is going to be stronger and stronger. second, the republican primaries will end right now. the republican primary, the candidates, and then their senate and congressional supporters to the right. you know, all of them said they wouldn't be for a dollar of revenue for $10, in return for $10 of spending cuts. but once you get a nominee, they have to move to the middle. that's where the american people are. and third, is people go home, they're going to hear from their members, solve this problem. their constituents, solve this problem.

so my view is we have a really good chance, basically a long the outlines of simpson -- the broad outlines of simpson/bowles, you couldn't vouch for any specific, but the broad outline of $1 trillion in revenues, $1 trillion in mandatory savings, and $1 trillion in discretionary savings to get that done. >> let me do two quick ones. on politics, does president obama stand to gain politically after the super committee's failure, in your judgment? >> yes. here's why i think 2000 dwell is going to be a very good year for democrats, because the big political landscape plates are changing. last year, cut the government. cut the government. cut the government. and the tea party was ascendant. that seemed discredited by the american people now. they don't agree with the tea party. they don't like the tea party. and what has come to the fore is income inequality and helping the middle class. that puts the wind at our back, and i would predict that president obama is going to win. that's very likely. and it's very, very likely that

we're going to keep the senate, because the whole battleground has changed, away from just cutting the government, and toward helping the middle class and dealing with income and equality. >> you've always respected and admired newt gingrich, as you've said publicly. >> yes, i have. >> is he going to be the republican nominee? >> well, who knows. he's clearly a smart guy. and, look, i give him some credit for not just blowing with the wind on an issue like immigration. that showed some real courage. and i think people are looking for courage in leadership. but you know, to me -- for me, a little democrat from brooklyn, new york, to predict what's going to happen in the republican primary, i'm not -- >> you know him well. would he be a good president, senator? >> well, i'm not -- i think barack obama would be a much better president. he's got too much ideological baggage to the right. >> all right. we're going to leave it there. senator schumer, thank you very much. >> bye-bye. >> let me turn to the man in the middle of the debate over taxes and spending, anti-tax advocate grover norquist. welcome to "meet the press." your name has been mentioned prominently throughout the week here in washington, and in profiles done of you, alan

simpson, who we've been talking about, head of the simpson/bowles commission, he was interviewed in a profile about you, for "60 minutes" and this is what he said. >> he may well be the most powerful man in america today. so if that's what he wants, he's got it. you know, he's a megalomaniac, ego maniac, whatever you want to call him, if that's his goal. he's down there. he ought to run for president, because that would be his platform, no taxes under any situation, even if your country goes to hell. >> what do you say to that? >> well, look, the tax issue is a very important issue. it's odd some people have tried to personalize it. but, the american people have had their taxes raised in the past. in 1982 the democrats said, jeerks if you let us raise taxes, we'll cut spending $3 for every dollar of tax increase. taxes were raised, spending didn't go down. spending went up. same thing happened in 1990.

although george bush, or george herbert walker bush was promised $2 in phony spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. taxes went up. spending actually increased, it wasn't cut. twice the democrats have said, let's raise taxes and cut spending. twice taxes were increased, spending was not reduced at all. so, the american people aren't falling for that again. we know that if you raise taxes, the politicians in washington simply spend it. and they can promise anything they want, but lucy and the football, charlie brown isn't going to fall for this again. >> but, mr. norquist, don't times change? isn't that what alan simpson is saying? i think his conservative bona fides are pretty well established. and he's saying, look, times change. they're required a balanced approach, and in this kind of economy, after a financial crisis, revenues have to be part of the picture. >> no. raising taxes slows the economy. raising taxes kills jobs. government spending does not create jobs.

the idea that if you take a dollar out of the economy and then -- from somebody who earned it, either through debt, or through taxes, and give it to somebody that's politically connected, that there are more dollars around, but if you stand on one side of the lake and put a bucket into the lake and walk around to the other side in front of the tv cameras, pour the bucket back into the lake and announce you're stimulating the lake to great depth, we just wasted $800 billion on stimulus spending that added to debt, that killed jobs. >> but the notion that tax cuts or tax increases somehow impact economic growth, we know historically that's simply not the case. president clinton raised taxes during boom times. president bush lowered taxes, did not spur great job creation. isn't that one of the falsehoods that's peddled in washington? >> no. if you take a look at when you cut marginal tax rates, the strong growth in the last six years of the '90s started the day the republicans captured the house and senate, didn't happen in the first two years. certainly didn't happen with the tax increase. and there was a cut of the

capital gains tax that helped stimulate economic growth there. the bush tax cuts, 2001, were not designed to be stimulus to the economy. a lot of tax credits in there. they weren't real reductions in rates. the 2003 rate reductions you had on cap gains and others, that gave you four years of strong economic growth that lasted until the democrats won the house and senate, and you knew those tax cuts were going away. >> here's the reality in terms of how americans feel about taxes and, indeed, how republicans feel about it, which seems to be at odds to where you are. maris polling out earlier this month indicates 53% of republicans agreed, yes, taxes should be raised on higher-income americans as part of a debt deal. i mean this is also against the backdrop of history, of ronald reagan raising taxes, a conservative icon. >> yeah. and my point was that when reagan did it in '82 as part of the deal, the democrats never actually cut the spending. taxes went up, spending didn't go down. it's just for a number of

reasons, tax increases are what politicians do rather than reform government. rather than make tough decisions. >> do you think in this case then republicans are wrong to seek some sort of work-around on automatic cuts in defense spending after the failure of the super committee? >> well, the super committee was supposed to come up with $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over a decade. not a lot. but a start moving in the right direction. because they couldn't come up with a list, it goes to a sequester. that's not a failure. that was option two. the politicians couldn't come up with a list, so you go to an across-the-board sequester. that's not as good as the paul ryan plan, which the republican house has already passed. that was a $6 trillion spending restraint. we're not arguing with nothing on the table. we've actually had one body, the house, pass a responsible budget that cuts spending, doesn't raise taxes. senator schumer is the leader of the democrats in the senate. the senate didn't do a budget this year.

they didn't do a budget the year before. they didn't do a budget the year before that. so if they would write down a budget, not talk about it, remember obama gave the speech and the congressional budget office said we can't do an economic score of the speech? okay. if they knock off with the talking points and write a budget, and get it scored, then we could have something to look at. >> you mention lucy and the football. you heard senator schumer about the payroll tax cut extension, which democrats would like to do, republicans, including yourself, are opposed to. look, when people talked about the bush-era tax cuts expiring, republicans described that as a tax increase. these were on a ten-year time horizon. why is it that a payroll tax extension that is not extended, why isn't that a tax increase? >> well, two things. i'm not opposed to extending the payroll tax particularly. i think it's destructive to extend it and raise some other tax the same dollar amount. matter of fact, in a more destructive economic policy. but the other piece to this is the reason why people view the one-year tax holiday that obama

put in a year ago as a temporary tax increase was that president obama said it was going to be temporary when he put it in. when the republicans in the house and senate passed the '01 and '03 tax cuts, those were, as their advocates said, intended to be permanent. they weren't for reasons of democratic filibusters. but they were always intended to be permanent tax reductions. obama was the guy who said that this was a tax holiday. calling it a tax holiday kind of suggests they viewed it as temporary. holidays aren't permanent. >> as for the super committee failure, republicans did propose some revenue increases. and yet you said publicly you were assured by the leaders in congress there would never be anything to pass with a tax increase. was that a sham proposal? >> no. several things. one, i think it was put on the table, and it did one thing. it made it clear that the democrats had no interest in tax reform, because they put it in one night two senators said this is intriguing. the next morning they came back and said, no to tax reform.

no to reducing rates. and then they also said no to any deal that didn't have at least a trillion dollars of tax increases. so the -- people say the republicans said don't raise taxes. correct. 236 republicans in the house have signed a commitment to the american people. the taxpayer protection pledge, that they would not vote for a tax increase as long as they're a member of congress. and 41 senators have made the same commitment. those are important commitments. those are public commitments. but the democrats have the secret agreement, which they announce every once in awhile on tv, they want $1 trillion in tax increases. so who's being unreasonable? the guys who want a trillion dollars more of your money to waste, or the people who say, we're spending too much of your money now, let's bring spending down to normal levels, not try to get to where greece is. >> what makes you so sure you will triumph by targeting politicians who raise taxes by going to the voters and pointing

out that they've done that? what if the next republican president comes along, like reagan, and says, grover, sorry, times have changed, i'm going with a different approach, i'm throwing away your pledge, and we're moving forward. you still think you'll prevail? >> look, i don't think a republican would be likely to win the presidential election in the general if it wasn't clear that he wanted to go in a different direction than obama. if you want to raise taxes to pay for obama's bigger government, then you vote for the democrats, for crying out loud. if you think we should bring the size of government down to what america can afford, then you would vote for the republicans. all of the republican presidential candidates, with the exception of utah jon huntsman, have committed in writing to the american people, not to me, to the american people, that they won't raise taxes. what they say is, i'm going to go to washington, i'm not going to raise your taxes, i'm going to fix the mess. it's the democrats whose position is, if the only problem in washington, d.c. is the peasants aren't sending enough tax in for the king to spend.

>> and if a republican raises taxes after taking the pledge, as president of the united state, iron clad, one-term president in your view? >> well, we have some history here. george herbert walker bush had a very successful presidency. he managed the collapse of the soviet union, he threw iraq out of situate, didn't get stuck occupying the place for a decade. he had one hole in the bottom of his boat, he said he wouldn't raise taxes and he did, and he lost the presidency. the american people don't like people who lie their way into office. they do like people who keep their commitments and stay i'm not going to raise your tax s because you are not the problem, america. we're going to reform washington's overspending, that's the problem. >> is newt gingrich the likely nominee of the party? >> boy, newt has sure shot up quickly, and the new hampshire endorsement, i think -- i'm originally from massachusetts. "union-leader" endorsement is very important. i think highly of romney, and he's been the front-runner.

newt, romney, one of those guys is moving forward. they both looked you in the eye and said they're not going to raise your taxes. >> who's got the better conservative credentials? >> on taxes they're both fine. on their commitments not to raise taxes. and newt's put together a fairly radical robust tax reform proposal. i think the most written-out one is now rick perry's of texas. his 20% top rate, kill cap gains, that's great. i think romney put his plan in very early. needs to update it to catch up with sort of where the debate's going. >> we'll leave it there. grover norquist, thank you very much. and coming up, decision 2012. a key newspaper endorsement in new hampshire for newt gingrich. is he the new romney alternative conservatives have been looking for? and what will it mean for the rest of the field, with so much at stake in the granite state on january 10th? plus, fallout from the super committee failure. is there a leadership deficit in

washington? why is it so hard to get anything done? and what does it mean for the 2012 campaign? our roundtable weighs in. georgetown professor dr. michael eric dyson. national review's rick lowry. jon meacham and doris kearns goodwin and michael beschloss. . jon people up and doris kearns goodwin and michael beschloss. act my age? -why? -why? -why? [ female announcer ] we all age differently. roc® multi-correxion 4 zone moisturizer with roc®retinol and antioxidants. lines, wrinkles, and sun damage will fade. roc multi-correxion. correct what ages you. set out to create a different kind of cold remedy using powerful medicine and natural ingredients from around the world. he called it vicks vaporub. today, the vicks journey continues. introducing new vicks nature fusion cold & flu syrup. powerful multi-symptom medicine flavored with natural honey

instead of artificial flavors and dyes. so you can feel good about what you take to feel better. [ female announcer ] new and improved swiffer dusters with dust lock adhesive can clean virtually every surface in your home. ♪ its thousands of fluffy fibers pick up dust here, there, pretty much everywhere. and swiffer dusters traps 3 times more dust than a feather duster. and locks it away. ♪ swiffer cleans better or your money back. ♪ get around

coming up, the state of the race for the white house. after a big new hampshire endorsement for newt gingrich. joining me the roundtable is here, doris kearns goodwin, jon meacham, michael beschloss, rick lowry and michael eric dyson. up next after this brief commercial break.

we're back with we're back with our political roundtable. joining me editor of the national review rich lowry. author and professor at georgetown university michael eric dyson. presidential historian doris kearns goodwin. executive editor of random house jon meacham and presidential historian michael beschloss. welcome everybody. hope you had a good thanksgiving. the great thing about thanksgiving is you get everybody around the table, and unless you talk about food, you might get into politics and the big issues that were discussed. let's get into it. this race is getting very, very interesting. we mentioned it all morning, the "union-leader" of new hampshire

endorsing newt gingrich in new hampshire. america's at i crucial crossroads. we're in a critical need of innovative forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that gingrich has shown he's capable of providing. deso with the contract with america. he did it in bringing in the first republican house in 40 years, and balanced budgets, and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a democratic president. a lot of candidates say they're going to improve washington. newt gingrich has actually done that and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again. he has the experience, leadership, qualities and vision to lead this very in these trying times. rich, this is a big shot in the arm for his candidacy. >> it's a big deal. it really drives that endorsement. i think they're attracted to newt. they had a editorial meeting with him recently for the same reasons that he's done so well in the debates. his boldness of expression and his command of the issue. i tend too think newt, it's a little bit like watching an episode of magruder on "saturday night live." he has a propensity to say

things that are incredible in politics. but if he wins iowa he's set up for a hell of a run. >> you look at new hampshire. he's got a ways to climb. you look at the latest poll, it's still romney on top at 42%. to gingrich's 15%. and the difficulty that romney still faces, though, is conservative credentials jon meacham and that's what this endorsement is addressing. >> totally. there isn't anybody but romney phenomena. and gingrich, i think, has finally become sort of bush at had his dole, reagan had his bush, bush had his mccain, and romney and gingrich are the two. but people don't trust romney in the republican party because he seems to be all things to all people. and when he was the massachusetts governor, he wu a rockefeller republican. when he wanted to be the republican nominee, he became more conservative. i think there's a great unease here that continues and shows no sign of abating. >> in fact the "union-leader" gets to that later on in this endorsement for gingrich there

was, as well, kind of a dig at romney, doris. we'll put it on the screen. we don't back candidates based on popularity polls as they indicate in the endorsement, or big-shot backers. we look for conservatives with courage and convictions who are independent minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people and best equipped for the job. you don't have to agree with him on every issue. we'd rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear. >> it's a devastating dig, i think. it's usually the democrats who talk about the flip-flop of romney and assume they're going to take it big when it goes to the big election campaign. but the republicans are looking for somebody who is tried and true. especially that conservative group that's going to be in the primaries, they care this time about ideological purity, and there's no way, if the other candidates start putting up what romney has said over and over, unfortunately he should never have come from massachusetts. our state that will have done him in. if you're going to win in massachusetts, you cannot be -- >> but i mean in the white house all they're thinking about is mitt romney, michael and really,

you think newt gingrich is the one they're going to start pivoting and saying, we've got to deal with newt gingrich? you hear the president talk about getting past the fights of the '90s if he can face newt gingrich? >> anything can happen, john kennedy said in 1963, i want barry goldwater, i'll never have to leave the white house during the campaign. i think probably the obama people may be saying the same thing. the other thing in new hampshire that really works against romney, and this "union-leader" endorsement plays into, they love to overturn front runners. edmund muskie, lyndon johnson in 1968, george w. bush in 2000. mitt romney has invested so much in saying, i'm really from new hampshire, not really from massachusetts, i've got a house in new hampshire. think of me that way. if he gets anything less than this overwhelming number that he's got in the polls right now, not going to help. >> michael, you're not exactly a conservative republican primary voter. >> wow. >> but how do you -- >> that's a revelation to myself. i didn't know. happy thanksgiving to you. >> how do you assess this field, and what we're seeing? >> up and down. up and down. through so many different

candidates. >> yeah, they owe debt to children's games of going up and down, and maybe we still haven't found what we're looking for. i think that, obviously, it's a difficult route here. because what's interesting to me, is that republicans choose a guy, at least the "union-leader," like a newt gingrich, all of the stuff about his personal life, all of the questionable moral practices, and the reason those have to be foregrounded, is because republicans have been strong, especially the far right, upon character as critical to government. if that's the case, newt gingrich comes in the door with a handicap. on the other hand, you've got romney, who's like a blank slate. he's like a big philosophical problem that you can write yourself on and whatever you say, he's like ideological camouflage. wherever you put him, that's what he's going to look like. and i think in that sense the soul of republicanism has been lost to, i think, arguments about what we're going do with taxes, grover norquist, all of that stuff. they just haven't found the center of gravity for them yet. >> doris referred to republicans

as looking for someone who is tried and true. and that's really so. but the irony here is newt and romney are very similar kinds of politicians in a lot of ways. they're both center right. both smooth talking in their own ways. they both are prone to compromise. and they both have flip-flopped a lot over the years. romney did it in one fell swoop when he left massachusetts for the republican primary fight in '08. gingrich has done it serially over time. because as much of a historian, he also imagines himself a futurist. so he's constantly looking for the hot new thing. >> but he's also -- you know, he has an incredible capacity to trip himself up. i mean, remember, this was going to be the age of gingrich in 1994/1995. and he got outmaneuvered by president clinton. >> look what else is happening here. you have these debates that are, in effect, a first primary. where people are making their impressions based on how well they perform. what are all the other news headlines about? incredible gaffes. i mean herman cain having too be reminded about the libya campaign, which happened about five minutes ago? so, i mean, this is what's dominating.

and then romney is sort of steady as you go. steady as you go. >> and he may be nominated as a result of that, that steady performance at the debates. but the downside is, he gets to that convention, the delegates at this convention next summer are not likely to be mitt romney-type republicans. and they're going to exact a price. there's going to be a platform that is probably a lot more conservative than he is. >> right. >> they'll probably demand a vice president at that time. you know, look how conservative john mccain looked in the fall of '08 compared to what he did come june. >> going to go back to what you said about the personal problems that gingrich might face if they come up in a general election. i mean, you would hope those would be problems. but there's something about our electorate right now that is so cynical about politicians in general that is so used to be shocked about things, that that level of shockdom, if that's such a word, has come down. and i'm not sure it's going to play out as much to worry about one, two, three wives as it would have. 20 years ago that would have been the end. >> sure. >> character doesn't seem to count in the same way among republicans. i don't know if it defines it as much. interesting. one of our roundtablers, alex

castellanos, gop strategist writing on our press pass blog, let this be an example to you others to contribute to our blog, can newt gingrich possibly win this norm nation today? no. however if romney's balloon-thin campaign suffers the slightest prick, no one else can win it either. then it's anybody's game, including gingrich's. a palin endorsement could take gingrich over the hump on immigration and help him congeal the right. it would compel romney to land the huckabee endorsement to counter. swallow hard, romneyites, can you say, vice president huckabee? that goes to your point, michael. i mean, rich, might he have to do that. i mean mike huckabee in particular to go to the south on a couple of issues, by the way, a lot of issues with his mormon faith in the south and just his conservative credentials and say, this guy's okay? >> that would be quite a coup for romney because pretty much everyone else on the stage in those debates in '08 hated romney. but no one hated him more than mike huckabee. clearly become some sort of personal grudge. so for huckabee to endorse him would be a pretty big deal. >> but it seems to me, this is

actually ultimately perhaps good for romney, because every republican nominee has had some test early on in recent years. reagan lost iowa in 1980. george h.w. bush lost to bob dole in 1988. george w. bush lost to mccain in 2000 in new hampshire. people like the adversity. >> there's always a near-death experience. >> right. >> and this may be a good -- an early wake-up call. >> you become the candidate by default. i mean the thing is that given the scenario you've painted, if he comes to that convention and he's gotten in by default, there's no enthusiasm. they speak about the obama enthusiasm gap. i think romney faces a much harder way to go. because there's not the investment, and there's going to be the infighting. what they say about democrats holding a firing squad in semicircle is going to be especially true of the republicans come the fall. >> and that happened, if you'll forgive me bringing in a dead candidate, thomas e. dewey in 1948. republicans nominated him on the third ballot.

last time they had a multiballot nomination. but there wasn't much enthusiasm. that probably undermined him enough that he lost -- >> and it could make that contrast campaign even stronger. >> sure. >> rich, first of all with the national review, will you endorse a candidate as a conservative publication? >> we have not decided yet. but watch our offices for a little puff of white smoke to go out. >> before we take a break i do want to ask you about immigration. newt gingrich in the debate this week basically going pretty far out there to say look, if you're here illegally right now, it's just not realistic to think that this party of family values is going to deport you. is he supporting amnesty? is this a problem for him, particularly in iowa? >> he's right that you're not going to deport 10 million people, including people who are very entrenched in this country. so what you want to have is basically a policy of attrition where you enforce at the workplace, enforce at the border, and hope that the people who are least attached to this country leave voluntarily. but as a classic newt moment, it's very adult in its way, but

he also said we're going to have these selective service type local boards deciding who stays and who goes, and your first impression is, wow, that's a fascinating creative idea. your second impression is, wow, that would never work. >> let me point something out that goes to romney's vulnerability. he said this would be amnesty, he opposed it in the course of the debate. but on this program, back in 2007, the question was, what do you do with illegal immigrants here in the country. he was asked by tim russert. this was his response. >> those people who come here illegally, and are in this country, the 12 million or so that are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship. >> doris, there's a reason why we keep videotape here. >> there's a reason why these guys should be careful when they come on "meet the press." i mean, that really hurts romney even more than gingrich, i think. to be able to show back-to-back. he's yelling at gingrich, you're in amnesty. and then on the other hand he's calling for something even more than gingrich was calling for, as gingrich is pointing out. he's calling for citizenship possibly. >> let me take a break here. we're going to come back, talk more about presidential leadership. talk about the president himself when we come back with our roundtable right after this. n

we come back with our roundtable right after this. [ male announcer ] in 189, a small town pharmacist set out to create a different kind of cold remedy using powerful medicine and natural ingredients from around the world. he called it vicks vaporub. today, the vicks journey continues. introducing new vicks nature fusion cold & flu syrup. powerful multi-symptom medicine flavored with natural honey instead of artificial flavors and dyes. so you can feel good about what you take to feel better.

we are back with more from our roundtable. we're talking about books about history, the civil war, and andrew jackson, and it is really -- it does put in this kind of perspective, jon, the idea that, some of the social unrest in the country, it really sort of manifests itself in our politics, in a way that it did before the civil war. this kind of sectional politics

rearing its head. you try to capture more modern history here, and set up to an ebook about the return of the republicans, out on tuesday for politico. this is what you write in the introduction. the dawn of 2009 was supposed to inaugurate a new political age, after a decade of war and a year of epic economic collapse. a young democratic president unscarred by the cultural conflicts of the clinton years promised a post-partisan ethos, conservatism was said to be dead. except it wasn't. beginning in early 2009 dispirited republicans said while the presidency may have seemingly come ease toy to barack obama, nothing else would. the rebirth of the right is an extraordinary tale by historical standards it was a rapid shift, on par with the 1966 conservative backlash against lyndon johnson's great society after the 1964 land slide. and as conservatives well know, that drama ended with the election of a republican president in 1968. how did american politics get from the there of a new age of obama to the here of a resurgent

right? that's a big question. >> it's the question, seems to me. we were all sitting around in 2009, and this was a new era. it was an entirely different time. and i think it was a implacable opposition, which is not to say it's wrong, but it was an implacable opposition, and to my mind, the president's greatest failure has been the remarkable inability to establish an enduring emotional connection with the people. he is known as a great orator, but he has not been a great explainer. and therefore, i think that there's no real connection, no real ongoing support for him. and so politics has become very much a cafeteria. >> but, michael, you have to be uncomfortable, i would imagine, you listen to grover norquist. i mean you talk about a kind of anti-tax orthodoxy and you think about as senator schumer said, what are the impacts of, you know, spending cuts across the

board on the middle class? on americans who are out of work? on the poor in this country? when you talk about our politics barreling toward nowhere, frankly. >> yes, the politics of heartlessness and lack of compassion. i think, look, what happened to the notion that the people who benefited from the dance ought to pay the cost for the band? the reality is that the tax bailouts, the tax bonuses, and the tax breaks have been given to those who are at the top. thank god that the super committee, a lot of people are saying, well, they failed. i think at least the democrats grew a spine, stood up to the republicans, who wanted to let those tax -- you know those bush tax cuts go on and they said $600 billion, what that $600 billion infused into the economy we could help a bunch of people. now the interests around the defense have gone forward and said those automatic triggers, no, we're not going to let those happen, but you want to let unemployment insurance expire. i mean, this is the lack of compassion. i'm out here in the streets of d.c., i see veterans who are homeless begging for money. this is the america we think we want?

i don't think so. >> but you think the resurgent right could be explained differently. >> well, i think there are a couple things. one, i saw this rise of democratic power in washington, after the '08 election. you saw simultaneous with that an opinion polls a rise of conservative sentiment in the country. and the delta between these two created the space for the tea party, which was a reaction to obama's agenda, partly, but also a reaction against the republican establishment. which, let's face it, had become lazy, in some instances corrupt and unpop larks and deserved to be burned down. and you have a lot of republican senators now just desperate for someone who doesn't seem like the usual politician. and that accounts for a lot of the resistance to romney. >> but i think there's a space now for president obama. i think the post-partisanship has to go. that is what he came in hoping for, it proved not able to work. if you look back at roosevelt, fdr, he first tried to be a bipartisan leader and got so hurt by the rancor of the republican right who called him a traitor to the class that he went right after them, and he lives in a landslide.

the forces of the entrenched hate me, i welcome their hatred. i don't think that will work for obama because he's not a happy warrior in that way. but there is a model for him in teddy roosevelt. similar to our time, squeezed middle class, up and down gap between the rich and the poor and what he does is say i like corporations as lodge as they do well by us. i like unions as long as they do well for us. but if they start screwing around with us, i'm going after them, and he called for a square deal, fundamental fairness, and that's where the country's at right now. when obama first talked about the failure of the super committee, when he put out his grand proposal, it was the idea that people want fairness, they want balance. that's what teddy roosevelt was all about. every sentence was balanced. think that question is fair. >> will he take this question to the ballot box? >> he wants to run as the candidate of the 99% against the candidate of the 1%, be it romney or gingrich. that might be pretty effective. i think doris is absolutely right. i think another part of it is temperament. barack obama grew up in hawaii, and hawaiian conflict between politicians are actually quite mild. people like each other. they don't disagree a lot. washington -- weather is good. weather is bad here, and washington is not like this in

other ways. so it's a different climate. but the other thing that almost breaks my heart is that last ten years we've been through these awful shocks. 9/11, two wars, biggest economic crisis since the great depression. i would have thought that that would have led to americans voting in greater numbers than ever before, participating. and also congress behaving better. which happened at crucial moments in american history. hasn't happened. leads me to begin to think, perhaps this system is breaking down in a way that -- >> quick point. >> he's in a tough position, i think, because people, you know, wanted to get angry. stand up. you know. i, of course, believe that the spine should be shown. but he's in a difficult position. if he does it, then he's an angry black guy. this is the guy we warned you against. let's not underestimate the degree to which the right wing has been able to exploit in very impolitic fashion some of those racist elements that are sub central ta there, by that the paranoia and fear of what it might mean to soo obama have a second term, that has been a galvaniing impact that people

have, i think, to this day -- >> we've got to go here. take another quick break and come back with our roundtable. n] you can't pass mom's inspection with lots of pieces left behind. that's why there's charmin ultra strong. its diamondweave texture is soft and more durable so it holds up better. fewer pieces left behind. charmin ultra strong. -why? -why? -why? [ female announcer ] we all age differently. roc® multi-correxion 4 zone moisturizer with roc®retinol and antioxidants. lines, wrinkles, and sun damage will fade. roc multi-correxion. correct what ages you. [ male announcer ] indulge all you want. now there's no need to hold back. ♪ new revolutionary scope with dualblast technology obliterates strong food odors and kills bad breath germs leaving your breath minty fresh. hey. sorry i'm late, baby. i bet you're starving. [ male announcer ] so there's no trace of evidence... hey, i thought i did the dishes. [ male announcer ] blast away strong food odors

and bad breath germs with new scope dualblast. also, try crest complete extra white with scope dualblast.

final moments with our roundtable. let's go to our trend tracker, too. as you might imagine the top political story this morning is newt gingrich and that "union-leader" endorsement today. number two, pakistan the border incident, nato strikes killing some 24 pakistanis. this is going to become a tense issue with the administration. and the romney iowa mailings. they're starting to do more direct mail now in iowa. rich, the editor of the "union leader" joe mcquaid talking this morning about the big players in new hampshire, newt gingrich, romney, and ron paul, as well,

who also has a lot more support than he gets a lot of attention for in iowa. >> yeah. you know, one of the fascinating things in the base this time around is in '08, whenever ron paul would say something about foreign policy, he would get booed and every other candidate would gang up on him. now every time he talks about foreign policy, there's at least some applause in the hall, which i think is a sign of some shifting sentiment within the right. i just want to address michael's last point. the tea party hero is herman cain. and there is zero racial anxiety there among tea partiers supporting an african-american. >> that's because he reinforces the stereotype of what a black man is. obama being from hawaii, the politics of chill, let's just, can we all -- it's not martin luther king, it's rodney king. can't we all get along? i think herman cain reinforces certain stereotypes of what that might mean. and i can't figure cain out. he says there's no longer any

concern in this country about racism and racial intolerance and three weeks later because of the charges against him he's talking about being the victim of a high-tech lynching. which one is it? does race make a difference? does it not make a difference? i don't think he's been able to make up his mind. >> i think we've got a whole other program for that discussion. thank you all very much. enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend here in our waning hours. before we go, a programming note to wrap up the holiday weekend. check out our special thanksgiving press pass conversation with assistant white house chef and senior policy adviser for healthy food initiatives, the serious conversation, not just about stuffing, although we do address that. we went down to the white house kitchen last week, we talked about nutrition, healthy eating, and michelle obama's "let's move" campaign. of course, the job of cooking for the first family is also covered. it's all on our press pass blog at presspass.msnbc.com. that is all for today. we'll be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."