>> what do you think a tree can be? can it be as strong as steel? can it be fuel for economists? madison that fights cancer? with our technology, we think it can. weyerhaeuser. growing ideas. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> is there will be a new sheriff in town, and this sheriff is going to listen to the american people. >> i am proud to be a part of this leadership team.

>> charlie rangel learns his fate. >> i have to lead first by example. >> also, what is holding up a nuclear arms reduction treaty? >> it is imperative that the united states ratified the treaty this year. >> the first guantanamo bay detainee almost walks. passengers are getting a touchy about being touched. the sarah palin watch -- will she run? >> could you be barack obama? >> i think so. >> if you saw things were going to calm down in this town after

the midterm elections, you were wrong. nancy pelosi knocked back a rebellion from her own troops and will be succeeded by john boehner as speaker of the new congress. mitch mcconnell decided it was better to switch on earmarks than to fight. a bill to extend jobless benefits failed in the house. and charlie rangel got his comeuppance from the house ethics committee. we have a lame-duck congress and nancy pelosi is still the speaker. the president would cut off tax cuts at $250,000. where do we stand on tax cuts? >> as of this moment, the house democrats are with the president of but the senate democrats once again has settled off the reservation by flirting

with the idea of extending them for everybody. >> if the tax cuts were extended, the richest americans would get a tax savings of -- we are all deficit hawks now. >> in the end, the only way to solve the problem of entitlement and growth and raising income taxes, marginal taxes, by at least 13% on what will amount to half of the small business income and america, and they hire people. it is not a wise way to promote employment and growth in the middle of a recession. that is the argue against it. the solution from peter orszag has suggested extending them temporarily and when the economy improves, terminate them. >> although most people do not know it because god knows

president obama did not tell them, there were tax cuts for middle-class americans in the stimulus package. to add more tax cuts now i think is a little bit fiscally irresponsible especially for people making over $250,000 but it will not stop it from happening. it is christmas time. >> i am looking to you for optimism. >> i am the wrong guy. >congress is so dysfunctional now, particularly in the senate, it is possible they cannot come up with a solution. i guess they will in january but they will kick it down the road i think. >> you have got to extend them temporarily because of the state of the economy.

the real debate should be about what the commission has recommended, real structural changes in entitlements. the deficit commission recommended a whole new structure of tax rate. that is what everybody should be talking about, a real debate about cleaning up the tax code. >> according to a wall street journal poll, people are opposed to this. >> the wall street journal poll did shows that. we know in order to deal with the out-of-control deficit, we have to cut federal expenditures, federal programs, and we have to raise federal revenues. the only people who do not want revenues raised on the taxpayers, and the only people who do not want their programs touched are the ones benefiting from them. it reminds me of a great boston politician who said everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody

wants to die. that is where we are. >> what about earmarks? >> you could eliminate every congressional earmarks and you would save no money. >> banning air marks is another small but symbolic step we can take to show that we are serious what turned mitch mcconnell around? >> he was losing his caucus. to continue with what mark was saying, the republican talking points are we have to have an adult conversation about the budget, and we do. the problem is, there does not seem to be that many adults in the american public. he would cut three tenths of 1% from the budget if you would eliminate year marks. it would not get you anywhere. charles is right. you have to deal with social security, but actually medicaid

and medicare, too. >> all the the president of the united states can turn this around. the only way to get what we need to do is if the president runs himself for reelection, asking for a referendum saying if you vote for me we are going to step up to these problems and deal with them. he has to make it a national referendum otherwise is not going to happen. >> it is like what walter mondale said. >> exactly. >> everybody thinks it is a big joke. >> there is another way to do it pretty you had reagan and tip o'neill and bill bradley agreeing in 1986 on a tax reform that everybody will tell you was the best king for the tax system and the economy that anybody had devised. it has been corrupted over a quarter of a century but eliminated the polls,

deductions, and tax rates and it lowered rates across the board and improve our economy. the way to do it is to have a commission that will report a base closing commission. it makes its recommendation. you vote yes or no. >> that was the proposal before the senate. seven senators co-sponsored it. >> i agree. the seven senators were wrong. >> the only reality out there now is that we have a deficit that is so out of control it is going to bring this country to its knees. >> let's take a look at the house and it. >> i am proud to be a part of this leadership team. our consensus is to go out there to the american people. it is about jobs, reducing the deficit, and fighting for the middle class. >> nancy pelosi will now be the minority leader.

i talked to a number of democrats who thought she would retire gracefully. what happened? >> nancy pelosi decided tuesday and there was no one who was going to challenge her, no one who was a serious challenger. there was a symbolic challenger from the blue dog democrat. half of the blue dogs were depleted. the fact is, nancy pelosi was the architect and engineer of the democrats takeover. she raised the money and she was the national organizer of it. kitschy bring it back? there were 68 votes cast for postponing this vote within the democratic caucus which was a vote against her. this shows there is restlessness within the ranks and. >> the house democrats defeated a republican attempt to cut off funding for unemployment benefits. what does that get them?

>> i think they are acting on principle. it is going to get them a lot of hostility. the question is whether you think it is necessary to do that because you will get a definite -- an indefinite extension. you will end up like europe where there is a large element of the population currently on the dole. it is a tough decision and not easy to do. the democratic argument that it increases employment seems to be odd. it is a question of whether in the middle of a recession these people have a chance to get other jobs or not and whether it is going to act as an incentive. a lot of these folks in their 50s have no chance. >> house democrats did defeat the proposal to cut off funding for npr. >> let me say, we are not nazis

either. >> the house ethics committee votes to sensor charlie rangel. >> it is pathetic. it is heartbreaking. he had a great career and he has been a great patriot. i wish he could quietly stepped aside and not put us to this. >> what is the new house going to look like in the new congress? what is going to happen? >> we have a democratic caucus which is more liberal than the one going out, and a republican caucus that is more conservative. i think the real focus is going to be on how john boehner who i think has been fairly short footed so far on how he deals with the restless in the ranks. a tax crusader who has 235 republicans signed up to vote

for a tax increase, he wants the government to close down. there is a certain element in the caucus that would like to do that pretty >> how does john boehner deal with that element? >> the rubber hits the road when you get to the debt ceiling. you cannot have a continuing resolution forever. you have to vote to have a higher debt ceiling. if they do not vote for that, then the government shut down. >> i keep waiting for the moment that will provoke reality in washington. there is this never-never land quality. we were talking earlier about walter mondale. that was in 1984. hello? look at what happened to him. washington is perpetually stuck in the past. at some point, something breaks it. there is a moment when the

weather breaks it. maybe it will be the debt ceiling. >> a question about the recent elections, a democrat from new jersey was complaining about the treatment the media gave democrats during the last election. there is a all of this talk going around, $200 million a day for the president's trip to india. what has happened to honest, objective reporting? >> there is an interesting thing going on. you would think with the internet and cable and all these different outlets, more information would mean more truth. but i worry that the opposite has happened. it is now more possible for untruth to take hold. the example this week was that they got out from the indian press and then the right wing radio guys and then congress

that obama was spending $200 million a day. you start to wonder. people get their information by internet, e-mail, and there and uncle joe. if that is where they are getting their information, it is possible that untruth will take hold that we thought was not possible in our system. >> it is worrisome, and is left and right. it is about the people who think the bush and administration was in charge of 9/11. they are not the same in importance obviously. the fact that there is no -- there does not seem to be any factual agreement about anything allows us to entertain the most odd and conspiratorial

fantasies. >> when walter cronkite was doing the news, we had cbs, "the new york times, washington post, and so forth. we did not have all these myriad sources of information. there was a standard belief about things. >> of the gatekeepers were largely a bicoastal liberals, and people would take their news from the front page of the new york times. now you have competition. people are now all upset. people are all worried about a detail about obama's trip. george bush lied us into war. he deliberately distorted the facts knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction. it is not only widely held, it is repeated by columnists in the

new york times and not just internet weird stuff it. i do not remember my liberal colleagues being upset about the death of truth at that point. >> of the truth was there were no weapons of mass destruction. >> it was a question of reckless and negligent taking the nation that to war. >> have you denied the democratic leaders have accused -- >> i have never heard a democratic leader, a democratic candidate for president say this. i think we are in a different time and a different era. nobody ever questioned that john kennedy was a catholic or harry truman was a baptist. when you get a large segment questioning whether barack obama is a christian, whether he is an american, and that number is growing, that is the byproduct

of what you are describing, of irresponsible on edited and unaccountable information being circulated both in broadcast and in print. >> the first guantanamo detainee -- >> we would like to express our sympathy for the 224 people who died and the hundreds of others who were injured on august 7, 1998 progress on august 7, 1998, attacks on american embassies carried out by members of al- qaeda planned by osama bin laden killed 224 people. prosecutors say the suspect help al-qaeda with a truck and also brought explosives and so forth. this week, a federal jury convicted him of only one count of conspiracy. how could you not get

convictions on 284 counts? >> there is a first the possibility that his story is true, but i am dubious because i know some things that the jury did not know. this will certainly reignite the debate over this. as there is no decent appeal of this conviction. all of the big questions that would have probably, all as if there was a military commission, those questions, obliterated with this trial. he is going to jail for a minimum of maybe 20 years, and there was no big discussion on torture policies in the courtroom. that was avoided, t 00. >> he was captured in pakistan in 2004 and held by the cia, transferred to guantanamo bay project critics say he should of

been tried in a military commission. >> that probably would have been better. you have the collapse of the central obama idea that the way to deal with people in guantanamo bay or people involved in terrorism is civilian trials. the force of this case which you mentioned, 224 counts are tossed out, in the case of a guy buying the truck and the detonator, there is all kind of evidence that he was aware of this, he gets off except on one count, it tells to either don't try him at all or try him in military tribunals. >> i am with charles on this. >> i think nina makes an excellent point. >> the secretary of state and

the president clearly exercise the possibility that the senate will not ratify a new treaty with the russians at this year. why is he opposed to this? >> he has a problem with the modernization. he wants assurances from the administration that will keep our arsenal intact because testing is no longer permitted. the other issues involved that ought to be aired -- obama says he has to have it this year as a priority. is anybody on the panel aware of the fact that we have not had in force for the entire year? this issue did not once, on the show. if it was such an integral part of our national security, isn't it odd that it does not come up with an 11 and a half months? you would think if it was a critical element of our national security, it would have been mentioned. >> i think the assumption it would get done.

the fear now is that it will not get done at all. >> it is fair to have the senate have questions and pretend they have had 18 hearings, 900 written questions and answers. they have accommodated cairo with million -- with many more billions. it begins to look like a shakedown. >> a $4 billion was the latest number for john kyle. 29 meetings come at exchanges with the president and kyle and staff to work out the details. why is henry kissinger for it? why is condoleezza rice for it? why is dick lugar for it? because it is the right thing to do. >> we and the russians are no

longer excess central enemies. this treaty is irrelevant. the reason is, if the russians wanted to spend money on developing a huge arsenal, it would make no difference at all to our national security. >> i believe you have some feelings about the new airport pat down thing. >> i get it every time i go through an airport because i set off the metal detectors like fire alarms, so i have been there and i am used to it. it is completely idiotic. we know that the problem is how to find a terrorist instead of looking for explosives on a six- year old. it is at the heart of the issue, and that is why 98% of all of this stuff is useless. everyone in the line and knows it.

political correctness. we put up with all this nonsense and we know it is worthless. >> i do not think it is worthless. i don't like it more than anybody else. we had somebody get on a plan with stuffed in his underwear. that is why they are doing this. >> mark? >> i had an emotional experience the last time that i flew, and i thought we were engaged. [laughter] i want to make one point. this would allow the united states to inspect the russian facilities, something we have not been able to do. >> who cares? >> 90% of all the nuclear arsenal in the world between our two countries. >> do you stay up nights worrying about a nuclear exchange with russia? >> i worry about iran, and we

need to get along with russia in order to deal with iran. >> it is complete watered-down, our sanctions, to the point when they have zero effect. >> i am looking at the lay of the land now in trying to figure it out, if it is a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family if it is a good thing. >> could you beat barack obama? >> i think so. >> she thinks she could beat barack obama. does anybody agree with that here? >> i used to think it was a joke. i wonder. i think is going to take a smarter demigod then sarah palin. i think we are getting to a point where the inconceivable is now possible pretty >> sarah palin has her own reality tv show and is going to be on the cover a of the new york times

magazine. >> i think it is most celebrity nonsense. >> we live in an era where you can say almost anything. she has been very successful at that. she is a very gifted and attractive candidate. i still think she polarizes people so much that she cannot win. we also have to remember that this is a woman who has exactly two years of governance in a small stake. that is our only experience it pretty quick can she win the nomination? if she gets it, could she went? >> could she win the nomination? i am not sure. she is certainly a possible nominee. i don't allow anybody winning because all want to get into the playing field down to two, anything can happen. she does not have an ally in the summer rakowski -- li-sao

murkowski. >> if sarah did not exist, what would the liberals have to talk about it? >> musharraf bachman -- michelle bachman. >> donald trump. >> i want donald trump to run so somebody can pull the rug from underneath him. >> and there is a disconnect their pre >> thank you and see you next week. for a