>> what do you think of when you see a tree? a treatment for cancer? alternative fuel for our cars? do you think of hope for the environment, or food, clothing, shelter? we do. weyerhaeuser, growing ideas. >> it is just a damning indictment of the washington post to inability to govern this country -- washington's

inability to govern this country. >> this week on "inside washington," the super committee flames out and the finger- pointing kicks in. >> there are too many republicans refusing to listen to the voices of reason. >> democrats have said we will not cut $1 more without raising taxes. >> in the nation's capital we celebrated thanksgiving with the 11 that republican debate. >> we need to keep afghanistan from becoming a launching point for terror. >> all hell is breaking loose in egypt. >> we just want our rights. >> the republican front-runner has advice for the occupy protesters. >> don't get a job right after you take a bath -- go get a job after you take a bath. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

>> full disclosure -- we are reporting this program today before thanksgiving. i have a feeling not going to miss much. first, the super committee bus. as "politico" sees it, the super committee never had a chance. it failed "because of an un tellable mix of distrust and partisan divide in washington." here is michael bloomberg's take. >> i think it the super committee's inability to come to an agreement is a damning indictment of washington's inability to govern this country. people say who do you blame? both sides of the aisle, both ends of pennsylvania avenue.

>> any argument with the mayor bloomberg on that, nina? >> in general, no, but specifically, the democrats at least propose a larger entitlement cuts that than had been proposed before. the republicans' teeny budge on at the idea of no new taxes. a majority of the country is in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy to get us out of this problem. it won't entirely, but you might as well call their bluff and do it. >> charles? >> it had a chance to do tax reform, the one thing on which left and right agree. fair systemre o and least economic growth. it didn't happen. the president could have made it happen or at least assisted in making it happen. we're probably going to have to

decide the issue next year in the election. it is an ideological divide between left and right about the best way to cure the sick economy. in the end, the people will decide. >> colby? >> let's understand how we got to this point it back in july, the republicans decided to take the debt ceiling hostage. to get ourselves out of the bind we are in, with the full faith and credit of the united states was going to be called into question, mitch mcconnell came up with this jerry-rigged idea that doomed to failure, the super committee. you could tell it was going to fail by the appliance made and the charges given to people. -- by the appointments made in the charges given to people. boehner made clear to republicans or to do on the committee, and so did the democrats. the stalemate was easy to predict. >> mark? >> just to set the mayor of new

york's record straight, super committee democrats proposed a larger cuts in medicare than had been proposed by simpson-bowles or by president obama or any other political entity of record. i think that is part of a. there is no question that it was doomed to fail, because of our allies politics and -- because of our polarized politics and because you have a republican party that has not voted for any real tax increase since 1990, when george bush's budget deal, which in republican or became the reason he lost a second term. >> dana milbank in "the washington post" says that senator kyl was the spoiler. >> you cannot pin this on one individual. you had no give on either side. republicans were locked into

their position, and why shouldn't they be. they have won on everything they have tried to achieve by saying no. >> i actually give the democrats some credit and for moving off the dime a bit. the lack of trust and the lack of ability to have a corresponding move -- the tragedy is that this was a system that may have been doomed to failure, but it also could and doomed to success. it guaranteed a vote on the floor, it would have, if they could have come to an agreement, but an up or down vote. >> what a surprise that nina would have found that the democrats deserve credit on this committee. i'm really shocked to hear that. the fact is that despite all protestations of the democrats, the republicans, starting with the very conservative senator coburn, who was on simpson-

bowles and who approved and supported an increase in net tax rates -- >> that was the gang of six, though. >> no, he voted in simpson- bowles to increase $1 trillion -- i am in the middle of a sentence, and i am going to get to the end i will let you know with punctuation, all right? >> ok. >> comma -- >> [laughter] >> he supported a $1 trillion increase in net tax revenues, the same way that on the super committee, senator toomey of the club for growth supported an increase in tax revenues. it seems to me that the myth that republicans oppose higher taxes is simply not recognizing there is a difference between a lowering rates and increasing revenues. that has been the problem. >> just to correct the record, yes, tom coburn did support that

in simpson-bowles, and he was excluded from the committee. pat toomey was on the committee. he endorsed $300 billion in revenues over the next 10 years, $30 billion a year, under one condition, that the bush tax cuts not simply be retained, but at the highest rate be cut to 28%. i would say this -- the democrats think they got a winner politically on this. they didn't. just let me finish, if i could, charles, before you interrupt. this discredits washington, this discredit congress, and the more it does that, it helps republicans in 2012. >> what i don't understand is how you can say oh, yes, the republicans would have increased revenues, but because the rates were lowered, it is not a good idea. who cares? do you think the chinese, who own our debt, care about the

rates? what they care about is the net revenues and get. if you lowered the debt and can do it with lower rates, it is win-win-win. >> that is a big if. >> is there a silver lining here? >> that is the other thing, they are not going to let the automatic cuts to take place. that is the further damning thing about our system, we have no way of getting these things straightened out. >> the republicans' thanksgiving eve at debate. >> i don't see how the party that says that it is the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy that destroys family, and i am willing to take the heat in st. let's be humane in enforcing. > -- enforcing the law. >> gingrich is soaring trade why? first, rick perry is not a person you would choose to be captain of your debating team.

second, herman cain appears to be geographically challenged. third, mitt romney is lukewarm support brought forth, as mark shields predicted would happen months ago, newt gingrich's effective performance in the bidding has been reflected in polls. -- in debating has been reflected in polls. do you want to take it victory that here? >> n -- take a victory lap here? >> no, but i want to point out that this format is made up for newt gingrich. you have a premium on people speaking coherently, cohesively, using facts in the document. he is the best at by far. and there's nothing adversarial, nobody's saying, "did you say something different earlier?" marriott bartiromo -- maria bartiromo of cnbc was the only person who challenged him. in a party dying to beat barack obama, he is the one guy they

field and go toe to toe with obama. mitt is not the guy they want to go home with. >> this debate was not as nasty or damaging, totally, to anybody as the previous debates, although at one point herman cain called the moderator wolf blitzer "blitz." >> is into their -- isn't there a reindeer called "blitz"? >> these debates are not good for the republican franchise. it does not matter that herman cain is now a lesser candidate. for weeks he was ahead of the pack. my suspicion, not a certainty, is that something similar will happen to newt gingrich. it has happened to michele bachmann, it has happened to others but i think the reason that obama is creeping up in the polls is that this is what people are seeing on a weekly basis. >> let me ask you the same

question. when it comes to foreign policy and national security, the subject of this debate, with which of these candidates would you be most comfortable? >> probably everyone except ron paul, who was living in the 1920's and things that we can have a moat around the united states and if we ignore the world, the world will ignore us. jon huntsman is slightly moderate on afghanistan, but romney made a good point in the debate -- since the plan today is to leave in two years anyway, and everybody agrees that you keep a residual force, even huntsman and obama, i presume, is an argument over a few months one way or the other, in the end it is a very small division. even though huntsman wants to be the one to say that we build a nation at home rather than abroad, he was asked and says he is not for immediate withdrawal. >> colby?

>> huntsman by far. he is unsure what it can it, he has had experience abroad -- he has a surefooted candidate, he has had experience abroad. newt gingrich professes to know something about everything, and he doesn't. in the case of mitt romney, and he works is talking points well, but there is no depth there. jon huntsman by a mile. >> your only choices are the people on that stage. with with a piece and its would you be comfortable as president? >> that is part, because i don't think any of them will do what they say that they will do -- >> and if they did, would you support them? >> on the things i worry about, no. >> yes, let's get that straight. >> i guess i am with colby, and romney does not scare me as much

as some of the other people who seem to just not be thinking. >> mark? >> herman cain -- can be done with him? he was silly, he was and vacuous at the debate. is there consensus on that on the panel? i want to bring harmony in this time of thanksgiving. i guess that ron paul i found at the most interesting, but the most refreshing -- >> do you want him in the white house? >> sure. >> why should we accept your premise? >> the 1 area surprising late where barack a -- the one area, a surprise me, where barack obama surpassed all expectations was for policy. this has been the franchise of the republican party for generations. obama has done a remarkable job for the democrats on the issue of national security.

>> these folks were also debating somebody who was not there, president obama. his foreign policy, says mitt romney, is a failure. romney has an ad in new hampshire that has the obama campaign to fuming. >> if we keep talking about the economy, we are going to lose. >> can get it obama did say that, but that is only part of what he said. >> senator mccain's campaign actually said, "if we keep talking about the economy, we are going to lose." >> ronnie's campaign has been cranking along pretty well. isn't it is amateurish? >> it is a penalty, 15 yards, unnecessary roughness, no question. but it is smart in this sense. first of all, it is not "here i am, romney."

also, it is all about obama. he is putting himself above the fray and on this republicans as saying, "i am the guy who can go and will go. i will ignore all the others and go against obama." >> and ignore all the rules of any shred of truthfulness -- >> he ignored one rule. i am not sure that obama is a model of honesty in terms of this -- >> may i finish? >> i will give you a period right there and at you can continue. >> semi-colon. i think it is a 30-yard penalty -- >> there is no 30-yard penalty -- >> whatever. can i finish, guys? you are going to get a lot of mail. this is the first sort of way he

is introducing himself, in some ways, as an attack on obama, and the attack should have been a good one, not a flawed one that reflects poorly on romney. >> that was my point. he is doing pretty well, why bother? >> what is the doubt about mitt romney? he is not good looking enough? now. -- no. the dow is is there a court to the guy? can you believe what he says today it? what does he need with? a first day commercial that is -- first paid commercial that is a lie. it is cute and clever, but it is a lie. >> but that is what makes this race is so fascinating. you had romney, the flip-flop for, and you had newt gingrich "demagogue" was

made for him. you wonder which of these individuals will end up with the nomination. it will come down between the two of them. >> barack obama's seen in this whole campaign -- theme in this whole campaign is that he stands for the national interest. as we saw in the clip earlier in the show, where he says that republicans are not listening to moderation and reason outside washington, and he is the one who stands for america and the opposition republicans and put party over nation. he says that all the time. he knows better. he knows there is a division of ideology and republicans love that the nation and day out another way of advancing its interest. he does not say that h. he is running entirely an ad hominem attack on republicans that he knows is not true. >> egyptian parliamentary

elections, chaos in the streets. >> the military is losing credibility with the people, because they used excessive of force and live ammunition against protesters, and they are widely perceived as trying to carve out protection and autonomy for themselves when a transition to civilian rule. >> that is nicholas burns, former state department official. it is not mubarak's egypt any more. >> i have been to mubarak's egypt half a dozen times. he is gone, but the military is still there. they are comfortable with the ownership of that country. they are comfortable with keeping it. they don't realize that people really want them gone, the civilians want to take over. it is to be expected that this unrest would continue. >> it is not just the military on one side and the people on the other. the people are divided into two

parties. you have the muslim brotherhood, which was not out in the street all week. people on the streets where the liberal, young urbanites. the brotherhood of deliberately told its members not to demonstrate. why? because elections start to be held on monday for the parliament. the brotherhood is going to win. they know that. they are afraid that if the military is provoked, it will invoke martial law and canceled elections. the brotherhood and the military have a kind of at symbiosis, and what is happening now is the young, liberal urbanites out in the streets are usually the ones in these revolutions who gets swept away. they instigate the revolution, as in iran, or if you like, the russian and even the french revolution. they get swept away, and the discipline hard-core, like the brotherhood on the one hand and the military and other, are the

ones left standing. >> if the brotherhood wins, what does it mean for us? >> is not entirely clear we will have an election. nobody knows where to go, it is not at all clear there will be an election. one and thing was sort of miss in this whole discussion, that in a way i cannot entirely explained, the egyptian military is totally intertwined with and controls a great deal of the economy, owns it in a way. that is why they are fighting so hard not to be ousted. that type of privilege, that kind of economic dominance, is not something they want to lose. >> nobody gives up power willingly. >> nobody does. we always like to have an ideological answer for everything that is going on. let's understand this -- since

the generals have taken over and mubarak has been gone, at 12,000 people have been brought before military tribunals pursue his offenses such as insulting the military -- for serious offenses such as insulting the military and breaking curfew. what triggered this particular outbreak was that the military wanted to exercise its veto power over the constitution that is to be drawn. this is really a question of people revolting against oppression. >> let's not use the shorthand of the brotherhood. what we're talking about is an islamic movement has come to the forefront. that goes beyond the organization we are talking about. it is something fundamental has happened in egypt -- >> in the end, the government will be run not by a broad movement but by people at parties and leaders, and that is why we have to worry about the muslim brotherhood. >> let's shift to a home run protests. a closer look at the occupy wall street movement.

>> the occupy movement starts with the promise that we owe them everything. they take over a public park they did not pay for, use bathrooms they did not pay for, mr. to those who are willing to work to pay the taxes to sustain the bathrooms and the park so that they can self righteously claim if they are the paragons of our virtue to which we owe everything. that is a pretty good symptom of how much of the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country, and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath. [applause] >> couldn't resist that. newt gingrich is talking about, of course, the occupy protesters. after the pepper spray at uc- davis, public opinion may have shifted in the other direction. >> there is nobody at two more for a definition and sort of update on the moral system --

nobody i look to more it for a definition and sort update on the moral system and fabric of this country than in the former speaker of the house. >> [laughter] >> if you play three minutes of newt gingrich, the pomposity is so self congratulatory that his candidacy would implode. that said, the occupy movement was given a lift by the excess, and no question, the abuse at ucal-davis, but they have got to come up with different formats, they have got to come up with something other than occupying public property and disrupting transportation. >> i agree with mark, but newt in that thing, which i at least partly agree with, the t -- betrayed his generation. he is trying to make a vietnam war-era cultural statement about

this movement. yes, there are people like that there, people who need a bath, but also a lot of unemployed people. it is not well done, but it represents a real frustration in the united states. >> the republican front-runner offered this not only on occupy wall street. he went to harvard and he suggested that for kids who go to poor schools, poor kids, one way to change their lives is to become -- to get rid of these child labor laws and a they can become a janitor's, clean their own schools. my grandfather was a janitor. my father worked two jobs. when i was in college, i had to work as a janitor. we call ourselves sanitary engineers. janitors it don't just pick up trash. janitors clean toilets, janitors clean vomit, janitors and to the greedy jobs that he is saying --

get janitors do the gritty jobs that he is saying poor kids should get. and take pride in their schools. the republican front-runner -- this is the person who would become president of the united states. >> the wall street movement, unlike the vietnam protests -- for all of its excess, it had a moral core and purpose. this movement doesn't. it is self indulgent, and they will dissipate as a result of that. >> see you next week.