>> this is "the chris matthews show." >> ask not whatour country can do for you -- >> tear down this wall. >> i can hear you. >> the time for change has come. chris: scared to death. first it was the folks afraid of having their guns taken away. next came fear in the suburbs of medical rationing, of being denied an organ transplant. now we hear fear of government, fear of change, fear the president isn't one of us, fear of losing the country i grew up in. is this something personal? would all this be happening if hillary were in the white house?

would she or john kerry be questioned about their americanness? would they have faced the same rage if they had pushed health care for all? finally, is this another vietnam? we've fought for kabul lger than saigon? ve t democrats decided to call it quits? can the president fight a war without his own party? hi, i'm chris matthews. welcome to the show. kathleen parker is a "washington post" columnist and rick stengel is editor of "time" magazine and helene cooper covers "the new york times" and david david brooks of the news hour. there is a stream of anti-obama talk that's been going on for months now. one of the biggest talkers fueling the outrage is glen beck who made this infamous charge. >> this president i think has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seeded hatred for white people or the white culture, i don't know what it is. this guy, i believe, is a

racist. chris: and rush limbaugh was back at it with this? >> it's obama's america, is it not? obama's america, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. you put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in obama's america, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, right on, right on, right on. chris: jimmy carter is talking. let's listen. >> i think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward president barack obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's african-american. chris: this public thought there was a racial element in the obama protest conflicts with president obama's own position. he doesn't like to dwell on it. >> there are some people who ill think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy,

absolutely. sometimes they vote for me for that reason, sometimes they vote against me for that reason. i'm sure it was true during the campaign and i'm sure it's true now. but i think you actually put your finger on what this argument is really about and it's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic, and that is, what's the right role of government, how do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another? chris: rick, you've just got a big cover this out this week in "time" magazine about the paranoid streak in america that we've heard about for years. part of it is a white attitude towards a black president, is it that stark? >> you know, i start from the viewpoint that lots and lots of racists voted for barack obama. i don't -- i can't tell you what is in people's minds and hearts. i do believe that the reaction that's going on now that happened to a white president trying to do the same things barack obama is doing but i do think, also, us dwelling on it,

and i agree with obama about this, is actually not good for the public discourse, it's not good for america. we basically have to move from this kind of discussion and deal with him as he is, as president. and by the way, remember, once upon a time we worried about the fact people couldn't criticize barack obama because he's black. we're past that now. chris: let's look at this sign. i want kathleen to go through. i want my country back. that was last weekend in nashville. would that have happened with another democratic president, i want my country back. >> i think so, chris. i so agree with what rick said. of course there is a racial element any time you have this conversation. there's going to be a certain percentage. but by the way, in japan, 70% of voters a-- in january, 70% of voters approved of barack obama and that percentage didn't suddenly become racist. there's something else at work and when they say "i want my country back" they're talking about this great anxiety that's widespread about the rapid growth of government and the growing deficit and the health care program that's so huge and

incompensable to most. so when they want their country back, they're not saying we want white america back, i think that's a stretch. they're saying we want to remain a constitutionally sound country. and they're in doubt about that. chris: helene, you guys say it's not good for the country and we just watched rush limbaugh calling the president racist and saying he hates white people. that incendiary talk is real and out there now. >> before i get to that, on the rush thing, i was just watching what he said, and i can't remember the last time i said "right on, right on." i think it was back in the 1970's listening to the jackson five. black people don't talk like that. what is he talking about? the white house is definitely concerned about it, though. president oma -- people talk a lot about how obama doesn't really like to talk about race. actually, president obama has addressed race more than any other president. he did it with the skip gates case, he did it in philadelphia, he's done it time and time again. but he wants to move past that

and they're definitely worried which is why you saw this week president obama coming out in full-time campaign mode. did you see the town hall meeting at the university of maryland on thursday where he's fired up and ready to go and it was almost as if we were back in the camp. they are really ramping it up. you see how many interviews he's giving on tv and you see how much he's out there. and it's almost as if they're sort of switching now, back during the campaign when he was out there taking it to the american people. i think that reflects a lot of the concern that they're feeling at the white house. chris: this question is about should he beresident, this rage we're seeing and these rallies, you think they would be there with hillary if she were president? >> i do. what rush and glen beck are doing, that's 100% race talk. but what we've seen now is what eve seen before with william generation brian and andrew jackson and huey long a is a popular uprising of mostly rural people who think the

moral backbone of this country comes from people who work with their hands, who are extremely suspicious when you get government power fused with banking power which is a lot of what they've seen the past few weeks. so they would be upset if washington merged with wall street, the auto industry, the energy sector, the health care industry, and 's a bunch of what they saw as overeducated people were leading the country. they'd be upset whether it was hillary or john kerry or whether it was barack obama or anybody. chris: culturally that's more powerful than racially? >> yes. >> to me it's rural small town versus cosmopolitan big city. the essence of remaining sane is not to get on either sid because they're both driving each other nuts. chris: that's the same thing that said john kerry is french or there's sort of an elite -- you know what i mean. >> this is a deep strain in history and there's a racial element to it but that's not the main element. >> it's anti-elitist more than racist. but what glen beck and rush limbaugh did in those two clips is to empower racist and to

legitimize them. and so that's the shame and horror of what they're doing. chris: this fellow from south carolina, joe wilson down there, when he said "you lied" to president, it struck me as the kind of thing was a weird permission to do that, is that regional where he comes from? look at the people that go to the rallies are from the south. what do you think? >> south carolina is notorious and historically has been kind of out front and -- but i do know joe wilson and he's not an angry white man. he's not a rude person, generally speaking. i was shocked. >> is that part of that old, we're still with the cause, the battle goes on kind of thing? >> i can't speak to what motivated him. i thought it was an unusual thing for him or anyone to do. i think it's unfair to say he was racist in doing that. chris: jimmy carter is wrong about all that? >> i think he's wrong to say -- anyone is wrong to automatically someone is

racist. that particular behavior, we don't know what motivated him and we don't read his mind and don't know his heart. >> going to what david was saying about american history, the fact because of mern media and twitter and because of the internet, all these conversations that were once going on along the margins of society are now going on in the center of society. and yes, you know, the thing that was written about in the town of american politics, both sides in effect mirror each other and have the same attributes and see the enemy in the her because of what they're seeing in themselves. >> right. >> now we all see each other and we're looking at each other all the time. the consequences of that is something we don't actually know because we've never gone through that before. chris: the white house can't -- an open question, does the white house like this polarization of the far left enjoys the craziness of the far right. we know that. because it makes their case. does the white house like this? >> absolutely not. that's not how barack obama campaigned at all. he's much more about, you know, we're not red america, blue america, we're the united states of america. this is the last thing the

white house wants. but i also think -- it sound as if we're speaking -- we're talking about this and we're finding all these different reasons to describe what really is going on. i think i disagree with you guys, i think race play as huge part of what we're seeing. i'm looking at what you just described about the rural south and rural people who are afraid of -- you didn't see tt when george bush was in power and he's the ultimate elitist. chris: by the way, helene -- >> i'm with you. chris: the leaders run this country, the crazies don't run the country thing, john boehner, mitch mcconnell, the democrats are all poo-pooing this. with the white house, you talk to those people, would they like the leaders of both parties to say "cool it?" >> i think they would. first i think father coghlan was objecting to f.d. rmp -- chris: he was far right. >> he was far right. the white house understands you have 10% on the left and 10% on the right.

that's not what they pay attention to and they're not going to pay attention to it and they're sticking with the independents and what the health care bill is leaning towards the center. the main danger of all this, the glen and rush, they're not taking over the country but they are taking over the republican party. so if the republican party is sane, they will say no to these people but every elected leader in the republican party is afraid to take on rush and glen beck. chris: we ask 12 of our regulars is the anti-american passion out there more about him personally or the suspicion of his policies? the meter was split down the middle. some were inspired by his policies. you and david both say it's really things like health care, they don'tike the sound of it. >> i go back to january and the 70% approval rating but i would say it's half and half, half personality and probably half policy. i don't with an to downplay the racism because i think it's a factor but don't want to overplay it either. it takes on a life of its own and becomes more important than

it is. but wackies are greater than 10% on either side, more like half. chris: the wild anger, the polarization of the country, will that pale after the health care debate, say, at thanksgiving time, yes or no? >> no. >> will it appeal? >> yes. chris: will it appeal pale? >> no. >> will it cool? >> before we break, mary traverse died this week, the dazzling part of peter, paul and mary. in the 1960's they were the upbeat soundtrack of our time. ♪ >> ♪ i'll hammer in the danger i'd hammer in between all over this land ♪ chris: they brought joy to folk music we loved in the 19 0's,

the limelighters and the kingston trios, peter, paul and mary brought us together in the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement. here the 1971 moratorium in washington. >> ♪ how did he die and we think that he just doesn't see the answer my friend is blowing in the wind the answer is blowing in the wind ♪ chris: the anthem spread well beyond the people who were simply listening to pop music. ♪ >> ♪ where have all the flowers gone

where have all the flowers gone ♪ ♪ chris: they always kept us feeling good and actually enjoying the times. you always think of them in concert. >> ♪ tell me that you'll wait for me hold me like you'll never let me go but i'm leaving others force on a jet plane don't know when i'll be back again leaving on a jet plane don't know when i'll be back again

leaving on a jet plane don't know when i'll be back again ♪ ♪ [applause] chris: sorry for your loss. when we come back, the anti-war movement against iraq helped barack obama win the election. now with growing worries about the afghanistan war, could this be obama's vietnam? plus scoops and predictions from the note books of these top reporters. >> "the chris matthews show" is brought to you by "the new york times." subscribe to "the weekender" today.

chris: welcome back. president obama beat hillary clinton in the primaries

largely because he opposed the iraq war but not afghanistan. obama was clear about it during last year's campaign. >> i won't start by ending a war in iraq that is costing us too much money and we need to focus on afghanistan and going after bin laden, the folks who actually killed,000 americans. that will be -- killed 3,000 americans. that will be my focus. chris: by the end of this year there will be 68,000 troops over there and they're fighting hard. the commanders are talking about a possible request of 40,000 more troops. why do we need more troops in afghanistan? >> the counterinsurgency strategy there's numbers for the number of troops to the population. we're not close to the accepted ratios. part of the reason is we're doing real nation building, town by town, agricultural reform, legal reform and we need people on the ground to do that stuff and we're not close. chris: helene, why do we need more troops? >> david is rig but we need more troops because we're very underresourced in the east and in the south still, even with

the addition of the 17,000 troops president obama authorized back in april, with those already there, we're still seeing with the network coming out of pakistan and moving to the east o afghanistan and in kandahar is very underresorsde. chris: you cover this for "the new york times," are they asking for more troops, yes or no? >> i think yes. chris: richard s this is a big question, does he have a better reason for leaving or not leaving rather because it would hurt him politically to pull out, or does he have a really clear reason to stay, though? that's the bigger question. are -- >> i think he's afraid if he moves out. the problem with what we're seeing there is he hasn't articulated the mission. we saw the clip where he said we have to combat al qaeda and bin laden. they're not in afghanistan. i don't think he still has made the case to the american public and the american public isn't focusing on it yet. chris: will this nation building argument win? >> i've heard it from david, i've not heard from barack

obama saying our mission in afghanistan is nation building and we're not doing that. if we're in the province we should be elsewhere if our plan is counterinsurgency. >> the reality is it you don't do nation building in afghanistan at least from the point of view of the administration right now, you risk al qaeda and you risk them coming back over the border. chris: there is a column written about americans staying in afghanistan to build up a better afghanistan, a better country. >> you can certainly make that argument. the question is how long are we big to -- are we willing to stay and at what human cost. david's point is right about the counterinsurgency ratio but in order to meet the level it would be 500,000 troops and that wouldn't happen. >> moat would be afghan stance. chris: can he prosecute the war without democratic support? it doesn't look he has anymore. >> the depements are angry about health care but will take it out on afghanistan. chris: and pull the plug. >> and don't forget there will be more republicans on the right of the party who will say

it's obama's war and they'll walk away. you'll have a left-right coalition. chris: that would be a cynical position to pull the plug. >> oh, my god. chris: you think they're going to ask more troops and will they get them? >> i think they'll get them. he's going to have ironically a lot of republican support. i don't think the democratic leadership will bail out. chris: when we come back, scoops and pre

chris: welcome back. kathleen, tell me something i don't know. >> the republicans are looking with great optimism towards california to sort of bring the party back. they're very optimistic that meg whitman will win the primary and possibly the general. they think she will. then karl sereni will run against barbara buckner. chris: ok. >> google is getting in the book business, the book printing business. they're buying the rights of all out of copyright books and you'll be able to order those books in stores and have them printed for you in three minutes.

chris: that boggles my mind. >> i don't have anything that big. president obama campaigned on the position he would speak with -- hold talks about preconditions with america's enemies including iran, this week we're going to the general assembly in new york and president jalmjalm -- mahmoud ahmadinejad will be there trying to avoid him at all costs will president obama. >> in the finance committee the chairman matt baucus has given wer only to a few people in the committee and the rest of e people are in tier 2 status and are really angry. chris: when we come back this week's big question is along those lines, do the liberals want a plic option or no bill at all? be right back.

>> closed captioning provided by -- chris: welcome back. the big question of the week, do the liberals want a public option in the health care bill or no bill at all? >> they want one but don't think they'll kill the bill because of it. >> i do think that's exactly what the white house is worried about and that's why they need to do something more incremental. chris: your answer? >> my answer is no. chris: they won't kill the bill? >> they won't. >> they won't kill the bill and would be political suicide for the democratic party. >> the liberals have already subconsciously capitulated it

but don't realize it. chris: the liberals deliver the bill that does not have a public option in it and will celebrate at the signing ceremony anyway. a great roundtable this week. kathleen parker, richard stengel, helene cooper of "the new york times," david brooks also of "the new york times." that's the show. thanks for watching. see you here next week.

from nbc news in washington, this is "meet the press" with david gregory. >> this sunday, a country div e divided, and the president facing tough issues that invoke passionate debate on both sides. is there a way to get past the argument and find consensus on health care reform, the role of government and the way forward in afghanistan? our guest, the president of the united states, barack obama.

then, the view from the other side of the aisle on the big challenges and hard choices. with us, the republican leader in the house, congressman john boehner of ohio and the senior senator from south carolina, lindsey graham. plus, our political roundtable. >> i think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards president barack obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's african-american. >> president obama responds to the former president and blames the media for fueling the fire. >> this is catnip to the media. this debate that's taking place is not about race, it's about people being worried about how our government should operate. >> insights fr "the washington post" colum nim gene robinson and politico columnist roger simon.

but first, the president of the united states. friday afternoon i sat down with president obama in the roosevelt room at the white house. mr. president, welcome back to "meet the press." >> great to sea you. >> this is a critical moment in the health care debate, and you've been able to assess the landscape. you've got a bill working its way through the senate. you've spoken to congress. as you assess the situation, i wonder whether you approach this with a minimum threshold of what you'll accept for reform or at this point have you said i've laid out my plan, take it all or nothing? >> you know, i think that my focus is on some core principles. i have to have a plan that is good for middle class families who we know last year ended up seeing a 5.5% increase in their premiums, even though inflation

was negative on everything else, that have seen a doubling of their premiums over the last deca decade, that are less secure in terms of the insurance that they can actually count on, and more of more of them can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions because they changed or lost jobs so it's got to be good for them. now the principles that we've talked about, making sure that there's an insurance exchange that allows people to buy in and get health insurance and negotiate as a big pool to drive down costs, making sure that we have insurance reforms that make sure you can still get health insurance even if you've got a pre-existing condition, cap out-of-pocket expenses and so forth, those core things that make insurance a better deal for american consumers, making sure that it's deficit neutral, both now and in the future, making sure that it's driving down health care inflation so that we can actually deal with our long-term budget deficits. those are the core principles that are critical to me, and i think we've actually agreed to 80% of that, if you look at all

the bills coming through all the committees. the key is now just to narrow those differences and if i don't feel like it is a good deal for the american people, then i won't sign a bill? those narrow differences can also in some cases be also very big differences. as you were president-elect last year you said to the nation in light of the huge challenges that the country faces, you said we're going to have to make hard choices and not all of these choices are going to be popular. what are the hard choices that you are now asking the american people to make, and who are you going to say no to in order to get health care done? >> well, i've already made some pretty substantial changes in terms of how i was approaching health care. >> like the public option? you effectively said to the left, it's not going to happen. >> no, that's not true. what i've said is that the public option i think should be a part of this, but we shouldn't think that somehow that's the silver bullet that solves health care. what i've said, for example, on what'scalled an individual mandate, during the campaign i

said, look, if health care is affordable, then i think people will buy it so we don't have to say to folks, you know what, have you to buy health care, and when i talked to health care experts on both the left and the right, what they tell me is that even after you make health care affordable, there's still going to be some folks out there who whether out of inertia or they just don't want to spend the money would rather take their chances. unfortunately, what that means is then you and i and every american out there who has health insurance and are paying their premiums responsibly every month, they have to pick up the cost for emergency room care when one of those people gets sick, so what we've said is as long as we're making this genuinely affordable to families, then you've gotn obligation to get health care just like you have an obligation to get auto insurance in every state. >> are these the hard choices? who are you saying no to? >> that's an example of a hard choice because that's not

necessarily wildly popular, but it's the right thing to do. you know, i have said that it is very important that we take into account the concerns of doctors and nurses who, by the way, support our efforts, and that's something that doesn't get noticed much. the people who are most involved in the health care system know that it's got to be reformed, but i've said that we've got to take into account their concerns about medical malpractice. now that's not popular in my party, never has been, but i've tagged to enough doctors to know that even though it's not the end all be all of driving down health care costs, it's very important to providers to make sure is that their costs are going down so i think there are going to be a whole series of republican ideas, ideas from my opponents during the campaign that we have incorporated and adopted, and this is hard. and, you know, one of the things i've always said is if this had

been easy it would have been taken care of by teddy roosevelt. >> you're not saying to the left that they have to accept malpractice reform or caps on jury awards. you don't even think that that's contributes to the escalating cost of health care. what are you really doing to say to the left, look, you may not like this, but you've got to get on board and you've got to do this? >>listen, i think i was awfully clear, and i'm surprised, david, maybe you haven't been paying attention to what both the left and the right have been saying about my speech to congress, i laid down some pretty claire parameters, and what i said was we're going to take ideas from both sides. the bottom line is that the american people can't afford to stay on the current path. we know that, and that both sides are going to have to give some. everybody is going to hav to give some in order to get something done. we wouldn't have gotten this far, you know, if we hadn't been pretty insistent including to folks in my own party that we've got to get past some of these ideological arguments to actually make something happen. >> this health care debate as

you well know can sometimes be about bigger things and among your harshest critics is the view somehow that government is out of control, and in some cases it's gotten very personal. your election to a lot of people was supposed to mark america somehow moving beyond race. >> right. >> and yet this week you had former president jimmy carter saying most, not just a little, but most of this republican opposition against you is motivated by racism. do you agree with that? >> no. look, i said duri the campaign, there are some people who still think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy, absolutely. sometimes they vote for me for that reason. sometimes they vote against me for that reason. i'm sure that was true during the campaign. i'm sure that's true now, but i think you actually put your finger on what this argument is really about, and it's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic, and that is what's the right role of government, how do we balance

freedom with our need to look after one another? i talked about this in the joint session speech. this is not a new argument, and it always invokes passions. it was a passionate argument between jefferson and hamilton about this, you know andrew jackson built a whole political party around this notion somehow, you know, that there's populist outrage against a federal government that was overintrusive, and so what -- what i think is going on is that we've got a healthy debate taking place. the vast majority of people are conducting it in a very sensible way. i think that every president who has tried to make significant changes along these lines, whether it was fdr or ronald reagan elicit very strong, passionate responses, but i do think that we all have an obligation to try to conduct this conversation in a civil way

and to recognize that each of us are patriots, that each of us are americans and that, by the way, my proposals as much as you may not like them if you're a republican or on the right, regnize that this is well within t mainstream of what americans have been talking about for years in terms of making sure that everybody in this country gets decent health care and that people who have health care are protected. >> just to be clear though. >> yeah. >> it wasn't just president carter. there are others in the congressional black caucus, other thinkers who have said that they agree that there is racism out there in that opposition to you. i just want to be clear. are you saying to the former president and others who speak this way is counterproduct sniff. >> well, look, david, here is what i'm saying. i'm saying that the media loves to have a conversation about race. i mean, this is catnip to the

media because it is a running thread in american history that's very powerful and it evokes some very strong emotions. i'm not saying that race never matters in any of these public debates that we have. what i'm saying is this debate that's taking place is not about race. it's about people being worried about how our government should operate. now, i think a lot of those folks on the other side are wrong. i think that they have entirely mischaracterized the nature of our efforts, and i think it's important that we stay focused on solving problems as opposed to plucking out a sentence here or a comment there and then the entire debate which should be about how do we make sure middle class families have secure health care doesn't get consumed by other things. >> in that vain, house speaker pelosi worried about the opposition, the tone of it perhaps leading to violence as

it did in the '70s. there's more recent examples of anti-government violence occurring even in the mid-'90s. do you worry about that? >> well, look, i think that we have an obligation in washington as leaders to make sure that we are sending a strong message, that we can disagree but the being disagreeable, without, you know, questioning each other's motives. when we start caricaturing the oer side, i think that's a problem, and, unfortunately, we've got, as i said before, a 24-hour news cycle where what gets you on the news is controversy. what gets you on the news is the exeme statement. the easiest way to get 15 minutes on the news or your 15 minutes of fame is to be rude, and that's something that i think has to change, and it starts with me, and i've tried to make sure that i've sent a

clear signal and i've tried to maintain an approach that says, look, we can have some serious disagreements but at the end of the day i'm assuming you want the best for america just like i do. >> you get a lot of airtime, too, and your views are not rude. >> i do occupy a pretty special seat at the moment, but i do think that -- look, i mean, let's face it, if you look at the news cycle over the last week, you know, it hasn't been the sensible people who, you know, very deliberately talk about the important issues that we face in the country. that's not the folks who are getting a lot of coverage. >> let me ask you about another important issue facing you and your administration and that is afghanistan. >> yeah. >> we've now been in afghanistan for eight years. the soviets pulled out of afghanistan after ten years. >> right. >> are we committed to this war for an indefinite period of time, or do you think in your mind that there is a deadline

for withdrawal? >> i don't have a deadline for withdrawal, but i'm certainly not somebody who believes in indefinite occupations of other countries. keep in mind what happened when i came in. we had been adrift i think when it came to our afghanistan strategy, and what i said was that we are going to do a top-to-bottom review of what's taking place there, not just a one-time review, but we're going to do a review before the election in afghanistan and then we're going to do another review after the election, and we are going to see how this is fitting what ihink is our core goal which is to go after the folks who killed 3,000 americans during 9/11 and who are still plotting to kill us, al qaeda. how do we dismantle them, disrupt them, destroy them? now getting our strategy right in afghanistan and in pakistan are both important elements of that, but that's our goal, and i want to stay focused on that, and so right now what's happened

is that we had an election in afghanistan. it did not go as smoothly as i think we would have hoped and that there are some serious issues in terms of how that -- how the election was conducted in some parts of the country, but we've had that election. we now finally have the 21,000 troops in place that i had already ordered to go. >> are you skeptical about more troops, about sending more troops? >> well, can i just say this? i have to exercise skepticism any time i send a single young man or woman in uniform into harm's way because i'm the one who is answerable to their parents if they don't come home, so i have to ask some very hard questions any time i send our troops in. the question that i'm asking right now is to our military, to general mcchrystal, to general petraeus to all our national security apparatus is whether it's troops who are already there or any troop request in the future, how does this

advance america's national security interests? how does it make sure that al qaeda and its extremist allies cannot attack the united states homeland, our allies, our troops who are based in europe? that's the question that i'm constantly asking because that's the primary threat that we went there to deal with, and if -- if supporting the afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that central artery skwi, then we'll move forward, but if it doesn't, then i'm not interested in just being in afghanistan for the sake of being in afghanistan or saving face or in some way, you know, sending a message that america is here for the duration. i think it's important that we match strategy to resources. what i'm also not going to do is put the resource question before the strategy question. until i'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy, i'm not going to be sending some young

man or woman over there beyond what we already have. >> on a lighter ne, before i let you go, mr. president, were brazen this summer at the all-star game wearing your chicago white sox jacket out there to throw the first pitch. hate to break it to you, but doesn't look so good for your white sox here so i want to know ho is your pick to win the world series? >> you know, i am -- i think mathematically the white sox can still get in the playoffs. >> they can, mathematically. you're an optimist. >> so until they are eliminated, i will make no predictions. >> oh, come on. >> i've got to say though that the cardinals have been coming on strong and pujols sun believable. >> he is. >> but this is tough to say. the yankees are also doing pretty well, and a shout-out to derek jeter for breaking lou gehrig's. he's a classic >> and now the view from the other side of the aisle. we're joined here in washington by congressman john boehner and senator lindsey graham. welcome, both of you, back to "meet the press." maybe we'll get to baseball if there's time but there's a lot

of substantive issues in that interview that i want to go through with both of you. leader boehner, it sounds like the president was trying to cool off this debate over government, over health care. he pointedly disagreed, the former president jimmy carter saying the opposition against him is not about race, but he also issued a challenge to republicans who he said are totally mischaracterizing the naturef our efforts. your response? >> well, he said basically the same thing when he came to capitol hill and gave a speech, took on the right for our descriptions of what they are trying to do, but if you step back and look at the bill that we have in the house, i'll let lindsey talk about the senate, it represents a giant takeover of our health care system. now there is no debate in washington or around the country about the need for us to fix our health care system. it doesn't work well for everyone, and it -- and it costs too much, but we can fix our current system. we can make it work better.

we don't have to throw it away and have this big-government plan that we see moving through the house, and i you look at what the president has been supporting, it's this big-government plan that has some 51 new agencies, boards, commissions, mandates that is going to get in the way of delivering quality care to the american people. >> i want to come back to the specifics about health care, but i want to stay with this tone of the debate right now and whether or not you agree that by some of the things the president said in the course of that interview he is trying to cool off the debate, the tone of the debate. do you see it that way? >> well, i don't know that the tone of the debate has gotten out of control. >> you don't think so? >> it's been spirited because we're talking about an issue that affects every single american, and because it affects every american in a very personal way, more americans have been engaged in this debate than any issue in decades, and so there's room to work together, but i first believe that we've got to just take this

big-government option, this big-government plan and move it to the side. let's talk about what we can do to make our current system work better. then we'll have some grounds on which to build. >> senator graham, this is the cover of the week magazine. it's got a statue of your colleague from south carolina joe wilson and sys "mad as hell, what's driving the passionate backlash against obama." do you disagree with your colleague here? has this gotten out of hand? >> well, let me talk about the tone. i wish the president had been the way he was in your interview in the joint session. what joe did was unacceptable and it was not proper and we all said that, including joe, but what the president did today is changed his tone. when he came to the house, he was very combative, i thought. we're not bickering. he accused people of demagoguery who objected to his plan. he basically accused people of lying about certain aspects of his plan, and he says if you want to bicker, forgets it. if you want to sit down and

talk, well, i've always wanted to sit down and talk. the president is selling something that people quite frankly are not buying. he's been on everything but the food channel. last week he was addressing the nation. his problem is when he says the public option won't affect your health care choice, people don't believe that. they think if the government gets involved in private health care, that the health care they got is going to be compromised. when he says it won't add a peny to the deficit, then the next sentence out of his month, if it does, we'll pull a trigger to stop the spending, we've never pulled any frigers in any other bills and when he talks about how you pay for it we're got to get a $300 billion savings from medicare and medicaid, never done that before, so the problem with the president, he's saying things people want to hear, you'll never be asked to give up your own health care, won't add to the deficit but when you look at the details it doesn't add up and today i thought his tone is better. this is not about tone. this is about policy. it's not about race, it's about

the president selling something that people inherently believe sounds too good and doesn't add up. >> and he speaks about the role of overent. first leader boehner, do you think what congressman wilson did was inappropriate, and should he have been, you know, had the resolution passed against him essentially punishing him, admonishing him? >> it was inappropriate. that's why congressman wilson called the white house, apologized to the president, and the president was gracious enough to accept his apology. that should have been the end of thestory. why house democrats decided to press ahead with this resolution to slap his wrist i beyond me, but it looked to me like nothing more than a partisan political stunt. it didn't need to happen. it was over with. as the president said, it's time to talk about health care, not talk about joe wilson. >> this question about the role of the government and house speaker nancy pelosi saying this week what she worries about in the tone of debate is that it

could lead to violence as it did in the '70s. you know, there was anti-government violence in the '90s in oklahoma city as well. how much of a concern is that? do you share it, or do you think that was an overstatement on her part? >> well, quite frankly, i mean, the whole idea of the role of government needs to be debated. the public option -- she says there will be no bill coming out of the house without a public option. america is saying listen, the government programs we've got like medicare is $34 trillion underfunded. the baucus bill adds 11 million to a medicaid system that the states can't afford so a lot of us are concerned that nancy pelosi and others are pushing government to control prices when it will not work in health care. competition and choice. if you've got only one plan in alabama, let the people in alabama shop around the country for plans, but i'm not so worried about, you know, her criticism about the opponents of the plan don't bother me. the fact that we're -- >> she's talking about violence though. you don't buy that? >> i don't think -- >> david, i'm not concerned

about violence. >> no. >> i'm sure speaker pelosi was sincere in her concern, but let's remember something. the debate that we're in here is not just about health care. it's about the trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to be about jobs and turned into mog than spending and spending and more spending. tess about 'budget with a neay $2 trillion deficit this year and trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. it's this cap-and-trade system, a big giant tax on the american people that this week we just find out, the treasury department said will cost the average family $1,700 per year. you add to that this whole question of health care and the government option and the government involvement, and americans today are getting more news about what's happening in their government than they have ever gotten before, and americans are generally scared to death, scared to death >> but leader, don't they get even more scared when you've got the head of the republican party sending out an e-mail to challenge the president and democratic leaders for a

socialist power grab? i mean, is that appropriate conversation? you really think the president is a socialist? >> listen, when you begin to look at how much they want to grow government, you can call it whatever you want, but the fact is -- >> well, what do you call it? >> this is unsustainable. >> that's fine. >> do you think the president is a socialist? >> no. >> the head of the republican party is calling him that. >> listen, i didn't call him that and i'm not going to call him that. what's going on here is unsustainable. our natio is broke, and at a time when we've got the serious economic problem and near 10% unemployment, we ought to be looking to create jobs in america, not kill jobs in america. their cap-and-trade proposal, all this spending, all of this debt and now their health care plan will make it more difficult for employers to hire people, more difficult, more expensive to have employees which means we're going to have less jobs in america but americans are scared. that's why they are speaking up and that's why they are engaging in government. >> let me follow up on this case

about health care. you were on the program back in year january and you said we don't want to be the party of no. now the question is what are the costs of inaction? the business roundtable has issued a report, not a left wing organization, i think you probably agree, and the report is titled "perils of inaction. when are the costs of doing nothing?" two key findings i want to highlight. without significant marketplace refarms if current trends continue annual health care costs for employers will rise 166% over the next decade from $10,743 per employee today to over $28,000 by 2019. also if nothing changes by 2019 total health care spending will reach $4.4 trillion consuming more than 20% of the u.s. gross domestic product. the question i asked the president, leader, if you don't want to be the party of no, what are you prepared to do, what hard choice are you prepared to do as a party to put some ideas forward on health care? >> we've outlined a number of ideas to make the current system better.

why not allow small employers to group together through national associations so they can buy health insurance for their employees like big companies and unions can today. why not allow the american people to buy health care plans across state lines? why not get serious about medical malpractice reform and more importantly the defensive medicine that doctors practice because we haven't reformed our tort system? there are ideas. i outlined some of these ideas in a letter to the president back in may, asked to sit down with him and his administration, and we got a nice polite loather back that says thank you for your ideas. we'll see you at the end. i've not been to the white house since late april, early may. there's been no bipartisan conversation on capitol hill about health care. at some point when these big-government plans fail, and they will, the congress will not pass this. it's really time for the president to hit the reset button and stop all of this and let's sit down and start over in

a bipartisan way to build a plan that americans will support. >> so you think the plan is dead? >> i think it is. >> senator graham, the plan that's moving through the senate, the baucus bill and the senate finance committee includes a provision about controlling costs, right, and that's been the big thrust. republicans and democrats and the president as well. ron brownstein writes this about the baucus bill. the congressional budget office concluded that the baucus bill could move close to universal coverage, reaching 94% of eligible americans, with a funding stream that not only met the cost of expanding coverage but also reduced the deficit in that second decade. >> right. isn't that something you could support? >> yes, and i'm on the bennett bill that is deficit neutral but the baucus bill is getting ipartisan criticism. democrats are saying they don't want a 35% tax on so-called cadillac plans that union members are involved in where if you have 21,000 for family and 8,000 for individual, the baucus bill taxes those plans. they are taxing medical services that companies want to provide

to their employees and employees are willing to pay for it to cover the uninsured and puts 11 million people on the medicaid system and reduces medicare by $400 billion to get to deficit neutrality. i don't believe it. we tried to reduce medicare by $33.89 billion and conned get one democrat to vote for it, so i don't believe one minute that you're going to get the congress to reduce medicare by $400 billion to make this thing deficit neutral. it taxes medical device companies. it puts $6 billion of tax on insurance companies that are going to be passed on to individuals so the taxing plan and the spending cuts don't exist. they will never going to happen. let's put a bill on the table that has a chance of getting passed. one plan says i will cover every person in the country as a mandate and widen is saying let's do it through the private sector. >> anything thepr