busine and every family will have to pay. >> health care reform is not a democrat or republican issue, it is an american issue. but from the start of the health-care debate, democrats have completely set aside of the process. >> republican senator orrin hatch. i know i ask this week after week. how are we going to pay? when house solution, tax wealthy americans. another, to which the white house is opposed is tax employee health benefits. we want to tax police and fire fire benefits? and the democratic party is making ads targeting democrats -- one is targeting senator kent conrad, but not by name appeared where is this debate going? >> directly at the white house. i think what we are seeing right now is the empty place left by ted kennedy. he was going to forge these compromises and work consensus. he knows the subject better than

anybody, and he is missed. deference to everyone else involved. but the president understands that his administration will rise and fall on the passage of a serious reform of national health care. if they don't know what, democrats in 2010, for get it, they will be associated and identified with a failed administration. >> colby? >> i don't see it quite that way. you see the first of the committee that authorizes this kind of thing. traditionally the committee -- the kennedy committee, now chaired by chris dodd, of the ones that pull out the benefits. the toughest job is going to come from the finance committee where they are going to have to figure out how to pay from it. that is whether robert will really hit the road. everybody knows it is going to happen. it will happen in the senate, and house ways and means committee. and a president really comes in when the bills passed both bodies and have to be worked out

in conference. that is one we will really see what obama is made of. >> charles? >> if this thing fails, which i think now might, i think people will trace it in a ment in the clip you showed -- amber's new clothes moment. the obama had any sense of contradiction from the river beginning. he says corrtly that the expense of health care, how much we are spending on it, is destroying our economy and it has to stop, that is true. then we get these proposals out of congress from all of this as the head of the cbo is saying raising the curve instead of lowering it. you cannot cure over spending on health care by proposing an expansion of a huge new entitlement. it is a contradiction. it was an answer to a question asked by a democrat, chaired by democrats. i think it is a very significant moments. the money now? you pay for it, and there is no free lunch here. you pay for it by taxing

everybody. benefits beyond a certain amount of the rich people who have benefited enormously by the bush tax cuts. but the other way you pay for it and you make it work is by having some real control on the way health care is apportioned, spent country didn't and this country. and that is completely missing at the moment. there are only pilot programs in this bill. there is no real control from that apartment health and human services. and the president understands that but did get to do something. he can't just sit and wait for it to happen. >> he wants it done by the august recess. how? >> he will not get it done by the august recess. i think the president -- the person who has played a key and useful and productive role is elmendorf by laying down the gauntlet and saying this is an expensive bill -- everybody knows that. now the problem is how you pay for this thing? this is what they are going to have to do. the fact you have senator

grassley, a ranking republican, still at the table trying to work on this thing suggests to me that it is not close to failure, but it is at that critical moment where a compromise will have to be worked out and republicans will have to -- >> crunch time? >> nobody questions the intellect or temperament of barack obama. the question is about the steel and the spine. this is the time for the steel and the spine. the reality is this. house democrats, who are not a terribly popular and sympathetic group, they already cast one potentially tiller vote for climate change. now you ask them to vote to raise taxes, a difficult thing. $554 billion, even though it is on the wealthy. they still go no what the place of no return is -- don't know what the place of no return is

an non-negotiable from the white house. they are asking the senate to pass any kind of tight vote. here the president has to come in and play the role of ted kennedy, that lyndon johnson did and great presidents do when they're a administrations didn't -- agenda is on the line. >> the leader of the house, nancy pelosi, because they have no serious proposal for handling control of costs. her answer was, well, we will have to look at the race to fraud and abuse issues, which is an insult to our intelligence. separately, prevention issues. there is study after study that shows prevention is nice, saves your life, produces -- but it does not save money. enact increases in expenses. they have no serious answers as to how to control costs and that is how they have to end up with huge increases. >> there are serious answers that they are not biting the

bullet. >> we don't have somebody like a danny rostenkowski of ways and means committee or mills, who know how to push these issues. >> and he doesn't have tom daschle, either. >> putting words on it -- we live in a free lunch era. tax increases of any kind are to be avoided. and the reality is they are going to have to be enacted the across the board. >> all

>> can you give me your opinion whether or not in this country i personally as an individual citizen have a right to self- defense? >> as i said, i don't know -- i don't know if that legal question has been ever presented. >> now, unless you have a complete meltdown, you are going to get confirmed. >> members of the senate judiciary committee tried for a better part of this week to pin down judd sonia sotomayor i never of issues.

you just saw one. they failed. if lindsey graham is right and this thing -- what is the point of the four endless days talking about latino wisdom. >> they didn't have much else. republicans wanted to extend a hand to their conservative constituency among the groups that when a blood. there is no blood. practically no blood because she got is a studied and memorize the transcript of the alito and roberts hearings and literally used the same verbal formulations. the only ones to the news from chief justice roberts, i have no quarrel with that. that was the one she stayed away from. but other than that she stuck to their script and the republicans were just as frustrated as the democrats were a few years ago. >> what do we know about this judge? >> a lot less than we knew monday. controversy-free. i have been told that she blew

away the president in the interview. she just absolutely, when she went in, she was not at the top of the list and she was so impressed -- whenever she did in that interview, she kept under wraps. >> we know he didn't ask about abortion. >> that's right. the reality is this guy. bob bork, who was intellectually combative and engaged and controversial, gave intellectual combativeness and engagement in that named -- a bad name and now we have the rope the dope. >> what if we took the cameras away? get through this and a half a day? >> yes. but i thought she demonstrated real legal competency. she reflected her years on the bench as a jurist. there is no question that she knows the law. when one of the panelists, senator graham was reduced to selling the the people thought that she was mean, that was sort

of irrelevant and she's -- he stayed on at for a while. with men it is assertive, with women it is aggressive. >> that's right. >> they say i'm really mean. really mean. >> charles? >> othe four days were sort of a testament to the triumph of conservative judicial philosophy. she ended up giving exactly the john roberts -- which is interesting. it shows that even if you have a popular president, incredibly strong majorities in the congress, you have to pretend, if you are a liberal, that you are not a liberal in judicial philosophy because the vast majority of american people are conservative in looking at the law. in the end, it ended up day after day of disingenuousness to the point of boredom -- if you ever want to make khalid shaikh

mohammed talk, you make him watched those hearings and leslie. he will say anything. >> what about the chance president obama will one day look at this justice and said, amid a mistake. >> she will be the reverse on the court. not anything like the woman who was there testifying. >> i think she is more conservative on some issues that you anticipate, and we are going to see it right away. although, most justices, you don't get a good feeling for them after they are on the bench a few years. but you had the case this year that was 5-4 that said that you can't just submit a forensic report, you have to of the person who did it -- >> the lab technician. >> it was 5-4. justice scalia wrote it, one of those out coalition of liberals and conservatives. i think there is a good chance that the decision will be reversed or totally undercut and

she will be the fifth boat replacing souter the other way. >> spent 12 years on the hispanic legal defense of funds in which she struggled mightily for all kinds of liberal causes, for which i commend her. the idea that somehow the sending 1 to the highest court in which you dissenting make long, she will relinqsh all of these ideological goals, not a chance. >> i thought that was probably heard worst moments, to say that she was on the board of the fund but had not read the legal briefs that the fund generated. >> i actually talked to other board members who said they made a point of this because if they were confirmed, they would have conflicts with these. member so much of the four days was a scripted kabuki dance about abortion geared i've got to tell you.

>> and gun rights. >> gun rights is secondary. th is the 800 pound gorilla or elephant or whatever the hell it is. you know, she's pro-choice, and know that alito and roberts were pro-life. it proves once again that the political process ought to be allowed to work. we were headed toward resolving abortion politically and legislatively in this country but was short circuit by the court and 36 years later it is still front and center. >> i agree entirely. absolutely right. it should have been allowed and ruth bader ginsburg said that before she ascended to the court. >> you could see the -- say the same about race. >> privacy is in the constitution somewhere. >> where? >> i will find it. >> i will bring in my copy later. is congress about

>> to have a massive program

that is concealed from the leaders in congress is not only inappropriate, it cod be illegal. >> i think that we should be looking forward and not backward. >> the difference of opinion. the story behind thi apparently the cia had a plan to kill or capture al qaeda operatives. the agency spent some money, actually traid. based on a 2001 presidential finding that authorized it. when the new cia chief knew about last moh he canceled and told congress about it and they are making noises about investigating. aside from what congress knew or didn't know, why is it acceptable to take out al qaeda from the air with unarmed drones, risking civilians, but not acceptable to kill them 400 yards from a sniper? >> as i understand, it was not just a matter of killing i operatives on the battle were drowned or in places like yemen but also seeking out and telling them in foreign countries,

presumably places like stockholm or bangkok for lagos -- or lagos, and training assassins to do it. this is what caused congress to be open arms because they had not heard about this. it raises a lot of questions. not just the operation but the extent congress ought to be directly involved in every idea, every plan that the central intelligence agency is coming up with. i think we are on really shaky ground. not only a question of what the cia can do but how other intelligence agencies around the world that work with the central intelligence agency will cooperate with us if whatever they are talking about or are planning its on the hill and then becomes the subject of stories. >> these are too often, when we hear about them, black and white. there is a difference between telling about every plant and a plan that had gone on for

essentially seven years. if it is still on the drawing board -- >> it was never implemented. >> apparently it had started -- let me finish. that is not the point. when you are still doing something -- and i am not saying the idea as a bad one -- if you are doing something this series that can indicate all kinds questions and you don't tell congress, at some point, years into this planning, you are asking for trouble. >> do we need to be debating this in public? >> not if they told them about it. >> the scandal is for eight years we did not have a program of targeted assassination for al qaeda. if al qaeda is in afghanistan, you can hit them with a drone. as you say, it is not discriminating, it kills women and children. if the guy is in stockholm, i would shoot or capture him there. a predator cannot capture bin laden, only kill him.

ethically, it is problematic to do it from the sky with a predator. as for affirmation, there was no program. we saw -- it was reaching a stage of perhaps implementing the training, that is why canada raised it. up until then had not reached a training level. there was nothing in there, no scandal at all. a concoction, a way to protect pelosi retroactively because of her accusations about cia lying. >> we are not talking about the speaker of the house. the law is time-consuming -- this is the law. it requires you to inform the appropriate committees. dianne feinstein is not a liberal one worlder. she is tough-minded and was totally excluded. how many times do you break the law and break the public trust and destroy confidence in your

government? >> at what point do you have to tell them? >> it says you have to inform on significant operations. this was not operational, it didn't even exist, it was an idea. >> the decision was made by the vice president of the united states. the report went, approving this, from john yu from the justice departmenty his superiors and the white house directly to the vice president's saying don't inform congress. that series. >> there wasn't a program, operations, only an idea. >>

>> the eagle has landed. >> neil armstrong climbed down the ladder of boehner module and became the first human being industry to set for it -- put on the moon. >> one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. you get a flag up. you can see the stars and stripes. beautiful, just beautiful. >> i -- that was 40 years ago. if you want to read a good column about the challenges of space exploration read it charles krauthammer this week. with all the economic problems, can we afford to meet the

challenge? slow, soft, right over the plate, charles. >> stimulus is spending hundreds of billions on junk. but one thing that will result from our neglect of space is as of september of next year we will lose our ability to put anyone in space. we will have to hitch a ride with the russians and chinese indefinitely. is that where america should be 40 years after the unbelievable achievement landing on the moon in the spirit of john kennedy? i think not. >> i wish we could talk about this landmark achievement without getting to the stimulus package. i don't see the connection. we needed the stimulus package, and we fought to keep moon exploration going as well and i think we confine its way to keep both -- i think we can find a way to keep both. simply because the president did not say he will do something about the moon space exploration is not necessarily to say all is lost and that

america will end as we know it or lump it. >> are we going to get to mars, nina? >> everybody remembers where they were when kennedy was shot and when we landed on the moon and i would much rather remember the landing on the moon i have been at one blastoff, and it was incredibly impressive. >> you mean, you've witnessed one. [laughter] >> were you there? >> of there were a couple on the show. >> it was incredibly exciting and impressive. but i really can't figure out why we should do it. >> it was a great national moment. and i think the desire to recapture that, the sense of national purpose and mission, setting a high standard and doing it is something all americans

♪ >> tim: today's guest was the toronto blue jays most promising young pitcher in 2001 when he was demoted to rebuild his delivery. he returned to the majors and the following year he was an all-star and then in 2003, he won the cy young award. this 6'1" right hander figes to contend again for the top prize. it's my pleasure to welcome the toronto blue js ace, roy halladay. a guy i never met, but came close. we never do a game in toronto. >> we're under the radar up there. it's good and bad for us. we get a nice crowd up there.

mostly canadian, but, you know, it's nice for player to go to place and you can walk around and you're pretty anonymous up there. it's a little different from other cities. it's good and bad. >> tim: you love the city, right? almost every player who plays in toronto loves the city. >> yeah, you know, you can't beat it. it's clean, there's a lot to do. you feel safe t people are great to you. it's a very hometown feel, and it's -- you know, you don't notice it's canada, that you're in a different country. other than going across the border and dealing with customs, you know, it's like playing anywhere else. so i really do, i enjoying being up there and the people and the town. >> tim: i don't nkthink i ever thought of this question, but is the pressure any different from pitching in toronto as opposed to pitching in los angeles or with the giants or certainly

with the new york yankees or the red sox? >> you know, it's hard for me to answer that. i have never been anywhere other than toronto. but, you know, if i had to guess i would say there's less pressure being in toronto. we don't have the media criticism that i think a lot of the other teams have. and, you know, there's always hockey, you know, if we don't do well. so, you know, probably is a little bit easier, you know, you're not so much in the spotlight and there's not so much, you know, especially mediawise it's a lot less. and i think -- than i think it would be in a lot of the other cities. >> tim: of course, the toronto maple leafs the huge, huge favorite up there, but back in the early '90's toronto was the first team to break 4 million, the skydome came in in 1989. >> yeah. i heard a lot about, you know, those few years and