>> i will not waste time with those who made the calculation that it is better politics to kill the plan then to irove it. >> this week on "inside washington," a combative president obama challenges congress to give a health-care plan. >> i thought the speech was partisan, uninformative, disingenuous. >> what will it take for his fellow democrats to get their act together? >> i believe a public option would be essentials to our passing a bill in the house of representatives. >> a public option cannot pass the senate. >> vindictive. >> mendacious. >> liar is a good one. >> and eight dated campaign film gets a fresh look a the supreme court hears a livy arguments

on a campaign finance and free- speech. and the 9/11 attacks, eight years later. it was not a great summer for president obama. his approval ratings drop steadily and was also a noisy summer, most coming from opponents of his proposal to reform health care. he told a joint session that it is time to stop the noise and get to work. >> the time for bickering is over. the time for games has passed. now is the season for action. >> the president announced three basic goals for his health care reform package. >> and will provide more security and stability for those who have health insurance. it will provide insurance for those who don't.

and it will slow the growth o health care costs for our families, businesses, and our government. >> noble goals. i am sure we all agree. the question is how we get there and the other question, of course, how we pay for it. colby, you have the same week after week this game is far from over. it is a mistake to count the president out to or live. what did you think of the speech? >> i think he achieved a couple of goals. one, he g the democratic party to understand that it is really his game to play and they are the ones who will have to carry this. he went beyond the congress and talk to american people about what he had in his plan. early polls show a favorable response to what he had to say. it also reveals some shortcomings, for example, details. >> charles? >> i thought it was one of the most elegant lee-delivered cut -- elegantly delivered,

smoothly argue that sales of snake oil i have ever seen given by a president. it was deceptive to the point of dishonesty, and yet he pulled it off as only he can. >> all right. nina? >> i thought it was a quite brilliant speech, aided and abetted by republicans, and not just congressman wilson, who haven't figured out how to behave when a president of delivering an address without drawing attention to themselves in a negative way. >> you mean like democrats who heckled and booed in the 2005 bush state of the union? >> we can debate this later. let us hear from mark. the majestic question. >> i thought it was the best speech barack obama has given since the rev. wright speech in philadelphia. he had to unite the democratic party. he had to convince the people in the hall that this was

important, urgent, not simply to the nation but to them. he spoke with passion. he had been to school. he claimed ownership of the health plan for the first time. we have gone beyond suggestions and seminars and into specifics. and i just thought he did exceptionally well. >> snake oil -- charles says it is the coil. >> no, well, look, short of barack obama submitting his resignation and getting a one- way to get back to chicago, there is nothing he can do or say that would satisfy some people, including some friends we have on this panel. that said -- >> if you like, i can explain. >> we don't need any more snake oil at the table right now. i want to stay substantive and say, look, he laid out the kind of program or plan that now gets the legislative process going.

max baucus on the finance committee is going to have to do something next week with or without the republicans. you have bills already working through the house. you see the shape of what he is talking about here is some of it -- some of the things the outlined will not be in the bill. the public option question is one that will get addressed and i think in a way that will make this bill saleable. >> can i be allowed to explain as the only dissenter of the panel about the genius of the speech? it was the biggest free lunch offering in the history of the country. on the one hand he says if you have insurance, it will be lifetime, it can take away, guaranteed, no caps, if you don't have it, you will get insurance. the detail i love is that everybody is going to get a free colonoscopy. 80 years ago it was a chicken in every basket and now it is a colonoscope. >> don't go there. >> in the dark. >> and what is the cost?

all of this being done at the cost of less than $1 trillion -- >> $900 billion over 10 years. >> how do we get that? he says that more than half will come from squeezing waste, fraud, and of use out of medicare. now, when richard nixon used that phrase in 1971 it was already a joke. that is an insult to the intelligence of the american people. waste, fraud, abuse, have a trillion dollars crosswalks the? . if that is so, why has he not run it out yet? what is he waiting for? why do we have to have a bill. >> regardless of the opposition, he was behind the curve money started the speech. will this put him back in business? politically? >> at least in the short term it will. but they've got to move the ball quickly, otherwise they can lose the momentum again. >> with all due respect to the gentleman on my left, the president, quite frankly, framed

it differently when this issue -- then it has been framed to any other leader. he said to us, not what is and it to each of us. that has been the debate too often. he said what is in it for us, to alof us, is to be citizens in a country that really does practice the justice. and he cast it in moral terms, which is awfully important. as far as the six, he did in fact go to an individual mandate which has been a republican idea, he did it go to pools for those who cannot have insurance, which is a john mccain idea, he did in fact talk openly about medical malpractice. >> charles likes that one. >> they were specifics. >> you must be kidding. on malpractice he threw a bomb that was so transparently insincere -- through a bone. he said he will try a demonstration project but he leaves it out of the bill. he is remaking 16 of the economy

and he is leaving out tort reform. >> this is an idea -- >> saying there will be no tort reform in the bill. that is what he said. >> it wouldn't matter if it were. but that is neither here nor there because we know from states that have very severe caps on what you can award people in lawsuits, that it hasn't cnged the equation on costs. >> not true at all. in texas it has had a dramatic effect. absolutely. >> medicare, medicaid. >> why don't you try, you lie, charles? >> prevaricate. >> the fact is, we can't have any of the big things he wants, most people want -- that is, the can't deny you for pre-existing condition -- we can't do that unless we have a large pool and it can only get there by a mandate for individuals. and that is something different from the way we have done this

and the country. i am not quite sure have the details will work out but it is essential. >> the so-called public option and a date with and the democrats, next.

>> frankly, unless he is more clear about the notion of the public option we will continue to tug in different directions. >> i cannot support the current house bill primarily because some of my concerns about the costs. >> there you have to house democrats, one from new york, admin about the need for public option, and one from south dakota who, like a lot of the book award about the cost. house speaker nancy pelosi has been saying no public option, no bill in the house. but on thursday after the president's speech she's seen to wobble a little bit, marc. >> the reality, as of now, the

senate will not go for a public option. >> max baucus said that. >> that's right. and the reality is that the house, the progressive caucus and the house, the core of nancy pelosi's support and core of the democratic party and the house, are committed to it. you ask people to vote in the house, -- the public option is controversial, popular with the liberal wing, but with the understanding and the fear that it will be knocked out by the senate so it is never going to see the light of day. it becomes a political question. but the democrats, make no mistake about this, are unified and are unified but -- by what nina gulstan are earlier, the republicans, and by giving a face and a voice to the opposition, that dominated the coverage of the last few days, someone who previously could not have been picked out of a police lineup -- now he is the face and

the voice of the party of the no. >> i just want to say something here. really there is art to being opposition party animal like this in a speech. there are always yobbo -- yahoos in a party. but -- they looked so uncomfortable, so white male and belligerent. you have to learn to be respectively -- respectfully and passive. >> the house and senate bills, how they apply to illegal immigrants? will they provide health care? >> that is sort of a red herring. let us go back to the public option for just a second. i think what would happen is the house did pass a bill with the public option, knowing full well it would not pass the senate. but there would be at least 45 votes.

but when they expect it, then the public option would kick in. that seemed to be an unreasonable outcome in this debate. >> who goes first, house or senate? >> that becomes a real problem. i will be very blt about it. if you go to conference, the smart money is all on the house guys. the house people know the subject. they live with it. senators are doing television. and senators are visiting new hampshire and iowa. house people actually work, and that, quite frankly, chances of the senate being rolled in conference are high. >> i want to play a sound bite from the president and, charles,

i want your reaction. listen to this. >> i will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. >> can he keep a promise like this? disingenuous. he said it would cost $900 billion. he will get it out of magic, medicare squeezing. he said there would be no decrease in any care of equality of treatment in medicare after he takes half a trillion dollars. this is absolutely observe. it will not happen. he sets up a kind of a trigger that will undo it in the year 2012, which nobody believes. just want to say a word about what nina said about this belated discovery of the virtues of the pass of respect in the opposition. i am not sure it was high virtue in her mind in the bush years -- it joe wilson had been the other joe wilson, a husband of a valerie plame -- >> he wasn't in congress.

>> he would be carried out on the shoulders of my crew on the right as a national hero for speaking truth to power. in fact, on the issue of illegal immigrants, joe wilson, who was disrespectful d should not have said that, was correct. absolutely correct. >> he really wasn't. >> language of the bill specifically prohibits -- >> it does. >> laws and america are not self enforcing. if laws were, we would not have illegal aliens. if there were laws against illegal immigration. >> so it doesn't matter? >> it matters if you have enforcement mechanisms and the democrats voted against requiring a proof of citizenship. >> they voted against provisions that would have made it so that citizens would very often not have gotten medical care. >> they voted against a provision where you are required to prove your citizenship. in absence of that, there is absolutely nothing that would

prevent illegal aliens from getting that kind -- >> that is at variance with the truth. >> just saying it so won't make it so. on television, it may work, but not in reality. >> what joe wilson did it -- american people want a bipartisanship. they want to reach across lines. barack obama made those gestures at his speech on wednesday night but the important thing is this -- what joe wilson did was give of the permission to work only with the democrats because it is obvious from his actions and from the defense of the from people like limbaugh and the other spokesman of the party that in fact this is acceptable behavior, so americans, when it passed the bill with democratic votes -- >> obama gave a partisan speech in the absence of permission, he did not need it. hyper-partisan speech nonetheless.

>> campaign finance, fr

>> does anyone believe that the rights of average citizens to be heard in washington would not be overridden by a massive campaign, unlamented campaign contributions from corporations and unions? >> they will disable the government. the representatives of the people of this country, from ever fixing the campaign finance system. >> senator john mccain and russell fine gold, co-sponsors of the law that regulates the financing of political campaign -- was fine gold. it all comes from a movie about hillary clinton time for release during the 2008 primary. timing involved -- that is why it is at the supreme court? and ectly. it went up on a relatively minor

point, to see if this group had an exception under the law. instead afterwards they heard arguments in march. justices ordered another argument on a huge question of whether congress could, as it has for a centuries in centrally banned corporate and union spending in elections. you have to do it through individual contributions and not through the corporate union, union general treasury fund. and it looked very much that there may be five justices to say congress cannot put that ban in place. >> then what happens, colby, floodgates open? >> look, corporations and unions are already contributing to campaigns, they do it through pacs, their employees do it through political action committees. i am a big advocate of disclosure. let us know exactly where the money is coming from. i also believe in speech. and i also believe these

institutions -- labor unions, and corporations -- should have the right to speak about their issues and speak the same way individuals do, through contributions. john mccain laid out the predicate, that it would be massive spending on campaigns. so be it. we already have it right now. i just think they ought to be fully disclosed. this makes me a heretic in my group, but -- >> it makes you right. >> the other interesting aspect is this group did not want to disclose. there is a lot of talk about you all have full disclosure. but when the cases come to court, the group's never want to disclose. >> let's be very blunt here. in my earlier life i was a political hack and raise money. it may be an anti-colonist, god gave money to the least attractive, let interesting and least fair minded of creatures. i will be very blunt here.

this is about money and it is about corporate dominance of our politics. if you take 1% of exxon's profits from last year, that is more than barack obama raised and spent in the whole campaign. john mccain and russ feingold are absolutely right. we will go back to a time before teddy roosevelt where we had united states senators -- not called senators from pennsylvania, massachusetts, but from u.s. steel, sinclair oil. this is a terrifying prospect. >> what do we have now? >> exactly. >> individual contributions. >> $1 billion was spent in the last campaign -- look, we have a first amendment. once you have congress regulating political speech you are curtailing the most precious asset in america. if you have disclosure, as kolbe said, that is what you need, disclosure, open honesty, and an open playing field.

ground zero in new york. police, firefighters, and police officers on the eighth anniversary of the attack of 9/11, september 11, 2001, world trade center attack. the weather that day was clear, crisp. the skies were blue. then at 8:46 a.m., the nation changed, and we have not recovered yet. >> and we are not going to recover. we changed fundamentally because we were attacked in a way we never anticipated. now where we are is a post-9/11 age and it has affected us from the standpoint of our civil liberties, from the standpoint of national security, the way in which we deal with each other and other countries, the fact that we are now at war in two

locations. 9/11 is something that will stay with this country for generations. >> i think we are actually returning to a 9/10 mentality. the irony is because we have not had a second attack, because we had that success and because it is eight years, it seems like ancient history. because it seems like ancient history, our instinct is to return to the kind of insentient that we saw a 4 9/11 -- and i think rather unprepared for the viciousness of the enemy that is still out there and will try to do it again, but with weapons of mass destruction. >> certainly not ancient history to made. to young people, it probably is, because they were not cognizant in that period. but we are a very different country today than we were on

9/10. >> thousands and millions of americans touched by 9/11. but i cannot get out of my mind the 256 new york firefighters were answered the call to walk into the jaws of death and fires of hell because it was their task. >> still our heroes. last word. thanks. see you next week.