>> this ceremony is a testimony to the tru that old adversaries can forge a new partnerships. >> president obama announces major changes in america's nuclear strategy. >> announcing to every regime out there under what circumstances you can do cause? >> a former speaker sounds off. >> the most radical president in american history. has now thrown dn the gauntlet to the american people. >> a new dynamic duo takes center stage. >> two years from now president obama will be a one-term president. >> supreme court justice john paul stevens announces his

retirement -- who will present an obama named to replace him? >> virginia had been the capital of confederacy. >> confederacy history month in virginia. wasn't slaver worth a mention? >> slavery was the controlling and central issue and i don't know anyone with historical creance -- credence would differ with that? >> the united states has used nuclear-weapons only twice, against her were she not and nagasaki toward the end of world war ii. afterwards japan surrendered. once we have the bomb the soviets wanted one and the nuclear arms race was on. president obama announced he is reworking america's nuclear strategy, scaling back the role of nuclear weapons in the nation's defense and putting limits on when they can be used. in prague the president and his russian counterpart signed an

agreement to cut their nuclear weapons by one-third over the next seven years. president obama is pledging not to go nuclear against countries will abide by the nuclear non- proliferation treaty if it -- even if they attack the u.s. with chemical or biological weapons. the president's critics say he is weakening our defense posture per posture. you agree? >> to there are lot of loopholes. you read the fine print, well, if it is biological that is really bad we might do it anyway. iran, syria, and north korea are exempt. i think it is mostly a pr show. >> yes. as far as the reduction in nuclear weapons, that is a good step forward. it still leaves of the united states in the position after the reduction to kill russia three times over. so that is not giving up your capacity to defend yourself. the other thing, as evan says,

you read the fine print, and the critics are wrong saying he is giving up the store as far as chemical and biological weapons are concerned. >> charles? >> really the problem is the president has a vision of the world without nuclear weapons. he said in prague a year ago and the reason he chose prague for the signing of a new start treaty with the russians is to emphasize this is one of his great causes. it is terminally naive. i would hope a man of his intelligence would know it is not only in possible but dangerous. but the steps he took in at redefining our new buehler posture -- nuclear posture is a step toward, as it says in the document, trying to get away from using nukes as a retaliatory threat and i think it is a bad mistake. >> jane, what are the political consequences? >> he is keeping a commitment he made during the campaign to deal with reducing the threat of nuclear war and to deal with

proliferation. in that case, politically he is keeping a promise. it now opens up, i think, the first serious foreign-policy debate between the two parties and we will see how that goes. >> here is what former alaska gov. sarah palin has to say about it. >> kind of like getting out there on the playground, a bunch of kids getting ready to fight and one kid says, go ahead, punched me in the face and i would not retaliate. the last i checked sarah palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues. if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it i will probably take my advice from them and not from sarah palin. >> it is a fascinating exchange. not much of an expert -- sarah palin, not much of an expert, but she did respond to her. >> he did because he was put on the spot and he had to say something. i mean, there are some serious issues to be discussed but not the way sarah palin chooses to

discuss them. she to realize is the whole issue. >> but it is a fascinating exchange still. >> but i don't think it really signifies much because it is not like we are unilaterally disarming. we have a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. the problem is we have a lot of old weapons we don't know what to do with them. we have enough to kill the russians many times over. we are trying to fina way to bring the arsenal down. but we still have to modernize them. we can't just forget about them. there is -- in fact, we will spend a lot of money to modernize the nuclear arsenal. this is not going away. we will not be defenseless. i think obama has projected as on a trajectory toward a goal we are never going to get to, and he wants some credit for doing it. >> he said himself at one not happen this lifetime. >> that is where the politics will come into play. this is the first engagement of foreign-policy in this highly partisan environment that washington has become. we are going to see a whole different set of republicans

coming to the forefront when this debate rages, because the senate does have to ratify this treaty. and senator richard lugar, some of the more moderate, especially on foreign policy, republican players are going to be leading the debate. and we may or may not see a different wing of the republican party and we may see a situation where we have more engaged debate and perhaps more bipartisan debate. >> nukes have been his issue for years and years. >> it is a legacy issue for him. >> but there are issues we have to separate. the start treaty in and of itself is a reasonably harmless. i think it sets us back a bit but not a big issue. the other issue is the nuclear posture, which i think as a weakening of our deterrent. but the most import issue is what obama is not addressing all, and that is iran. he is doing absolutely nothing. this talk about sanctions -- if you heard what the president of russia had to say in a press conference he had with obama

after he said, russia is not ruling out the chance that we might have to renew our look at iran in the security council. that does not sound like a ringing endorsement of sanctions. this is all in this direction. the real issue is iran. it is going to go nuclear and we will have a world of proliferation where rogue states have nukes. obama has no answer on that. except to, what appears to become a weakening of our deterrent. >> i don't think it is inconsistent. i think as far as pursuing a new nuclear policy on international scale. on the other hand, trying to deal with iran as a separate issue. iran is a problem. it is a problem as far as afghanistan is concerned, as far as iraq is concerned. it is a country that is not going away. but you don't deal with that necessarily through arms control discussions. >> i just don't agree that if

rogue states get nukes we will not unilaterally disarm -- we will threaten to use nukes' if they use against us. that is essential posture will remain unchanged. >> the assumption is the rogue states will cooperate with the international nuclear agreement, which by their very definition, they are extraordinarily unlikely to do, which means all bets are off. we can still threaten to use our nuclear weapons against them. >> that is what is wrong with the obama change of policy. one of the key elements is the united states, it says explicitly, pledges not to develop any new warheads and the replacement of aging components in existing ones are going to require individual presidential approval. >> about to spend billions of dollars to replace those weapons and the already agreed to that. >> he does that because he thinks america, not upgrading the arsenal, is going to set an

example to other country -- >> charles, we are upgrading -- >> we are not. absolutely not. there will be no new warheads. >> we are going to take the old weapons and upgrade them for sure. >> that is the exact opposite of what is in the nuclear posture. >> not what is going to happen. >> we will see. let us see what is up in the here's to the believers. the risk-takers. the visionaries.

the entrepreneurs... who put it all on the line to build and run their own businesses. at at&t, we know something about that. our company started out in a small lab, with not much more than a dream. and today, we know it's small businesses that can create the jobs america needs. that's why at&t is investing billions to upgrade and build out our wired and wireless networks. making them faster, smarter, and more secure. connecting small businesses to markets across the country, and around the world. we invest now, because we know it will pay off... with new jobs, new growth, from a new generation, putting their belief in the future on the line. now is the time for investment and innovation. the future is waiting. and the future has always the future is waiting. and the future has always been our business. at&t.

>> when the left tries to push through policies that violate our conscience and our values and our constitution, it is michele trying to get them to a halt, michelle is not just tell them, no, she tells them, h-el- l-l no. >> sarah palin at a fund-raiser for minnesota congresswoman michelle bachmann. 11,000 people showed up to here bachmann say pelosi will of her

gavel, very good -- harry reid will joinnemployment line, you can buy t-shirts -- we the people hoodies. what about this team, charles? >> the way michelle is presenting the opposition here, you would think sarah palin -- sarah palin is leader of the opposition in parliament, elected, and a future prime minister. there is paul ryan, john mccain, thune -- i can give you a dozen republicans who speak the conservative point of view and we now twice have had palin and zero anybody else. she is fun, but she is not -- this is a character of liberals who think that -- [crosstalk] >> it is shi'a threat to the republican party? >> she is a celebrity, not a leader of the party. >> issue a threat?

asset to democratic party question of >> she may be if she was -- if she does, she will lose. >> wait a minute. let me say a word on behalf of sarah palin, please. gov. palin is an important figure in the republican party -- gov. palin is an important figure in the republican party to the extent that john mccain, john mccain had to call her into his campaign to help save his but because he is in trouble politically. she had to go out there and bless him as being a good conservative. now, that is influenced, impact, star power. she is yours, charles, and you can't disowned her. >> democrats and the media, unholy alliance, sarah palin. in the last couple of something else. >> did i put a stake through that one? >> i don't think so. >> can we have it on again next week? >> it is not over.

>> despite entreaties by the present michigan congressman bart stupak decided not to one -- despite entreaties by the president, michigan congressman bart stupak decided not to run. how many others will follow? >> i don't think we are looking at a long line of more democratic resignations. i think there over the hump. i think you may have one or two more you need people like bart stupak hoolahan add to access after e vote now in the last two weeks where is his position. it is difficult to tell this early in the game everything that weighed on his decision. clearly he alienated a lot of voters back in his state after first putting up a very passionate fight for anti- abortion language and then reaching a compromise. but we also have to keep in mind in a phenomenon that is occurring right now, threat's been issued on both sides of the aisle over the health care issue

and the threat to extend to their family as well as to themselves. we don't know of any of that is part of this, too. so we don't know a whole lot right now but clearly political viability was clear the number one. >> he is a former fed trooper, he said the threat still bother him. >> bart stupak i think is the saddest case. he held up for three months against tremendous pressure on an issue in which he cared about. because he cared about health care reform and he also care about abortion. i thought he was rather courageous. but in the and he played it way over his head. the president brought him if in, speaker of the house, the pressure was so big, tough, and hot, that he caved. he got a piece of paper that was worthless and that is why i think he is leaving. his career collapsed because the cable on a principle on which he held out for a long time and that nothing in return. he doesn't have a future. i think eat -- it is a sad

story. he tried, but he was way over his head, in the big leagues and he is double a player. but these threats are no joke. to have these death threats and have the fed actually arrest people -- patty murray of washington. >> eric kanter. >> eric cantor -- that has not happened in a long time, do have specific death threats. something is going on here that is not just talk. >> you have to wonder, when did he make the decision that he was going to retire, and what he considering it at the time he was negotiating with the white house? look at what he has done. he fought the democratic party to walk the plank to over this abortion issue. >> let me talk about republicans for a second. you heard newt gingrich early. he said it is time for republicans to stop being the party of no at all for real solutions to real problems and become the party of yes. is he trying to establish in a contract of america?

>> i don't know if he is asking them to sort of repeat his contract with america, the signature item he used in 1994 to help republicans get elected. but he is echoing the philosophy that he embraced the back then and that a strategy that he embraced back in 1994, which was successful, which was to have a dual message. and that is, this is why they are wrong and this is what we will do. and he felt it was important back then that you have both pieces of that message to attract voters and he feels as though they are lacking the second piece right now. so, i don't think he is necessarily saying to a cookie cutter contract with america, but develop one way of sending a more positive message. >> supreme court justice stevens decides to retire.

>> this is supre court justice

john paul stevens administering the oath of office to vice- president joe biden. stevens announced he is retiring. this was widely expected. it gives president obama a chance to name a second justice of the supreme court on the liberal wing, of course. he will complete his work in june or july. he was shown previously with the chief justice john roberts. the question is, what is next now for the president? >> justice stevens indicated earlier that he wanted to retire during the term of president obama. so it comes at nut -- as no surprise. but the accord is losing probably its most liberal member. the question is, what will president obama do now as a replacement? i can assure you one thing. you never hear the word liberal, out of the white house -- coming out of the white house. >> what word will they use? >> one thing to keep in mind is

the political dynamics of the midterm elections have just changed rather significantly. the white house now has a lot of important decisions to make. do they want to bring in a nominee fairly quickly when they have 60 votes in the senate and get this done so that we avoid the whole nuclear option fight we had when president bush had two nominees of? they could do that, but that is a typical. they could run these nominees through fairly quickly considering a run the chamber but obviously the republicans are going to try to block the process at every turn. and it is going to change the dynamics of the debate in the midterm and mistakes because there are other supreme court justices that our aging and obama very clearly could have other appointees later. >> charles, what would it take to satisfy the republicans of the senate? >> i think the president chooses -- as a choice. he could be a consequential president, the way he has been governing. i think ideologically he could

choose a real ideological left the or a moderate and -- a liberal moderate. i think he will get a delegation of endangered senators like harry reid or bennett or specter or others who will be on their knees at the white house saying, look, mr. president, you could lose this the senate in this election over health care and other stuff. give us a moderate. it will be ok. but if you go long on this we are going to get killed. >> he's got a moderate, solicitor general. she has a confirmable record. not a lot of talk of her in the press. there is a safe choice out there. >> and there is absolutely no indication the president wants to go long on this. if hwanted to go long, the time to do what is on the first one when you had skyrocketing approval ratings and control of e senate just as heoes now. that was the time to go long. he didn't choose to do that. he chose someone who was in the

mainstream but to the left, leaving less, but acceptable in terms of her history to moderates and conservatives. >> so she would be the third woman on the accord. >> right. the left will like that, democrats will like that, but she is confirmable. she has never got -- said anything to shocking. she already was confirmed as a list of all general. >> this is something we have to deal with this summer because they want to just as ready for ptember. >> one other thing. democrats established a precedent in the late bush years when they used the filibuster to stop many, many, and very highly accomplished conservative nominees from the bush administration, and they did it by blocking a vote. like miguel estrada, and others. republicans were extremely upset and contemplated a nuclear option. if the president goes along on this, they will institute a filibuster. that mixes up, though, two

different levels -- the democrats did not filibuster the appointments to the supreme court during the bush years. they did not do that.

hi, you cancelled your cable service? finally -- good riddance. [ door closes ] hi, i'm from xfinity here to tell you about our exciting new xfinity service. is this a joke? no, sir, xfinity is not a joke. it's an exciting new brand that we just invented when we wanted... [ male announcer ] don't be fooled.

xfinity is comcast. and verizon fios has 4 times more very satiied customers than comcast. this is beyond cable. call the verizon center for customers with disabies this is fios. at 800-974-6006 tty/v. >> the focus on primarily the role of the confederate veterans who fought for the wrong calls. -- >> they fought for the cause of secession, fought for the cause of slavery. >> that was a representative from the naacp. the governor brought back confederate history. he originally failed to make any mention of slavery, a rather large omission, evan, and a lot of people upset. >> why is he doing it? i find it inexplicable. an obvious thing, unless he had a political agenda. >> you have a family history here. >> a proclamation that he issued -- the sacrifices of confederate leaders, soldiers, and citizens. at the same time those soldiers

and citizens were there in virginia, my great-grandfather and his siblings were also there in culpeper county -- i found records there in the county court house. of course, they were not citizens. there were listed as property, as slaves. that the governor would has issued a proclamation and completely omitted slavery as a cause was just unforgivable. and the fact that he has come out now and added it just underscores how bad that originally -- original idea was. >> he apologized, charles. >> he should have. the confederacy is a problem in our history. if you want to see how it is treated with respect and dignity, go to arlington cemetery, the heart of the union, the lee mansion turned into a union cemetery. it has in it, believe it not, you go in it and find a confederate memorial that honors the soldiers of the other side. it is done with dignity and

respect in a way that a victor ought to to the vanquished, especially in a cause that was ultimately in defense of slavery. it is a way to handle it and ought to be an example. >> will this cost mcdonnell politically? >> i don't think so. at it was a rookie error. it was a stupid one but a clean up pretty quickly and he could get past it fairly quickly. >> thanks. last word. ♪ your boss is a frightening man. ♪ his daughter...is lovely. (phone rings)

this little maneuver is entirely ill-conceived. ♪ well done. finally -- good riddance. [ door closes ] hi, i'm from xfinity here to tell you about our exciting new xfinity service. is this a joke? no, sir, xfinity is not a joke. it's an exciting new brand that we just invented when we wanted... [ male announcer ] don't be fooled. xfinity is comcast. and verizon fios has 4 times more very satisfied customers than comcast. this is beyond cable. call the verizon center for customers with disabies