. corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> we know why we're here. to connect our forces to what they need when they need it. >> to help troops see danger before it sees them. >> to answer the call of the brave and bring them safely home. >> around the globe, the people of boeing are working together to support and protect all who serve. >> that's why we're here. >> additional funding for "washington week" is provided by prudential financial, norfolk southern, the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. once again, live from washington, moderator gwen ifill.

gwen: good evening. another week, another frontrunner this time it's former house speaker newt gingrich, who has used the debate stage to catapult himself into the lead in national polls and we hear today nevin new hampshire, where he is neck and neck with mitt romney. >> you know, things can change very rapidly. in my case, a lot of news media said i was dead in june and july. and yesterday afternoon in jefferson, iowa, someone entrusted me as the frontrunner. so you can't tell what's going to happen. gwen: as cain, bachman and rick perry have learned before him, the spotlight always brings scrute fully. but first, how did gring rich get to here now? >> that large measure he was waiting for the debates. gingrich back in the summer was saying wait for the debates because he's very good at them. he's knowledgeable, he's quick and he has very clear messages.

so he was waiting for them to elevate his position and his intellect for the voters and he did that and then he had to wait for the other guys to all fall when they had their moment. he waited out cain and he was standing there ready to capture the light. gwen: so he captured the light not because he had a lot of money or -- he fired virtually his whole campaign crew last june but this disgruntled republican group who seem to find a different candidate every group. >> this is the anti-romney group and it's right now still a majority of the republicans, particularly in iowa but also nationwide. it's one of the reasons romney just seems to hover in the 25 to 30 at best kind of area. so it's this pak that keeps moving from one candidate to

the next. they check them out, they look at them. what's interesting to me is that the media coverage, while we try to do our due diligence with the next person who steps new status, i don't know how much we really influence what happens because it seems like the candidates themselves have made mistakes. perry with you don't have a heart if you don't agree with me on immigration. poof, you're gone. and then cain. now this week was hurt by the scandal over sexual harass yament respect -- harassment but his problems with trying to talk about libya and that sort of thing will probably do a lot more damage to him. >> the media had a role in flushing out some of the questionable assertions that gingrich was making in terms of what we did for freddie mac. some of the financial questions. and it seems like with a sudden burst of popularity in the polls he's going to get more

scrutiny. think about the reality that's occurred in the last few days. gwen: billions and billions of dollars. >> right, is he ready for that kind of scrutiny too? >> we'll see if he can take it. gingrich has -- those of us who have covered him for a long time know he can be thin skinned and can react in ways that don't go over well in public. gwen: it all depends on how i react is what he said this week. >> that's very good self-awareness because it's true. he's on the wrong side of certain issues and he was on the right side of his playing clients but you look at where the republican party is right now, for instance, working for freddie mac, trying to develop rhythms and messages for freddie mac that would be compelling to conservatives. the only message conservatives want to hear today about freddie mac is shut it down, hang 'em high. so he's had to completely change his perspective on that he also in the past has talked

in a positive way about what are called the death panels and so he's had to move on that. in that case he had a paying client that also was advocating for clients in the throes of their final months that they do make plans for how they want to be treated in the hospital at the time of death. >> this seems to bring up what may be the most difficult thing for speaker gingrich, as i see it. rick perry, michele bachmann, herman cain, they all rose and one of the reasons was that they were not establishment republicans. they were not part of the washington republican class for a long time. bachman very recently, perry and cain not at all. there's no way credibly that newt gingrich can say he's not part of the long running washington infrastructure. >> one of his lowingens was he was going to be an agent of change.

he's got a real message problem right now because he is now clearly the ultimate insider and all of this evidence points to that now what you hear him say on the campaign trail is well, because i was an insider i know how to fix it which was a very different message than we were hearing not too long ago. >> are there any signs in the polls these things are hurting him? >> not yet but there are question signs in the polls. for instance in iowa and new hampshire, the number of voters who say knowing that a candidate previously supported a mandate on health insurance, everybody think romney will now think gingrich too. the numbers on that. in iowa, 60% say deal breaker. in new hampshire, 46%, deal breaker. so there are numbers in these polls that could be caution signs for him. gwen: newt gingrich is not the only one being scrutinized this week. how the 2012 candidates would fare is also out there.

would they bomb iran, challenge china? intervene in syri a? these and other questions are playing themselves out as challengers try to set themselves apart from the president and as the president tours the world. major was one of the questioners at last week's foreign policy debate. what jumps out the you? >> you can't summarize everything but i will try. as we saw in the opening, mitt romney said if he becomes president it's going to be a dominant part of whatever he does to confront iran. he said if president obama is re-elected they're going to get the bomb and if i'm elected they won't. you talk to anybody in the foreign policy department, say that kind of statement may work wonders on the campaign trail but it boxing you in, creates a very difficult environment as president. what are you going to do with sanctions with iran?

are you going to use military action and what kind? gwen: what are those in the foreign policy community saying about herman cain who seems to have not to have a clearly thoughtout position on libya, for instance. then today he came out and said the taliban is in libya. he said he doesn't need to know this stuff because it's the president's job to lead not read. >> that i think, is taking a very significant toll on herman cain the fascinating figure in the republican party nominating process. inge saturday's debate, and we worked hard on structuring the questions for all the candidates to avoid the temptation to recite their answers but to actually think about their answers. i'm not going to character rise what i thought cain did or didn't do. but as he almost always did, my advicors will tell me or i'll seek the best people.

uconn vay to people that you don't have a world view. and that is usually, and customarily and appropriately so a basic qualification for someone to lead the people of this country. >> what about the answers on waterboard something >> rick perry said he would defend waterboarding till the day he died which was not only a return to the bush policy but with an enthusiasm that seems out of touch where the country is and certainly where the previous candidate john mccain was, who was tortured. the president of the united states and certain members of the republican party. it's now the law that it's illegal. >> do those kind of responses further marginalize people that looked like that he had more prospects? >> this is a lively debate in

the republican party. jon huntsman and ron paul said no. but romney was more or less silent on it. he might be nominally in support of it. the other thing is all the camps except for huntsman and ron paul said we need to stay in afghanistan longer. well, that is something that's not consistent with the polling data in this country and imposes enormous costs and when we asked rick perry, could you sum riles what the ground combat situation is right now in afghanistan? that was another one of those think questions. and when we broached those kind of questions i sometimes found the answers to be less knowledge-based than i was expecting. >> major, the president was also off on a foreign trip. how did that fit in, not fit in to the debate? >> there's a tremendous amount of criticism of the president, he's all wrong on foreign policy.

but the application on foreign policy is not consistent in every way with the bush administration but there are notable consistent sis. this week in asia -- back a year ago he said the united states is and always will be a pacific power. it felt a little bit force add year ago. what he's saying now is that look, those wars are ending. you and china don't think i'm going to be bogged down with this mill their -- military cost and military application of power in afghanistan and iraq. i'm going to turn my attention to asia. gwen: he was standing in australia or other places but each message was toward china? >> yes, it was a specific message in australia we're going to move some marines down there. over five years, 2,500 marines. not a huge contingent but it sends a message to china that is jivets is aware of what it's

doing to the vietnamese and others. gwen: one thing we know for sure when you're running to be commander in chief it helps to already be commander in chief. now we turn to capitol hill, where the once secretive supercommittee created to come up with a bipartisan deficit cutting agreement is now beginning to negotiate in public on issues of taxes, spending and a looming deadline. lori knows as much about this as anyone what's real and what's not. what's happening tonight? >> there is nothing. [laughter] harry reid levitt. the place was deserted when i left.

gwen: so much for deadlines. >> tomorrow's first meeting is a conference call so. these deadlines aren't even -- the sense of urgency we saw about the debt limit is utterly absent. gwen: what is this across the board cut? >> it's a year away. they have a year to figure this out and that's why nothing is happening. this -- after we dealt with the threat of a government shutdown in april and rushed to get an agreement on the budget and after we dealt with the threat of the first default on our debt in august, they set up a supercommittee but they specifically said we're not going to have a cataclysmic backstop. we want to give you time to work this out. and they put the punishment for failure in january 2013. so yes, we have draconian cuts coming. >> but there were other things

that the committee was supposed to deal with that's not related to the deficit. the payroll tax, some unemployment benefits. in fact, the payroll tax expansion and extension is really important to the white house in terms of economic recovery. >> and arguably very important to the actual economy. at this point i don't think they know because there's a sort of sense that they were going to be able to do something. they were talking about maybe getting some of the stuff on to the supercommittee. with the strategy to get all the big stuff off the table before the election. and now that it's kind of falling apart they're going to have to work it out. >> how will they work it out? what will happen between next week when this huge deadline happens and 2013? >> what will be the pressure for the committee and what will happen in terms of actual hard work? >> two issues. one is solving this meet --

immediate problem of -- >> and they put it in separation legislations? >> yes, because the federal tax expires in january and the republicans are loathe to raise taxes in an election year. >> but the larger question is about taxes and spending and deficit reduction -- >> later. so the theory now is we're going to fight throughout 2012. probably very little will happen unless there's some -- who knows, anything could happen, i guess. but at this point, the thinking is, especially among democrats that we get through the election, we throw this whole thing into the lame duck after obama they are rhettically is safely elected and then he has a huge hammer. not only are those tough spending cuts about to hit but the bush tax cuts expire and if he's reelected, let them expire

and then send up a bill that says i don't want the tax cuts for the rich and congress has no -- he has the leverage. >> one of the premises for the supercommittee was that if you get these 12 people and you have immediate access to the house floor, no amendments, to filibuster in the senate, the procedural strength could solve some of the underlying political problems. what have we learned about that premise going in? >> it was a golden opportunity for them to do something if they really wanted to do it. 50 votes in the sflarkts you can't do anything with 50 votes in the senate anymore. gwen: i kept hearing sounds that sounded like compromise. harry reid kept saying -- and the republican leader, i felt like he was winking. patty murray, not so much of a

winker. it sounded like somebody was hearing about movement. was i hearing that wrong? >> there was a period last weekend where it looked like something might happen. back us and others were meeting and they were talking about -- backus and others were meeting. they were talking about as much as $650 billion in taxes. the republicans up front have offered $300 billion in new taxes and that's a huge break for them. if they were really willing to go to 600 and democrats were really willing to offer some things on medicare and social security, you could begin to see some serious things. but it all fell apart and each side blamed the other side and who knows where the truth was at this point? gwen: thanks a lot. on to the superaccord.

a court also stepped squarely into the middle of the 2012 election in agreeing to hear challenges for the nation's health care law, they set up a legal battle that will certainly have broad political implications. the question is why? >> first of all, the court doesn't just pick and choose. cases come up and this case has been percolating up essentially since march 23, 2010 when president obama signed the affordable care act and there's so much at stake. first of all, it was the signature domestic agenda piece for president obama. devoted his first year to it. for congress it goes to the core of federal power and congressional power beyond this piece of legislation. for the court this is a real defining moment for the roberts court and most importantly, for all sorts of people in america who need health care what is this all going to be about and

also for the employers and small business people who might have to pay for it. gwen: the court has already scheduled five and a half hours of oral argument on this that's a lot. which is a signal that this is going to be a pivotal ruling. >> not in the modern era have they devoted five and a half hours over a particular case. we're there for two hours in march. hopefully we'll have a lunch break. this is going to be great. it's going to be argued by the cream of the crop to the appellate bar. and we have several issues. that's why it's so many hours. the basic question of what is congress's interstate commerce pour and did it exceed it in passing the affordable care act? then there are questions about if that part of the sweeping legislation fails, does it bring down the whole bill? >> i've kind of lost track in

terms of the win-loss record of to. i mean, we know -- >> yes, we had a handful of the lowest rung trial judges handle it but then we had four courts of appeals, which is the second tier of our federal judicial system and the d.c. system upheld it as did the cincinnati based sixth circuit. they both rejected the challenges. the 11th circuit case, which is the one before the justices on the floor and challengers in other states, that's where it was ruled uncongressional. they said that congress overstepped its authority and then the richmond based fourth circuit said this is premature. this cannot come up yet to the federal courts until someone has to actually buy health since insurance. that's the key thing at issue,

the idea that most americans would have to purchase health care insurance by 2013 or face a tax penalty. >> the primary constitutional question is whether or not congress can compel me to buy health insurance. >> but it's also the expansion of medicaid. >> that's another key question. ok, the medicaid is the federal -state program that provides health care for poor people. overwhelming provided by the federal government. the health care law expanded medicaid eligibility and the state said that's going to put more of a burden on us. the federal government said you don't have to sign up for this. indeed, the 11th circuit court of appeals, which struck down the part of mandatory insurance provision said no. the medicaid expansion is

perfectly constitutional. that's tinal fine. so it's interesting that the supreme court will now weigh in on that. >> legacy and recusal. how does that fit into what the court may or may not do? legacy for the court itself with justice roberts -- >> yes, big legacy, no recusals. [laughter] no he's referring to the fact that there have been challenges to elena kagan, who was on top of the obama sliss torrey general. whether she would have to recules. she said she did not get involved herself in any of the litigation strategy so she should not. gwen: that was good. thank you all very much. that's all the time we have. but i assure you the conversation you're listening to here will continue online. check out our "washington week" webcast extra and read my blog,

where i read a few of my provocative questions from you on my travels. catch up with us again next week on "washington week" and have a happy and a blessed thanksgiving. good night. >> download or weekly podcast and take us with you. it's the "washington week" podcast at "washington week" online at pbs.org. >> funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> this rock has never stood city. since 1875, we've been there for our clients through good times and bad. where their needs changed we were there to meet them. through the years, from insurance to investment management, from real estate to retirement solutions, we've developmented new ideas for the financial challenges ahead. this rock has never stood still, and that's one thing that will never change.

prudential. >> a line is a powerful thing. it connects the global economy to your living room, cleaner air to stronger markets. factory floors to less crowded roads. today's progress is tomorrow's promise. norfolk southern, one line, infinite possibilities. >> corporate funding is also provided by -- boeing. additional funding is provided by the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to pbs stations from viewers like you. thank you.