ad. thanks joe and thanks citgo. so if you need help staying warm this winter give me a call because no one should be left out in the cold. this sunday, live from des moines, on this new year's day, just 48 hours before the iowa caucuses. the official start of this presidential election year. senator rick santorum surges in the closing days, but will it be enough to buy him a ticket out of the hawkeye state? >> iowa provides the spark. there's plenty of tinder on the ground that will start burning in these other states. >> senator santorum here with us for an exclusive interview this morning. meanwhile, mitt romney is trying to keep his spot atop the polls, as he makes his final push. >> this is an election not only to replace a president, it's an election to save the soul of america. >> and newt gingrich, still losing some support, but will

his emotional moment in iowa humanize him to voters? >> dealing with, you know, the real problems of real people in my family. and so, it's not a theory, it's, in fact, you know, my mother. >> we'll break down the state of the race, and the impact of the caucuses with the chairman of iowa's republican party matt strawn and nbc news political director chuck todd. plus, full analysis from our political roundtable, columnist for the des moines register kathie obradovich, republican strategist mike murphy, "new york times" columnist david brooks, "time" magazine's senior political analyst mark halperin, and host of "andrea mitchell reports," nbc's andrea mitchell.

good morning. here we go. the presidential race of 2012 is about to officially begin, as the voting starts here in iowa on tuesday. and here's how the race looks this morning, with the "des moines register" poll showing a three-way race now with romney leading ron paul by two points and rick santorum with a late surge. we will talk to santorum about his surprise momentum in the race in just a couple of moments, but first we have with us nbc's political director chuck todd, and the chairman of iowa's republican party, matt strawn. welcome to both of you. good morning. happy new year. >> good morning. welcome back. >> so, chuck todd, partner, where are we this morning? >> well, i think we're trying to figure out this. what are iowa caucusgoers going to do? are they going to come into these caucuses tuesday night and pick a president or are they going to do what they've done in the past, which is send a message and winnow the field? if they come in and a lot of them want to pick a president mitt romney is going to win,

turnout's going to go up, you're going to see the casual voter show up and that's good for romney. if it's the old-style, sort of the activists that show up, i think santorum has enough momentum, with a little bit of a wild card here in rick perry, but then santorum does get out of here with some momentum. and i think that that's what we don't know. >> let me stick with santorum with you, chuck. if you look inside the numbers of the poll, the last couple of days, when they were in the field, talking to folks, this is what you see that santorum is actually 21% because in those last two days his numbers actually shoot up 6%, so if you're measuring intensity, not looking at the full range of the poll, but just the last couple of days, you see santorum's really got that buzz. >> and that was the big thing out of the nbc/marist poll. both polls almost fit together and it was santorum and ron paul for instance that had much more intensity than mitt romney. in fact, rick perry had more intense support in our poll that mitt romney did. and that's the romney problem.

he's got the, well, i guess i'm going to be for romney, voter. but those guys show up? that's what we don't know. >> matt strawn, you're the chairman of the party here in the state. and this is important. this is the first voting in the presidential campaign. what's the mind-set of an iowa republican going in to this caucus? >> well, i think the other key take away, not just in the nbc/marist poll but in the "des moines register" poll is two in five voters could change their mind between caucus day. it's moved from three out of five which it was just a couple weeks ago. i think that's the juxtaposition between the desire to beat barack obama but also making sure we have a nominee that can addressively articulate the republican, principle, conservative message going into a general election. >> what's more important? we've seen santorum's latest ad is really about electability. i can beat barack obama. but for the breadth of the campaigning in iowa, it's been, who's the true conservative. has there been a change? because there hasn't been a love affair among voters with mitt

romney, who's been the front-runner throughout most of this contest? >> i think the first thing you see when you talk to any iowa republican is that desire to beat barack obama because we understand that we can't afford four more years of an obama administration that is hostile to our party's values and our principles. and that's the tension. while you still have two out of every five iowa caucusgoers have not yet made a decision. that's really going to get down to on tuesday night, you alwys hear the mantra, organization, organization, organization, the organized campaign is going to have someone in each of those 1774 precincts to make the case, not only why a candidate can beat barack obama, but why they have principles of our party that they are going to the general. >> remember what happens on tuesday night. there's a set of speeches that happen before the actual vote. and i think that that is why, for instance, rick santorum is making an electability argument. that's the problem he himself said he was running into. we agree with you. he fits the iowa republican caucus electorate better, frankly, than any of these candidates. better than rick perry without all of the baggage that he's accumulated. better than a newt gingrich. he fits it, the social

conservative values, very strong inside the iowa republican party. but he said himself people will come up to him, i don't think you can win. not only i don't even think you can go on to other states. well, he's got to make that case at the end. and if he does, he's got the biggest -- he's got the most room to grow here. that's why he, on paper, yes, romney is ahead. i think it wouldn't surprise anybody if santorum is the one that comes out of here. >> talk about the volatility a little bit. we've been covering this. anybody you talk to about the race is still shaking their head about, wait a minute, there was bachmann, then there was perry, and then there was herman cain, and then there was gingrich, and now he's fallen back. what's going on? >> not mitt romney. mitt romney is not viewed as conservative enough for where this republican party is today. he's been trying to do this. you know, we did a little word search and the word conservative with mitt romney. in the first half of his campaign, he didn't use the word very often. in the last six weeks he talks about it all the time, tries to say i am a conservative. you know. he talks about the electability. but that has been -- that is also an issue. we still have 75% likely of the

iowa republican caucus electorate that's going to vote for somebody else. you know, that's still a challenge for romney. and i think that it may be what some activists here in iowa decide to do, say hey, we've got to force mitt romney to keep proving his conservative credentials. to say you're not going to end this early. you've got to go out there and earn the conservative vote. >> matt, what about turnout? because this is a big key. bigger turnout, presumably better for romney because a lot of strategists i've talked to say those could be moderates. those could be independents. even democrats, who come out and say, no, we don't want a santorum, a bachmann, or paul doing that well, we don't want to represent iowa that way. we want to go with romney. >> one thing you see, in 2008 we had a record turnout with just under 120,000 iowa republicans. and in that four-year span since then we've had 33 straight months of republican registration gains here in iowa. so we've got about 30,000 more iowa republicans. we had the second largest attendance we saw ever in the straw poll in august. and it's the first chance anybody in the country gets to

vote to start the process to replace barack obama. so i would be surprised if we didn't have a strong turnout tuesday night. and with good weather, for those senior citizens, when you look at the poll results, mitt romney does the best, with 60 and over voters. so i think we are set up to have a strong turnout and people do need to remember the iowa caucuses, as an independent or a democrat, you can register as a republican that night and participate. >> but, more if this were a primary, and there were no speeches that night, before you voted the, mitt romney would win by ten points. >> we always have this debate about iowa but it's more intense now. the history of the iowa caucuses, retail campaigning, a real chance to interact with voters one-on-one. the truth of the matter is that it's a lot like big-time politics everywhere else now. more than 60 million dollars of tv advertising blanketing the airwaves. so much of it negative. and here was the headline in a "wall street journal" editorial on tuesday. it was as iowa goes, so goes iowa.

gail collins piling on in "the new york times" on thursday, writing feel free to ignore iowa, the republicans hope to get more than 100,000 participants. that's about the same number of people in pomona, california. imagine your reaction to seeing a story saying that a plurality of people in pomona thought newt gingrich would be the best gop presidential candidate. would you say wow, i guess newt is now the front-runner? possibly not. now i'm from the los angeles area so i don't like anybody picking on pomona. but, is iowa going to pick the president? >> well, listen, this is the quadrennial attack on the hawkeye state and i think iowa is representative. if you look at the last four national presidential elections, iowa's popular vote has mirrored what has happened nationally. you also have to think what our role in the process is. we're first. we're not last. we're not the decider. we start winnowing the field. the one thing you can't discount, there are very few things the last few presidents in the united states have in common but their path to the white house did start winning

the iowa caucuses. >> what are you looking for the next couple of days? >> to me it's the rick perry number. he is the wild card here. newt i think we clearly know gingrich is on his way down and he frankly may enter single digits before it's all said and done. so this little boomlet of his, amazing rise and fall. what happens to the perry supporter? does the perry supporter who walks in on caucus night who is also a social conservative, do they stick with him? how committed to him are they? or do they end up buying the santorum argument that says, you know what, i'm the conservative that can come out of here, that can win, that can keep going on? and where that -- what happens to that? and by the way, mitt rom fly, he needs a strong rick perry. he needs rick perry just strong enough so that perry will go to south carolina. >> does the field narrow after the results are in? >> well, i think it will narrow in the -- in the actual -- does the actual playing field narrow? maybe by one candidate, maybe a bachmann. newt has no inservive to get out. perry, let's see what he does. if perry is at 15, he stays in and goes to south carolina. if he's closer to 10, i think

then he may pack it in. that's not good for mitt romney, by the way. he needs a few more conservatives to hang around so he can steal south carolina. >> leave it there. chuck todd, matt strawn, thank you very much. we're going to turn now to a man who has been making a late surge here in iowa, former two-term senator from pennsylvania, rick santorum. >> santorum has spent more time in iowa this cycle than any other candidate and was the first to visit all 99 counties in the state. with limited resources and moneyable staff he's been traveling from event to event in a pickup truck. earlier this week, a cnn/"time" poll showed him for the first time in the top three. now he's suddenly turning out larger crowds and drawing more media attention. so he could make a strong showing in iowa by courting conservative voters like previous winner mike huckabee did four years ago. senator santorum, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thank you, david. good to be with you. >> so this is the candidate i'm sitting with who's got the hot

hand in iowa. here's the des moines sunday register, romney, paul lead. santorum closes in. we just talked about in that last segment how you have had this surge, particularly in the last couple of days. what does it mean? what does it say to you about what's going on here in the state? >> well, the people of iowa, i've been saying this from the very beginning, people have asked me, whet are you going to get your surge? you're not going anywhere. your message must not be resonating. i said my surge is going to come on january 3rd after the people of iowa do what they do, which is actually analyze the candidates, figure out where their positions are, find out who's the right leader, who's got what it takes to defeat barack obama and to lead this country, and i've always relied that when that crunch time comes, in these last two weeks, that's when we were going to start to pick up and that's exactly what's happened. >> you talked about needing a miracle here in iowa. expectations have changed now. is anything less than a win here not measuring up to expectations? >> that's really pretty funny, actually, because ten days ago i was at 5% and every question i got was, you know, why don't you

pack it up? why don't you endorse another candidate? and now ten days later you're saying oh, you've got to win. exceed expectations. but, we feel very good about the way things are going on the ground. we've got a great grassroots organization. we've got a great team of people who are out helping us and they're committed to making sure that this is an impiric victory in november. that we elect someone who is exactly what america needs to turn this country around. not someone who well just might be able to win and not really do the change that's necessary in washington. >> one more on just flat expectations. you feel, at this point particularly, you've got to do better than a michele bachmann or a rick perry in order to fin in this race? >> i've always said there's three primaries. you have the conservative primary and you mentioned the other two people who i think are in the conservative primary. you have the libertarian primary and then you have gingrich and romney sort of fighting for the establishment vote. and our feeling was from the very beginning, if we can pace ahead of perry, and/or bachmann, that we'd be in good shape, and you know, we're moving in that

direction certainly. >> you talk about electability. you talk about conservative credentials. but we've been checking on this, you know, it will be 20 years ago this week, actually, that you began your service in washington. and had you not lost the re-election you would still be in washington as a senator. but you spent 16 years as a member of congress. four in the house, 12 in the senate, and yet there's nobody who served with you who's endorsed you, have they? >> it's funny. i haven't asked anybody. and the reason i haven't asked anybody, i'm sitting at 3% in the national polls. and i really haven't gone out and asked any united states senator, i haven't asked a single one to endorse me. but i felt like i had to earn it first. that i had to go out and prove to -- you know, i lost my last race. and the general consensus was, you know, we like rick, but, you know, you can't -- who goes from losing their last senate race to winning the presidential nomination? my answer to that was, well abraham lincoln. but other than abraham lincoln, this is not a common occurrence -- >> didn't know he was going out

on a limb to offer, having served with you, knowing your credentials, knowing your principles. >> again, no one's going to call you and say, you know, gee, can i, you know, can i help your campaign? at 3%. and i would have said to them, you know what, wait. because it doesn't matter. i don't really need or want washington endorsements. that's not what i'm here to do. i'm here to change washington. so i didn't really seek out endorsements. i didn't really want their endorsements. i didn't think they would help very much. >> would you seek them out now? >> if people want to endorse me, i'd love their endorsements. but i'm not coming to be buddies with my -- with, you know, my friends in the senate and house, i'm coming to change the entire nature of washington, d.c. it's one -- one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in, and seeing what, you know, sometimes you said i was running as a consistent conservative. there are votes that i took, not that i advocated these things but i voted for some things and look back and say, why the heck did i do that? you get involved in sort of t the -- the idea that well, you got to make things happen, and

you forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not -- you're better off -- >> i wonder if one of those example might be pork barrel spending because you're getting hit by rick perry by supporting the notorious bridge to nowhere. other pork barrel projects where deliver cash for folks back in your home state. do you regret voting for some of those projects? you've defended pork barrel spending in the past. >> what i've said is your role as a member of congress, if you look at the constitution, is to appropriate money. of course if you appropriate money you're going to say where that money's going to go. and historically congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources, and jim demint who led the charge on pork barrel spending, earmarked things for years and years. so what happened, after i left congress, was budgets began to explode. when i was in the senate, i voted for tough budgets, i voted for restrictions on spending, and made sure that that didn't happen. and as president, i propose cutting $5 trillion over five

years. i propose we're going to balance the budget in at least five years, hopefully sooner. so if you're looking for someone who's voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints, and -- >> but that wasn't my question. do you regret supporting earmarks when you did? >> i don't regret going out at the time and making sure that the people of pennsylvania, who i was elected to republican, got resources back in to the state. >> so you're saying that's okay but if a budget is tighter it's not? >> no, what happened was abuse. there was abuse of this process. and i agreed with that, that there was an abuse, and it was leading to more spending. it was leading to bigger spending bills and it had to end. and i supported it ending. >> but rick perry called it the fleecing of america. do you agree that's what it is? >> that's pretty funny because rick perry was hiring lobbyists to fleece america then to represent the state of texas to get more money back and i suspect if you ask kay hutchinson or john cornyn or anything of the texas delegation whether rick perry wanted money coming back to texas, they'd say yes he did. look, there's a legitimate role for congress to allocate

resources. that's what the constitution requires them to do. when there's abuse, then you curb the abuse and i supported that. >> let's talk about iowa. your latest ad talks about conservative credentials and electability. let me play a portion of it. >> who has the best chance to beat obama? rick santorum. a full spectrum conservative, rick santorum is rock solid on values issues. >> so you've been making that contrast consistently questioning governor romney. calling him a liberal massachusetts governor. arguing, in fact, that he is a moderate. yet back in 2008, when he was running for the presidency you were singing a different tune. this was your press release back then, you said governor romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear. he has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with united republican party. will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear. you even praised his work on fighting same-sex marriage.

what changed? >> well, what changed was who he's running against. at the time, that was five days or four days before super tuesday, it was after florida. it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point. i thought mike huckabee -- i would have loved to have mike huckabee out there. but i made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop john mccain, which was what my concern was, i had served 12 years with john mccain, i like and respect john mccain immensely personally, and he's done a lot of great things, obviously, for this country. but i did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee -- >> you said romney will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear. >> compared to -- >> but you didn't stay compared to. >> of course i'm not going to say compared to. i'm trying to add voe kate for his candidacy. >> you didn't mean that then? >> i was saying it relative to john mccain. remember it's not like i was an early supporter of romney. i endorsed him seven days before he droned out of the race. maybe i was a little bit --

>> does he have conservative values and principles? >> of course. everybody on that stage that is in these debates has conservative values, vis-a-vis president obama, and generally reflects the republican party. the question is, are those values the ones that you can trust when they become president of the united states? is it someone who you know is going to fight not just for certain things, but for the entire republican platform? why? because those things integrate together, and you've heard me talk about this many times. you can't have a strong economy, and just a strong economic plan unless you have strong families and you have moral values in this country. why? because that's the underpinning of our society. >> but you talk about -- you talk about trust as a conservative. and you have accused romney of attacking back and forth as he sought election, calling him a liberal governor from massachusetts. but we look at your own record, as well, running for re-election to the senate in 2006. in a democratic state of pennsylvania. now, here in iowa you've taken

the pledge, opposing abortion. back on this program, this summer, you said, you oppose abortion, without exception. >> right. >> and yet when you were running for re-election in 2006, you had a different view. and this is what you told the associated press. the question was, do you support legalized abortion if a woman has been raped or if she is the victim of incest? what about if a woman's health or life is in danger, please explain your answer. back then you said, i would support laws that include exceptions in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk. so, didn't you, when you were running for re-election, do the same thing you've accused romney of, which is moderating your stance to try to win a democratic state? >> no, not at all. today i would support laws that would provide for those exceptions. but i'm not for them. in other words, i support the hyde amendment. the hyde amendment provides exception for rape and incest and the life of the mother. yes, i support laws that provide those exceptions because if we can get those passed, then we need to do that. but -- >> that's not a violation of your pledge? >> no. i try -- i supported the partial birth abortion ban act.

does that ban all abortions? no. but it moves the country in the right direction. so what i've said in the past consistently is i'll support laws that move the ball forward, that doesn't mean that's my position and that's where i'd like to go. but that's exactly the direction that we need to go in. >> the issue of moderation is -- goes beyond abortion. back in 2006, you were fighting the idea that you were seen as too conservative. you had television ads, heralding the fact that you opposed reductions in the minimum wage. that you were fighting cuts against amtrak. isn't your history to try to moderate, both when fighting for re-election, but also as a member of congress? to try to find common ground and to compromise? >> of course my background is to find compromise. that's what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don't compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i -- i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a

first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i'm aware of, only law that's actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? ye i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren't going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more.

that's where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we'll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way. >> one of the things you look at as an insurgent party trying to be an incumbent president, you've said that, second term of president obama would be dangerous for the country. is that you look at the party that's making the challenge. and here's the reality. disapproval for the republican party right now in congress, i should say, approval of republicans in congress stands at 26%. that's far less than the president's approval rating. and dawn bowles writes this in "the washington post," for gop candidates worried about the party's brand, a year ago after their win in the midterm elections republicans were full of confidence. as americans look for next november the question many will be asking is, are the republicans really ready to

lead? in three political arenas, congress, the states and the presidential campaign trail plubs have left a checkered record in the past year. in congress it was the debt debacle forcing a near shutdown of the government. the payroll tax debate that looked to go in the president's favor. the fight with the unions in the states like wisconsin. do you fault republican leaders in congress for not doing more to make government work better, through more compromise for the president? >> you have to have someone you can work with. and this president has done more to divide than any other president that i've ever witnessed in my lifetime. this president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide america between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups. this is the great divider in chief. and it's very difficult when you're being led by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then -- and the president, who i don't believe has met with boehner or any of the republican leadership, and now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone

who won't meet with you. who won't sit down and try to negotiate things and try to talk. so i'm not surprised at all that republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest -- >> he met with him. even the debt fight over the summer was a constant set of meetings. so that can't be accurate. >> if you look at it. the last time he's had meetings, i know it's been several months. i know that prn, when i was there, and president reagan, routinely met on a regular basis, with the other side. and developed relationships. you know, this is about trust. you don't build trust by going up and running around the country, beating up on your opponent. he's the president of everybody in this country. as president of the united states, i would be someone who would meet regularly, who would talk and try to build relationships of trust. and this president has not done that. >> you don't fault republicans for intransigence on taxes or spending or other areas of potential compromise with the president? >> again, we go back to the basic fact. federal government now is spending about 25% of gdp.

that's historically the average is about 18%. we have an explosion of spending. and the problem in this country is, government oppression, spending, that's leading to huge debts and deficits. what the republicans have said is, no more. we are going to move in the direction of smaller government. and president obama has no interest in doing that. i think republicans are right to stand and fight on this. and the president seems to be absolutely disinterested in listening to what the american public said in the last election, which is we want more limited government. he did not get the message. i guess he's going to have to get this message, hopefully, in november. >> before you go i want to ask you about foreign policy. you've been very critical of the president, particularly on the issue of iran, which has been a big issue of debate here in iowa. let me play a portion of that. >> this president, for every thug and hooligan, for every radical islamist, he has had nothing but appeasement. we saw that during the lead up

to world war ii. appeasement. >> how can that possibly be accurate, if you take an objective look at the foreign policy of this administration? what on iran, specifically, separates the approach that president obama has taken and that of president bush. >> number one, he didn't support the pro-democracy movement in iran in 2009 during the green revolution. almost immediately after the election -- i mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed ahmadinejad announced he won with 62% of the vote. within a few days, president obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one. >> what would that have done specifically to disarm iran. >> i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it. the problem was this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting saying please support us president obama, we are the pro-democracy movement. we want to turn this theocracy that's been at war with the united states, that's developing a nuclear weapon, that's killing

our troops in afghanistan and iraq with ieds and the president of the united states turned his back on them. at the same time, a year later we have the same situation where muslim brotherhood and islamists are in the streets of egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like iran, but an ally of ours like mubarak and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends. >> first of all that's patently contradictory. if you say you support democracy, there was a democratic movement in egypt and the muslim brotherhood got elected. so how can you be pro-democracy in some countries and not others which is inconsistent? >> no, the muslim brotherhood is not about democracy. the muslim brotherhood are islamists. they're going to impose sharia law -- >> but i asked you about disarming iran. there is no material difference in terms of how the bush administration sought to disarm iran and what the obama administration has done. >> there's a material difference in this respect. number one, the bush administration worked with me, in passing the iran freedom support act which i authored which imposed tough sanctions on

the iranian nuclear program, and provided funding for the pro-democracy movement. when president obama came into office he cut that funding. president obama did not provide funding in to iran to help those folks who wanted to overthrow this democracy. and when the time came to support them, he chose not to. that is a substantive difference between my policy, which i was a leader on in the senate, and when president bush tried to do when he was president. >> the reality is there is no good option to disarm iran. >> yes, there is. >> the bush administration knew that. this administration knows that. tell me what you'd do differently then? >> i'd put fort a five point plan. use covert activity -- >> which is already being done. there's covert activity to set back their program by the israelis, by the united states. >> we know by the israelis. we don't have any evidence, if you look at what's being done, most of the evidence to actually trails back to the israelis and the methodology that they use. there's no evidence the united states is at all complicit in working at that. that's what -- i would be very

direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this. why? because i want to make sure that iran knows that when i say that iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually affect out policies that make that happen. this president has not done that. he has opposed tough sanctions on iran, on their oil program. why? because he's concerned about the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. i would say to every foreign scientist that's going in to iran to help them with their program, you will be treated as an enemy combatant like an al qaeda member. and finally i would be working openly with the state of israel and i would be saying to the iranis you need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities with air strikes and make it very public. >> you would lay out a red line and if they pass it, air strikes. >> iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch. >> two previous presidents have said that. you would order air strikes if it became clear -- >> yes, that's the plan.

i mean you can't go out and say, this is -- this is the problem with this administration. you can't go out and say this is what i'm for and then do nothing. you become a paper tiger. and people don't respect our country. and our allies can't trust us. that's the problem with this administration. >> all right. before i let you go, back to the politics. are you going to win this thing? >> i feel good. i mean that's up to the people of iowa. i've always said that the people of iowa are the ones i put my trust in. not just ioa, new hampshire. we've got a great team up in new hampshire. we've got about two dozen state legislators who have signed on to our campaign. county attorneys, sheriffs, we've got a great team up there and we're going to have a big jump here in iowa. i don't know what it's going to be. unlike rick perry, unlike michele bachmann, we're going to new hampshire and compete in every region of this country. i come from the northeast. i've been able to get the blue collar voters, the reagan democrats, to vote for me in the past. we're going to do the same thing and that's why we're going to win this election. >> senator santorum, thank you. we'll see new new hampshire next week for the debate. coming up, on new year's

day, ron paul with a strong showing in the polls drawing fire from his republican rivals while mitt romney sets his sights on president obama. who just four years ago pulled off a surprise come from behind win here. plus the president and his team gearing up for the fight, as well. he's going to the important battleground state of ohio the day after the caucuses. it's a new year and a new campaign. we'll break it all down with our political roundtable. joining us the des moines register's kathie obradovich. strategist mike murphy. david brooks of "the new york times." mark halperin of "time" magazine and nbc's andrea mitchell. we know why we're here. to give our war fighters every advantage. ♪ [ man ] to deliver technologies that anticipate the future, today. ♪ and help protect america, everywhere. from the battle space to cyberspace. [ female announcer ] around the globe, the people of boeing are working together. to give our best, for america's best.

that's why we're here. ♪ when bp made a commitment that'to the gulf,here. we knew it would take time, but we were determined to see it through. today, while our work continues, i want to update you on the progress: bp has set aside 20 billion dollars to fund economic and environmental recovery. we're paying for all spill- related clean-up costs. and we've established a 500 million dollar fund so independent scientists can study the gulf's wildlife and environment for ten years. thousands of environmental samples from across the gulf have been analyzed by independent labs under the direction of the us coast guard. i'm glad to report all beaches and waters are open for everyone to enjoy. and the economy is showing progress with many areas on the gulf coast having their best tourism seasons in years. i was born here, i'm still here and so is bp. we're committed to the gulf

for everyone who loves it, and everyone who calls it home. coming up, countdown to the iowa caucuses. we'll have full analysis from our political roundtable. joining me, kathie obradovich from the des moines register, mike murphy, david brooks, mark halperin and nbc's andrea mitchell. up next after this brief commercial break. a trend on the street. goes big online. which triggers your software. that crunches the data. which begins production. and reroutes distribution. which means, you're ready. some companies have increased online revenue up to 50% with help from smarter commerce. i'm an ibmer. let's build a smarter planet. and having a partner like northern trust -- one of the nation's largest wealth managers --

makes all the difference. our goals-based investment strategies are tailored to your needs and overseen by experts who seek to maximize opportunities while minimizing risk. after all, you don't climb a mountain just to sit at the top. you lookround for other mountains to climb. ♪ expertise matters. find it at northern trust. what's next? 607 franklin st. ♪ sea bass... ♪ ooohhh! ♪ i like it. yeah, i love the kitchen. [ male announcer ] the epa-estimated 42 mpg highway chevy cruze eco. from looking for your perfect home to finding it. chevy runs deep.

and it hasn't been going exactly as planned. cut. cut! [ monica ] i thought we'd be on location for 3 days -- it's been 3 weeks. so i had to pick up some more things. good thing i've got the citi simplicity card. i don't get hit with a fee if i'm late with a payment... which is good because on this job, no! bigger! [ monica ] i may not be home for a while. [ male announcer ] the new citi simplicity card. no late fees. no penalty rate. no worries.

columnist david brooks, "time" magazine senior political analyst mark halperin. columnist for the des moines register, kathie obradovich and host of "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc, nbc's andrea mitchell. thanks for being here. happy new year. great political story to dig into. major moments of the week, and kathie obradovich with "the des moines register." iowa, as a toss-up. who's going to win this thing? >> boy, you know, it is a moving target right now. and right now all the movement is behind rick santorum. our poll actually, the first two days that we were in the field this week had romney and paul neck and neck. we actually had an illustration on the front page for our paper of romney and paul arm wrestling. and when we came in, saw the last two days, we had to put in rick santorum into the picture. so he is the only candidate that is urging upward right now. everybody else is static except ron paul who is trending down.

i think he peaked a week ago. >> mike murphy, you're a veteran of these parts, and also of the tactics of expectations. >> sure. >> i spoke to some romney folks last night, who actually suggested they think santorum's going to win this thing. >> right. >> are they setting us up to say, oh, what a win by mitt romney? >> i think they think santorum might win this thing. they had too easily of a life seven days ago. they had gingrich declining and ron paul, who would be very easy to beat in the full series of caucuses. now they've got rick santorum coming up fast, i think the surge is totally legitimate, your poll shows that, and consolidating that social conservative vote which in the past has always been the key to finishing at least second in the iowa caucus. so i think they would love to beat santorum, but if santorum beats them, they're still in the top two and there's great clarity. there's no way romney comes out of here loser if he's in the top two. now he knows who his opponent is going to be in new hampshire, which is not social conservative territory at all, and will roll the process out. i think the romney people would

like a win. i'm not sure they need one. >> part of that analysis is hey, santorum's good for us, we keep it expanded, take that field to south carolina, he'll go after rick perry if perry can stay in the race, bet are for romney. if the issue is who is the stalwart conservative, did rick santorum help himself this morning in the final push? >> i think he had a convoluted answers to two your questions. one about his support for mitt romney four years ago and also on rape and incest exceptions to abortion when he was running in president. right now i see two buckets of scenarios. scenarios that are great for mitt romney and scenarios that are good or decent for mitt romney. they would love to leave here for the top three, in whatever order, paul, santorum or romney because they believe they will never lose in the long run and maybe even the medium run to santorum or paul. gingrich and perry represent bigger threats for them. and i think the worst case for romney is if one of those two guys surges in the last few days. no indication that will happen. but they're both out there working hard. >> andrea mitchell, you've been out here reporting. what are you seeing? >> well, the crowds are much

smaller than you'd expect. smaller than the huckabee crowds were four years ago. but there's that evangelical core. when we talk about organization, and enthusiasm, they're going to come out. and i think that as mark and the rest of us all noticed with you today, santorum may have stubbed his toe a bit by you pinning him down on what he said when he was running for re-election in pennsylvania in 2006. the exceptions that he previously agreed to. the fact that is willing to compromise, he said not on his principles, but to get things done. a little bit convoluted. and the fact that he said he made a political decision to support mitt romney against john mccain. a political decision. >> if the crime, david brooks, is moderation in today's republican party, what are we learning now, a couple days away from actual voting beginning in a republican caucus, about the state of the party? >> yeah, it's a pretty conservative party. but it's not -- they don't want dog mattists. and i think santorum helped himself today. his problem is not that he compromises too much. his problem is people can show

he's too rich and that he can show he's a practical politician that's a plus for him. iowa has supported candidates who have not gone on to great success, i don't think rick santorum is one of them. in part because he's got some working class credentials as opposed to romney. in part because he tells a very good story about connecting moral concerns with the economy. and partly he's just a good politician. i covered him in the senate when he lost badly in pennsylvania. he was a pretty bad politician. if you look at him today, like you're a baseball scout looking at a pitcher, you'd say, yeah, this guy is good enough to play in the major leagues. so i think he's going to be reasonably strong. i'm not sure he's going to win the nomination. >> you talk about the economic message that you think -- >> one thing that's not being covered as much because it's based on social consevenives, he's still the guy with the blue state pennsylvania chops and he does a very good message on manufacturing jobs which is a bell ringer in eastern iowa which people from outside iowa don't know is a place with a lot of light manufacturing. i make one other point about this morning. i thought he did fairly well. he's always going to be pro-life enough for the pro-life voters. that's not going to be his

problem. but there's something else happening on sunday morning, which is evangelical churches across iowa in the pulpit, they're seeing that poll and seeing one of our guys is moving fast. and i think messages are going to go out that are going to be very bad for perry, very bad for what's left of bachmann, to go with rick to win this. >> social conservatives will move toward him, and say, that's it. that's the alternative we've been looking for? >> social conservatives have been like all the other voters in iowa. they wanted to give everybody a try and they are undecided and unwilling to unify, and even in our poll, they are not unified. rick santorum polled about 23% of people who described hemselves as born-again but ron paul and mitt romney each got 18%. so they're not united. they may, indeed, start moving that way, in the interests of having one of them, as mike said, at the top. >> are we not, this is for everybody, the volatility we've seen in the polling here, and who comes out of these debates, what does that tell us? is it ultimately going to be

portrayed as whether romney can get above that 25% threshold? is that not the big issue? >> i think it's a little deeper. one of the things that struck me from all the rollies i've seen is a sense the country has gone seriously off course. and it's a values thing. and all the campaigns are trying to tap into this saying we've lost it. let's restore. let's go back to what we've lost. and you see that in the crowds when you talk to the people. but when you ask them what do you want to do, no one has a clue. and so -- >> when you feel that anger, it's that wrong track, number that we see, it's the anger against washington. ron paul early on tapped in to that. i think he really hurt himself on foreign policy. and on making himself not electable. the sense in the polls that we saw starting with, with the polls on wednesday, then our poll on friday, and yours today, he's just not acceptable to so many people because of his foreign policy positions. and going in to south carolina, in particular, that's going to

be a very big problem. >> the ron paul thing is overrated and i'll go on the dangerous prediction and say he'll be the surprise disappointing finish. a lot of his function is, will new people show up at the caucus? and we always get seduced by this argument because it's so much fun, margins are going to land. historically new people don't. it's republican primary voters and activists in the range. i think because of the wrong track energy and frustration the turnout should be a little higher than last time. >> 27% of those polled are new caucusgoers. >> -- did bring new people in the caucus. i think we've got a different electorate than we did in 2008 because the democrats don't have a contest. so you have people who were independents in particular, who want a caucus, and a lot of them are going toward ron paul. he is the least ideological on the social issues, and also, what we're getting is i think a desperation for real change. and i think a lot of those folks are flocking toward ron paul because he is the guy who is completely different.

>> i think he was sediment which is all these polls measure early, noise meter. now it's time for voting, i don't know if he can vote. >> can i interject something else into this. the sunday "new york times" and the lead story is obama strategy for '12 election, attack congress. white house officials i talked to say that was sensationalized, that that was overwritten, yes the president is going to talk about contrasts with congress but he certainly hopes and will work for cooperation. but we're beginning to see the outlines already in this contest of what the general election will look like, the general election campaign, no matter who the nominee is. now here was then-senator obama, when he won in iowa, back in 2008, this is what he said in part. >> the time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face. who will listen to you, and learn from you, even when we disagree. who won't just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.

>> and mitt romney, on the campaign trail this week, is actually shadowing where president obama, then-senator obama, campaigned in iowa, and he's got a very different message. this is it in part. >> four years ago this week the barack obama visited davenport and he gave a speech right down the street, and like most of his campaign speeches, it was long on promises. he promised he was going to bring people together. and then he closed his speech with these words, he says, this is our moment, this is our time. well, mr. president, you've had your moment. we've seen the results. and now, mr. president, this is our time. >> mark halperin the argument is the trangz formation leader that president obama was supposed to be, the truth tellers to tell americans what they needed to know, not what they wanted to

know, has failed to show. >> it's clearly the strongest message any republican can have. mitt romney has driven it more than anyone else in the field. he also has by every measure you can use to judge a campaign, fund-raising, opposition research, far and away the best campaign of anyone in the race. the white house is ready for him. last night, new year's eve, right, romney finished late in the day event says he would veto the dream act giving more opportunity to immigrants to this country. the white house jumped on that, new year's eve, david axelrod, the president's adviser, tweeting about it. dnc putting out a press release. they are very aggressive. they are very skilled. if you're looking for electability, though, again the only operation out there right now that got anything like the potential on the scale that the president will bring to this is mitt romney. >> i would say the organizational scale his events are like aircraft carriers. i have a little problem with the messaging, though. here it's all patriotism. it's tom sawyer. i love america, you love america. the sub text is you might think i'm a rich guy with a strange religion but i'm just like you.

i think that's probably not enough to win in a country where people feel it's in decline. that the scope of his plans are not as big as the scope of the problems. the problem that also applies to barack obama. >> -- this week though, potentially? >> potentially. >> -- is not going to be silent, also. >> -- take that on. because this is a big issue about whether president obama has measured up as a leader. i mean, there's real fears of national decline, a sense of the country's on the wrong track. this is a campaign about big things ultimately for voters. >> and the president is trying to respond to that. he's actually doing a video message to all of the democratic caucusgoers. he wants to be present in some fashion, so he is going to have democratic caucusing with presidential message by video. but the point is that he has not yet found a way. he has not found his voice. and they say that "the new york times" story is overwritten that he's running against congress. that has worked for him in the payroll tax fight but he still has to find that message for the

state of the union, for whatever his next platform is going to be. that is obviously the next one. to tell people how the country can be better at a time where his only economic message can be it's not as bad as it could have been. it's better than it was. >> or -- and republicans will make it worse. they'll take you back. >> there's a really interesting question for mitt romney next week. i think it's highly likely santorum will come out here with a lot of energy. i don't mean second or first. it will settle down, that will be what the media will want. rick will come at it from the right. if you run on the romney campaign you've got a choice, either just grind it out and have a contest on the right. you say you're pro-life. the white house is going to be giggling for three months of that. or do you know you got the organizational strength and the depths, and santorum it will be like drinking from a fire hose for him to try to catch up. do you triangulate? do you take a few risks in the primary but do you bounce off santorum to grab the middle again which is a much better general election strategy. >> i want to get back to tactics in just a second.

david brooks stay on this larger theme which is the white house, i talked to senior advisers say, look, we can win the broader vision where the country is going, where it should go. we can win independent voters on that message. what is the vision that we're learning about of this republican variety party? >> it's a vision that thinks government's too big. the thing santorum brings to the table which the others don't talk about as well is community and values. he really was a big anti-poverty guy when he was in the congress. he really talks about families and ties that to business a little better. that's been lacking from what has become a very libertarian, anti-tax, economics only party. and it is in danger of reverting back into that. >> kathie what are the story lines that come out of tuesday as you see them? >> well, i think that there's a couple things. one, that we're very interested in here in iowa is just how our iowa caucus is viewed nationally. and the results here will feed into that discussion. does somebody come out of iowa that people perceive has very little chance of being the

nominee, like ron paul or rick santorum? that's something that we're worried about and some republicans are worried about that. and finally, i think that the question, then, is, you know, how did a conservatives fare in the future in iowa. >> mark halperin? >> every time mitt romney's been challenged in this process, it's very well-skilled opposition research team has killed the person who's challenged him. killed rick perry, killed newt gingrich. they haven't lifted a finger to kill rick santorum. if he does come out of the air, and it's perceived as a two person race. he might not have to choose between triangulation, they may tactically kill rick santorum with an opposition research file that's like this. then the question will be can santorum survive that? does he have the skill and the ability to fight back? because he won't have the infrastructure. he won't have the money. as he talked about with you, he won't have the big endorsements and people backing him to help him. >> $17 million spent in blank blanketing the air waufs here in iowa, these outside groups, super pacs are pounding and they did it without romney right having to lift a finger.

>> and the fact that romney is not perceived, there is no blowback as there's been in past campaigns because of the citizens united supreme court decision, which now has opened the door for these super pacs to come in and they just killed gingrich, just pummeled him, not that he might not have self-destructed anyway. but they just went after him, and mitt romney doesn't get the blame. >> good for mitt romney right now. the minute he's no longer good for him, super pacs will shift their focus. >> what's the story line wednesday morning? >> who the hell is santorum? but there's a point about this, not just the super pacs, easier to crush a guy, negative ads in one state than in ten, santorum is a lot more competitive than ron paul would be. but it's the media. the media works like the jurassic park dinosaurs, 30 feet tall, huge teeth, with all due respect, not the biggest brain, and it follows movement. rick santorum stomps over there and tries to eat rick santorum. he's going to be the happiest guy in the world tuesday night.

wednesday he's got to stand on his head, drink from a fire house without drowning and learn chinese in one week to roll this thing out nationally. not impossible. going to be hard. he's going to get looked at hard. >> mike, one of the things -- rick santorum really hates us sometimes, and santorum ran a bad campaign when he tried to get re-elected in pennsylvania it's because he got obsessed with the media, got very sour and self-destructed. we'll see how temperamental he reacts to this. >> where does this thing get decided, andrea? >> it could get decided in south carolea or florida. if not sooner. >> let's look at the calendar to remind people where we go as we move forward. tuesday, of course, the iowa caucuses. new hampshire primary is january 10th. the following tuesday, january 21st is south carolina. january 31st florida. mark, this is a busy january. does this author for it being wrapped up in january or am a drawn-out 2008-like affair? >> unless someone c beat mitt

romney in one of the first four, or two of the first four, i think it's wrapped up by the state of the union. if he's cut and he shows a lot of weakness, that's a different story. but there's no indication of that right now. >> if he wins new hampshire and he wins florida, and that's a neck breaker on everybody else, not impossible to win the delegate count is lighter but i think he is the commanding front-runner the day afters florida front-runner. >> how you haver in 5b9 is president obama? >> he's vulnerability. i'd say he's a slight underdog. very slight. who knows what's going to happen in europe. he doesn't have the strongest opposition in the world. >> kathie you're on the ground in iowa. who's going to win this thing? >> you know, i can't predict it. it's too fast moving. i will predict that a lot of people are going to make up their mind on caucus night and it very well could be a surprise. >> all right. we'll leave it there. thank you all very much. before we go, a programming note, next sunday morning is our live nbc news facebook republican presidential debate right here on "meet the press." the final debate before the new

hampshire primary. for the past month we've been asking new hampshire facebook users what the most important issue is for them in the primary, an overwhelming majority, 58% say it is, in fact, the economy. so if you have a question you'd like asked in the debate, go to our facebook page, that's at facebook.com/meetthepress and you can post it there. that is all for the day. i'll be on the ground in iowa through the caucuses and on to new hampshire reporting on the primary. we'll be back next week with our live presidential candidate debate. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." premier of the packed b. you know organization is key... and so is having a trusted assistant. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle...and go. you can even take a full-size or above and still pay the mid-size price. here we are... [ male announcer ] and there you go, business pro. there you go. go national. go like a pro.

my high school science teacher made me what i am today. our science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller. over the last three years we've put nearly 100 million dollars into american education. that's thousands of kids learning to love science. ♪ isn't that cool? and that's pretty cool. ♪ to chart a greener path in the air and in our factories. ♪ to find cleaner, more efficient ways to power flight. ♪ and harness our technology for new energy solutions. [ female announcer ] around the globe, the people of boeing are working together, to build a better tomorrow. that's why we're here. ♪ in danger that's why we're here.

of living shorter lives than their parents because of the dangers of obesity. let's show our kids today how to eat healthier and exercise more. let's move to raise a healthier generation.