it was jim baker in the white house that finally got a conclusion reached so that we could address social security. to get to that point, that point being where we have a recommendation, both republicans and democrats have to come to the table without preconditions. we can't rule out any solution. on the review knew or the spending side. we can't give in to the temptation to turn this into the subject of demigodry or attack ads. quite frankly, i was business disappointed that leader bainer made this report prior to the election. fit did so it would become the object of politics in september and october and every member would be asked to sign a pledge that we will not cut this, we will not cut that, we won't do anything. and too many of us would have signed such a pledge. in -- inevitably we'll have to look at both cuts and revenues to begin a realistic reduction of the gar began chaun debt that confronts us. our options may include raising the retirement age and might also make social security benefits more progressive. a number of my colleagues don't like that when i say that. but those

it was jim baker and the white house that got a conclusion reached so we could address social security. to get to that point, both republicans and democrats that point being we have a recommendation to put on the floor on the house and the senate, republicans and democrats have to come to the table without pre-conditions and can't rule out any solution. on the revenue or the spending side. we can't give into the temptation to turn this challenge into the subof demagog erie. i was disappointed that leader boehner made the suggestion that this commission report prior to the election. if it did so, it would simply become the object of politics in september and october and every member would be asked to sign a pledge that we will not cut this, we will not cut that, won't raise this tax, we won't do anything. and too many of us would have signed such a pledge. may inclu raising the retirement age and might also make social security benefits more progressive. a number of my colleagues don't like that when i say that. but those who are doing very well cannot expect to get what the very needy

where president bush says i will ask jim baker to take a domestic policy and do for domestic. and president clinton says this is what we're worried about. i will do domestic policy in my administration. and for that and other reasons. luck, most of the policies george bush was and i think are very good policies. underrated president, underappreciated president. i wish he won, but he didn't run as good a campaign. and the country was ready for a change. that's another thing. people like a change that some of it is let's try the other g got. >> host: let's go back to that for a second, which is the great triumphs of george h. w. bush on that tax and spending cutting the deficit issue showed a thing that america used to be good at, which is bipartisan compromise. ronald reagan with tip o'neill during the social security thing. that is what has made our country strong, not ideological fervor, but the ability to say let's find common ground, now we can work. that is what we live today in washington. in the past 10 years, i would say. and you don't celebrate that enough, the ability

in fact, it was jim baker in the white house that finally got a conclusion reached so that we could address social security. to get to that point, both republicans and democrats -- that point being where we have a recommendation to put on the floor of the house and senate -- both republicans and democrats have to come to the table without preconditions. we can't rule out any solution. on the revenue or the spending side. we can't give in to the temptation to turn this defining challenge into the summit of demagogue -- subject of demagoguery or attack ads. quite frankly, i was disappointed that leader boehner made the suggestion prior to the election. frankly, if it does so or did so, it would simply become the object of politics in september and october, and every member would be asked to sign a pledge that we will not cut this, we will not cut that, we won't raise this tax, we won't do anything. and too many of us would have signed such a pledge. inevitably, we'll have to look at both cuts and revenues, neither politically popular, to begin a realistic reduction of the of gargantuan debt t

i think it was former secretary of state jim baker about the middle east that we cannot want more than they do. what we can make sure of is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged in setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is this in the interest of each party to resolve these complex, but it is in the interest of the united states. it is a vital national security interest of the united states to reduce these complex because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower and when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them. that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure. i will keep added. t it. and all these issues, nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, middle east peace, progress will be measured not in the days or weeks but it will take time. progress will be halting. sometimes we will stick one step forward and the two steps back and there will be frustration. it will not run under a typical cable knows 24-7 news cycle. if we are persistent and have the right approach them

i think it was former secretary of state jim baker who said in the context of middle east peace, we can't want it more than they do. but what we can make sure of is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged in setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts, but it's also in the interest of the united states. it is a vital national security interest of the united states to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower and when conflicts break out one way or another, we get pulled into them. and that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure. so i'm going to keep on at it, but i think on all these issues, nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, meast peace -- middle east peace, progress is not going to be measured not in days or weeks, but it's going to take time and progress will be halting. and sometimes we'll take one step forward and two steps back and there will be frustrations. so it's not going to run on the typi

i think it was former said terry of state jim baker who said, in the context of middle east peace, wecannot want it more than they do. but what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interest of each party to resolve these conflicts but it is also in the interest of the united states. it is of vital national security interest of the united states to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. and that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure. so i am going to keep on at it. but i think on all these issues -- nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, middle east peace -- progress is going to be measured not in days, not in weeks. it is going to take time. and progress will be halting. sometimes we will take one step forward and two steps back, and there will be frustrations. and so it is not going to run on th

i think it was a former secretary of state jim baker who sit in the context of the least peace we can't want it more than they do but what we can make sure of is we are constantly present, constantly engaged and setting out clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interest of each party to resolve these conflicts but also in the interest of the united states. it is a vital national security interest of the united states to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower and when conflict breaks out one way or another we get pulled into them and that is up costing us significantly in terms of blood and treasure so i'm going to keep at it, but i feel all of these issues, nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, middle east peace , progress is going to be measured not in days or weeks. it is going to take time and progress will be halted and sometimes we will take one step forward and two steps back and there will be frustration so is not going to run on the cable news 24/7 use cycle. but if we are persistent and we'v

i think it was former secretary of state jim baker who said in the context of middle east peace, we cannot want it more than they do. but what we can make sure of is that there -- is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides that our belief is not only in the interest of pothos -- our belief is that it is not only in the interests of both parties to resolve these conflicts, but it is also in the interest of the u.s. is in our interest to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower and when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into it. and that ends up costing us significantly both in terms of blood and treasure. i will keep on at it. but i think all these issues, nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, middle east peacel8u+, progress is going toe weeks. it is going to take time. oand progress will be halting d sometimes we will take one step forward and two steps back and there will be frustrations. it is not going to run on the typical cable news, 24/7 new cyc

clinton was the perfect counter pert board george herbert walker bush where bush says i will ask jim bakerto take up domestic policy and due for a domestic policy and president clinton said what are you worried about? i will do domestic policy in my administration. for that and other reasons the most policies that george bush pursued were good he was the most underrated and underappreciated president i wish you would have 13 he did not have run ask it of a campaign this is another thing about american politics and history that people like a change. let's try the other guy. >> let me push back the dead triumphant of george hw bush with tip o'neill doing so security that is what made our country strong? data is what we lack kin washington the past 10 years you don't celebrate that the neff. you make it seem they give up their principal with and sometimes can make great democracy. >> and the willingness on the principle to compromise is on principal and i could certainly live with the first. reagan could do this. >> host: and gorbachev. >> guest: and dan rostenkowski. [laughter] not the ideal

where president bush says i will ask jim baker to take a domestic policy and to for domestic policy. and president clinton says this is what we're worried about. i would to domestic policy in my administration. and for that and other reasons. look, most of the policies of george bush pursued i think are good policies, constructive policies. underrated president, underappreciated president and i wish he had one, but he didn't run as good a campaign. and the country was ready for a change. that's another thing people don't realize about american politics, american history, and that is people like to change. >> host: let me go back to pushing back on you for a second, which is the great triumph of george h. w. bush on that taxes and spending cuts and the deficit issue showed a thing that american used to be good at, which is bipartisan cover must. ronald reagan with tip o'neill to the social security. that is what has made our country strong, not ideological fervor, but the ability to say let's find a common ground. now we can work on. that is what we lack today in washington in the pas

i wanted to write the book, most of the people that you referred to, peter baker wrote primarily about the impeachment and jim stewart, whitewater and there are books about paula jones and the monica lewinsky piece and no once had the whole story and showed how it was interconnected and no one really got access to both sides. that is what i wanted to document i wanted to be able to talk to both sides. this was something that really as you know, because you lived through it, consumed the country like nothing other than in our life times, perhaps, watergate an nixon's ultimate resignation and disgrace and the assassination of j.f.k. and everyone was fixated on this and had a strong opinion in the country. the country was divided and i wanted to write the definitive neutral account people would look at 100 years from now and say this person got it right. it is interesting to me you mentioned the various stories and parts and narratives and i mean this as a compliment. the book schemes to be structured really as easy to read. very much like an international spy thriller. we start off, with the impeachment. and th

i wanted to write the book most of the people you refer to, peter baker wrote about the impeachment, jimwart for instance wrote about whitewater, there's books about paula jones and the monaco lewinsky peace. no one had the real story and showed what was interconnected and no one got access to both sides. that is what i wanted to do is be able to talk to both sides. this was something that as you know because you live through it consumed the country like nothing other than in our lifetime as perhaps watergate and nexium's ultimate resignation and disgrace and the assassination of john f. kennedy. everyone was fixated on this and everyone had a strong opinion in the country, the country was divided and i wanted to write the definitive neutral historical account people would look at 100 years from now and say this person got a right. >> host: it's interesting to me that you mentioned the various stories and parts and narrative and i mean this as a compliment. the book seems to be structured very much and it's really easy to read very much like an international spy thriller. we start off wi

colorful supporting cast full of such mcentee names as james baker, henry cruise, george law, fernando wood, frank work, simon chase, daniel drew, big jimfisk, jake gold, emily thorne, curtis peck, tennessee class on, vettori woodhall, erastus korn, chauncey debut, horace greeley, augusta show, john green, or and that more and. am i pronouncing that right? and horace clarke, to name just a few. in short, is a is a terrific read. -- is a terrific read. so james once wrote of the young thomas jefferson, that along with his command, five foreign-language is, he could catch a late and eclipse, survey and the state, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dancy menu at and play the violin. in the same thing one could say that cornelius vanderbilt could design a steamship, sale it over open ocean and jungle rapids, racy champion horse, run a shipping line, consolidate a railroad, short a stock, rader corporation to lobby president, build a rail depot, found a university and raise an army, and all before lunch time. [laughter] >> justice goes i think there's a great deal about what america became in his time and who ran it.

baker, and zack greinke. pair of rbi's cuddyer. 2-0, bottom of the fourth. >> second-round play, at the hilton head. choi, and, two-shot lead, jimt bad. missed the cut for the masters. three-way tie for the first. >> charlescharles howell iii. not bad, share of the lead, as gregg owen. he would tap in for birdie. >> phil mickelson, committed to play qual -- hallow, and, tiger too. >> drills it deep for a three-run homer! they have broken it wide-open. 7-2. >> fun day, for lee, and another cubby, more on the shutdown, ahead. josh beckett was roughed up, in the start, catch you up, and sidney crosby and the penguins, gecko: uh, you wanted to see me sir? boss: come on in, i had some other things you can tell people about geico - great claims service and a 97% customer satisfaction rate. show people really trust us. gecko: yeah right, that makes sense. boss: trust is key when talking about geico. you gotta feel it. why don't you and i practice that with a little exercise where i fall backwards and you catch me. gecko: uh no sir, honestly... uh...i don't think...uh... boss: no, no. we can do this. gecko: oh dear. vo: geico. fifteen m

baker and he was considered the front- runner. and he is still considered a front runner. he is well-known for working with the legislature. several other candidates, including jim holtz. -- holt. he was the nominee in 2004 and he lost against lincoln. he is experiencing -- either one of the maine democratic candidates he has experience against. >> the general election has been said to be leaning republican. does this mean that both of them would probably lose in the general election? >> it is difficult to tell, and it really does depend on how the primaries are. one of the interesting messages that you hear in both primaries is about how they are running similar messages in terms of saying that washington is broken. halter is using this on lincoln. baker had his campaign make the argument that if altar is given -- halter is given the nomination, it will be easier to use this argument. the match-up at this time, the numbers are favoring the republicans but it depends on what kind of match up that this is. this is a very long time until the election. host: thank you very much for your time. you can tune in to watch the first primary debate between these three dem

baker and he was considered the front- runner. and he is still considered a front runner. he is well-known for working with the legislature. several other candidates, including jim holtz. -- holt. he was the nominee in 2004 and he lost against lincoln. he is experiencing -- either one of the maine democratic candidates he has experience against. >> the general election has been said to be leaning republican. does this mean that both of them would probably lose in the general election? >> it is difficult to tell, and it really does depend on how the primaries are. one of the interesting messages that you hear in both primaries is about how they are running similar messages in terms of saying that washington is broken. halter is using this on lincoln. baker had his campaign make the argument that if altar is given -- halter is given the nomination, it will be easier to use this argument. the match-up >> again, we will have live coverage of the debate at the university of little rock in arkansas tonight at 10:00 p.m. senator evan by is stepping down after two terms. a debate between the five contenders for that seat will happen tonight as well. >> i think there is

baker and he was considered the front- runner. and he is still considered a front runner. he is well-known for working with the legislature. several other candidates, including jim holtz. -- holt. he was the nominee in 2004 and he lost against lincoln. he is experiencing -- either one of the maine democratic candidates he has experience against. >> the general election has been said to be leaning republican. does this mean that both of them would probably lose in the general election? >> it is difficult to tell, and it really does depend on how the primaries are. one of the interesting messages that you hear in both primaries is about how they are running similar messages in terms of saying that washington is broken. halter is using this on lincoln. baker had his campaign make the argument that if altar is given -- halter is given the nomination, it will be easier to use this argument. the match-up >> next, live, the first debate among the candidates for the u.s. senate seat in the arkansas democratic primary. you will hear from blanch e lincoln and d.c. morrison. it is being held at the university of arkansas at little rock. coming to you courtesy of katv. . .