when john bush is sworn by white shirts, there he is. the man. the myth, the legend, donovan.an after a see sitting vote. jeremy rodick now a hall of famer. selected to the hockey hall of fame. he spent the final two seasons in his 22 year career with the san jose sharks. that's sports as we see it. >>> that is our report on this thursday night. i'm heather holmes. >> and i'm frank somerville. have a good evening everyone. >> good night. i dislocated both my ankles. i had my first heart attack when i was 35 years old. - we have asthma. - when i found out i had cancer, i was so scared. announcer: at sutter health we share our expertise and invest in new technologies. because everyone has a story. and our story is you. - we can be boys... - cowboys. i can run again. they gave me a new heart. i am so happy to be alive.

when john bush is sworn by white shirts, there he is. the man. the myth, the legend, donovan.fter a see sitting vote. jeremy rodick now a hall of famer. selected to the hockey hall of fame. he spent the final two seasons in his 22 year career with the san jose sharks. that's sports as we see it. >>> that is our report on this thursday night. i'm heather holmes. >> and i'm frank somerville. have a good evening everyone. >> good night.

market analysis -- analysts larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that, and i quote, jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats. princeton political scientist larry bartal studied administrations from truman to bush and he found to quote a summary of his work, quote, when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, he said, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups. in 2008, the "new york times" asked this question. and i think this is such a compelling comparison. imagine that starting in 1929 you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have failed? you make your choice in your head right now. you're probably not surprised at what the conclusion was. under republican administrations, your 10,000 dollars invested exclusively in republican administrations -- if you include the hoover administration would

as an appellate judge, john roberts held that president bush's military commissions were legal even though they were created without congressional authorization and allowed the use of evidence obtained by torture. the supreme court reversed judge roberts saying they violated the law. incidentally, justice stevens was the author of that opinion. the hamdi case, while pending, there was an extraordinary effort in congress to force the supreme court to dismiss the case by retro actively stripping the right to habs habeas corpus detainees. you wrote a letter opposing that legislation. you could tell me about that position and why you took it at that point? >> i did write that letter and it was a letter that urged congress to really the principle point that we were making in that letter was that the adjudications made by military commissions ought to be reviewed in article three courts. congress did, indeed, do exactly that. the initial amendment was recrafted into the graham-ky graham-kyle-levin amendment. it was an extraordinary act of bipartisanship that occurred. i think it was the vote was

market analyst steady administrations from john kennedy to george bush been found -- studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that jobs grew more slowly for each republican than for any democrat. a princeton political scientist growth andhe eco administrations from harry truman to george w. bush and he found "when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, democratic presidents and generate higher income gains for all income groups." in 2008, "the new york times" asked this question -- i think it is a compelling comparison --"imagine that starting in 1929, you had to invest exclusively under a democratic or republican administrations. how would you have fared?" you make your choice in your head right now. you are not surprised at the conclusion. under republican and ministrations, your $10,000 invested exclusively in republican administrations, if you include the hoover administration, would have netted you $11,733. but that's probably not fair. so l

conservative columnists-- michael gerson of "the washington post" and john fund of "the wall street journal;" and abigail thernstrom, a bush appointee to the civil rights commission. afterward, i'll have some thoughts on the role the media played in all of this. but first, race in america on "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs "face the nation" with cbs news chief washington correspondent bob schieffer. and now from cbs news in washington, bob schieffer. >> schieffer: good morning again. a lot to talk about so we're going to get right to it. we're going to begin with the shirley sherrod case. by now, i'm sure you know the story, how a heavily edited tape that was taken totally out of context was put on the web. the result was that the administration, without checking to see what the rest of the tape said, fired the woman. then, came a lot of apologies and the offer of a new job. michael eric dyson, you are writing a book about barack obama and race. and it seems to me, after making all of these eloquent statements about race during the campaign, now, when race comes up as an issue, this white house seems to comm

bush when. i think from memory it was john negroponte that was given some role within the administration whereby fictive lee corporations who at the end to be a national security of national security importance could be given a free pass respects all financial reporting so i would make the argument that even if you say that the regulates could come in and things could be enforced in this that i'm personally of the view that things are happening in such a irregular context particular a lot of that executive order that. b.g. b.s. about how one can can expect j.p. morgan to be forced out of their positions look i would very much hope that happens all of us investing in silver see that as rocket fuel to the outside if they're forced to cover yet mad well what about all the government money that j.p. morgan takes out if they return all the government money we stop subsidizing this financial terrorist we. stop making jamie diamond's life easier by just make itself so short sighted over all day long for the bogus christmas bonuses that he doesn't deserve never work for our network then his life this gu

you could bring john mccain and ted kennedy into this and even though john mccain was not at all of the meetings when president bush was doing closed- door negotiations on -- i forget which year it was, he was still supportive and now we have no one. democrats aresay resisting as well, but you have a lot more democrats working on it than you do republicans. >> them so, if a bill were to come up, when -- so, as a bill were to come up, when the resources say it might come up? >> we are only a couple of months away from an election which is expected to be extremely difficult for democrats. the willingness from the speaker and majority leader in the senate -- and the majority leader in the house to get this bill together and get a compromise, i just do not see the willingness from democratic leaders to put an emigration bill even in the set where they said it would go first. -- an immigration bill. it just as not seem like it's going to happen. >> what about a lame duck session? >> you have to get through the elections first. i don't think anybody is putting their eggs in that basket yet. there is talk about a piecemea

was born without a constituency he was born without people karl rove was george bush's people can o'donnell who worked for john of kid he was john f. kennedy's people he grew up with these people he you know because of this upbringing he became a technocrat he became somebody who is more oriented with the details and not with bold kind of leadership with consensus he was no drama obama he was born that way as a child and you're seeing that now and with the departure of somebody like david plouffe you all we have these kind of technocrats in charge that don't see the big picture but he is working with these drama queen with rahm emanuel who he took over here from chicago with a mission that guy at least have some mastery and help him out i think it's a little bit there's a lot more to it than that we're bears a little brains you know when we all encounter the world we see a new thing and if that thing isn't in context you put it into a context for president obama the context is intellectually he puzzles it out. wrong. manual is is a is a is a battle in the house and the senate he doesn't provide the context the

market analysis -- analysts larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that, and i quote, jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats. princeton political scientist larry bartal studied administrations from truman to bush and he found to quote a summary of his work, quote, when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, he said, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups. in 2008, the "new york times" asked this question. and i think this is such a compelling comparison. imagine that starting in 1929 you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have failed? you make your choice in your head right now. you're probably not surprised at what the conclusion was. under republican administrations, your 10,000 dollars invested exclusively in republican administrations -- if you include the hoover administration would

an economist studied the administration's from john kennedy to george bush, and jobs grew more slowlyr each of the republicans than any of the democrats. a princeton political scientist studied income growth from the administrations from harry truman to george w. bush, and he found that "when a republican president is in power, people at the top income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups." and 2008, "the new york times" asked this question, i think this is such a compelling comparison -- imagine that starting in 1929, you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have a fair? -- have fared? you make the choice in your head right now. you are probably not surprised by what the conclusion was. under republican administrations, your $10,000 invested exclusively in republican administrations, include a herbert hoover administration, would have netted year to date set -- $11,733 -- would have netted you today

the knee-jerk reaction, though, way too many had to john roberts being nominated as george w. bush's supreme court pick reached the same foolishness we saw before the july 4 recess in the senate. the thinking was a woman is retiring from the supreme court, and a woman simply must replace here. many critics couldn't get into any man, never mind one who is qualified and accomplished as our now current chief justice. you may think i am exaggerating. i wish i were. it is hard to do parody. from sandra day o'connorer herself, her first public reaction to john roberts is he is good in every way except he is not a woman. i am not kidding. at the time i ridiculously wrote that perhaps president bush should have nominated one of his twin daughters to the supreme court instead. please do call me silly. that was ridiculous. but at least i am not a united states senator saying surf things and seriously. then colorado senator ken salazar, now our secretary of the interior, probably about now wishing he had kept his old job, sent a letter to president bush the morning after the roberts nomination.

give me -- >> -- like aisha just said, who do you reach out to, john mccain who was on the mccain/kennedy immigration bill -- >> when george bushas president, he said his top cabinet members, secretary chertoff, to negotiate directly with the democratic leadership. >> larry: i'm going to take a break. when i come back, i'm going to ask the panel to give me their law. what would they say should be the law? we'll also talk about president obama make history on "the view" and we've got a clip coming up. don't go away. > >>>. >> larry: ben, give me a con size law. >> close the borders. spend real money on border patrol and enforcement. allow a guest worker program. like farmers and ranchers and meat packers. and do not discriminate in an unfa unfair, unconstitutional way. >> larry: stephanie, a law? >> every time i come here, wasn't to marry ben stein. what he said. yes, comprehensive immigration reform. close the boarders. but there has to be a path to citizenship. i'm not as crazy a liberal as ronald reagan. i wouldn't talk about that kind of amnesty. the last time we didn't pass anything, we automatically gave how many millions

financial cliff, i remember the country came together at that moment, good or bad, with president bush and with john mccain and barack obama and made a decision that we needed to shore up the financiasystem. >> absolutely. >> i will believe we then continued with unemployment losses under the bush administration, president obama tookver. my memory of the facts is in the first month when he took over, while bush was still president, we lost more jobs in this country in the month of january than the state of vermont has people. we then passed the stimulus package. we evened things out and are now in what i consider a recovery that is taking too long. i'd like it to go quicker like everyone else. i will say in my state the unemployment rate is in the low 7%. but as senator schumer pointed out when people are hurting in a household, if in their household no 00 has a job it's 100% unemployment. the things have i found helpful in our state is the jump start of the stimulus but then the belief in the private sector economy and,ing with small businesses. that's why i so badly want to get the small business

bush era tax cuts. the democrats are a little bit split. because some of them feel as john was saying, you don't let tax cuts expire on anybody in the middle of a recession. but most of them, and certainly nancy pelosi and some people in the administration, are saying emphatically that while we should continue the middle class tax cuts we need to let the ones on the wealthy expire. a little bit of an internal democratic fight and the fight between democrats. >> there's a report this morning that said at the moment there aren't 60 votes for either, just the middle class tax cuts continue or for the ones on the wealthy. is it possible we could get to the end of the year where they all expire for lack of 60 votes? >> that's possible. but my guess is what they'll do is they'll extend them -- extend the whole thing for a couple months. so it goes beyond the election and goes beyond the beginning of the year. there's a more republican congress in town. and they deal with it then and a slightly -- slightly less volatile time i guess you would say. >> unemployment, they'll kick the

market analysis -- analysts larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that, and i quote, jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats. princeton political scientist larry bartal studied administrations from truman to bush and he found to quote a summary of his work, quote, when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, he said, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups. in 2008, the "new york times" asked this question. and i think this is such a compelling comparison. imagine that starting in 1929 you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have failed? you make your choice in your head right now. you're probably not surprised at what the conclusion was. under republican administrations, your 10,000 dollars invested exclusively in republican administrations -- if you include the hoover administration would

administration has done is to read the last election which was a repudiation of the bush administration and questions about john mccain's capacity. and read that to mean we want to move more to the left. i think that was misreading. they might have been able to handle it in a better way. >> did democrats mystery the public's tolerance for an expanding role in regulating the economy? >> change is hard. i don't think any of the things we have been able to pass by one vote or a so has been perfect. but in this legislative environment, perfection is not an option. i don't remember that. i don't think this is an ideological election unless you think -- i don't. 95% of people have wanted to reform our health-care system for years. after the financial catastrophe, most people think we need to make change. , don't know they want this they think getting through congress, but most people think we need changes in energy regulation. if anyone has not paid attention to the gulf, everybody thinks we would have to regulate well safety. i don't think the things we have produced have been perfect. not all democrats support the

financial cliff, i remember the country came together at that moment, good or bad, with president bush and with john mccain and barack obama and made a decision that we needed to shore up the financial system. >> absolutely. >> i will believe we then continued with unemployment losses under the bush administration, president obama took over. my memory of the facts is in the first month when he took over, while bush was still president, we lost more jobs in this country in the month of january than the state of vermont has people. we then passed the stimulus package. we evened things out and are now in what i consider a recovery that is taking too long. i'd like it to go quicker like everyone else. i will say in my state the unemployment rate is in the low 7%. but as senator schumer pointed out when people are hurting in a household, if in their household no 00 has a job it's 100% unemployment. the things have i found helpful in our state is the jump start of the stimulus but then the belief in the private sector economy and,ing with small businesses. that's why i so badly want to get the small busin

guest: you could bring john mccain and kennedy together, and even though he was not at all the meetings when president bush was doing some closed-door negotiations on immigration, john mccain was still supportive. now we have no one. even lindsey graham has walked away from it. that is not to say that democrats are not resisting as well, but you have many more democrats working on it than republicans. >>, if the bill were to come up, what are your sources say about when it might? >> this is an election year, so we are only four months away from an election expected to be extremely difficult for democrats. the willingness from speaker nancy pelosi, harry reid, steny hoyer to get the bill together and get a compromise -- i don't see the willingness from democratic leaders. even in the senate for the said it would go first. it does not seem like it will happen. >> what about a lame duck session? >> you have to get through the election first, so i don't think anyone is putting their eggs in that basket. there's talk about a piecemeal approach. some parts with support that could give a legal status to young chi

market analyst larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that "jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats." princeton political scientist larry bartell studied income growth from truman to george w. bush. he found that when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups. in 2008, "the new york times" asked this question. this is a compelling comparison. imagine that starting in 1929, you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have fair? you make your choice in your head right now. -- how would have dared fare predict fa -- inred would you have fared? >> $10,000 invested in republican administrations would have netted you today $11.737. that is probably not fair. let's take out the hoover administration. that is arguably the worst. let's take that out in fairness. if we'r

bush's critics. >> one thing that "the roundtable" will weigh in on, aaron sorkin buying the rights to john edwards so please stay tuned. also there, the fact checks. and we teamed up with politifact. >>> still to come, "the sunday funnies." come, "the sunday funnies." [ male announcer ] the financial headlines can be unsettling. but what if there were a different story? of one financial company that grew stronger through the crisis. when some lost their way, this company led the way. by protecting clients and turning uncertainty into confidence. what if that story were true? it is. ♪ >>> and now, "in memoriam." >> if you can't make the tough decisions, you can't be the boss. >> should have all kinds of different books, in comic form. and you can. ♪ >> this week, the pentagon released the names of 19 soldiers and marines killed in afghanistan. >> we'll be right back. ll be right back. and the cars are whipping by, and all you can do is take a snapshot of the way the road looked 5 minutes ago, how would you know when to cross the road? 9 out of 10 organizations still make decisions this way every da

i had an active hand in writing the bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that john burkett against. i am also the author of a land grant that has been vital. i stand by my service even though mr. army may have other ideas. >> as you just heard, congressman they work is a persuasive fellow. he was voted out by his constituents. he became a lobbyist. after that, he became a talk- show host. he has certainly had an interesting career. of course, you will hear him continue to criticize me tonight. but that the conservative organizations that are supporting me. arizona right-to-life, the national rifle association, 11 of our 15 sheriffs, several of our mayors in arizona -- all or supporting me. >> just let my opponents, thank you for having us on today. i would not say that either of my opponents careers have been unremarkable. they have voted for things like no child left behind and medicare part b -- those are not conservative values. >> thank you very much, mr. deakin. >> it is interesting to hear john on the attack trail. he claims he is a ronald reagan republican. the fact is, i did

senator extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthy even if they add to deficit but don't pass unemployment insurance if it impacts the budget so he was interviewed on fox news this is john kyl minority whip are you going to pay the six hundred seventy eight billion dollars just on the tax cuts for people over making more than two hundred thousand dollars a year you should never reduce taxes in order to cut taxes surely congress has the authority and it would be right to if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs you do need to offset the cost of increased spending and that's what republicans object to but you should never have to offset the cost of the deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on americans you can't increase the deficit by thirty three billion to extend unemployment benefits without increasing. oxes he's saying but you can keep the bush tax cuts that did more than anything else to increase the deficit under bush because he cut taxes without any corresponding cuts in services and it's actually increased them because what is war but a welfare racket that's right you know america could solv

john mccain, who was on the mccain-kennedy immigration bill who dpunts want anything to do with an immigration bill? >> when george bushas president, he said his top cabinet members, secretary gutierrez to negotiate directly with the democratic leadership. that is presidential leadership. >> larry: i'm going to take a break. when we get back i'm going to ask the panel to give me their law. what would they say should be the law? we'll also talk about president obama making history on "the view." and we've got a clip coming up. don't go away. hi, may i help you? yes, i hear progressive has lots of discounts on car insurance. can i get in on that? are you a safe driver? yes. discount! do you own a home? yes. discount! are you going to buy online? yes! discount! isn't getting discounts great? yes! there's no discount for agreeing with me. yeah, i got carried away. happens to me all the time. helping you save money -- now, that's progressive. call or click today. ♪ [ male announcer ] like summer, it's here, but not forever. the lexus golden opportunity sales event. see your lexus dealer. it doesn't look risky. i mean, phil,

close to getting that passed and george bush, of course, was a republican, but he had a significant amount of republican support for that. that has melted away. john mccain no longer is backing comprehensive immigration reform, lindsey graham, who was the last republican standing, he backed away, said he would not support that in response to harry reid saying he wanted immigration to go ahead of energy reform. so the democrats are left standing on their own. >> woodruff: and susan, what's behind the opposition? is it genuine disagreement with what the president's proposing or what? >> i think a couple things have made this harder now than it was even when george w. bush tried it and failed. someone that the economy is so bad. unemployment so high. we're going to get new unemployment numbers tomorrow. we think it's going to head back toward 10%. that makes a lot of americans less seufrp thetic to illegal immigrants, many feel they're taking away jobs americans might have. the other thing that's made the politics of this harder is the rise of the tea party movement which has really focused issue... focused on opposition to illegal immigration. for s

the knee-jerk reaction which many had to john roberts being nominated as george w. bushurt race exactly the kind of foolishness we saw just before the july 4 recess in the senate. the thinking was, a woman is retiring from the supreme court, and a woman must replace her. so many critics just could not dead into any man, never mind one that is as qualified and accomplished as are now current chief justice. you may think i am exaggerating, and i wish i were. it's hard to do parity at a time when that means to rule. the reaction from sandra day o'connor herself in her first public reaction, she said he is good in every way, except he is not a woman. i am not kidding. at the time, i ridiculously road that perhaps president bush shouldn't have nominated one of his twin daughters to the supreme court instead. please call me silly, that was ridiculous, but at least i am not a united states senator saying such things. then ken salazar sent a letter to president bush the morning after the robbers nomination. -- after the roberts nomination. he wrote, you and i both have two daugh

and john taylor, economics professor at stanford university and senior fellow at the hoover institution. he was undersecretary of the treasury in the george w. bush administration. mark zandi, it's a pretty big claim that government action prevented another depression. give us the outline of the argument for that? >> well, i'm not arguing that any individual aspect of the policy response was good or bad. i mean i think we can debate that for a long time to come and we will. but i think if you take the totality of the response, what the federal reserve z what the bush administration, what the obama administration have done, what congress have done, it's that to tallity that that-- totality that has brought an end to the great recession and jump-started an economic recovery jns john taylor, the totality lead us out or prevented another depression, what do you see? >> i don't think there's any evidence for that. you look at the totality which i have been doing for several years now, looking at each program and adding them up. and i find a very small effect. in fact, to some extent some of the early actions i think were damaging. some of the actions

bush wanted to start to highlights. she really started to do a nice job. >> john sanchez caucuses hergetr cut, and >> her smile, beautifulked fantastic. and now she is gone. >> and her friend, went to the paul mitchell school and fresno. they also died with stephanie cardozo. >> there were all some students, they were here, participated, and it will recall, visionary. >> let us check-in with henry wiz reporting live from his garden this morning. >> yes it was a long commute law and it is that time of year when the garden was looking spectacular and now it is looking pretty good. it is the mid a season and what over going to do about that? we're going to turn to professionals that are going to give us advice on how to turn your gorgeous started into a spectacular garden coming up on kron 4 news weekend. >> welcome back, we are here in henry's garden and this argument is already in progress [laughter] >> and let me explain what is going on. and we are on television. >> perhaps this is not..- [laughter] >> and anyway, we are here at this card in and we're here to talk about the mid citthis seasn fertilizer. >> with mint sea