foreign policy to talk more about this i'm joined now by iraq war veteran kevin baker kevin was actually stationed at a joint base and lewis mcchord welcome to the show cabin so this latest this latest mastercard comes after the accidental burning of the koran the controversial video of marines peeing on the dead bodies of taliban's and and how many afghanis are simply they they want the u.s. out is a speedy departure more likely now which you say. you know i would i would use the word it would be a victory for the u.s. incapable of winning and this is news to the american people. that it happened in this tragedy and i would like to say that the march organization our hearts go out to the families affected by this incident and the entire. nation. really the pentagon the white the all knowing all have made that winnable that this war is not going to be won and that we're going to be there for time and we know that if it's government to its own devices that it will stay there indefinitely so it's really in the hands of the american people know this is on full display for every single ameri

host: the outsource party, this is by kevin baker. "usa today" asking the early question in 2009, who speaks for the republican party? kevin baker writes, everyone does and therefore, no one does. he also points out mitt romney's, the republicans are finally coalescing around that romney's candidacy. the longer-term problem will remain, how to maintain a coherent mass political party when some individuals are empowered as never before to redirect to their own e personalnds, whether it is rush limbaugh, fox news side, chris matthews and others. >> this is a pretty simple question and answer. whoever is in charge, whoever has the white house has a very powerful soapbox. the president always speaks for the party he or she represents. the reason why there is a lot of confusion on the republican side is because they do not occupy the white house. speaker boehner, obviously, it is in charge of the house. you do have a lot of pundits that are trying to push the party in the left or right direction. i think the sort of question always gets la

foreign policy help answer this add much more i spoke to the iraq war veteran kevin baker i asked him if a speedy departure is more likely now. i would use the word it would be a victory because the u.s. is incapable of winning in afghanistan this is news to the american people. that happened in this tragedy and i would like to say that the march organization our hearts go out to the families and i confess i think. this incident and the entire. nation. on. the pentagon the white house all known all have made claims that. this war is not going to be won and that we're going to be there in a lot of time and we know that if this government to respond advice is that it will stay there indefinitely. it's really in the hands of the american people now is on hold of every single american to the that these wars create an internal conflict in the military and then the struggle to individual soldiers trying to get out. not only in record suicide but record killing sprees like that just just happened recently i mean the only way to make that happen to make an immediate withdrawal of afghanistan

. >> jan crawford, jim baker and kevin warsh when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose was provided the following. >> additional funding provided by these funders.ç and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.ç captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: today, the supreme court held its second day of hearings on the healthcare reform law, the conservative justices vigorously questioned the obama administration's lawyer on the central issue in the case. does congress exceed its constitutional authority in requiring most americans to purchase health insurance? >> assume for the moment this is unprecedented this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative to go into commerce. if that is so, did you not have a heavy burden of justification? >> i understand that we must presume laws are constitutional, but even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate i think is a unique way do, you not have a heavy

. >>> from "the new york times," the outsourced party by kevin baker, about the republican party that's to the right for half a century now. and generally, carrying the country with it. but in the past, republican candidates and office holders had to accommodate themselves to real world situations, and the qualms of their constituents. participating in a democracy means more than simply insisting in as loud and arrogant a voice as possible what it is that you want. it means listening. it means convincing. it means compromising. all those things that political parties and their leaders used to be fairly good at. at long last, republicans seem to be finally coalescing around mitt romney's candidacy. are they? but the longer term problem will remain. how to maintain a coherent mass political party when so many individuals are empowered as never before to redirect it to their own personal ends. and then he brings up some of the candidates along the way who have used the race and the party for their own financial means. >> i just don't get this argument. and i know everybody in the echo cham