>> my answer to that question is that i have lived a charmed life as a progressive policy wonk. the privilege i have had to work for people who are of such intelligence and commitment. that is not to say that there are not other people who would be great leaders to work for, but all of them were so intelligent, so thoughtful, so interested in the details of public policy. when i was asked about ron barack's book about obama, i was so upset about the thesis that he was being dragged along by others. i sat in march in a six-hour meeting in the roosevelt room on whether we should go forward with our stress test. the fact that the economic team did not totally agree to meant that the president had to sit there at the most complex financial issues imaginable and go back and forth quizzing some of the top economists and financial experts in the world and then making what ultimately proved to be a very wise call. that is not something you can do without both an enormous amount of intelligence, without you being the one who was running the show, often because you're economic advisers wi

. >> if you're sort of in the weeds and you're a policy wonk, you might lay it side by side and see the differences. i would suspect to the voter, you have so much in common that it's really hard to distinguish. it's hard to get in the weeds and compare them. the 9-9-9 is profoundly different, so that's an easier one. >> by the way, romney is in the other direction. the way i would describe it is if cain's over here with boldness, romney is over here with timidity. that's kind of how i would lay it out right now. i have a lower flat tax than perry. i'm at 15, he's at 20%. i have zero capital gains for everybody. he caps it at $500,000. i have a hundred% expensing for all new equipment. i don't think any of the other people deal with how do you modernize manufacturing and create manufacturing jobs in the u.s. the way i do. these are serious plans that are worth being studied. i don't mind saying, frankly, that the primary voter in iowa, the caucus gore will have a chance -- goer will have a chance to see them side by side. it's useful to take a few minutes and look at them and try to und

. >> be the ultimate wonk and wipe the floor with obama in a debate. he would be a worthy opponent. romney will not get republicans up cheering like you knocked out obama in a debate, which prebts the conundrum, do you want a guy that excites you in debates or go to the dance with a good looking candidate who maybe has a better shot in the general election. ultimately i think they make the romney call and go to the dance with him but there's a flirtation with gingrich. >> it gets back to, do they know what it means to win? and the fact that do they realize that, you know, according to that scenario, newt would do fairly well in debates but prior to the first debate, before the first pitch is thrown in the american league playoffs, he would be portrayed as the single most loathsome figure in american political history by the obama campaign. >> and loathsome is a word used in association with newt gingrich. i think the white house is looking at this and they saw a trickle of gold coins from heaven with mitt romney, with all of the opposition research, flip-flopping and then they see n

newt gingrich can turn into a wonderful middle of the road policy wonk when the occasion calls for it and snapback to the fire-breathing right winger when he feels like it. i'm not surprised the union leader would go for it. he does articulate the conservative views of the union leader better than the other candidates. does he have baggage? yes, his baggage has baggage. new hampshire republican voters love to send quirky messages, too, that's why they voted for pat buchanan one year, nominated him in new hampshire. if mitt romney were to lose the new hampshire nomination that would be not necessarily devastating or crippling but very bad for him because he's from massachusetts, right next door. he had been way ahead in the polls in new hampshire. >> and he has a house there. i mean, there is a lot of talk for a long time, ezra, that new hampshire was sort of his to lose. is he still the presumed nominee? >> certainly in new hampshire he's the presumed front-runner. the scenario which this begins to hurt him, imagine newt wins in iowa where mitt romney is weaker, he gets momentum out o

you know he says carter and clinton suffer from what i call the policy wonks disease.he calls it a disease. sort of like, you know, we feel like we are going to win like in high school and high school baseball. you know and he says i getting over that. i am not quoting him exactly. i don't want to be legislator in chief. you know i've got it technocratic inclinations i am working on. the idea, very much like kennedy with his best and brightest with halberstam get gets into office. bring the smartest people in the room with a sterling credentials and you close the door and you are going to come up with some beautiful glorious integrated solution and it ain't going to happen. it doesn't happen. obama has spent two plus years locked in the policy room and he says it ain't enough. and then he addresses a president who is kind of floating nearby near the ceiling, reagan. let me say, read what he says and then will we done and we will talk to each other. heat, reagan obama says was very comfortable playing the role of president. and i think part of that was really his actors

he's the smartest guy obviously running for president today, and in terms of being a politics wonk. >t gingrich is a knowledgeable guy. you can't argue with the fact that he knows his stuff and herman cain, likeable guy and happy-go-lucky, but he's not in any-- he's not in gingrich's league, that's the distinction. a serious policy discussion and only benefits newt gingrich. >> can i just-- >> i think there's something out of this debate last night. a former leader of the legislative process, successful in newt gingrich and successful businessman. almost two halves of a-- >> it was a cain-gingrich origin grinch-cain plan. >> working together. there are two strengths. >> dave: i think they are working together. >> herman cain is likeable and he's got vision he needed to show he has some sort of policy substantial. newt gingrich is the master of the debate and breadth of knowledge he needed to show he's likeable. herman cain held in better than exhibit xed and newt was likeable. and both came out ahead. >> dave: and next with our panel, jesse jackson says the occupy protests are similar

this in the context because they are talking however many years and no one other than a few policy wonks have any idea what this is so let's put this into context. the shortfall in social security from congressional budget office is estimated at 5800 less than 6/10 of 1% of gdp so in other words if we could find revenue source, it's less than 6/10 of 1% gdp. how big is that? if we look at the increase, the increase in the military budget since 2000 other words in september 11 the increase in the annual budget was more than 1.7% of gdp, roughly three times as much. so again as social security shortfall a big deal? the military budget increased and will increase. is three times a big deal. let's compare to something else. how much of the 1% increase their share of wealth over the last 30 years? that was about six percentage points of gdp. more than 10 times as much so if we are looking at the shortfall in social security and we are supposed to be really scared about it, the increase in wealth going to the richest 1% was about 10 times as much. so again if that is a big deal to the shortfal

i'm a sophomore at the george washington university school, i'm a little bit of a political wonk, so i was wondering if you could tell me if you're intending to weigh in on the senate race in florida. i know connie mack just threw his hat into the ring. >> it's an interesting race that continues to develop, and i'm not going to get involved in the primary. ultimately, my hope is to help the republican nominee because i want us to get a majority in the united states senate. i think we can do a lot more if we were in the majority. but i don't intend to get involved in the primary. we're blessed to have people like that to offer themselves up for public service, and we'll see how it plays out. >> you're unique in this room, you're both an autobiographer and a biographee. >> good luck to the people writing a book and to me as well. i think as far as writing a book, it's not something -- people are interest inside by background and how it helped me arrive at certain political conclusions. i have something i want to say as well about some of the issues facing our country and kind of -- one

this in the context because they are talking however many years and no one other than a few policy wonks have any idea what this is so let's put this into context. the shortfall in social security from congressional budget office is estimated at 5800 less than 6/10 of 1% of gdp so in other words if we could find revenue source, it's less than 6/10 of 1% gdp. how big is that? if we look at the increase, the increase in the military budget since 2000 other words in september 11 the increase in the annual budget was more than 1.7% of gdp, roughly three times as much. so again as social security shortfall a big deal? the military budget increased and will increase. is three times a big deal. let's compare to something else. how much of the 1% increase their share of wealth over the last 30 years? that was about six percentage points of gdp. more than 10 times as much so if we are looking at the shortfall in social security and we are supposed to be really scared about it, the increase in wealth going to the richest 1% was about 10 times as much. so again if that is a big deal to the shortfal

this in the context because they are talking however many years and no one other than a few policy wonks have any idea what this is so let's put this into context. the shortfall in social security from congressional budget office is estimated at 5800 less than 6/10 of 1% of gdp so in other words if we could find revenue source, it's less than 6/10 of 1% gdp. how big is that? if we look at the increase, the increase in the military budget since 2000 other words in september 11 the increase in the annual budget was more than 1.7% of gdp, roughly three times as much. so again as social security shortfall a big deal? the military budget increased and will increase. is three times a big deal. let's compare to something else. how much of the 1% increase their share of wealth over the last 30 years? that was about six percentage points of gdp. more than 10 times as much so if we are looking at the shortfall in social security and we are supposed to be really scared about it, the increase in wealth going to the richest 1% was about 10 times as much. so again if that is a big deal to the shortfal

>> my answer to that question is that i have lived a charmed life as a progressive policy wonk.he privilege i have had to work for people who are of such intelligence and commitment. that is not to say that there are not other people who would be great leaders to work for, but all of them were so intelligent, so thoughtful, so interested in the details of public policy. when i was asked about ron barack's book about obama, i was so upset about the thesis that he was being dragged along by others. i sat in march in a six-hour meeting in the roosevelt room on whether we should go forward with our stress test. the fact that the economic team did not totally agree to meant that the president had to sit there at the most complex financial issues imaginable and go back and forth quizzing some of the top economists and financial experts in the world and then making what ultimately proved to be a very wise call. that is not something you can do without both an enormous amount of intelligence, without you being the one who was running the show, often because you're economic advisers will

>> my answer to that question is that i have lived a charmed life as a progressive policy wonk. the privilege i have had to work for people who are of such intelligence and commitment. that is not to say that there are not other people who would be great leaders to work for, but all of them were so intelligent, so thoughtful, so interested in the details of public policy. when i was asked about ron barack's book about obama, i was so upset about the thesis that he was being dragged along by others. i sat in march in a six-hour meeting in the roosevelt room on whether we should go forward with our stress test. the fact that the economic team did not totally agree to meant that the president had to sit there at the most complex financial issues imaginable and go back and forth quizzing some of the top economists and financial experts in the world and then making what ultimately proved to be a very wise call. that is not something you can do without both an enormous amount of intelligence, without you being the one who was running the show, often because you're economic advisers wi

>> my answer to that question is that i have lived a charmed life as a progressive policy wonk. the privilege i have had to work for people who are of such intelligence and commitment. that is not to say that there are not other people who would be great leaders to work for, but all of them were so intelligent, so thoughtful, so interested in the details of public policy. when i was asked about ron barack's book about obama, i was so upset about the thesis that he was being dragged along by others. i sat in march in a six-hour meeting in the roosevelt room on whether we should go forward with our stress test. the fact that the economic team did not totally agree to meant that the president had to sit there at the most complex financial issues imaginable and go back and forth quizzing some of the top economists and financial experts in the world and then making what ultimately proved to be a very wise call. that is not something you can do without both an enormous amount of intelligence, without you being the one who was running the show, often because you're economic advisers wi