Skip to main content

tv   FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX News  April 9, 2012 2:00am-3:00am EDT

2:00 am
wallace. newt gingrich fights to keep h his run for the white house alive. we'll talk with the candidate about why he is staying in the race and what he hopes to accomplish at the gop convention. newt gingrich only on "fox news sunday." then, are the president and mitt romney begin the battle of the budget. >> it is thinly veiled social darwinism. >> the president came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one is making. >> we will try to separate fact fromfication with the democratic chairman of the senate budget committee kent conrad and a key republican member senator ron johnson. plus, president obama goes after the supreme court. we will ask our sunday panel if the president was right on the law and the politics. and our power player of the week. the daughter of a president tells who was the real political fighter in the family. all right now on fox news sunday.
2:01 am
hello again and happy easter from fox news in washington. there is news, pope benedict celebrated easter mass in st. peter's square at the vatican. tens of thousands of the faithful attended the service where the pope delivered his traditional easter address. now, 2012 presidential politics with the next primaries more than two weeks away the candidates reassessing where they go from here. joining us, newt gingrich. mr. speaker, happy easter and welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good to be with you you. >> let's talk about you a little bit and where you see yourself going here. you seem reconciled with the likelihood if not the inevitable of mitt romney as the party's nominee. >> i think you to be realistic given the size of his organization and the number of primaries he has won. he is far and away the most likely republican nominee and if he does get to 1144 delegates i will support him and do everything i can this
2:02 am
fall to help him defeat obama. the primary goal of the entire republican party has to be to defeat barack obama. makes this maybe the most important election of our lifetime. >> you have indicated one of the reasons you are staying in the race is to influence the platform. what do you hope to do with the platform? >> i think platform matter in the long run evolution of the party. a party is more than just a presidential candidate. senate candidates, house candidates, state legislators. when i go around the country the number of people who walk up to me and say they used to listen to go pack tapes. >> it was an organization i helped build and we would send out training tapes. this is 25 years ago and people walk up and say i'm now the senate majority leader, i'm now the speaker of the house. you have the long-term evolution of the party. and we are not an etch-a-sketch party. that was an unfortunate comment by romney's communication director. we are a broadly conservative
2:03 am
party. we don't have to be severely conservative as romney said at cpac. something else severely hard to do in american politics we need a new generation of break throughs. this country is in trouble. the industrial world is in trouble. spain has 21% or 22% unemployment. the greeks may suffer a one third decline in the standard of living. there are huge problems around the world. >> what are the key elements you want to see in the platform? >> one it an american independent energy policy that makes sure that no future american president ever bows to a saudi king and we bring jobs home, producing 4 million-barrels a day more of oil here in the united states. the second is a personal social security savings account. the last time we tried to fix social security if we adopted a chiliian model we would be $16 trillion in savings today. that is how much the buildup would have been based on what has happened in chile.
2:04 am
it is a actually happening. we need an approach frankly. we need to stand up firmly for religious liberty. the assault on the catholic church is very real how do you express that in a platform? >> you say flatly the government should not force its values on any religious institution. and i think that is a key part of this. i was at a baptist school not a catholic school, a louisiana college and the president said they are a right to life institution and that if obama care is imposed on them they will close the institution rather than violate their religious beliefs. george w. bush issued an executive order that guaranteed right of conscious. obama is doing just the opposite. he is imposing government. >> what else. >> i would like to see all of the revenue from the new expend energy program go into a debt repayment fund. if you look at the size of the federal deficit today. >> you are saying that the royalties that would flow from
2:05 am
the opening up the. >> sequesters. >> federal land. >> right. pay off the debt. >> where does the money now you go. >> goes into the general operating fund. you need to get to a balanced budget which paul ryan has started down the road towards and need to be able to pay down debt. when you get to the general election you are talking about large decisions. >> do you have any reason to believe that mitt romney if he is the elected nominee would resist you on any of those planks. >> i don't know. a lot of them he will adopt. >> you had a meeting with him recently. >> we haven't talked about specific details but we have talked in general. he has described himself as severely conservative in his cpac speech. i think conservative is enough. i suspect he will accept a solid conservative platform. but he does have consultants who are in the etch-a-sketch tradition who would like to somehow go into the situation and not have anybody there. look, i --
2:06 am
>> in fairness, mr. speaker that etch-a-sketch was made in reference to the fact that you do an emphasis redirect. you don't change your convictions. isn't it unfair to describe him as a man. >> romney didn't say it. >> and every candidate make change in emphasis. >> he said to the party let's have a solid aggressive platform which he can campaign on but also appeal to the majority. take for example energy in depeindependence. there are very few democrats who like us depending on saudi arabia and almost no republicans who like us depending on saudi arabia. you can build an aggressive platform that also sets the stage for are a fall campaign. regan didn't exactly reset in the fall of 1980. he articulated a series of things that brought the country together in a pretty decisive
2:07 am
victory. >> so let's talk about what has happened to you in this campaign and where you are now. you seem while you were here in washington and you had a platform here at fox news and elsewhere, you were essentially sort inform a post political phase of your career. >> right. >> and then you ran. and got back in the middle of things. so where do you go now. in where are you -- what is the future for you? would you you like to serve in the administration? >> no, i think if i'm not -- if i end up not being the nominee, i talked to the chairman, i would want to work to defeat obama. beyond that to use your phase i will go back to a post political career. i'm glad i did this. for me it was important as a citizen to try to do some very hard things to try to bring new
2:08 am
ideas and new approaches. turned out to be much harder than i thought it would be. it was the right thing for are me to do at that point both in my life and for where i thought the country was. i have no regrets. but it is clear that governor romney has done a gooded job of building a substantial machine. and i think santorum is discovering in pennsylvania right now it is a challenge. >> do you think for his own good do you think santorum should get out? >> he has to make that decision and i hope everybody watching will have that family in their prayers because their daughter is back in the hospital. a difficult situation. >> tough easter for them. we are all thinking about them. now, what is your situation with regard to money? you got to go broke doing this. >> it it is hard. we are not going to go broke. >> are you into personal funds? >> a little bit but not dramatically. >> carl cameron reported this week that you were $4.5 million in debt. is that a fact?
2:09 am
>> slightly less than that. florida got to be a real brawl. >> i bet. >> unfortunately, our guys tried to match romney and turned out we didn't have anything like his capacity to raise money. >> tell me how you get passed that? >> hillary came out of the 2008 campaign owing $25 million. you go out and do fundraisers and work things out with people and spend a fair amount of time for a couple of years raising money. >> this will severely con train the extent to which you can campaign and run ads and travel. >> in terms of my campaign, yes. we are operating on a shoestring and frankly had great response from delaware which is a state you can operate inexpensively. a great response in north carolina and see what happens in the upcoming primaries. it is interesting when you are out on the road or even last night i went to easter vigil at the basilica and people walk up. and in delaware this week and
2:10 am
north carolina this week people don't walk up and stay please drop out. people walk up and say i'm glad you are here and talking about ideas, please stay in. how can i help. i think there is a desire for a more idea oriented republican party even if it doesn't translate to be able to take on the romney machine. >> you are a man who at one point was leading in the poll. even suggested you were on path to the nomination and it didn't work out. i want to ask you a question about your you faith. how did your faith affect the way you dealt with the disappointment and the defeat that came your way? >> the glad path -- you know, one of the biggest things when calista and i did a movie on john paul ii. he doesn't say have courage. he says be not afraid.
2:11 am
and i think i get all emotional but on easter sunday it is good to remember. if you can shadow, if you can hide beneath the cross. there is nothing to be afraid of. this is a great campaign. we have had great experiences. some things work, some things don't. >> how would you describe your relationship right now with mitt romney? you have said some harsh things about each other. you accept and argued the vulture capitalism case. that was not your phrase but you agreed with that. harsh stuff coming from a conservative about a businessman. he said some harsh things are b. you. are you men at peace that the moment. >> i hit him the as hard as he could and he hit me as hard as he could. turns out he had more to hit
2:12 am
with. we are absolutely committed to defeating barack obama. if mitt romney ends up as the republican nominee i will work as hard for him as i would for myself. and i think in all honesty you could ask mit but if i would end up as the republican nominee he would work as hard for me. we really see this, we are both grandparents, we really see this as a fight for the future of our grandchildren's country. we see this as not just defeating obama but changing washington as really, really central to the future of this country. i mean this is the most important election in some ways since 1860. barack obama is a genuine radical and if he he gets reelected with this economy and these gas prices and this deficit who knows what he would do in a second term. >> he would be constrained by the likelihood that the republicans would control at least one house and possibly two. >> but this is a president who exploits every of the presidency to minimize constraint.
2:13 am
when you have a secretary of defense who says we don't need congress' approval to go to war as long as we have the u.n. this is not an administration i would rely on the ability of congress to constrain. >> happy easter to you and mrs. gingrich and your family. >> thank you. >> we'll see how the campaign plays out in coming weeks. up next, president obama and mitt romney square off in the battle of the budget. two key senators continue that debate after this quick break.
2:14 am
2:15 am
2:16 am
president obama and mitt romney gave us a preview this week of a central issue in the
2:17 am
fall campaign what to do about the country's growing debt while also getting the economy going again. joining us to continue the discussion and perhaps help separate the rhetoric from reality are two leading senators. democrat kent conrad is chairman of the senate budget committee and republican ron johnson is a key member of that committee. good morning, gentlemen. welcome and happy east. happy easter to you. >> you have been over the years one of the people who warned most vigorously about a coming debt crisis and the bulging national debt. chairman of the budget committee. we are now approaching three years since a budget was passed. and you are about to retire. how do you feel about that? >> i feel good about retiring that is for sure. let me just say that. this notion that we have not had a budget for three years is just wrong. last year we passed the budget control act and if you read the budget control act it makes very clear that it stands in place of a budget resolution
2:18 am
and in many ways it is stronger than a budget resolution because a budget resolution -- >> but doesn't the law require that you enact a budget resolution? >> what the budget control act does is stand in place of a budget resolution. it has in its language what is called a deeming resolution and it says very clearly that the spending limits put in place by the budget control act are the spending limits just as a budget resolution would provide them but it is stronger because it budget resolution is purely a congressional document. never goes to the president for signature. the budget control act is law and it not only sets a limit for this year and next, it sets spending limits for ten years. >> are you satisfied with that, senator johnson? >> the budget control act is maybe a couple of dozen numbers. the president's budget which by the way the budget last year lost zero to 97 in the senate and two weeks ago the current
2:19 am
budget lost zero to 414 in the house. the president's budget is 2500-pages long and has all kinds of numbers. that is a real budget. it is not a serious budget but that is really what a budget is. the budget control act is 24 numbers and simply not adequate at all. >> senator conrad you nonetheless are preparing now to try to bring a budget to the floor, right? >> it is very clear the budget control act does provide the spending limits. >> we got that. >> i have heard over and over there has been no budget for three years. the fact is there is. the fact is what we don't have is a longer term plan. what we need, i believe is at least a ten year plan, that is why i'm going to mark up the first week that we are back in session and what we need to do is work on a long-term plan that gives deficits and debt under control and has a way of bringing us together because if we don't get together we can't accomplish anything. >> do you have any assurance
2:20 am
that your majority leader senator reid would bring it to the floor? >> that becomes a matter of timing. i think senator reid has made the judgment probably quite correctly that there is very little chance we will get the two sides together before the election. >> you mean the house and senate? >> no, i mean republicans and democrats. >> it is not a matter of timing it is a matter of will and the fact of the matter is there are no plans. the president has put forth four budgets now. >> i got it. the budget we know didn't succeed. i'm talking now about the senate. >> you have 23 democratic senate seats up. 16 of those democratic senators running for reelection. they don't want their fingerprints on a plan. they don't want to pass a budget and commit to a plan that can be -- look at what they did to ryan's budget. >> if he offers a budget in committee and you are a member of the committee and you you have other republicans on the committee. are you prepared to act to vote
2:21 am
to bring such a plan out to the floor? >> absolutely we are willing to -- we voted on budgets last year but had to force those votes. i'm wondering will any democratic senator bring president obama's budget to the floor. >> it only takes 51 votes. you have plenty of democrats presumably. more than 51. what is hard about produce a budget and bring it to the floor. what is hard about that? >> that isn't what is hard. what is hard is actually getting results. what is hard is producing a plan that both sides can support because look, we have got -- >> they don't need to support it, you have enough democrats to pass a budget, don't you? >> the last time i checked no law gets enacted in just one house. you have to have both houses and the signature by the president. are how do you do, that actually produce a plan that can get through both sides and be signed by the president? >> look, i was -- >> it doesn't have to be signed by the president. if you pass a budget and
2:22 am
negotiate a compromised version with the house it doesn't go to the president, correct? >> the budget resolution does not. that is why the budget control act that we passed is stronger than the budget resolution. >> i get that but you aren't going to pass a budget anyway. >> remember then it has to be implemented and that means appropriations bills have to be passed and the president has to sign them. >> this is regular order. we are talking about regular order. >> regular order is first you have a budget and then appropriations bills. we have a budget and now we will have appropriations bills. the president is going to make judgments on those. what we still lack, brit, we got to get serious about what is required. we got to have a long-term plan. the only way you are going to have a long-term plan that is sustainable is if we get democrats and republicans to agree. i was part of the bowles simpson. 11 of 18 agreed. five democrats, five republicans one independent and reduced the debt by more than $4 trillion. that is what is required. and how does it get done?
2:23 am
i don't think it will 45 happen with a vote on the senate floor before the election. >> we need presidential leadership. this is a president that promised he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. he added $5 trillion of debt indenting our children and grandchildren. no leadership whatsoever. no plan to save social security and no plan to save medicare. you need presidential leadership which is why we need to change presidents. >> i hear you, i get that point, senator johnson but you don't need the president to do anything for the senate. >> right. >> to -- >> you need senate leadership and you need senator harry reid to support senator conrad in bringing a budget to the floor. we are already late. we should have done this april 1. we should pass a budget for april 15. the house has already done so. >> the house passed the ryan budget. it has been harshly criticized by the president and many others. would you be prepared to support that budget if it came to a vote in the senate? >> absolutely. i think most republicans in the
2:24 am
senate would and we will probably try and force a vote on that and try -- >> it won't pass, though, will it? >> probably mott. that is a real shame because again you have to take a look at the overall problem here. ten years ago our federal government over the last ten years spent $28 trillion. the argument moving forward is the house budget would spent $40 trillion over the next ten years. president obama wants to spend $47 trillion. we are just trying to limit the rate of growth in government. >> what about that? >> what about it? >> it has been called a radical budget. social darwinism. goes to $40 trillion instead of 47. that doesn't sound too radical. >> that budget is deja vu you all over again. the last time these guys were in charge the bush administration republicans controlled it all they took us to the brink of financial collapse with their policies. at the end of the bush administration the economy was shrinking at a rate of 9%. we were losing 800,000 private
2:25 am
sector jobs a month. now, the economy -- >> what has that got to do with the ryan budget? >> everything to could with it because he has the same set of policies in that budget that took us to the brink of financial collapse. do we really want to go back to the economy shrinking at a rate of 9% and losing 800,000 private sector jobs in a month. >> your view is if spending were to go to $40 trillion instead of $47 trillion it would plunge us into a deep recession? >> no, i'm talking about the totality of the policies contained in the budget. it goes right back to the bush era policy tsies that took this country to the brink of financial collapse losing 800,000 private sector jobs a month. >> let's assume that you are able to get a budget resolution to the floor and pass it with as many votes as you can get. do you think that you and paul ryan could sit down together and n. a conference committee colleaguesp of your cool
2:26 am
and hammer out a compromise budget that you can live with. in. >> i don't know. representative ryan was part of the bowles simpson commission. he was one of the members who did not support the conclusion that is the only bipartisan conclusion we had. >> the president didn't even support that. >> he actually put it in place. did more than support it. he put it in place. >> and then totally ignored it. no leadership. >> i don't think that is fair. he asked me for my advice. i told him look, if you embrace that totality of bowles simpson what will happen is republicans in the house will automatically be against it. you need to make the case for why it is necessary but you need those of us in congress to work it out. look, i tell you, senator johnson is a serious member. by the way, we should wish him happy birthday. >> happy birthday, senator. >> thank you. happy easter as well. >> he is -- i would say this. he is a serious member of the budget committee. i believe people of good faith
2:27 am
working together and i will think it is going to take after the election are going to have an opportunity because you will a the tax cuts are about to expire and we will be. >> a lame duck session and could happen. >> either then or in the first part of next year. >> senator downson? >> i appreciate the kind comments. listen, i ran for the united states senate not only to represent wisconsin but small and medium sized businesses that feel they are under assault by this administration. the assault in terms of regulatory overburdening in terms of increasing tax rates from 35 cents to 44.8% under the obama care law. it is so disspiritting and so disheartening wh which is why s upcoming election is so important. a society led by free people and free enterprise. an extremely stark choice in the november election and that is so important. the only way this will get done is with real leadership and president obama has shown
2:28 am
himself not to provide any leadership whatsoever. >> the ryan budget does address the growth of spending on medicare and particularly on healthcare. >> and stablizes the long-term debt to gdp ratio and bringing it down which is the most dangerous metric. >> i understand. senator conrad that issue has to be addressed. i suspect you would like in some way to address it now? >> you know, again, i was part of bowles simpson. i was part of the group of six in both those venues we had serious reforms to healthcare. for example -- >> with the document you hoped to produce in the senate -- would the document you hope to produce in the senate encompass that? >> part of it. again, what is needed is a bipartisan agreement. >> you have to have a bipartisan agreement to get it through both houses, right? >> exactly. that is my point. >> you don't know if it is possible. >> i don't know if it is
2:29 am
possible before the election. bowles simpson in the house only got 38 votes. both sides are unwilling to come together before election but after the election when faced with all of the tax cuts expiring and faced with a sequester that will be the time -- >> and just think of that, senator. >> when people have open minds. >> the waning hours of your career in the senate anyway. a lame duck session. you get this done and ride out in a blaze of glory, right? >> i tell you, nothing would please me more than to be part of a solution. >> i understand. >> this is something i have devoted 26 years to. i believe deeply in the need to get our fiscal house in order to get us back on track. i have spent five years, hundreds and hours of hours in the bipartisan efforts and i believe we could be close. we could be close to getting a resolution. >> last word quickly. >> the republicans are willing to work with people like senator are conrad but we need presidential leadership an ande have none. >> thank you for coming in and sharing part of your easter
2:30 am
with us. glad to have you here. coming up, a biggish sho big in congress on the campaign trail. up next, the president and the supreme court. we will ask our sunday panel if the president's comments went too far. stay tuned.
2:31 am
2:32 am
2:33 am
i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elect heed congress. >> the president was talking about matters like this that involve the commerce clause that involve congress passing legislation to deal with issues of national economic importance. >> president obama you heard there taking on the supreme court over its review of healthcare reform and then white house spokesman jay carney being forced to walk back be at least in part some of what the president said. time now for the sunday group. steve hayes from the weekly standard. mara liasson of national public radio. byron york of the washington examiner and david drucker of the role call newspaper. happy easter to everyone. >> thank you. >> those remarks by the president reverberated through
2:34 am
the whole week and are still pinging around. what about them? >> they did. there were three problems with them. the tone, the substance and timing. >> other than that they were great. >> other than that he they were just fine. he appeared try dent and angry and that is another a good posture for the president to take at least in terms of talk about the supreme court. on substance he made several mistakes. it would not be unprecedented for the supreme court to overturn such a law and wouldn't be extraordinary and it didn't pass by a strong majority in a democratically elected congress. >> the white house seemed to be eager to stamp out the impression that the president didn't know what he was talking about on a constitutional matter and try to get this thing behind the president. what what was the political effect in your judgment? >> i think what the white house is trying to correct is that the president spoke too broadly. obviously it is not
2:35 am
unprecedented for the supreme court to overturn a law. they wanted him to say economic activity under the commerce law. the ground is being laid for what you might call a war on the court that liberals and the president now will be make the kind of argument that conservatives used to make if the supreme court does overturn this that you had 26 republican attorneys general and five republican appointed supreme court justices overturning a law passed by congress and this is conservative judicial activism. i think that is what you will hear if the court does go ahead and overturn this. >> and one more issue which is the hypocrisy issue here. at the same time the president of sort of condemning the court for thinking about knocking down a duly constitutional law, the president's lawyers from the justice department were in boston in the first circuit asking that the court strike down the defense of marriage
2:36 am
act which passed with 342 votes in the house and 85 in the senate. a huge bipartisan majority and at the same time the president was talking about unelected judges should not have the discretion to strike down a law passed by congress his lawyers were asking a court to do that very same thing. >> i'm not convinced, brit, that the president and democrats didn't say what they said have been saying on purpose. i don't know that this was a mistake that they have now been walking back because it was a problem for them. i think that after the supreme court arguments they recognize that the court could rule against them and that is why during the week of arguments you heard democratic senators arguing that the individual mandate was hatched by republicans and so essentially if this is unpopular it wasn't our idea and the president wants to have something to run on if the court overturns him. >> the president also said in those remarks listed among the reasons why the court should leave the obama care law in place that it was important for the country and the people
2:37 am
benefit and so forth. it is not appropriate, is it it, for the supreme court to judge the constitutionality of a law based on whether it is good social policy or not. >> i don't think it is. the question is, is it constitutional or is it not. although you heard in the oral arguments when the president nominated sonia sotomayor are there was discussion about the empathy standard and you heard her in her questioning raise the same policy issues and talk about the people who were likely to not be covered if the law were to be invalidiated. he is making comments that echo questions from sotomayor and comments this he said in the past from empathy standpoint. >> mara, david suggests whether the president was too broad in his assertion or not he is staking out the territory. you suggested something like that. do you think this works politically? >> that is a good question.
2:38 am
when i first started asking people long ago will you go to war on the court if they overturn it, that is one of our options and the response was no, people do respect the supreme court as the final arbitror. i think democrats were taken aback by the kind of partisanship they heard in the oral arguments. justice scalia talking about what could pass with 60 votes. that seemed to be the domain of congress, not the court. this he see the supreme court as acting in a partisan man. partisan or idealogiccal. >> let's tall i call it idealo. either he is right or they are right. and they are going to have to have an answer to that and i think that will be -- >> the argument has been made, byron, that the president can
2:39 am
kind of win if the law is struck down or is unpopular and takes it off the table as an issue and makes it easier for the president. do you buy that? >> i don't buy that and i don't think the president buys it either. if the law is strucken in whole or in part the republicans will stay in 2009 and 21st century when the public was desperate for the president to concentrate on creating jobs and fixing economy the president instead spent all of this time passing this massive in viewtive h healthcare law and it turned out to be unconstitutional. >> this isn't the first time in american history we have seen a president go to bat against the supreme court and for some sort of political -- >> while a case is pending? >> i'm not sure if while a case is pending. we know that fdr battled with the supreme court and after his packing the court scheme failed many people believe the reason the courts ended up finding
2:40 am
much of his agenda constitutional and many thought it was even radical at the time. they wanted an accommodation. >> i. >> they worked the refs. >> the decision isn't necessarily made. i'm sure there is debate going on inside the court. he wants to send a message if you strike this law down there could be mayhem, not mayhem in the streets but people could lose their health insurance. we know the courts have acted before with social impact in mind. >> your view is he is operating on politics on two levels. this works for him politically. and two that it might get him a better decision. >> correct. and i think democrats want to see this out of him. i think his base wants it. >> when made his argument in that statement he said there was a heavy burden on the court to demonstrate why they would overturn such a law. that is the precise opposite of
2:41 am
the arguement this anthony kennedy made when was questioning somebody aggressively in or are ral argument. the heavy burden was on people who would make people participate in congress. >> let's do a rick round of guesses here. >> i'm not reading too much into oral arguments. i think it will be upheld. >> it sounded like they were willing to strike it down. >> strike down the mandate, not the whole law. >> i'm with brie ron. strike down the mandate, keep the rest of the law. >> coming up, he wouldle preview the upcome election. the romney and obama plans for the budget. stay tuned.
2:42 am
2:43 am
2:44 am
2:45 am
very supportiv supportive w budget and even called it marvelous which is a word you don't often hear when it comes to describing a budget. >> i understand some people are amused that i have so many ideas but i he think the american people will prefer it so president obama's grand total of zero. >> president obama and republican frontrunner mitt romney both going on the attack this week against the other's plans for the budget. back now with the panel. byron, the president harshly attacked the ryan budget which broadly speaking mitt romney has supported. you heard it supported here by republican ron johnson from the senate budget committee. that looks like a real line in the sand in this race. what about that and what about what the president specifically said about the ryan budget? >> well, the first thing it is
2:46 am
an he for the to completely redefine what the campaign is about. from the earliest planning of the romney campaign this 2008 campaign was about jobs. and the president wants to make it about something else. he wants to make it about medicare. he wants to make it about how mitt romney is a rich guy who doesn't care about people. he wants to make it about anything he can make it other than jobs. this is part of the president's efforts to redefine the race and tie mitt romney to paul ryan and the house republicans. that is not hard to do because in wisconsin recently mitt romney and paul ryan were talking around together the whole time. the question is what will happen with employment this summer. will it tick back down at some point? and what will happen -- will the president be allowed to redefine this race. >> david? >> i think what we saw is the campaign potentially framed for both candidates. mitt romney made a very strong moral defense for republican
2:47 am
and conservative economic policies that you don't often see from republicans because they are afraid of standing up for big business and he said that the success of business is tied to people's wages and whether or not the government has the money to care for the poor and what you saw from president obama is something that could work for him and shouldn't be dismissed which is that because you never know what bad luck is going to strike and he used those terms in his speech the government is here to provide security for you to protect you. i think that these could be interesting dueling visions in the sense that in campaigns we often see arguments about small things but really these were about starkly different visions. >> steve, what about the ryan budget -- the administration likes to it place the ryan budget at the center of the campaign but that is reasonable to do. romney has embraced it in broad terms as we talked about earlier and the president has
2:48 am
made a number of claims about the ryan budget. paul ryan denounced them as false. is it good politics for the republicans to be running defending the ryan budget or is that a loser? >> i think it is. i think there was a question, i mean this has been an internal debate among republicans for quite some time. a stewardship election that focuses on the president and his record on jobs or is it going to be about something bigger about vision, about the future of the country. and i think as byron and david have pointed out both campaigns seem to have settled on this debate being one about the big picture. and i think republicans look embracing paul ryan's budget gives republicans an opportunity to make it also about leadership and to say we have taken political chances and gotten specific on a number of issues the president has told us starting in february of 2009 would be at the center of the debate about the fiscal future of the country and he hasn't given us leadership on
2:49 am
that. >> i think that romney's decision to embrace paul ryan in the way that he has is a bold move. probably one of the boldest and surprisingly boldest things he has done. it h helps him with his base and helps him repair his image as someone who is too cautious and isn't willing to do something bold. however, there are lot of flaws in the ryan plan that are going to be exploited by democrats. is slashes spending by a huge amount because it won't mention one tax hole or loophole that it is willing to close in order are to -- >> republican -- they need to tell, if you are going to use it as a campaign platform you need to say what it is. you want to get rid of the morgan interest. >> theyville to be. >> even if it is abouting to be enact. >> but they will have to list that and those things are things that mitt romney has to defend. do you want to get rid of the mortgage interest reduction and
2:50 am
chair rateable deductions. >> the biggest one is healthcare. >> look, the president has not done enough on entitlement refor and i do think that that is something people care about. on the other hand, romney has level half of the page blank. >> byron, i have been covering this stuff for a long time and campaigns against republican plans allegedly to cut entitlement programs, social security in particular, although that is not that big an issue this time around, medicare, medicaid and the rest always worked politically for the democrats. is this term different? with we have a word called medi-scare for a reason. >> i understand. >> and republicans should be cautious about this. >> if you are on record supporting the ryan budget and you have done so, how will you be cautious from there? >> to sell the ryan plan to the public you have to convince
2:51 am
people that medicare is in dire streits and we are headed for are disaster in the foreseeable future. mitt romney and paul ryan are saying that the president is going to ration the care and appoint the 15 member board in washington and they are going to ration your care. the situation is so bad that something has to be done. we propose to let you ration yourself and pick your healthcare plans. >> in it is an emergency in effect. >> and you can't really do that without the presidential bully pull pit. it will be difficult for a presidential candidate even with paul ryan on the house leadership on his said to make that sale. >> you think this is going be a loser. >> it is difficult. >> i think the republicans need a lot of the gross roots organizations to in a sense take to the streets in the way they did opposing the president's healthcare plan. one thing missing as much as conservatives say the president
2:52 am
is not dealing with the budget and where are plans to address entitlement reforms has not yet filtered down to the grass roots who are willing to say that for my children's medicare we need to make changes. >> i think we are in a different political environment now. people are much more aware of the debt and magnitudes of the problems we had. we saw in florida where the issues were the most potent for democrats. fight off about being honest and north right. a good campaign to peak that the country and a good thing to have about republicans want to mandate if they happen to win. >> it is not just jobs any more. if the economy continues to improve, romney has to ma'amer on this. i think in -- hammer on this. i think in the end if the president is smart it could be a loser for republicans. >> okay, panel, thanks very much. coming up next, our power player of the week. ( bell rings ) they remind me so much of my grandkids.
2:53 am
wish i saw mine more often, but they live so far away. i've been thinking about moving in with my daughter and her family. it's been pretty tough since jack passed away. it's a good thing you had life insurance through the colonial penn program. you're right. it was affordable, and we were guaranteed acceptance. guaranteed acceptance? it means you can't be turned down because of your health. you don't have to take a physical or answer any health questions. they don't care about your aches and pains. well, how do you know? did you speak to alex trebek? because i have a policy myself. it costs just $9.95 a month per unit. it's perfect for my budget. my rate will never go up. and my coverage will never go down because of my age. affordable coverage and guaranteed acceptance? we should give them a call.
2:54 am
do you want to help protect your loved ones from the burden of final expenses? if you're between 50 and 85, you can get quality insurance that does not require any health questions or a medical exam. your rate of $9.95 a month per unit will never increase, and your coverage will never decrease -- that's guaranteed. so join the six million people who have already called about this insurance. whether you're getting new insurance or supplementing what you already have, call now and ask one of their representatives about a plan that meets your needs. so, what are you waiting for? go call now! we'll finish up here.
2:55 am
>> brit: they are one of the most famous families of the 20th century and yet there are still so many questions about who they really were. now a member of the family is giving us some insight. chris wallace profiles our power
2:56 am
player of the week. >> she was very reserved or was in the political light because of duty and didn't like it. that just isn't true. >> juicely nixon eisenhower is talking about her mom and some of the misconceptions people have about her. on the centennial of her birth, the nixon library has put together an exhibit that tells pat nixon's remarkable story. >> we understood she belonged to the american people. >> chris: part of that story is how she started out. >> 18-year-old orphan in the depression who decides the only thing that really matters is getting an education. she went from there. she met richard nixon and her life is part of history. >> even julie learned things from the exhibit. >> i she was an extra in movie but i didn't know she had had a dance scene.
2:57 am
>> they never showed much affection in public but the exhibit displays displays their love letters. >> my mother is burning hamburger and he is talking about miss vaggabond and he was more romantic. >> some of the lasting ones are sad ones but the real woman was a fighter. >> yes she was battered by what happened. she felt the election was stolen of 1991960. it was the first time she lost her self-control. the resignation was devastating because she wanted my father to fight to the finish. in her eyes he hadn't done anything wrong. there are sad images of pat nixon but when i remember her she is always laughing. >> i have my panda pin on and i
2:58 am
think pandemonium is going to break out at zoo. >> she was an active first lady. she visited more than 80 countries including china that sent the two pandas to the u.s. in public there was that sense of reserve. >> my father always said that the interview he must wanted, that he never got was pat nixon. why did she never tell her story. >> sometimes you can go on the air and do the tell-all book, but she wanted to talk about what other people were doing. >> as for julie she married david eisenhower in 1968. 44 years later they have three children and a granddaughter. she doesn't shrink from her place in history. >> if you want a lot of drama, you can rerun this nixon story again and again. >> chris: what does she think
2:59 am
her mother would have made of the celebration of centennial. >> she would have said don't bother. sometimes the family has to take over. >> brit: the library will celebrate the president's centennial next january. she says she wasn't surprised because he was lost without her. chris's guests next week, include david ex al rod and ed gillespi. that is it for today. i'm brit hume. happy easter everyone.