Skip to main content

tv   Inside Washington  PBS  November 27, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm PST

6:00 pm
>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and "politico," reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> it is just as damning indictment of washington and boston inability to govern this country. >> this week on "inside washington," the super committee flames out and the finger- pointing kicks in. >> there are too many republicans in congress who have refused to listen to the voice of reason. >> i democratic friends said we would not cut $1 more without raising taxes. >> we celebrated the thanksgiving holiday with the 11 republican and debate. >> it is to keep
6:01 pm
afghanistan from becoming a launching point for terror. >> we just want our rights. >> the new republican front- runner has advice for the occupy protesters. >> get a job after you take a bath. captioned by the national captioning institute >> full disclosure -- we are reporting this program the day before thanksgiving. i have a feeling we not going to miss much. first, the super committee bust. as "politico" sees it, the super committee ever had a chance. "the three-month slump failed because of a politically un
6:02 pm
palatable mix of distrust and the partisan it toxicity in washington." here is michael bloomberg's take. >> i just think that the failure of the super committee to come to an agreement is just a damning indictment of washington's inability to govern this country. i don't know how you reach an agreement if you don't sit down and talk to each other. people say who you blame? the plane is both sides of the aisle and both ends of pennsylvania avenue. >> any argument with mayor bloomberg on that, nina? >> in general, no, but specifically, democrats proposed entitlement cuts larger than had been proposed before. budget oficans' teeny the idea of no new taxes. a majority of the country believes there should be an increase in taxes on the wealthy
6:03 pm
to help us out of this problem it is not entirely, but you might as well call their bluff and do it with other unpalatable measures. >> charles? >> it had a chance to do tax reform, which is the one thing on which left and right agreed. it is a more fair system, it also leads to economic growth. it didn't happen. the president could have made it happen for at least assisted in making it happen. but probably we are going to have to decide the issue next year on the election. it is an ideological divide it between left and right. in the end, the people will decide. >> colby? >> we have to understand how we got to this point. back in july, the republicans decided to take the debt ceiling hostage. the full faith and credit of the nine states was going to be
6:04 pm
called into question. mitch mcconnell came out with this jury make idea that was doomed to failure, to create this super committee. you could tell it was going to fail from the appointments made in the charges given. boehner made it clear with republicans what they had to do on the committee, and so did the democrats. the stalemate was easy to predict. >> mark? >> just to set the mayor of new york's record straight, the super committee democrats propose a larger cuts in medicare than had been proposed by simpson-bowles or by president obama or any other political entity of record. i think that is part of it. i think it is no question it was doomed to fail, because of our allies politics -- because of our allies politics and most of all because you have a
6:05 pm
republican party that has not voted for any real tax increase since 1990 with george bush's budget deal. >> them all back in "the washington -- washington -- dana milbank in "the washington post closed but said that senator jon kyl was this boiler. -- was teh spoiler. >> you cannot in this on one individual. we had no give on either side. republicans were locked into opposition, and why shouldn't it they be? they have what on everything and they have tried to achieve by saying no. >> i actually give the democrats some credit for moving off the dime and a bit. but the lack of trust at the lack of ability to have a corresponding move -- the tragedy is that this system may have been doomed to failure, but it also could of been doomed to
6:06 pm
success, because it guaranteed a vote on the floor, certified the need to get a 3/5 vote to kill a filibuster, and if they could have come to an agreement, it would have gotten an up or down vote. >> what a surprise that nina decides that democrats deserve credit on this committee. i'm shocked to hear that. despite all the protestations of the democrats, the republicans, starting with very conservative senator coburn, who was on simpson-bowles, and who approved and supported an increase in net tax revenues -- >> that was the gang of six a vote. >> no, he voted in simpson- bowles to increase -- i'm in the middle of a sentence, and i'm going to get to the end i will let you know with punctuation, all right? >> ok. >> comma -- >> [laughter]
6:07 pm
>> he supported a $1 trillion increase in net tax revenues, the semi that on the super committee, senator toomey of the club for growth supported an increase in tax revenues. it seems to me that the myth that republicans oppose higher taxes is simply not recognizing there is a difference between a lowering rates and increasing revenues. that has been a problem. record, yes, tom coburn data supports that in simpson-bowles and he was excluded from the committee. pat toomey was on the committee. he endorsed $300 billion in revenues over the next 10 years. $30 billion a year. on one condition, that the bush tax cuts not simply be retained, but the highest rate be cut to 28% bid the democrats think they have a winner politically on this. they didn't it just let me
6:08 pm
finish if i could, charles, before you interrupt. this discredits government, it discredits congress, and the more than it does that, it helps republicans in 2012. >> what i don't understand is how you can say oh, yes, the republicans would have increased revenues, but because at the rates were lowered, it is not a good idea. who cares? do you think the chinese, who own our debt, care about the rates we have? what they care about is the revenues and the debt. if you lower the debt, and you can do it with lower rates, is a win-win-win. >> that is a big if. >> is there a silver lining here? >> they i'm not going to let the automatic cuts take place. they are going to find a way to wiggle out of it that is another damning thing about the system. we have no way of getting our
6:09 pm
these things out. >> the party that says it is the party of the family is endorsing immigration policy that destroys families. i am taking the heat by saying let's be humane and enforce the law. >> at you check to the polls lately? gingrich is soaring. first, rick perry is not the person you would choose to be captain of your debating team. second, herman cain appears to be geographically challenged. third, mitt romney has lukewarm support. fourth, as mark shields predicted what happened months ago, newt gingrich's effective performance in the debates has been reflected in the polls. do you want to take a victory lap here? >> no, but i want to point out that this format is made up for newt gingrich. eight candidates up there, a premium on who can speak coherently, concisely, using
6:10 pm
facts in his argument. he is the best and certainly in that group at that i started there is nothing adversarial. maria bartiromo of the cnbc was the only person who would even challenge him. in a party that is dying to beat barack obama, he appears to be the one guy at that they feel could go toe to toe with obama. mitt just isn't the guy they want to go home with. >> this was not as nasty or as damaging totally to anybody as the previous debates, although at one point herman cain called the moderator will blitzer -- wolf blitzer "blitz." >> isn't there are rain here called -- a reindeer called
6:11 pm
blitz? >> these debates are not good for the republican french aids. it doesn't matter that herman cain is a lesser candidate -- these debates and not good and for the republican franchise. i suspect something similar at will happen to newt gingrich. as happened to michele bachmann and others. the reason president obama is creeping up in the eight polls is this is what people are seeing on a weekly basis. >> with which of these candidates would you be most comfortable? >> probably everyone except ron paul, who was living in the 1920's, who thinks we can have a moat around the united states and if we ignore the world, the world what it ignore us. i don't think there is a lot of the division. jon huntsman is slightly in
6:12 pm
moderate on afghanistan, but romney made a good point in the debate -- since the plan is to leave in two years anyway, and everybody agrees that you keep a residual force, even huntsman and obama i presume, the argument over a few months one way or the other in the end is a very small division. even though clinton wants to be the want to say we build a nation -- even though-it must be the guy to say we build a nation at home and abroad, he is not for immediate withdrawal. >> he has had experience abroad, he knows his way around the subject. newt gingrich professes to know something about everything, and he doesn't. in the case that mitt romney, he works the talking points well, depthhere is no
6:13 pm
there. >> with which of these candidates would you be most comfortable as president, nina? >> that is hard, because i don't think any of these and its will do what they say they do. >> if that they do it, would you support them? >> on the things i worry about, no. >> let's get that straight. >> romney doesn't scare me as much as some of the other people who seem to just not be thinking. >> herman cain -- could we be done with him? he was silly, he was a vacuous in the debates. can we just established that? is there consensus on that? i want to bring harmony at this time of thanksgiving. i guess ron paul i found the most interesting and, the most refreshing, the least -- >> do you want him in the
6:14 pm
white house? >> sure. >> why don't we accept your premise? >> the 1 area, surprisingly, where barack obama surpassed all expectations is a foreign policy. this is in the franchise of the republican party for the last generation and they are left to crumble and swa-- to quibble and squabble and a penny. barack obama has done a lot for democrats on the issue of national security. >> they were also debating somebody who is not there, president obama. his former policy, mitt romney says, is a failure. romney has an advertisement in an accurate as the obama -- in new hampshire that has the obama campaign. >> if we keep talking about the economy, we are going to lose. >> candidate, did say that, but
6:15 pm
that is only part of what he said. >> senator mccain actually said, "if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." been ite's campaign has going well, but is it as amateurs? > -- isn't this amateurish? >> unnecessarily rough, no question did but it is as smart advertisement in this sense. it is not "here i am, romney." it is also all about obama. he is it putting himself above the fray among republicans and saying it "i am the guy who can go and will go. i will ignore all the others and go against obama." >> and i will ignore all the rules about any shred of truth less -- >> he ignored one role and i am not sure that obama is a model
6:16 pm
of honesty -- >> may i finish? may i finish? >> i will give you a period right there and you continue. >> semi-colon. it is not the end for romney but it is a 30-yard penalty. >> 30 yards -- >> ok, whenever. can i finish, guys? you are going to get a lot of mail. the way he is introducing himself in some ways as an attack on obama. the attack should have been a good one, not a flawed one that reflects poorly on romney. >> that was my point. he is doing well, why bother? >> what is the doubt about mitt romney? he is not good looking enough? no. the doubt is that it is there a
6:17 pm
court to the guy. can you believe what he says today? what is the lead with? his first day commercial with it in line -- his first pad it commercial with a lie. it is cute and clever, but it is a lie. >> but that is what makes this race fascinating. you have mitt romney the flip- flopper, and you have newt gingrich -- the word "demagogue" was made for him. you wonder which of the individuals and up with the nomination. it will be between the two of them. >> barack obama's theme with this whole campaign is that he stands for the national interest. as you saw in the clip earlier where he says the republicans are not listening to moderation and reason from outside
6:18 pm
washington, he is the one who stands for america and the opposition republicans put party over nation. he says that all the time. he knows better. he knows there is a division of ideology and the country, and republicans love the nation and they have another way of advancing its interests. but he doesn't say that. he is running entirely on what is essentially an ad hominem attack that he himself knows is not true. if we are speaking about honesty and truth -- >> the leader of the "obama is not one of us" movement is sitting at table. that has been the republicans seem. son of a kenyan. >> come on, that is ridiculous. i give them credit for being a sincere liberal social democrat who wants to advance his agenda. >> the military is losing a
6:19 pm
jewel of the streets and they are losing credibility with the people -- losing control of the streets and they are losing credibility with the people of egypt. they are widely perceived to be trying to carve out protection and autonomy for themselves and one in this transition to civilian rule. >> that is nicholas burns, former state department of the show, and what is going on in egypt in advance of the elections. it is not mubarak's eat it anymore. >> -- egypt anymore. >> i have been at it to bar's egypt many times, and he is gone, but the military is still there. they are comfortable with the ownership their country they don't realize that people want them gone. the civilians want to take over. that is where you have this pension. it is to be expected that this would continue. >> it is not just the military on one side and the people on
6:20 pm
the other. the people are divided into two parties. you have the muslim brotherhood, which was not out on the street all week. the people on the streets of the young, liberal urbanites. the brotherhood deliberately told its members not to demonstrate. why? because elections start to be held on monday for the parliament. the brother is going to win. they know that. they are afraid that if the military is provoked, it will invoke martial law and cancel elections. what is happening now is the young liberal urbanite's out in the streets, usually the ones in these revolutions to get swept away. they instigate the revolution, as in iran, or if you like, the russian and even the french revolution. they get swept away, and the discipline and hard core, the brotherhood on the one hand, are
6:21 pm
left standing. >> first of all, it is not entirely clear they will have an election, because of the ability to have the ballots, nobody knows where to go pay is not at all clear there will be an election. one thing we miss in this discussion is in a way i cannot entirely explain, the egyptian military is entwined with and controlled in a great deal of the economy, owns it in a way. that is why they are fighting so hard not to be ousted. that kind of privilege, that kind of economic dominance, is not something that they want to lose. >> nobody gives up power willingly. >> nobody does. we always like to have an ideological answer for everything that is going on. let's understand this -- since
6:22 pm
the generals have taken over and mubarak has been gone, 12,000 people have been brought before military tribunals for serious offenses such as insulting the military or breaking curfew. the provoking incidents of this particular outbreak was the military wanted to exercise its veto power over the constitution that is to be drawn. this is really a question of people revolting against oppression. >> and let's not used the shorthand of the brotherhood. what you are talking about is the islamic movement that has come to the forefront, and that goes beyond the organization we are talking about. something fundamental has happened in egypt. >> in the end, the government will not be run by a broad movement but by people at a party and leaders, and that is why we have to worry about the muslim brotherhood. >> let's shift to homegrown protests. a closer look at the occupy wall street movement. >> the movement starts with the
6:23 pm
premise that we owe them everything. they take over a public park that they did not paid for, to use bathrooms they did not pay for, to instruct those going to work to pay taxes to sustain the bathrooms and to sustain the park so they can self righteously explain that they are the paradigms' of virtue to which we aowe everything. that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in the country and why we need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath. [applause] >> could not resist that. he was talking about the occupy protested. after the pepper spray and in uc-davis, the public opinion may have shifted. >> there was no one had to more
6:24 pm
for the moral fabric of this country than the former speaker of the house. >> [laughter] >> if you play three minutes of newt gingrich, the pomposity is so congratulatory, so self- police, his candidacy would implode. that said, the occupy movement was given a lift by the excess and, no question, the abuse at u-cal-davis. but they have got to come up with a different format, they have got to come up with something other than occupying public property and disrupting public transportation. >> i agree with mark, but newt in that thing, which i partly agree with, petrie his generation. he is trying to make a vietnam- era statement about this movement.
6:25 pm
there are people doing what he said, there are people who need a bath, but there are also a lot of unemployed people. it does represent a real frustration in the united states. >> the republican front-runner offered these not only on occupy wall street. he went to harvard and suggested that kids who go to poor schools, poor kids -- one way to change their lives is to get rid of child labor laws and they can become janitors. my grandfather was a janitor, my father worked two jobs. i was a janitor when i was in school. was in college, i had to work as a janitor. we call ourselves sanitary engineers. janitors don't just clean up trash. janitors clean toilets, janitors clean up ovomit. he thinks poor kids should get
6:26 pm
that kind of job. that is good for poor kids. and take pride in their schools if they cleanup. the republican front runner -- this is a person who would become president of the united states. >> the wall street movement, unlike the vietnam protests, for all of its excesses', had a moral core and purpose. this movement doesn't. it is self indulgent and it will dissipate as a result of that. >> last word. see you next week.
6:27 pm
6:28 pm
6:29 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on