tv Charlie Rose PBS February 7, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
. >> rose: welcome to the programment we begin there evening with the consideration of president trump and vladimir putin. we talk to amy davidson of "the new yorker" and julia yafi of the atlantic. >> julia talked about the personal affinity that trump seems to have for putin and for the putin way. but there's also an ideaological affinity that seems to be presented and it's probably more interesting and of greater concern for americans because it says something about how trump might govern, a disdain for the press, the sense that there's something very personal about government. about the connections, about who is privileged and who isn't privileged in a society, you know, when you played that clip, you talked about the intimations of moral equivalency in what
trump said about us having kilters too. -- killers too. what i heard was moral indifference. a sense that there wasn't really a moral aspect to his choices. >> rose: and we look at that remarkable super bowl game with al michaels of nbc and bill cower of cbs. >> we talk about momentum and it's really a cliche. but you could feel it yesterday. i mean once you had that sack fumble you go whoa, if they go in and score here and then they're going to get the ball back and they score-- you could feel it coming. and it was almost as if, you know, as the old saying goes, you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. >> rose: we conclude with susan glasser for "politico" talking about james baker, the former secretary of state and his views on the trump administration's foreign policy. >> we clearly still see possibilities in trump and his administration. possibilities to shake thickets up as you pointed out just by
doing things differently. possibilities to reset some foreign policy areas that baker was critical of when it came to barack obama's record. so i think, you know, he's definitely not one to pronounce after two weeks that you know the door is slammed on trump and compiling a new record. i think he's interested in what kinds of ways he can reset american foreign policy in the world. but you know, he's a practicing mattis and a realist too. and it's hard to see deplom see under trump really getting a big boost at this point. >> foreign policy and football when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and
information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> president trump stirred controversy sunday with new comments about russian president vladimir putin. in a presuper bowl interview with fox news bill o reilly, trump suggested what many saw as a moral equivalency between the united states and russia. >> putin's a killer. >> a lot of killers. we got a lot of killers, what, you think our country is so innocent? do you think our country is so innocent? >> i don't know of any government leaders that are killers. >> well, take a look at what we've done too. we made a lot of mistakes. >> rose: vice president mike pence came to the president's defense on cbs's "face the nation" insisting president trump wants to start a fresh with president putin. joining me now from washington, julia yafi with the atlantic and with me in new york, amy
davidson of "the new yorker." welcome. julia, everybody wants to understand, what is this resistance of president trump to criticize or to separate out vladimir putin? >> yeah, it's the one thing that he has been remarkably consistent on, right? that and the wall and who is going to pay for the wall. but to understand why, you know, there's-- we have the intelligence community's report on the hacking, that allegedly the russian government, the intelligence community said with a high degree of confidence that they think the russians hacked our elections in order to help elect trump so there is, i think, a kind of-- there. and i think he just likes the guy. i think there's this kind of, you know, an affinity for this adolescent version of manliness. >> rose: the thing on horseback did it for him, huh? >> you know, in the same way
that, you know, vladimir putin likes stephen seggal and jean clawed van dam and these action heroes, i think for trump putin is this action hero. they have this idea of what makes for a manly man, a strong man and a strong national leader. >> rose: he always puts in some context about what i mean by this, he is a leader for his country. he wouldn't be a leader for our country but he's a leader for their country. there's always that sense of giving russia its own, you know, distinctive needs. >> and either you know, for whatever reason, either because the russians have instructed because they have something on him for which we need proof, or because he has understood what the russians want, and the russians hate being lectured to by the americans. ever since the end of the cold war they still want to be seen as being america's peer, as being on the same level in terms of power and geo political influence of the u.s. they want
to be at the very least an equal partner. and so what you have heard from russia not just from putin but from putin's spokesman, from foreign ministers lavrov is this emphasis on well, when we talk to trump, it is a conversation equals, of mutual respect, of understanding that each country has its own interests. its own national interests and that there's no lecturing and no moralizing. so for them this has been a key point for a long time. i don't know how much donald trump actually understands that intellectually or if he just stumbled into it and hit the tuning fork at the right place with them. >> really? >> that's interesting. julia talked about the personal affinity that trump seems to have for putin and for the putin, the putin way but there's also an idea logical affinity that seems to be present and it's probably more interesting and of greater concern for americans because it says
something about how trump might govern, a disdain for the press, a sense that there's something very personal about government, about the connections, about who is privileged and who isn't privileged in a society, you know, when you have played that clip, you talked about the intimations of moral equivalency in what trump said about us having killers too. what i heard was even more moral indifference, a sense that there wasn't really a moral aspect to his choices as a leader of the country in the same way that we might imagine. what out of context might come across as something apologetic or as some deep intro speks about american mistakes and american historical errors really comes across as really, really just in a trump context as a slug. it's not that-- as a shrug. it is not that he really cares
that we might have hurt people. when trump uses the word killer a lot during the campaign, he most often used it when he was praising real estate lawyers who had worked for him. >> rose: they were killers. >> they were killers. and there's the sense that, that he kind of, he's kind of like to have the chance to do things the way putin does them. >> rose: that make sense to you, julia? >> yeah, absolutely. i completely agree with amy. i think it's part and parcel of those kind of isolationist realism that trump and the people around him have espoused under the banner of america first. but you see it as this kind of, and therein lies i guess the idea logical affinity. this is what putin and the russians have said for 17 years, that he's been in power now. that you guys are no better than us. and it's not because we're any good, but just because nobody's good. and so therefore everything is permissible, everything is
allowed, every tactic, everything, because you just take morality out of the equation. and it just becomes cynical and con spiraological, i think that is another point of affinity between trump and putin, is the inclination to conspiracy theories and not seeing that if people come out in protest, they were all paid. in putin's kaition, when people kate out and protested against him, they were all paid by the state department and then secretary of state hillary clinton. when people came out and protested donald trump, they were paid by george sorrous and the people without didn't vote for him, in the presidential election, they were all illegals. >> and one of the dangers of trumpian discourse is that it forces the whole con spir tor yal mindset on the entire conversation, that it even pushes his opponents to wonder who is he answering to, what is the secret behind all of this. you know, there's plenty to deal with, with trump on the surface
but the whole, our whole political policy debates, constitutional debates suddenly get into this sort of realm of whispers. and it's not healthy. >> so let's input two things into the conversation. number one is what nikki haley said, the ambassador to the u.n., basically saying what putin has done in the ukraine and what he has done in crimea, you know, should not stand. trump has not been talking like that. >> it reminded me a little bit, or a lot of the republican national convention this summer, last summer, where you had you know rudy giuliani and chris christie and all these republican poobas coming out and talking about how evil putin was and how evil russia was. and i just remember thinking have they talked to their candidate because he is heaping praise on putin and russia. and you know, it's funny to think about the dissidents and lack of coordination and lack of policy. trump is flirting very publicly with lifting sanctions.
then a senior member of his administration says in the u.n. that they're not going to lift sanctions. trump didn't know until george stephanopoulos corrected him that russia was in crimea. nikki haley says it is a part of ukraine and always will be, her speech was so-- people joked that she was reading former u.s. ambassador am and that power's speech. and i think what people aren't seeing is there are very real consequences to this. and this is why fighting has flaired up in eastern ukraine again and now well over 30 people have been killed in the last week, tens of thousands of people have been evacuated from their homes because in subzero temperatures there's no more heat or electricity. you have actors on the ground, both the rebels. the prorussian rebels and the russians and ukrainians maneuvering, starting to get activated and pan eufer in this. because there is a lack of certainty and so they're trying
to use this window to claw back some more territory and a bigger bargaining position. >> rose: also running head on into john mccain who has a special affinity to what happened to the people in ukraine. >> but he doesn't have any actual influence on what happens. he has been saying for years that we should arm the ukrainian army, give them more lethal aid. and it doesn't-- the ukrainians know as well as we do that it doesn't-- you know, it's just beautiful words and it doesn't mean anything practically. >> rose: whd barack obama, you think, resist providing more aid to the government? >> i think it's the kind of n plus one theory where, you know, if we give them 15 tanks, russia will give them 16 tanks because the russians simply want it more. and so if we give the ukrainians something, the russians will give them that plus one because they just, they want it more. it's closer for them, it's easier there is more political will for it at home. there is virtually none here especially in europe. i done think he was necessarily wrong about that.
>> do you think and this is for amy, do you think that what putin has said and his reading of the reaction from president trump is that he will be more likely to move against the baltic countries and try to create some of what he has done in the ukraine in the baltic countries? >> i think we have a good sense that he is-- that putin is attuned to confusion on the other side. and he will definitely widen his range of options, whether he thinks it's a wise idea. but just to pick up on something that julia said that i think has an affect on this, of how putin sees the czechs on trump-- the checks on trump and the other influence on trump. the republican convention, and the reaction there, part of it was disquiet, part of it was discomfort but ultimately it was difference. you saw that ultimately this
weekend when mike pence who has said all sorts of things in the past about american exceptionalism just seemed befud eled when he was defending trump's comments and backing away from really, really clearly saying that he thought that there was a moral superyority to the american positioning. >> rose: he couldn't quite say it. >> i think that it looked as though, and who knows what was in his mind. but it looked as though he wasn't sure what would please his bogs. and that that was what mattered to him ultimately. and that seems to be where a lot of these people in the republican party are. we haven't in moments like this, in moments like at the convention, we haven't really seen a republican party that whatever its reservations is is really going to take a stand when-- . >> rose: so these two other arguments, as to why president trump had not been critical of vladimir putin, one is that there is is something there, there is something to the relationship that he doesn't want out. the other argument is simply that he wants to-- he has a geo
political idea that he request use putin or he can join with russia in fighting isis. >> there's that. but i think there's also a lack of interest in some things that have hitherto weighed very much on the equation. europe, the nato alliance, our commitments there. the message we send to our allies there. yes, i mean when he is called on it he will say isis is worse, why not have the russians do all the work with isis you know, that say complicated question given. >> because the russians are not fighting isis. >> just a little bit later with the turks, a little bit in terms of air strikes after the u.s. was not there. >> but i don't think that trump in weighing his relationship with putin is really saying it's tough but i need him to fight
terrorism, i think it's something-- you know, it's an idea logical issue, it's an issue about how little eval us the relationship with europe. but i don't think we have really a sign that he's sitting there saying what saves the most american lives and how can i deal with putin. >> and do you think that tillerson and all those people who spoke about the need to be tough with russia will make a difference whether it's tillerson or mattis or. >> i personally don't. i mean you had mattis last summer saying he cat gorically was against something like a muslim ban and then fast forward and he's standing there next to trump as he signs what is, in effect, a kind of muslim ban. rex tillerson i think is going to be more of what we saw at the republican convention, as amy said, there's going to be, you
know, he said what needed to be said in the senate foreign relations committee, to you know, get the votes to get out of there, and go to the senate for a vote. but after that i'm sure there's going to be difference to the trump administration. one thing i wanted to say to your earlier question about the baltics, for putin investing in trump, investing in hacking and helping trump however marginally get elected, which i don't think he thought would happen, i didn't-- i don't think that the russians thought trump would win, but it has been the best investment they have made. because now they don't have to invade the baltics. they don't have to invade mall dovea as people were afraid they would in 2014. they don't have to, you know, test nato and see if nato will hit back. now they can use much softer methods. and that method is you know, it's the reverse. it's the inverse of western soft
power. after the end of the cold war all these eastern european baltic states which had, you know, fest erred under communist rule, now they were strifing, reaching for the western lifestyle, the western style economy, western style governance and democracy because it was seen to be better, more moral, more prosperous. with putin sewing chaos or exacerbating the chaos in europe, in the u.s. t shows these people that look, there's one firm hand here and it's not in the west. and these countries that we've been strifing toward don't want us. and we don't know what we're strifing for any more. they are very chaotic. their economies aren't doing well. they are overrun with muslim my grants, these are very conservative places. you see countries like mall dovea. in 2014 everybody thought mall dovea would be next after ukraine. now they have elected a man who ran as a mini putin very
overtly. he overtly compared himself to putin and he ran on a platform of terring you have maldovea agreement with the eu and signing one with russia to join the russian eurana customs union. he didn't have to invade, he didn't have to send a little green man there. i think that is what we will see with the baltics too. >> it is funny that trump talks about himself as a deal maker, practicing mattis who opens up new avenues by being able to negotiate. but really what he has done is closed down options for u.s. foreign policy. and opened them up for russian foreign policy. he has given the u.s. fewer choices and fewer avenues while putin has more. whether he intended to or not. >> absolutely. >> rose: go ahead, finish, wait hold on one second, julia, go ahead. >> whether he intended to or not, whatever he thinks, you know, that putin can offer him or not, that has been the
affect. it's been to narrow america's options. >> rose: go ahead, julia? >> i completely agree with amy. i think for somebody who has, you know, quote unquote wrote the art of the deal and say es he is a great deal maker, he has been publicly flirting for months with lifting sanctions on russia. meanwhile russia has been saying okay, you can lift the sanctions. we didn't put them in place. you put them in place. you lift them. you're not getting diddley squat from us. we're not going to talk about nuclear arms reduction or anything, it was a unilateral action on your part, it will be a unilateral action againment so in publicly flirting with this option, he has completely given up any leverage. any bargaining position that the u.s. would have had going in. >> rose: but two points. one is clearly do you believe that today as we say this, and in february, after two weeks of the trump administration, two plus weeks of the trump
administration. >> i know. >> do you believe that vladimir putin by his actions and the response or the absence of a response from donald trump has a lot of nations in europe, and this may be what you are saying, looking to him and saying there is the stronger leader. there's the place that we're tbing to make sure that we don't a, offend, or we find some kind of common ground economic or otherwise. >> we've been seeing that in the middle east, you know, since september 2025 when putin went into syria, effectively filling a vacuum that the add obama administration had left there by you know hemming and hawing about how involved it was going to get in syria if at all. and you have seen traditionally u.s. allies start pivoting toward russia. even countries like saudi arabia, israel, qatar making more and more trips to russia. this has benefited putin at a time of slumping oil prices. he has used his increased
profile in the middle east, by negotiating the first ever russia opec deal, to cut production and boost oil prices which directly helps his bottomline. so he's playing this for all its worth. >> rose: he's playing a bad hand well. >> uh-huh, absolutely. >> it's worth remembering that in a lot of the world it's not just looked to the u.s. or look to russia, australia, for example, in the wake of all of the conflict last week over trump's phone call with their-- prime minister. >> rose. >> the place they are looking is china. which is also an option for a lot of countries, not just in asia. as a commercial power, as a place that seems to have a little more of a plan at the moment than perhaps we do. there is also the possibility of countries not looking anywhere, that when they get embroiled in civil conflicts or within their borders or with their neighbors,
that there's not an idea of an arbiter, an international voice. they would listen to or turn to and that these conflicts become much more internally bitter with no, with no referee, with no one people trust outside of the conflict. >> rose: do you believe that the end result at the end, the obama administration was retreating from leadership? >> you know, i don't-- i don't believe that that was the affect of the obama administration. you can say it is all the what ifs, does obama lead to trump and therefore does everything obama did get accounted. >> rose: i'm just asking were these ideas set in motion before president obama left office, having to do with julia's point about the middle east, about syria, about how the saudis and others because of mob arek and the nature of his fall, because of the red line, because of one thing after the other, have begun to say we're not sure that
the united states has the same kind of our back like they used to. >> i think particularly in the period when kerry was secretary of state the administration deserves more credit than it gets for having the u.s. be a voice within our alliances and relationships that people still turned to. but a lot has been going on with our allies at the same time. than was during the obama years. the whole questioning the european project. and it's hard to say oh, he just should have just yelled at all the europeans. i don't know that that would have done anything. but i think that in the obama period, obama was still a voice that people would listen to in a considered way, in a way that i don't think people know what to make of it. >> he certainly want calling nato obsolete. >> we've gone from one-- that's where the bar is, i guess.
>> but we've gone from one extreme to the other. >> rose: exactly. >> and i wonder what actual practical difference there is in the end. because we've gone from a president who may be over analyzed, over thought things, you know, would think himself into a pretzel to a president without doesn't seem to think at all. and just you know, thinks with his amygdala. and to go back to the point-- . >> rose: you may know more about brain science than many of us. >> it's the center in your brain that controls-- . >> rose: it is the first reference in a political discussion. as you know i do a series on the brain. but yours is the first reference to the amygdala in terms of a political consideration, but go ahead. >> instinct, emotion, you know, very little kind of conscience intellectual thought. and going back to amy's point about australia, turning to china and other countries, turning to china, this is is another point where trump, the
great negotiator has, you know, handed over the whole deck of cards to the other side by getting rid of tpp and giving china everything it wants. >> and to julia's question, is there a difference ultimately in how those are played out, the playout, the overthinking and the underthinking. i would say yes, in terms of how interlocketters respond. if you think somebody is overthinking, you think too. and you engage in that way. if you think somebody's not doing it at all, where does that leave you as somebody who can even enter the discussion with that person. >> julia, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you, amy, pleasure. we'll be right back to talk about super bowl and other things. everybody knows the new england patriots won the super bowl in dramatic fashion last night defeating the atlanta falcons 34-28. new england mounted the largest comeback in super bowl history after trailing 21-3 at at half time.
quarterback tom brady led the charge throwing for 466 yards on his way to his fourth super bowl mvp. the victory was the fifth super bowl win for the patriots under brawdy and head coach bill bell i dhik. joining me from los angeles is bill cow her, he coached the bits beggar materials in a tight knell 2006. is he an analyst today on cbs and from palm springs al michaels the lead play by play announcer for nbc sports, sunday night football. he has called nine super bowls for network television it. and i'm pleased to have both of them here as we look back at a remarkable football gaivment bill, let me just begin with you. what happened to atlanta? >> well, you know what, charlie, i think when you look at, i think there were two parts of this game. how would they respond with all the youth in the first part of the game. i always thought if they could could get by the first quarter they would be fine. they did. they got by, got into a lead. i think really there were some tactical errors in the fourth
quarter and they left a little bit of an opening for tom brady. and tom brady took that opening and he ran with it. and you saw the effects of a guy who has been in that kind of set ising before, that arena before. and he absolutely seized the moments. >> rose: but just think about this, the largest lead overcome before in super bowl history was ten points. this was 18 or more, how much was it,-- 23. >> it was 28-3. >> rose: 25. >> yeah, it was 28-3 at one point, 25 point lead. you know, again there were circumstances there, i think you go back to the fourth quarter. i have always said the fourth quarter when you have a lead, the clock is your ally. and you don't coach the game the same way as you do in the first three quarters. because it's all about finishing the game. and i think a couple of situations, the third down and one pass in the fourth quarter that lead to the sack fumble, i'm okay with that. i understand that.
but certainly the julyio jones acrobatic catch, less than four minutes to go, ball is on the 22 yard line, you have a kicker who has made 28 of 29 inside the 50 yard line. you run the ball three times, you kick the field goal, you have an 11 point lead and you have your first championship for the atlanta falcons. >> rose: al? tell me how you saw it i will come back to those points but go ahead. >> number one, it's the greatest unscripted drama in the history of television. this is why people love the nfl. i would be very curious as to what bill thinks about the following. this is something i haven't heard very much about. but the score is 28-3. but now it's 28-9, gostkowski misses the extra point. and new england is racing down the field again. they are inside the five or ten yarr yard line, a penalty moves them back. and i thought it was very interesting that belichick went for a field goal at that point.
granted it was a lot of yardage at that point. i thought he's trying to make it a two possession game it is one thing when are you down by 14, it's another thing when are you down by 16 points. he needed two touchdowns, two point conversions. he got them. so i think bill did the kal you can lus that way. i was a little sur is priced. i thought with that much, that few minutes remaining on the clock that he might go for even on fourth and long. but look, everything worked out perfectly for them. a couple of big plays. and the julian edelman catch, when you think about that game, that will be forefront in our miensd, julyio jones made an impossible catch but edelman's catch is what obviously sparked the victory. >> rose: i don't know how they smut down julyio jones even though he made these remarkable catches. he caught four passes i think during this thing. he is is who he is. and everybody knows him, matt ryan is a very skilled pears. how could they shut him down?
>> you know, to me when you look at that game, you know, the one stat that becomes glaring and we take states whatever we want, but for the falcons they are one of eight on third down. they were not-- they weren't able to sustain drives. so it really was hard for them, particularly as that game went on, you know, you have the interceptions for a touchdown. i think, i don't know what the realtime was. i think it was stated some point in that game. but that offense hadn't been on the field, when you talk about the end of the first half and when they got the ball back in the third quarter t was almost an hour. so in was a lot of time where new england held the ball. they weren't scoring, and you know, you saw atlanta score quickly but when we got into the fourth quarter, i think again, i just go back to that time, as you have time on your sad, snapping the ball with less than five seconds to go, running the football, you built the lead, you got to be able to close the deal. and clock management is is always, i think, a thing that comes up. al will tell you, he watches this every week, the clock management of football games at
the end of the game is is something that is not always mastered by many. and sometimes it takes experience for dan quinn to get a better feel for that. >> rose: that's really the story of the game in part, isn't it, al? >> yeah, i think so. also the momentum factor, we talk about momentum and it's really a cliche. but you could feel it yesterday. i mean once you had that sack fumble you go whoa, if they go in and score here, and then they're going to get the ball back, you could feel it coming. it was almost as if, as the old saying goes, you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the atlanta falcons, also i think defensively when you look at t i think new england ran something like 95 plays, including the two two point conversions. so if you are running 95 plays, that defense facing the 95 plays, they are going to be gassed. >> rose: he did look at it at the end. what is it that brady did, al? >> well, brady does what brady has done for so many years too.
the thing i really love about tom is that he is 39 years old, and bill know this as well. i think he is enjoying playing football more than he ever has. he realizes that the end is sort of near, though with tom, who knows, this guy could play another four or five years the way he keeps himself in phenomenal shape and the way he has been playing. but it's one of those things where you will see athletes come down towards the end of a great career. it is almost as if they appreciate it more. i will just share with you actually an email exchange that i had. i sent an email last night after the game saying you know, in my mind you are the greatest of all time. there is no argument. and he emailed me back today and he said i'm not the-- i'm just blessed and lucky to play on great teams with great coaching. and he means it. that's not tom being overly modest. i think he means it. and i think he loves, he just loves to prepare for the game. and he loves to play the game. i think he's enjoying it more than he ever has.
and this one topped all. >> rose: also, bill, he has the perfect coach for him, doesn't sne. >> yeah, he does it is so funny, al, he texted, i emailed tom and i texted bill last night and just told him congratulations. you talk about resiliency. you talk about a team that really does play with tremendous focus. it really started at the top with him. he responded back this morning and said bill, we have a bunch of tough gs. i think the one thing when you talk about the new england patriots, tom brady, when you talk about bill belichick, they win with humility. when you listen them talk it is fever going to be about them. it's going to be about their teammates, it's going to be their organization, it's going to be about all the people around them. and that is the thing to me is why they have something that is sustainable. it is a selfless place. and there is a culture up there that is based on that. and to their credit and again it starts at the top with bill and mr. kraft and it permeates right down through.
these are, this is a football team when you go there, you check your ego in at the door. and that's why a lot of players have gone up there, and they have done that. they have walked away with a ring. >> rose: edelman and that catch, i mean have you seen anything like it? we've seen some spectacular catches holding the ball against your helmet and everything else, catching with one hand, all the things that look like miracles to those of us with limited ability. but that was extraordinary? >> it is almost as if the karma comes back and it works in your favor. because don't forget tyree made that catch in the super bowl which lead to the plaxico bur es touchdown which lead to the giants recognizing their per spect season in 2011. in mario manningham made a phenomenal catch along the sideline at indianapolis and that lead toy a vict jee. and julyio jones makes that catch yesterday and that looks like that cement the game for atlanta. so all of a sudden now you've got edelman. they had so many catches go against them that they finally
got one to go for them and that was a huge one. >> rose: what was the genius of bill belichick yesterday? >> i think the genius of him yesterday was the sense of focus he had on the sideline. when you looked over there, he was continue allly coaching. they didn't overreact at half time. they just kept playing. he has always talked about t but they just kept playing. like i said, i think time was against them, and somewhere along the line for a tactical error or a turnover to take place, and i think they got both and they seized the opportunity. so that is what great football teams do, that is what great coaches do. they stick to what they are doing, they keep playing, they stay focused. i a sense of purpose. and i think everyone around them, never saw a sense of panic when are you down 28-3. >> so al, what should matt ryan take away from this game? >> oh, man, it's-- this is a tough one. and this is, i mean, this was such a stinging loss for the entire falcon organization that you know, you wonder, can you
come back next year. how do you come back. i remember talking to bobby ross who was the coach of the san diego chargers at that time when they lost to the san francisco 49ers in the super bowl in the mid '90s. and we had them on a monday night game. and i was with that package, about six or seven months later after the super bowl, you know, had been played in february. and i said how long did you take you to get over that loss. he said what do you mean, i'm not over that loss. so i don't know, i don't know, bill can speak to. this but if you are coaching cog this team, at a certain point, yeah, you want to put it behind you, you want to look to the future and all of that but wow, people won't let you forget it either. >> no, and al you're right it is stinging and have i lost a super bowl in my fourth year when i was with the steelers. bobby ross beat us the year before. but then we came back the next year and lost to the cowboys. but the one thing for dan quinn, he's got a very young football team. he's got a good nubbing lease of players.
it's one thing to be there, to get there, it is another thing to get back. there i think the biggest thing for him is this is not the end of something, this is the star of something. start of an expectation that he has set, a leveled expectation for this got ball team. and so you look forward from this. you learn from this and you know what that feeling is like to get there that is the drive and what kind of motivates you to want to go back. >> they showed how to get to brady in the first half, didn't they? ness. >> i mean i'll tell you, they are young, they're fast. like i said, there was so much youth on that field yesterday. and i think even at the end you saw the experience kind of pay off. because i think like al mentioned, you could feel the momentum. 2 was like man, we're letting this slip away. the pressure you could feel going on to atlanta and then you felt new england says we've been here before and we're going to seize the moment. >> so what do you do and you know, you feel it in the air, what does a coach do? i mean you call timeout i guess. >> the only thing that i would say, and i watched that game
yesterday, i think they had a very good scheme early in the game. i thought tom brady looked some what confused and a little bit off at times. >> right. >> and yet i thought the more he played, the more he was getting more comfortable. so at some point you have to also adjust. you can't continue to do it when you get a better feel for you. so become a little bit more disruptive and do some things differently. make some adjustments, as are you going into the third and fourth quarter because you have a quarterback who is starting to get into a flow. you are not getting pressure with your four man rush. i would love to see dan take some chances and blitz. he had policed so much in these playoffs and i felt like he kind of got away from it because of the early success. so maybe later in the game, get back to that same thing and change it up a little bit because it was going down hill fast. >> rose: when i saw it-- go ahead, al. >> charlie, just to piggy back on to bill's point, that's a
great, great point. because in watching the game yesterday, they were getting a tremendous amount of pressure on brady with a fourman rush. and then all of a sudden they were get nothing pressure on brady with a four man rush, you began to wonder, as bill said, maybe you got to send a fifth guy. obviously what you are doing is you are giving a receiver a better chance to get free. but at some point they-- the offensive line took over for new england and atlanta got no pressure on tom. >> rose: yeah. al, if you were covering the handshake between roger goodell and tom brady what would you have been saying? >> probably nothing on television it, on radio i might have had a few verbs to describe it or at least tell you what i thought. but to me, charlie, when it's television, you let the picture tell the story. and don't try to put into people's minds what you think might be there. i thought it was interesting, i thought robert kraft when he took the lombardi trophy, he kind of did a side door thing about how special this was. and we all know what he was talking about. and with tom, a lot of people have said to me this year, boy,
he must be extra motivated and this will really be great. and bill knows tom as well, tom brady doesn't need extra motivation. es is motivated to win no matter what he is doing. if he's playing penu cle he wants to kill you. so as far as tom was concerned this was sweet because of what had taken place but he didn't need any extra impe-- impetus. >> on that, thank you so much. thank you, pleasure. >> thank you, charmie. >> rose: we'll be right back, stay with us. susan glasser joins us now from washington. she is chief international a irfairms columnist for "politico," former secretary of state jim bake setter subject of her new "politico" magazine article. she interviewed him last week for the launch of her new podcast the global "politico." i'm pleased to have her back on the program. welcome. >> thank you so much, charlie. >> rose: what is this that makes jim baker jim baker? >> you know, that exactly is why we started out on this project. the thing that is so remarkable
is that he was both the secretary of state but also the gold standard for white house chief of staff. he ran the white house during reagan's first term. he also ran five different republican presidential campaigns. and today you can imagine basically having sort of karl rove and secretary of state all wrapped up in one it is very unusual to marry both politics and foreign policy in the way that baker did. i do attribute it to the fact that he has this inmate skills to sort of read a problem. he's also looking to make a deal in fact even now at 86 that is the thing that gets him really excited is this idea where is the hole, where is the opening. so here you have this new guy in the white house who talks about the art of the deal. and i think that is what has been fascinating to jim baker, to try to work through the puzzle of trump. on the one hand, he's attracted by the possibility that trump offers. on the other hand some of his early crit seek really has to do with the fact that how are you going to make a deal with mexico if you are busy angering him so
much. >> i remember him telling me when he was secretary of state for george bush and the gulf war was upon them. and he said i went to see bashar al-assad's father, and he said i went 13 times and he said no, i'm not joining you. he went the 14th time and said no, i'm not going to do. this and then the 15th time, said yes, i will. all because baker had the endpeurns-- endurance, the focus, the sense of you know f i just keep at it, you know, i will-- i'll obtain my objective. >> rose: well d wsh. >> well, and that's where that persistence, also preparation and metic lusness. and i think again that's where his early critique of the trump team has really come down on. is that if you want to accomplish your ends, you're not going to get there by sort of
flowting-- flawting what we all know makes good policy and a good process in the white house. is he really just blown away by a white house with so many different power centers, even two weeks into it, as he said to me, you know, i think this was not in the podcast. you know, one power center is too many in a white house, if you are the chief of staff and it's not you. and by his count, he saw four or five ones already in the trump white house. >> the interesting thing about baker is he understands power. and does he think that they have misused the power. >> well, that's an interesting question. i don't think his critique, at least not yet was around executive overreach it was much more on the idea that alienating the core institutions of washington is really just not a way to get things done. and he was at great pains to say, you know, to reject this comparison between ronald reagan as another outsider who came in to kind of blow up the system because his point was reagan
didn't want to blow up the system. he wanted to use it toward his end. and he really felt that you know that's one of lessons that people coming new to washington like the trump team haven't yet fully absorbed. which is if you warrant to actually get your way, you need to figure out how to work with people and what their political constraints are. >> he also said they should not act as israel's lawyer. >> yes, this has been a long-standing view of jim baker and will you remember during the campaign, back when he was an advisor to jeb bush he gave a 1350e67 at the j street advocacy group and he made this point as well. he has long time felt that the settlements by israel which are moving ahead even again today, are prance the biggest obstacle to peace. now that's been u.s. government policy and under both republicans and democrats for a long time. but it makes, you know, many in prime minister netanyahu's coalition furious every time
this is said. and here in the united states, trump in effect has suggested 245 politics are changing. so even that is controversial these days. but baker's point is that if the united states wants to broker a peace deal in the middle east, broker peace between israelis and palestinians, how can he possibly do that if the palestinians don't see you as i think he put it as at least a semihonest broker. >> he also argued that they shouldn't be an isolationist. >> well, you know, that's again what is so amazing about so many traditional republicans supporting trump now. very uncomfortably, and in particular, on this issue of free trade and america playing a leading role and engaged in the world. and for baker, he's a classic internationalist in that sense, as are so many republicans, that's been a core value of the republican party. and they really, they're disturbed and they don't know what to make of trump's america first rhetoric that seems to
verge on a kind of new isolationism. it's not at all what people like jim baker want their party to be moving in that direction. >> his personal motto, i find this so really interesting, his personal motto is prior preparation prevents poor performance. i think they call this the five tst. >> even today as we sai see in, withouting on the book about him, he is a model of that. any meating that we've had, he has come prepared, he's tested it out. and you know, i think that's a combination of his legal training, and recognizing that if you really want to run an airtight process in washington, you know, it requires a tremendous discipline. i'm not sure what he would make of the washington, by the way, in this overwhelming social media and twitter era. there are so many more inputs that everybody is dealing with. >> he knows the secretary of state well. >> he does. they are, as he said, fellow textans. they're hunting buddies.
he thinks they've gone elk hunting as well a as quail hunting togetherment and he's talked to him at some length about the jobment but i think he has some concerns when it comes to tillerson and how he's going to navigate being trump's secretary of state when he's just met donald trump. >> he's often said to me, has said to me recently that most important qualification for secretary of state is to have a i very strong relationship with the president. and he and george bush 43, 41 had a strong a relationship as could you possibly have. >> well, that's exactly right in fact, it was really unique in many ways in the modern history of presidents an secretaries of state. he and bush want back decades together. they were tennis partners. bush was the godfather of his daughter, as he reminded me in our conversation the other day. and so that enabled them, i think to pretty seamlessly work in this chaotic moment, 25 years ago when the cold war was coming to an end in the soviet union was breaking part.
as he said the real test of a relationship like that is does the president defend you when you haven't talked or even when you have screwed up or done something that he doesn't like. and i think that's where tillerson must be going into this new relationship with trump with some real trepidation. >> we're all fascinated toos whether jim baker exercised any influence with bush 43 because of his closeness to the family. after all t was jim baker who helped so much in the effort, in the court case that won the presidency. >> well you know, it's a great question. we're still i think unraveling that fully. i was struck in this podcast interview i did with him last week, he's very in effect antiwar at this point. he doesn't want the united states to be involved in new conflict. he mentioned specifically both vietnam and iraq 2003 in this
interview. and at the siem he was very cautious. unlike scoa croft who came out publicly and broke with george w. bush, baker made it clear, including publicly that he wasn't sure this was the best course of action to take. but he did it in a very careful, baker fashion. so he didn't cause an open rupture with george w. bush. but i think now in hindsight it is very clear that he was opposed to that invasion of iraq. and that he viewed it, perhaps as an overreach. but again, he's retained a closeness to the family. he did work for jeb bush. he clearly worked and helped george w. bush become the president. but i think he's always identified as really being george h-w bush's friend and kf dante. so you know, i think both of the bush sons seem to be loyal to the family partners like baker but you know, they both obviously wanted to be their own men when it came to their
political career. so you know, i don't know. i think at key points along the way baker was conducted by george w. bush. but there's no doubt in my mind that george w. bush was well aware from the very beginning that baker didn't think invading iraq was such a great idea. >> does he think donald trump has some, because he is so unconventional, because is he so different, because he campaigned differently, he transitioned differently, he's taken his first two weeks differently, that show out of all that difference maybe some possibility of doing good things? >> well, you know, again, baker struck me as the sort of classic almost con again tal deal make. and he's a very optimistic guy which is to say he's always seeing what are the possibilities. and he clearly still sees possibilities in trump and his administration.
possibilities to shake things up as you pointed out just by doing thing differently. possibilities to reset some foreign policy areas that baker was critical of when it came to barack obama's record. so i think he's definitely not one to pronounce after two weeks that you know the door is slammed on trump and compiling a new record. i think he's interested in what kinds of ways he can reset american foreign policy in the world. but you know, he's a practicing mattis and a realist too. -- too and it's hard to see diplomacy under trump really getting a big boost at this point. >> does he understand the relationship between vladimir putin and donald trump? >> you know, we didn't talk to extensively about that. he made a point of saying to me listen, i know vladimir putin. i've worked with vladimir putin. so has rex tillerson. that's not necessarily a disqualification. in fact, you want american
leaders who can engage and have engage with their counterrer part. i don't think he saw it as a disqualification. and you know by the way, either do i think i or any of us. but you know, nobody at this point right really can unravel the mystery of why trump continues to praise putin publicly while at the same time being very critical of american allies and partners. it's a mystery. >> he does think too many settlements on the west bank is not a good idea. >> absolutely. baker has been very clear for a very long time that he believe thras additional building of settlements on the west bank is a way of fore closing the possibility of a deal. because he's also been conscience of the fact that in effect israel and the future pal stein state would have to trade some territory which is much harder to do if the israelis are creating new facts on the ground. now of course just today in the israeli ka necessary et they
passed a bill-- knesset they passed a bill that would retro actively legalize a number of settlements. a very inflammatory bill there is coming right before prime minister netanyahu comes here to washington next week to have his first meeting with donald trumplet and you know, i think expectations are sky high among the sort of prosettlement types in israel that they finally have an american president who will break with jim baker and support them. >> rose: not only that, also on the moving the capitol to jerusalem. >> well, that's exactly right. people were really base for that when i left jerusalem a few weeks ago. i had lots of people say to me, you know, we think that there could be bodies in the streets depending on how trump chooses to handle this. >> what's the title of the biography of jim baker? >> you know, we still, we still haven't worked that out firmly. but i think our frame for the book is the man who ran washington when washington ran
the world. >> susan, thank you so much. say hello to peter. >> thank you very much, charlie, appreciate it. >> thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
a kqed television production. ♪ >> it's sort of like old fisherman's wharf. it reminds me of old san francisco. >> and you'd be a little bit like jean valjean, with the teeth, whatever. >> and worth the calories, the cholesterol, and the heart attack you might have. >> it's like an adventure, you know. you've got to put on your miner's helmet. >> it reminds me of oatmeal with a touch of wet dog. >> i did. inhaled it. >> people when they say sommelier or something.