tv PBS News Hour PBS October 7, 2011 7:00pm-8:00pm EDT
captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> brown: a government task force finds that p.s.a. blood tests to detect prostate cancer are unnecessary for healthy men and may do more harm than good. good evening. i'm jeffrey brown. >> warner: and i'm margaret warner. on the newshour tonight, we sort through the panel's findings and the mixed reaction from the medical community with rob stein of the "washington post." >> brown: then we look at the three women's rights champions from africa and the middle east who will share the nobel peace prize. >> warner: paul solman talks with economist simon johnson about the different shapes an
economic recovery could take. >> so we've got a kind of-- i don't know, a hammock. >> that's right. it's a hammock. the economy isin is going to sln a hammock and is not waking up. >> brown: we have another of our interviews with republican presidential candidates. tonight, judy woodruff sits down with former massachusetts governor mitt romney. >> the commander in chief also has to be the educator in chief and communicate with the american people why he is making the decisions he's making. this president has not communicated to the american people. >> warner: and the weekly analysis of mark shields and david brooks. >> brown: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> well, the best companies are driven by new ideas. >> our future depends on new ideas. we spend billions on advanced technologies.
>> it's all about investing in the future. >> we can find new energy-- more cleaner, safer and smarter. >> collaborating with the best in the field. >> chevron works with the smartest people at leading universities and tech companies. >> and yet, it's really basic. >> it's paying off everyday. >> and by bnsf railway. and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: men should not be routinely tested for prostate cancer. that was the recommendation today of an influential government panel that looked at whether p.s.a. tests can extend
lives by detecting cancer earlier. the tests measure levels of a protein made in the prostate. but the u.s. preventive services task force said they do more harm than good, including unnecessary biopsies, surgery, radiation, and impotence. the panel concluded that "the common perception that early detection prolongs lives is not supported by the scientific evidence." last year, more than 217,000 american men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. 32,000 died from it. and the recommendations are being met with both support and anger. we look at all of this now with rob stein, who covers health and science for the "washington post." rob, welcome,. see they're saying they can find no real benefit from these tests? >> that's right. overall, when they've taken a hard look at the scientific evidence, what the panel is saying is they concluded that there's no overall benefit compared to the risk that men face if they're told to undergo routine p.s.a. tests.
healthy men who are told to go in to get a p.s.oosmed test. >> brown: that is the current standard practice now? >> that's right. the way it works right now. once a guy hits 50 the doctor start recommending he get a p.s.a. test to look for any signs he might have prostate cancer and gets it on a routine basis when he goes in for a routine physical. >> brown: the risks that outweigh benefits, what are we talking about? >> when somebody comes back with a positive p.s.a. test, it start a cascade of medical treatments that can lead to some pretty serious complications. first you start off with a biopsy to see if the guy actually has prostate cancer, and that's usually not that big a deal to go through and pretty safe but in in some cases there can be complications and it can take time to refer even from
that. it turns out if he has prostate cancer then he has to undergo surgery and radiation and that can have some very serious complications, the biggest ones being impotence and ipcontinent especially in. >> brown: these recommendations are for men who do not have any symptoms, correct? >> that's right. and this is very important. this is for men who basically are healthy, no sign they have prostate cancer, no relationship to think they might have tumors that nobody has picked up yet. for men who do have signs, for men men there are indications they have prostate cancer they should be getting tested. this is the general, routine, don't think about it, go out and get a p.s.a.positive test. >> brown: one of the issues here i guess is prostate cancer develops very slowly, right? >> yeah, that is is-- that's a very important point is that prostate cancer, it's a very common cancer, but in a lot of
men, they don't know they have it, and if they never were tested for it they might never find out they had it, or it would grow so slowly they would end up dying of something else. we can't identify which men need treatment and which don't, so if you go in and find you have prostate cancer, most people will get treated and could lead to all sort of complications. it could even cause death death, which outweigh the benefits of p.s.a. testing. >> brown: the p.s.a. testing has been debated for a long time and these new recommendations are extremely controversial. >> there has been a very strong reaction to this. this is the same panel that in 200caused a firestorm when they raised questions about routine mammography for breast cancer in younger women. we're starting to see the same reaction to this. there's a large cadre of doctors
and patients and patient advocacy groups think p.s.a.positive is important. >> brown: so influential is a panel like this? where do you look at for impacts here for-- among doctors, among insurance groups and so on? >> this is a very influential panel. that's why the reaction is so strong. you know, this panel can't make anything happen, but doctors, you know, look to this panel to, you know, decide what advice to give their patients. insurance companies look at what the panel recommends to decide what they pay for. under the federal health care reform legislation that passed, this panel has actually become more influential because some of the basic benefits the federal government will require under the health reform legislation will be influenced by this panel's recommendations. >> brown: so, briefly, rob, what happens next? is it a period of confusion for the medical community and men in general? what are you looking at? >> it's important to note-- at
this point, this is a proposal. the panel is proposing changing its recommendationes, proposing downgrading the recommendation for psa testing to recommend not getting routine testing. it will be open for a period for public comment. this ithe public has a chance ty what they think about it, and the panel will take a look at those comment and decide what to do for the final recommendation. >> brown: all right rob stein of the "washington post," thanks so much. >> nice being here. >> warner: still to come on the newshour: the nobel peace prize winners; the possible shape of an economic recovery; g.o.p. hopeful mitt romney; and the analysis of shields and brooks. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> holman: the u.s. economy added jobs last month, but not enough to kick hiring into high gear. the labor department reported today a net gain of 103,000
positions in september. the august and july numbers were revised upward as well. however, much of the september total came from 45,000 verizon workers rehired after going on strike. all the gains came in the private sector, which added 137,000 new jobs. that was offset by the loss of 34,000 government jobs, mainly teachers and other school employees. the overall unemployment rate remained at 9.1%. the jobs numbers did little to boost wall street. the dow jones industrial average lost 20 points to close at 11,103. the nasdaq fell 27 points to close at 2,479. but for the week, the dow gained more than 1.5%; the nasdaq rose more than 2.5%. in syria, activists reported troops opened fire again on protesters after friday prayers. the reports said eight people were killed, and scores were wounded as thousands rallied across the country. meanwhile, gunmen shot and killed a leading kurdish member
of the opposition. another opposition leader was beaten up in damascus. this was the tenth anniversary of the u.s. invasion of afghanistan, and the fighting continued without let-up. taliban insurgents attacked several american bases in the east, and u.s. troops struck back with artillery fire. there were no u.s. deaths. in washington, president obama marked the day without public ceremony. he issued a written statement saluting the more than 1,800 americans killed in the afghan war. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to margaret. >> warner: the 2011 nobel peace prize was announced today. it recognized three fighters for peace and women's rights in africa and the middle east. two of the women are liberian-- president ellen johnson sirleaf and peace activist leymah gbowee. the third is tawakul karman of yemen, a pro-democracy campaigner. the chairman of the five-member norwegian nobel panel made the announcement in oslo.
>> we cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society. >> warner: sirleaf became africa's first democratically elected female president in 2006 on the heels of 14 years of civil war. she faces a hotly contested re- election next tuesday. in 2009, she spoke to "the newshour" about the women she'd named to senior ministerial posts and how they govern differently. >> i've found all the women in the strategic positions that they hold have been so dedicated and committed and honest. i mean, they really go to the task, you know, with all that it takes. they go that extra mile. >> ooh! yippee! that says it all. >> warner: an earlier african winner of the peace prize--
archbishop desmond tutu of south africa-- was jubilant today at sirleaf's award. >> she deserves it many times over. she's brought stability to a place that was going to hell. >> warner: leymah gbowee has made her own contribution to liberia, rallying women in 2003 to protest for an end to the violence. she spoke today in new york. >> women have an important role as negotiators, as generals in the army. women have important roles in peace and security issues, and i think this is acknowledgement of that. >> warner: the third honoree, tawakul karman, has been a leader in the protests in yemen against president ali abdullah saleh. they began in late january, part of the wave of revolts sweeping the arab world. today, she spoke from the tent she's been living in since february as part of a sit-in. >> ( translated ): i am very,
very happy about this prize. i give the prize to the arab revolutions and to the peaceful youth revolution in yemen and the yemeni people. i also dedicate this prize to the martyrs and wounded people from peaceful revolutions. >> warner: the three women will receive their awards at a ceremony in oslo in december. and for more on what these three women achieved to win their prizes, we go to emira woods of the institute for policy studies, a washington think tank; and malini patel of vital voices, an international non- governmental organization that works with women around the world. welcome to you both on this very big day. now the nobel committee was clear, they wanted to say how vital women's involvement is to beginning any kind of just and democratic society. there are a lot of women activists around the world. what makes these three women special, emira woods. >> i think it's extraordinary that they have held up women who are peace activists, longtime peace activists from the ground
up. you have a woman like leymah who started with a very small group of women at one church, their open church in libeeria, then to moscows, understanding you have to build a movement that cuts across religion and cuts across class that brings all people together demanding peace. >> it is that movement women walking in the hot sun and pouring rain that ushered out the president of liberria and ushered in this new possibility for liberria. it's an extraordinary thing and of course yemen as well, with all of the vitality that's going on in the streets, not only in yemen and syria, but really throughout north africa, the middle east region. it's been phenomenal to see. for the nobel committee to actually recognize the work of these women is extraordinary. >> warner: what would you add
to that? >> the recognition of these women. they have been at the forefront of peace for years and they have finally been recognized glarn you're not just saying they're-- it's a much bigger issue. >> political, social, economic, violence against women tawakkol karman has been a face for women to get together, to voice their opinions in the tent camps where they are socially and culturally appropriate, and they can speak to and they have learned and connected from the women in egypt, in tu nearby ain all the other countries in the middle east glarn let's take a closer look at ellen johnson-sirleaf. we just did a profile of her earlier this week, one of our special correspondents over there. bishop tu tu was nodding and smieg and he said, "she brought stability to a place that was going to hell."
is that a fair assessment? does she deserve that assessment. >> we recognize 26 years of war, society had had enough of war and she came at a pivotal time to be really awe beacon. it wasn't just her. there was a movement of people saying enough is enough and pushing. and that's why i think it's extraordinary that the award goes not only to the head of state, this incredible icon herself, but also to someone representing that very activist spirit, community organizer spirit, pushing for peace from the ground up because ultimately, the path to peace is-- it's a difficult one, and it needs both those working at the top and those working at the bottom, in the streets, making sure that the path to peace it firm glarn the nobel committee said there was a lot of activists in the arab spring. they picked her because she had
been out there on the front liebz before the uprising, and they felt they could identify her. what did he do before the uprising? >> she was working since 2007. she is a journalist and she has been working for women's rights at the local level, at the grass-root level to make sure people have a voice and not just for women but for society overall. it is a pay it forward mentality of this is not for me. this is for my society. >> they made a point of noting that she's of the muslim faith, saying that this demonstrated that islam and the liberation of women are not incot pat ebl or can be reconciled. she is part of the islamic party. how much of her identity is approximately central to what she does? >> i can't speak on her behalf for her internal feelings, but what i can say is she truly believes in the islamic faith, and that is not something that is against women's rights. they are hand in hand, and i believe that she feels that way,
and that's why she works so hard to make sure that all people have a voice. >> one question here, as much as women activists everywhere are celebrating, is could there be a backlash because of this prize? and i'm thinking, especially, of ellen johnson-sirleaf, for one, who is facing a very tough rielection. you hear even a love her women supporters, former supporters, complaining about everything from crime including rapes, more rapes against women and children, and corruption. could this-- how do you think this will play in liberria. >> you're already hearing, the ones not applaud regular the opposition candidates, and they have been very vocal today, saying the timing of this award so close to the elections-- elections are october 11, next week, tuesday-- the timing is certainly not in favor of the opposition candidates. so they have been very vocal. but i think clearly with all the celebration and all the acknowledgment that after 26
years of war, the challenges are membership, i think what you have in the country is a sense that the high expectation, the demands for change, you know, those expectations haven't really been met. so i think there was a real worry that the elections will be a difficult one for the incumbents, for the ruling party. it may still be difficult, but clearly the platform of now a nobel laureate, recognition like this at the international level, it may. we will see what happens on tuesday on election day, right. but it may also have some sway. >> what impact do you think this will have on karman. she is in a potentially precarious situation given th violence going on. >> she made that choice a long time ago. she knew the risk. she walked in with open eyes. she knows risk to her children. she knows the risk to her family but she's committed. she's say place where she knows anything can happen but she will
still fight. >> in what way would this concretely advance the cause of women being involved in all levels of government, in negotiating peace, in the formation of democratic societies, which is what the nobel committee said they want to convey with this. >> absolutely. you know-- >> is it symbolic? >> well, there are some international conventions. there is what is called the u.n. revolution, 1375. it calls for the inclusion of women in the peace processes, understanding the unique role women must play in the path to peace. it is the worth of people like those who were recognized today that is actually living the vision of those conventions and those rules. >> i agree. you're dealing with people who actually made change. it is an inspiration because these are people at the grass-roots level actually doing something. that means anybody can. >> malini patel, and emira
woods, thank you both very much for being with us. >> thank you. >> brown: the latest job numbers reinforce the notion that the economy remains weak when compared to recoveries of the past. newshour economics correspondent paul solman has periodically sought to visually capture the shape of the economic period we're in. he takes another look tonight, part of his reporting on "making sense of financial news." >> reporter: a recent networking meeting for jobless executives outside chicago. how many of you think we are going into a double-dip recession? going into a double-dip recession or a "w"-- is that where the economy is now headed? we've been exploring the shape of things to come ever since the economy tanked. our guide two years ago in mid- 2009-- m.i.t. and former i.m.f.
economist simon johnson. >> let me show you like this. so here's gdp-- gross domestic product. that's output-- what we produce- - and here are years. >> reporter: johnson sketched the predicted shapes as of 2009 on a blackboard. the one the optimists were pushing at the time-- a v-shaped recovery. >> if we're a "v," we go right back to the path we had before and you get a v-shape recession. and by the time, you know, you reach end of '09, 2010, you've forgotten about it, right? you bounce right back. >> reporter: well, pretty clearly, the "v" didn't make it off the drawing board. so what about the other shapes being bandied about at the time? the "l" of a drawn-out depression with no recovery in sight? an even deeper plunge, depicted as a lightning bolt? a recession brought to you by a bumpy version of the letter "u"- - small ups and downs in an economy struggling to recover. well, it's now more than two years later.
so we returned to simon johnson with, looking on the bright side, an m.i.t. whiteboard. >> the good news is we didn't go back to the stone age. so we'll take that one off and give everyone some relief. it's also not an "l". it's not the great depression, it's not stayed down. the economy has come back, to some degree. so i think we can take that off. >> reporter: what has actually happened? >> let me draw you a couple of pictures. and i'm going to use an optimistic color, green-- green for "go". go to the future! so if you think about gdp, here the story is not so bad. so we were growing up until 2007, end of 2007, early 2008, and we come down pretty sharply and then we have some recovery. the problem is we're not growing fast enough. we haven't grown fast enough to keep up with population growth and when you adjust gdp for inflation, we're about where we were six years ago, end of the second quarter of 2005. so it's not a lost decade, but it's a lost half-decade already. >> reporter: so we've got a kind
of... not a "u", not a bathtub, kind of a... i don't know, a hammock. >> right, it's a hammock. the economy has gone to sleep on a hammock and is not waking up. it should be growing faster and we should be getting jobs back. >> reporter: "we should be getting jobs back," says johnson. but we're not. 14 million americans still of icflly unemployed.ic using our more inclusive u-7 statistic, computed and post on the web every month, as many as 28 million un- or under-employed. >> if you look at any other post-war recession, in terms of jobs and what's happened to employment level, all these other post-war recessions look like something like this. you go down for 12 months, 18 months, you come back, you lose maybe 2% or 3% of employment maximum. that's what this one looks like. struggling to come back, we've lost 6% of employment. it's off the charts on the
employment side compared to any other post-war recession. an reporter: here's what johnson mes. blatum l jofe ine ofint thptobsy downturn since the great depression and world war ii. jobs always rebounded fully within at most 4 years. the only outlier-- that red line at the bottom, which has been described as the "reclining nude"-shaped recession in terms of jobs. that little teaisrak poemry census hires. >> it's a great description. of course, it's also incredibly depressing for everyone caught up in the middle of it. because the nature of work changes, and some jobs are good, maybe get better paid at the high end-- a lot of jobs get pushed down, down, down in terms of wages. i think unemployment is going to come down, but that does not promise prosperity for most americans like it used to, like it did in the post-world war ii period, for example. >> reporter: well, the jobs picture, and for that matter the gdp picture, they both look like
what's happened to japan-- its lost decade. when you think of their stock market, the lost two decades. >> i think it's a fair comparison, although it's a little bit shocking and disturbing. in long periods of human history, economies have shrunk as well as grown, and that could be what's happening to us on a per person basis. >> reporter: of course, the greatest global fear these days has been the crisis in greece, in particular-- europe, in general-- which could conceivably take us all back down. >> europe is the problem of the day and the problem of the year. if the world economy had just had a big financial crisis in 2008, and we'd got through that, then that would be one thing. but that financial crisis triggered a government debt crisis in parts of europe which they have been unable to deal with. so it festers and it goes on/off, on/off, and it generates a lot of uncertainty and fear around the world. and it further damages these rather fragile financial markets. >> reporter: back here in america, meanwhile, we're now four years from the onset of the great recession.
using the great depression as a benchmark, that would put us in 1933, the depression's very bottom, when president roosevelt took over. relief followed. jobs grew, mostly through government. >> ♪ were in the money... >> reporter: one of the most popular movies of that year was all about recovery-- "the gold diggers of '33." >> ♪ were in the money... ♪ >> reporter: wishful thinking, maybe, but there's little of this in hollywood at the moment, or anywhere else. >> we're not in the money. and we don't feel like being exuberant or even optimistic. it's not the great depression, though. the great depression, you lose 20% of employment; we only lost 6%. so, let's be a little happy about that difference. >> reporter: but not too happy. in 1937, president roosevelt and
congress cut spending and hiked taxes to balance the budget. the economy relapsed, and we now talk about one long depression lasting until world war ii. and that might well resonate with our unemployed executives outside chicago, like former corporate real estate executive denise pucel. >> i was out of work five and a half years. i just landed a contract position starting monday for one third of the salary i was making before. >> reporter: after i polled the group on the likelihood of a double-dip, she said i was asking the wrong question. >> poll the question, "how many people think we ever came out of the recession?" >> reporter: how many people think we never got out of the recession? in stalemated america, that rarest of political outcomes-- a nearly unanimous vote. >> warner: now to our mitt romney interview.
it's the fourth in our series of vote 2012 conversations with the republican presidential contenders. the g.o.p. frontrunner unveiled his foreign policy proposals today at the citadel in charleston, south carolina. after the speech, he sat down with judy woodruff. >> woodruff: governor mitt romney, thank you very much for talking with us. >> thanks, judy. good to be with you. >> woodruff: in your speech today at the citadel, you described the coming american century, and you say it is god's will that america not be a nation of followers. so my question is, are you saying that god didn't intend for other countries in the world to lead, that it intended for other countries to follow the united states? >> i think throughout our history we've recognized as a nation which has identified from its very beginning certain inalienable rights, among them life, lin tee, and the pursuit of happiness, and the sense that
freedom is a universal value, that america has taken on a responsibility to provide for freedom and prosperity for ourselves, and we've shared that with the world. america is unique and exceptional nation, and the idea that america would allow other nations to get larger, stronger and potentially balance us, that would be, in my opinion, a mistake. >> woodruff: you, in your remarkes, governor, suggest that president obama is weak. you say he's weakened the country. and you talk about that. but this is a president who authorized the killing of osama bin laden, other al qaeda leaderes, like alalackey just this week, who restarted the war in afghanistan. those things don't count? >> of course, i'm pleased with some of the actioning the president has taken, and i've pointed that out, both in the case of osama bin laden and mr. alaki. i'm pleaseed the president took the action and i supported the surge in afghanistan.
i'm glad the president changed his mind about the surge. he voted against it in iraq and accepted it in afghanistan. at the same time, the president's proposal to dramatically reduce our defense spending in my view weakens our military and puts it at greater risk. >> woodruff: you're critical of him in afghanistan. there isn't agreement betweeninate oh, the united states, and afghanistan, but all foreign troops would be out by 2014. if you're president would you abide by that agreement? >> again, i would listen to the generals, and if that continues to be the view of the commanders in the field, as they assess the capabilities of the afghan military, then, of course, i would pursue that course. but at the same time, we have to be open to what we're hearing from the people on the ground. i hope we can perhaps move even faster than that. we'll listen, again, to the conditions on the ground as they exist because it's important to us that the transition from our forces to the afghan security forces being able to maintain the sovereignty of the afghan
nation, from the tyranny of the taliban is an important consideration. >> woodruff: isn't it the role of the president to make his or her own independent judgment about where american troops go? you're saying you would always defer to the generals? >> did i say that? did i say that, judy? if i did, let me correct myself. i said i would listen to the generals and receive the input of those, the commanders in the field and make my own decision. but i believe in the case of the president's decision to withdraw our surge troops in december of 2012 was a political decision, not a decision based upon what is necessary for the effects of our effort in afghanistan. >> woodruff: you're pointing to what you call a political decision. the polls do show a majority of americans now believe it's tile to bring the troops back from afghanistan. does public opinion play any role in american foreign policy, in what the public thinks? >> the commander in chief also
has to be the educator in chief and has to communicate to the american people why he is making the decisions he's making. this president, in an inexplicable way, has not communicated to the american people what's happening in afghanistan, what the progress is, what the challenge challengy the timetable is being evaluated as it is. in prior conflicts presidents have spoken to the american people about the men and women who are in harm's way and the progress or lack thereof, as it might be, in war. i think we've heard too little from the president. educating the american people as to what it is we're doing in this wind-down prld. is there a wind-down? absolutely. we will be bringing all of our troops out. and i say "all" there will be some limited, ongoing support for the afghan security forcees, but that's a process the president should be explaining to the american people. >> woodruff: you do focus in your remarks today on president obama, no mention of your
republican opponents, and yet, governor huntsman is saying today he is the one candidate in the republican race who is uniquely qualified to know foreign policy and to deal with this complicated world. >> every candidate is going to express their views about why they're the right one, and i welcome the views of all, what, nine or 10 of us, will each express our views. i express mine and the others will do the same. they have their own calendar. i am not running their campaigns. i am basically following the calendar we put together to have an opportunity to first put out a position paper on economics and how we get this economy going again. i did that a now weeks ago. there's one candidate, governor perry, who still hasn't put out an economic plan. no tax proposals. no regulatory proposals. no economic plan to get america working again. he's been in the race for several weeks. so he's following his own color, and it's i think maybe time to hear from him on an important
issue like that. >> woodruff: i want to ask you one or two other international-related questions. a direct question on the middle east, pretty much up or down. this administration ask most western countries criticized the recent announcement by the israelis that they were going to continue to build more apartments in jerusalems, saying this is counter-productive. do you agree with na? >> what i believe is when you have an ally that shares your values, disas israel, that if you disagree with them, you do so in private. you don't want to in any way encourage the adversaries of your ally to assume that perhaps they can get a better deal by going around israel and negotiating with you directly. other candidates may have different views. that happens to be my view, that in a setting of this nature, particularly one as fragile as israel-- right now, i don't think i've seen israel in as fragile a setting as we're seeing them today and this is not a time for america to be dictating to israel how they should negotiate. >> woodruff: you did talk
today about spending more on defense. you talked about adding 100,000 troops to the army, building up the navy, going back to a missile defense. the question is, the united states already spends more for defense than all the other countries of the world combined. how much bigger does the american defense budget need to get? >> what i believe is that roughly 20% of our federal spending should be devoted on-- to our military defense, 20%. >> woodruff: what is it today? >> it's higher today because of the conflicts in afghanistan and iraq. when those are completed, the president would bring that down toking is smg well below 4%, or the 20% figure total-- i would hold military spending at 4% of the g.d.p., and roughly 20% of the federal budget. >> woodruff: glood and you believe you could get popular support for that? >> i'm running for president, and if people elect me they know
they are electing someone who would intend to devote roughly 20% to the military, which equals approximately 4% of the total economy. >> woodruff: one question about the president's jobs bill. you've made it clear you're opposed to much of it, but i'm trying to figure out if there is one area you could agree on and that iss on the payroll tax cut? is that something you could support, do you think, governor romney? >> well, in a vacuum, it's difficult to make an assessment on a particular element of the plan. a temporary tax cut of that nature is not going to create a lot of permanent jobs. having spent my life in the private sector, i know that when you hire someone, you don't just look at what the cost is this year. you look at the cost on a permanent basis. so temporary tax cuts, saying we're going to temporarily cut the payroll tax, would have very limited impact on job growth. >> woodruff: let me move to a couple of political questions. governor chris christie made it clear this week that he is not
going to run for president. what one is hearing is that this is your moment, this is the moment for you to consolidate your support, get republicans behind you. you're still running, what, about 25%, approximately, nationally, among republican voters. and what one hears when you talk to republicans is there's just not excitement yet about mitt romney. is that excitement going to be essential for you to win the nomination or not? what do you think? >> you know, i looked at the crowd today. they were pretty excited at the citadel. i also can tell you, i look back at the polls at this point four years ago when i was running. i think i was at 9%, and john mccain was even less that that. and the guys that were at the top had 20%, 25%. i don't recall a lot of stories being written about they need to consolidate their lead. look at this early stage, you've got people who are trying to make up their mind because they recognize we have got to replace barack obama if we're going to keep america strong and get back to work. so i expect folks are going to take a long time, get a look at
each of the candidates, understanding our position, and in the final moments when we have our nominee selected, there's going to be a lot of excitement around that nominee. >> woodruff: conservatives in your party, many of them are still critical. we hear michele bachmann saying don't settle, don't settle for somebody who is truly creativity. there are ads saying you're too liberal on aborkz, on the economy. is this a part of the party that you think you have to win over to win the nomination? >> you know, my job is to tell people what i believe. so if people think i'm the right guy based upon those views, terrific. if they pick someone else to do a better job, that's fine, too. i'm perfectly comfortable with letting the american people make their decision. i think right now, with our country in economic distress, they want someone who understands the economy. with our nation facing extraordinary threats around the world, they want someone who has a very clear vision to make sure this is an american century with
american leadership. and supremacy of america's economy and our military. i think that combination is what america wants right now. if i'm right, i'll become president. if not, someone else will. >> woodruff: and a closey thought, the anti-wall street protests that have spread around the country? what are you-- any-- any identifying with their frustration? what do you think? >> i think a lot of people recognize that there's a great deal of frustration in this country. you've got millions and millions of americans who can't find work. people have stopped looking for work. people have part-time jobs and need full-time employ. home values have gone down dramatically. people are upset and angry for good reason. barack obama came in with a very different set of promises, and now three years later, things are worse than he had when he came in. i think even he's admitted people are worse off now. so of course they're angry. i don't know exactly whether or not there's a coalessed
perspective yet from those who are protesting. i can tell you that the i think the president's-- if you will-- divisive addresses, his haves versus the have-notes, the we versus they, that, i think is an unfortunate and potentially dangerous course to take. americ ifrong if we're united. >> woodruff: governor mitt romney, we thank you very much for sitting down and talking to us. >> thanks, judy. >> brown: and that brings us to the analysis of shields and brooks. that's syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. >> listening to that, it struck me that mitt romney is the republican nominee or newt gingrich or santorum, for that matter-- michele bachmann-- we would have for the first time in
70 years that neither party would have anybody at the top of the ticket who had served military service which is really a change. john mccain didn't have to prove how tough he was. >> is that what you saw him doing today? >> that's what you have to do. you have to prove that you can over-compensate for never having served-- or at least compensate if not over-compensate. and i thought that's exactly what he was doing. in the course of the speech today, governor romney, whose foreign policy experience prior to this has been as commander in chief of the great border wars between rhode island and massachusetts, made the point, he said, he's going to reverse the massive defense cuts of barack obama's administration. now, much to the consternation and irritation of liberals and democrats, barack obama has increased defense spending every single year, just as george bush did. so this is kind of a swagger
brag dicchio speech. he had to do it. the economy is what he wants to talk about but he has to address this. >> brown: david, what did you hear? >> i heard pretty much where the republican party is, where the democratic party is. i think we're in a very polarized stage. i don't think on foreign policy and the defense the differences are that real. bui think people will rally arod mitt romney. the republican party is not ideologically divided right now on any issue. what he said today is pretty much where most rb republicans are in foreign people. some want to move out of afghanistan faster, some slower. it's not too much-- on domestic policy, pretty much similar agenda-- tax reform, epititlement reform. he is about where the party is, and so it's not like we're reagan versus rockefeller. it's not like there's some big ideological split. when they get a guy like him who seems like a good executive, who seems basically mature, i think
the party will rally around him, assuming there are no bumps in the road, reasonably easily. >> brown: that's the question. is the party with him now? you heard judy ask, where is the passion? this is a week in which we saw chris christie say he won't run, sarah palin say she won't run. >> certainly the direction since governor christie's announcement in particular of party leadership, of party fund raisers has been very much in governor romney's direction. i don't think there's any question-- but governor romney has to be a little concerned. i mean, here he, is the republican party has a great tradition, and that is if you have run before, we'll put you at the top of the list next time-- it happened with john mccain, bob dole, ronald reagan ran three times. democrats, once and you're out. the democrats make you a nonperson if you run once. the republicans are quite the opposite. david's right. he's put together a good campaign. he's got professional people around him. he's been good in three debates in a row.
he's raised money. he's opinion through it before. he won in massachusetts, which is a tough state, and yet, you saw the republican party, the leadership of the republican party, henry kissinger, nancy reagan, all begging governor christie to get in the race, that they were excited about him. they were like teeny boppers at a justin bieber concert-- "please, governor christie, run." judy's question was, do you excite people, and as of now he doesn't. and i think that has to bother him, but i think he took a step closer to nomination. >> brown: and we saw new attention to herman kane. >> i actually have seen henry kissinger at a justin bieber concert. he's way over top. it's the season. mark talked about this in the past. the primary cycle has its own emotional rhythm. in the early day you go for the guy who gives you the thrill,
whether it's howard dean or herman cain, but then you have to decide who will be president and go with the more established choice. there is no question there is suspicion of romney. there is no question he will never excite people. there will never be passionate support. that's probably pretty healthy, i think, in retrospect. but people are suspicious. what does he believe? they're suspicious about the health care issue, obviously. how could a guy we like get elected in massachusetts? i think at the end of it they'll fit comfortably. it's amazing how much better he is than he was four years ago, just much, much better and that speaks to a process of self-assessment and self-correction, which is pretty impressive. i can't recall seeing a candidate improve that much over four years. >> you mentioned herman cain in such passing. >> you want me to talk about him? >> brown: yes. he's come up in the polls, almost a tie in one poll, number
two in another poll. >> he's a really attractive personality. he's happy. he's funny. he's smart. he's a good personality. when the debates turn to him, you're sort of like, i'll listen. it's fun. and then he's got this 999 plan, which i happen to think is of the right size. i might have some quibbles with it on policy terms, but he says we've got this big mess. slets a simple plan, 9% income tax, 9% korm rat tax, 9% sales tax. it's simple. it's a big change. it's of the right scope of what we need to have a pro growth policy. >> brown: he's not taken seriously. >> herman cain, david touched on this. there are two kinds of conservatives. there are those who it's gloomy, it's doomed and it's going to get worse. there are enough of those running on the republican side.
then there's the conservatives like jack kemp and ronald reagan. herman cain, very much-- he's no jack kemp and no ronald reagan-- but he's very much in the second camp. he's likable. he's appealing. he's not electable. let's be very blunt about this. this is a man who has never run for library board. he's never been on a general election ballot about anything. republicans rail and rant about barack obama's lack of experience having served in the senate for four years when he ran for president in 2008, and it's not plausible talking about somebody who whose one electoral challenge was a republican primary he lost two to one. >> brown: another thing that got a lot of attention, and judy asked governor romney about it at the end, are the wall street protests. how big a deal do you think it is? >> i'm skeptical. there are a couple of hundred
people here and there so i'm skeptical that they'll have mass rallies. i think they tap into a couple of issues-- student loans. and the second thing is wall street. i think you don't have to be a left winger to be really angry at wall street. you don't have to be a left winger to think the obama administration should have broken up those banks. they're too big to manage, too big to fail and self-contradictory the way they have to deal with themselves. there's a lot of legitimate hostility, which i think they do represent one part of the teem of many of the motifs of the protest which bug me is the motif that it's 99% pure, 1% evil. that's not the problem with merge. you can't solve the debt problem by taxing the 1%, you can't fix medicare by tax the 1%. you can't fix any of our problems by saying it's the 1%. the problem is all of us. and so just saying oh, it's--
we're pure and virtuous and it's that evil 1%. it's silly. it's scapegoating and that's just a moteff of theirs which is,un, it's just a side show. >> brown: but does it have the potential to grow into a larger movement that actually impacts politics? >> since cries of 2008, every reporting tells you two things-- there are two targets of rage the american voters feel, washington, d.c., and wall street. the tea party addressed washington, d.c. they continent lay a hand on wall street. and nor has either party. certainly the republicans haven't. the democrats have taken limited measures. that is sitting there. these are the people who were the architects and the engineers of the financial crisis, with their exotic, erotic, whatever they were, self-financing, and self-prospering instruments that nobody else understood. they made nothing. they contributed nothing to the
country. they made deals for themselves. and once they got in trouble, they turned to firefighters and nurses and waitresses and small business people to bail them out. so is it legit? you better believe it's legit? is it for real? is there a tradition in this country of protests and citizenses outrage, leading to real changes, whether abolition, prohibition, civil rights, antiwar, there sure is. i think they've touched something. i really do. and i think it's real. whether a leader will emerge, i don't know. the tea party did pretty well without a leader. tom galligan the analyst sead mada great point. he said if the democrats lose in 2012, this group will have an enormous influence on the democratic party. they will provide energy charge to organized labor trying to hook up to them. the democrats are trying to hook up to them at this point. >> brown: you get the last
word here. there are many calls where is the tea party of the left? >> i would be careful. i think the radicalism would scare away more people than attract. to be fair to the tea party. they made the point, it's not wall street and washington. the two are intermingled and that was the tea party's central theme that these two people are in bed with each other which is why we haven't seen fundamental banking reform. >> brown: thanks as always. >> warner: again, the major developments of the day: a federal task force reported p.s.a. blood tests for prostate cancer are unnecessary for healthy men. the u.s. economy added 100,000 jobs in september, but the unemployment rate stayed above 9%. and the nobel peace prize went to three women's rights and peace activists in africa and the middle east. and to kwame holman for what's on the newshour online. kwame. >> holman: watch an extended version of our interview with mitt romney later this evening. and paul solman weighs in on today's jobs numbers on our
"making sense" page. plus, a program note-- this week's special edition of "need to know" focuses on the millions of americans trying to cope with the changing world of work. in this excerpt, reporter john larson visits a former auto parts worker in ohio. >> a steady, everyday job was clyde wilson's goal. after being lads off for nearly a year and a half, he finally got another job. he workdz the overnight shift, 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., at a local manufacturing plant that makes milk cartons, not the best shift for someone with heart disease who is approaching 60 but he's very grateful for it. he now earns about $45,000 a year, 10,000 less than he used to. he gets no pension, retirement, or health care benefits. clyde pays $800 a month out of his pocket for his family's health insurance, which takes a huge chunk out of his income. what's more, this job was only supposed to last six months. and now he's approaching nine.
>> right now, i don't know day to day if i'm going to have a job tomorrow. >> reporter: how long do you think you've got one? >> i couldn't say. i really don't know. it's very fearful not knowing. i'm afraid to buy anything, purchase anything, to do anything right now because i don't know what's going to happen. >> holman: "need to know" airs this week on most pbs stations. you can find a link to that story and much more on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. margaret. >> warner: and that's the newshour for tonight. on monday, we'll have a conversation with anita hill about gender and race. i'm margaret warner. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online, and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> chevron. this is the power of human energy. >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy productive life. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.