tv Charlie Rose PBS September 4, 2012 12:00pm-1:00pm EDT
welcome to our program this week from charlotte, north carolina linea, the site of democratic in the convention. we talk politics beginning with mark halperin of "time" magazine. >> there's a lot of energy here, these are the hard-core democrats. energy sizing the base, and for those undecided voters or those persuadable voters who are looking for a president to inspire them, that is still a gap between mitt romney, even after tampa, and a relatively strong convention in some ways, and barack obama. and can remind people of that. we want our president to be a bigger than life, exciting figure. the last three people we elected fit that bill. and that is, again, a big advantage for barackb tgeheta so remind people of. >> rose: we continue with governor martin o'malley of larnd, arising star in the democratic party.
>> i hope that we make the case that america's best days are still in front of us. if we continue to make better choices, if we continue to make the investments our parents and grandparents made in our nation so that we can create jobs, and expand opportunity. and that's what i hope comes out of this convention. and then there's a lot of cynicism in the world. and there are a lot of our neighbors who are still hurting. and a lot of us have stopped believing that america's best days are in front of us. and i hope what we're able to do is underscore those areas where we actually are making progress creating jobs and getting our country out of this bad recession. >> rose: we conclude this evening with antonio villa rog osa, chairman of the democratic national convention and co-chair of president obama's presidential campaign. >> we know that social security isn't the reason why we got here. we got here primarily because we were in two wars that we didn't take it. we got here because the bush tax cut primarily, it's true we got here because of the banking crisis and all of
the rest of that. in terms of the size of the deficit, now what the president is willing to do is, he's willing to have a bipartisan discussion around social security but it won't be privatizing security in the way that romney and ryan have proposed in the past. it will be a bipartisan effort that's balanced, that protects seniors in a way that kports with our values and who we are. >> halperin, o'malley, when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following
convention kicks off tomorrow in charlotte, north carolina it gives the democrats a chance to make their case and showcase their candidate. the much anticipated line-up of speakers includes first lady michelle obama and former president bill clinton. the convention concludes on thursday with vice president joe biden and finally the president and his acceptance speech. joining me now in charlotte, mark halperin, the editor at large for "time" magazine. >> welcome. i need to introduce to you-- i need not introduce to you this program and this audience but it is a good way to start, you know. tell me what ought to come out of this convention? what should the democrats hope to accomplish in the same way the republicans hope to do two things, one is to define the good things and the likable things about mitt romney and at the same time, suggest to those democrats who like barack obama but might be willing to change why they should change. >> i think from talk together democrats, both those working for the president and other smart democrats i think there is three broad things. one is to put the frame on
mitt romney, the negative frame on him in a way that does not seem mean-spirited, that does not seem challengeable in the facts. just to sort of say this is what mitt romney is all about. because they must do that. they've done a pretty good job. >> rose: what mitt romney is all about or what mitt romney and paul ryan's program and plans are all about. >> well, both. i mean their research continues to show that if you link mitt romney's biography, his vast wealth, his overseas holdings, talking about outsourcing, if you link that to their policy, that is the most effective. so they need to do that but i think in a way that is not mean-spirited and stays away from the personal as much as possible. second i think it's clear that they are going to use this opportunity to do something which is to talk more about the second term. they held that pretty close. we will see how specific that gets. and the last thing i think is they need to recapture some of the magic of 2008. the president's personal popularity is why he, his job approval is higher than it is.
it's why he has got a chance to win re-election above almost anything else, given the economy. so i think his speech will be important. bill clinton's speech will be important. the first lady's speech will be important in saying to people, you know what, you like a president who has got a little bit of magic, sizzle, a little bit of possibility. though it's nothing like 2008 in many ways, the reality is i think the president will be pretty electric and i think those other two speeches will be as well. maybe more electric and more connecting than anything we saw in tampa. >> rose: so you believe that it's possible that they can come out of this convention and people will say i feel some of the spirit that i felt, that change is possible. >> i remember what it is like. now it's a tall order in a lot of ways for almost half of the country, who isn't going vote for him under any circumstances. we are dealing with a small group. but in terms of energizing the base, from being here for two days, there's a lot of energy here. these are the hard-core democrats but they are reflective of something.
energizing the base and for those undecided voters and persuadable voters who are look for a president to inspire them, that is still a gap between mitt romney, even after tampa, and a relatively strong convention in some ways. and barack obama and can remind people of that. we want our president to be a bigger than life, exciting figure. the last three people we elected fit that bill and that is again a big advantage for barack obama that he can use this stage to remind people of. >> rose: this is clinton, bush and obama, the last three people elected. >> those guys were all more charismatic and filled-- gave the country a sense of possibility more than governor romney for all of hits strengths has been able to do so far. and the convention i think was his big chance to do that. and i don't think he reached that part of. >> rose: is it too late if he didn't reach it then? >> i think it's too late to do it in a way that-- that allowed him to equalize things on that. can still win without it but i think he had a chance to make it more equal, to come
across as a more magical figure. i think de to some extent but my sense is not quite enough. >> rose: you are saying there is something, narrative is one thing and we all talked about that in 2008 and the absence of narrative in 2012. there is something abou about-- there's something in the air about a campaign that makes you think it's full of something beyond policy. >> poetry, imagination, a sense that we're going to be lead by someone great. now again i don't want to be misunderstood. governor romney has a lot of positive attributes. there were things presented in tampa that i think went to this-- went to this factor. but barack obama just, i think, has the possibility with this stage to remind people, on that score, on that metric, he is a superior political performer. >> is it possible, this campaign will somehow get focused on the notion that governor romney wants to take his back to something? and president obama wants to take us forward to something?
>> if david axelrod and the president have their way, for sure. that is a -- >> romney can talk about values that were what made america great and that resonates with people and that's looking back to appreciate those values. >> there is no question. but what is at issue is, i think, a sense of being modern and being part of the times in which we live. >> right. >> and i think it's also a sense of, how we're going to deal with the choices the country faces. now don't get me wrong, my biggest concern for the country right now is neither of these well-meaning, smart politicians is laying the groundwork to deal with the fiscal cliff and the big challenges we're going to face in january. >> rose: an talk about it in a political campaign. >> i mean, i hope we can at least in the debates but we certainly aren't now. we didn't in tampa. we're not going to here in any meaningful way. but, there's a way in which the obama campaign wants to talk about mitt romney, which is that he will take us back. and that values are about who pays more in taxes,
whose programs get cut more than any traditional american value. >> but the interesting thing is you got to connect who you are inside to what your policies are, if you can make that connection, you're better off. >> and neither barack obama in 2008 nor barack obama this time around nor mitt romney this time around is doing that at the level that bill clinton, george bush and ronald reagan did. and in that sense, it's been one of barack obama's biggest weaknesses. he's been an opaque figure. he has not had the theory of the case as you said connects where he comes from, what he believes in with the policies. >> rose: person to policy. >> yeah. so they're evenly matched i think on that level. what the president's campaign has been better at so far is doing the negative version of romney which is to connect his personal story and his vast wealth to his policies in a negative. >> i don't think making a
lot of money, the president made a lot of money, by the way. >> he has. >> but not tied-- not -- the idea of making investments and creates companies does not resonate. i mean the he's the president and attacks made by the obama team have been able to somehow make that negative rather than a positive. >> well, look, why is the president -- >> through staples and sports authorities and all those businesses that created jobs. it does not overcome what the negative is. >> so far, why is the president still ahead in most polls. >> rose: a good question. >> two reasons, i think, bun is he is personally po pop-- popular. and the other is governor romney has not taken the negative frame on his business career and his personal wealth. >> rose: and why not. it'sard to do? >> they're-- well, to some extent they have been overmatched in resources. to some extent it's because, i think the romney campaign has not confronted early enough and often enough that
negative frame because it has a lot of resonance. i mean i said this before. if you said to david axelrod 20 years ago some day are you-- or ten years ago, some day you will be helping someone run for re-election for president what are some things you would like to be true about your republican opponent. he wouldn't have dreamed of saying, an ira with $20 million in it. swiss bank account, cayman island investments, a car elevator. i mean these are things that are biographical facts that just, you couldn't imagine. and they've not, i don't believe they've overcome that yet. now that having been said, the sort of general view i'm getting, stronger now than even in tampa is if romney is going to win this, none of these things matter. the electoral college calculations don't matter, it is going to be a sweepup. we don't want four more years of the obama economy. and so what we could look back and say, all this stuff about bain and car elevators, doesn't matter. >> rose: do you think that will be the way we look back
at it or not, or less so. >> that somehow their emphasis that are you better off than you were four years ago t will be in the end, whatever face you want to use, at the end of the day. >> when all is said and done. i've been on this show once or twice before. i don't think i have ever given this answer. i have no idea. my gut still tells me that the president's superior skills and electoral college advantage will allow him to win. but i wouldn't be at least surprised if governor romney broke 300 electoral votes because that wave of economic discontent. >> that su a landslide, by the way. >> i wouldn't be surprised-- . >> rose: if it is either tight or a landslide. >> i think a tight or decent obama win or romney landslide. >> rose: what could change it to make it that way. >> look, the president is not at 50% in most of these battleground states. and so what could change is that, that romney performs well enough in the debates that people say we don't like the economy. this guy seems good enough. and there's just a-- like
with president reagan. i don't think that's going to to happen because the president is not jimmy carter in a thousand ways. but i think that is in play. >> rose: or john mccain or anybody else that had that issue. >> yeah. but so you are saying to me that if, in fact, the republican nominee in this election year, 2012 could present himself as a plausible alternative, that might be able to do what president hasn't been able to do, then the likelihood that might go with it, if can pass that threshold of saying it's okay to vote for me because i can do things that the president can't do. >> in the abstract. if you look at all the people who didn't run who we talk about as strong candidates, mike huckabee, mitch daniels, haley barbour, jeb bush, chris christie. i can tell you not 100% accurate but pretty decently what the negative frame ot bama people would have run on. >> rose: on any one.
>> on any one. and governor romney having run once before, having survived a republican process that he was ill suited for, i think he may be the strongest, for all the flaws he has. i don't know that any of them-- . >> rose: i would argue that he is because simply he got the nomination. >> he step mood it, and he step mood the arena. but those other guys,-- the one person it might not be true of is mitch daniels. mitch daniels was bush's budget director that say negative against him. >> rose: same with rob portman. >> but i think mitch daniels may have been the one who could have matched up very well with the president on this score. and been considered an acceptable, a more than acceptable alternative. >> rose: jeb bush, what was his limiting factor other than the fact that his brother -- >> of not wanting to run or why he would have been weak. >> rose: yeah, assuming that he had gotten a nomination. >> on paper i think we have been very tongue-- very strong. i think the bush issues might have tied him up. but i think-- . >> rose: i think america is smarter than that. they will not blame him whether they like the
brother or not. >> i think we have been real strong. i don't think he considered him so i put him in a different category. he didn't have the fire in the belly. but had he had, i think jeb bush would have been a superstrong candidate. >> rose: do you know who agrees with that. >> david axelrod. >> he would have had the kind of crossover appeal. one of the weaknesses of mitt romney on both a can demographic score and an electoral college score, he's not showing very much crossover appeal. you know, he needs people who voted for obama but not democrats. think about bill clinton in '92, george bush in 2000, barack obama in 2008. part of why, a big part of why they were so foremidable is there were people in the other party who thought i will vote for them maybe or i will. and they could say bush could say maybe we'll put california in play or new jersey in play. even if you don't eventually, you're playing off it. mitt romney is not trying to win new jersey or oregon or states that once upon a time-- . >> rose: he's trying to win wisconsin. >> that's true. but that is a state george bush almost won twice.
and i don't think he would be if he didn't pick paul ryan. but you don't hear a lot of democrats out there who say boy, i'm really attracted. there is a possibility of a romney president really excites me. he's trying to energy size the base and compete, he is not approaching and i think jeb bush would have done that. how bad does barack obama want this. >> well badly, he wants it because he is competitive there is a lot of commentary on that, he think as romney's policies are dead wrong. >> rose: he has a strong feeling. >> and he wants to dot big things he wasn't able to do in a first term. >> rose: like? >> well, like deal with the deficit, the republicans will chortle when they hear me say that but he definitely wants to do that. >> rose: -- the piece in "the new yorker" magazine, climate control and --. >> he wants to do climate control. he wants to do deficit reform, tax reform. >> rose: they say tax reform is not sexy. >> everything will have to be in a grand bargain to deal with the fiscal cliff
is big stuff. the president likes to do big things so tax reform, entitlement reform. >> rose: does he like big things. >> he has so far. >> health care and foreign policy. >> the auto bailout, you know, he's gone for big things. >> rose: when it comes at the end of the day the auto bailout will be a big thing l it not. because it shows that he was prepared, even though there are some people, and james car ville will tell you this, think that government bailouts is not a great idea. >> it is not maybe nationally but part of why the president has an advantage, maybe the biggest single thing because the electoral college is the single biggest thing s until governor romney puts one of the following three states in play, ohio, michigan or pennsylvania, his electoral college pass is narrow. >> rose: ohio isn't in play, or not. >> you talk to some republicans, and the auto industry issue is big there. the economy is better there. and romney is not a great ohio candidate culturally. >> rose: even though, you know, they have the governor and they've got-- one of the senators. >> yeah, he's just not a great ohio candidate.
and there are republicans who are looking at a lot of polling data who say we really need a path, we are not sure we can win ohio, and the auto bailout is a part of it. >> if you don't put michigan or pennsylvania in play, it's there. but it's exceedingly narrow. >> rose: i thought they had already said michigan was over. >> well, some of them have, in fact. and pennsylvania too. but if you take ohio off. >> i'm talking about they being political experts. >> even people in governor romney's campaign have suggested that. if you take those three off, you're leaving yourself no margin of error. you basically have to win virginia, colorado, nevada, a whole bunch of states that are right now not particularly in governor romney's pocket. >> rose: so obama could win the electoral college and lose the popular vote? >> could but i doubt it. >> rose: so what's the weakness of them beyond the economy? i mean what is it that he's vul never-- vulnerable on. >> in terms of electorate. >> rose: yeah. >> i think on the merits, he will have trouble making the case that he can work with
republicans to get things done. and they'll almost certainly be a republican controlled house. and lots of republican senators. if people want a solution and we need a solution because of the fiscal cliff, it's hard for the president to make that case. and governor romney has started to make that case. it's not effortless for him to make it either given the kind of partisan effort he has run so far in a lot of ways but that is a vulnerable. and i think a general sense, not just of a bad economy but of a long trek, i think the most effective line bar nun at the republican convention, paul ryan saying why would you expect the next four years to be different than the last four years. >> this election, presidential election was a referendum on health-care reform. >> uh-huh. >> rose: who wins? >> the republicans win. it will be interesting to see how the president talks about that. it continues to be the case that you're to the going to see very many democrats in other races advertised on health care. >> rose: so on health-care reform, republicans win.
>> i would say if it's purely that but it's not going to be. >> rose: why wouldn't you make that a center piece if that say winning -- >> republicans. >> yeah. >> they will in a lot of races including the presidential race. but they have not filled in very much. and one of the biggest valid criticisms even from some on the right of tampa was it didn't fill in very much about what they would do. they just mostly spent time saying mitt romney is a great guy, barack obama's policy are horrible. >> another reason for the democrats to do it in this convention because it want done that much. >> i think they are happy that door was opened. the bar is so low on that that the president i think could unveil just a couple of things. >> rose: back in a moment. martin o'malley here, the governor of maryland, also chairman of the democratic governor's association. he is considered a rising star by the party. many believe he will run for national office after his term as governor concludes in 2014. that probably means 2 016. this week he is in charlotte to rally support for president obama. i'm pleased to have him with
us on the eve of the democratic convention on this program for the first time. welcome. great to you have here. >> great to be with you. >> i admire your work. >> thank you. >> let's talk first about what ought to come out of this convention. what do you hope in your fondest dreams comes out of this democratic convention in my home state. >> well, i hope that we make the case that america's best days are still in front of us. if we continue to make better choice, if we continue to make the investments our parents and grandparents made in our nation so that we can create jobs, and expand opportunity. and that's what i hope comes out of this convention. there is a lot of cynicism in the world and a lot of our neighbors who are still hurting and a lot of us have stopped believing that america's best days are in front of us. and i hope what we're able to do is underscore those areas where we actually are making progress, creating jobs and getting our country out of this bad recession. >> rose: what do we have to do to be that and do that? >> fortunately the facts are on our side. i mean we've had 29 months
in a row. >> rose: america's side i'm talking about, not the democratic party. >> on america's side and also on the side of those of us as democrats who are makingct art that our country is actually better than we were before, that we're moving in a better direction than we were before, 29 months in a row of positive private sector job growth, the industrial sector actually expanding and creating jobs for the first time since the 1990s. foreclosures are lower now than they were before president obama was sworn in. >> but at the same time that is a problem that has not gone away. housing may have turned around. there is still a big foreclosure issue as you know. lots of people have houses that are underwater for them and they don't knows what's going to happen, that's number one. number two, the president himself would have said two years ago, i can't imagine unemployment will be at 8% when i'm running for re-election. >> well, hey, look, i think most of us underestimated just what a deep recession we were dealt by the bad choices of the bush
administration. and our state in maryland, we've now finally gotten to that point. and some states are ahead of others. but we finally got to a point where our home values are actually rising again. so we've driven foreclosures down with the president's help, home values are rising. the unemployment is certainly lower than it was three years ago. and not as low as we need to drive it. >> rose: do you believe the economy would be in better shape if the president had not decided that he had to go for health-care reform because the time was right, he had the majority in both houses of congress and it was the time to move on health care. >> well, let's-- i think that there was what i think on health care. i think the president as a party can make the argue that we should have made that when small businesses and family-owned businesses are parting with an additional 15%, 17%, 20% every year for their health
care, they cannot invest those dollars in promoting their business and expanding jobs. i think we failed as a party for the president to make that economic argument. >> rose: why do you think health care became a driving force in the 2010 election? >> because it's the biggest drag on our discretionary capital that we need to actually reinvest in our businesses, reinvest in training, reinvest in a work foferments i mean if you look at the things that are actually driving this deficit, 55% of it are the bush tax cuts that benefitted millionaires and billionaires. another 13, 14% were these unfunded wars. the rest of it in terms of government, a lot of those costs were driven by rising health-care costs. and with businesses, the same thing happened. they were being eroded and so they were left to shove their employees off with heal care or part with more money they could have put in promotion of jobs. >> rose: speak of unfunded
wars. did you support the surge when the president decided after a long afghan-pakistan review that he had to put more, 80,000 more men and women on the ground in afghanistan? >> i did. and i can't wait to see our troops come home from afghanistan. i believe that the president did the right thing in getting our troops out of iraq. and i go to a lot of line of duty funerals, charlie. a lot of gf nevers do. nothing will make me happier than to have those men and women home. >> what's the president's, is there an obama doctrine s there a foreign policy you can look at and say here, i understand what the president is doing in foreign policy. >> well, i think the-- i think what we understand, what i see the president doing in foreign policy is recognizing the america's greatest power is its power of our principals,
that-- principleses, that we're recognized as a great nation because of our commitment to liberty, freedom, justice, equal rights, for men and women. and i think that the president understands that and i think his foreign policy is one of an enlightened engagement with other cultures and nations of the world. and i believe that that is really bhas's in america's best interest. >> give me a sense of how you see where america is, and what it needs to do in the next ten years to be all that it can be. >> i think we need to return to our true selves. our parents and grandparents understood that powerful truth about our yes, that the stronger we make her, the more she gives back to us, and the more she gives back to our children, and our grandchildren. and i believe that over these last ten years we have greatly undercapitalized the power of the american dream. in our public sector we have failed to invest in those
basic pillars of economic growth that has made the united states the greatest job generating and opportunity expanding-nation on the planet. >> fair enough. that's what i want to talk about, america having to do with education and climate change and infrastructure and science and all those things. >> absolutely. >> that will give people an opportunity to believe in the future. >> right. >> because too many people are living at home and too many people see the next generation not having the same advantage that they had, that has to do with the psyche of the united states today. >> it absolutely does. but you know, our parents did not, you know, the things that they created, that our grandparents created were not done for free. we need to be, we need to invest-- i mean i once saw tom freedman who is from maryland speak to the national governors. and i saw him talk about the five pillars that have made us a great nation. you know, one of them is the fact that we always invest more in every again raise in higher and better education for every generation.
>> right. the second one, the investments we make and can only make together in the infrastructure that undergirds our commerce and our country, the roads, the clean water infrastructure and the like. the third one are the investments we make in research and development. >> right. >> the fourth one is a balanced and predictable rule of law and the fifth one is a rational immigration policy. i mean there are other ways to formulate that. but i think all of it points to the traditional disciplines that other generations had. right now i think too many of us want to be told we can eat cake and lose weight. we want all the benefits of being americans but we don't want to pay for them or pay attention. >> you sound like paul ryan when you say that. >> do i. >> rose: i means that's what the deficit is about. >> god help mement i don't want to sound like paul ryan. >> rose: you know what i mean. >> that we have a deficit and there are people saying we don't do something about a deficit that is fueled by the entitlement obligations that we have -- >> this is what a disagree with paul ryan. >> rose: tell me.
>> they're not fueled the deficits are not fueled primarily by entitlements. >> rose: what percentage of the federal budget over the next five years will be devoted to paying the interest rate and our obligation to social-- security. >> the way that pie chart breaks down,-- it is a great question. 55% of our deficit is driven by bush era tax cuts. >> rose: the revenues not coming in from the tax cuts for the wealthy, that's not the biggest. >> actually t is, it really is. >> rose: i thought the biggest chunk of revenue came -- >> go ahead, tell me -- 5% of the deficit is driven by bush era tax cuts disproportionately benefitting millionaires and billionaires, 14% from the wars that for the first time in our nation's history we didn't pay for while we were fighting them. and the remainder is the rest of the budget. the best way to reduce the deficit is to grow our economy. people forget the president
clinton didn't retire the reagan deficit in one term. >> rose: from what if the o-- obama wants to tax the wealthy and what governor romney wants to tax the wealthy, how much of a difference is that difficult news-- give us in the fight to reduce our deficit. >> it's a substantial difference and i can't quote to you-- . >> rose: but is it significant. >> it is very significant. i mean-- it is very significant. i mean you look at paul ryan's budget. here's another disagreement with paul ryan. under paul ryan's budget, mitt romney himself would pay less than 1% in income tax, which for all we know could be-- . >> rose: because of the deductions he gets or -- >> because of the way the paul ryan's budget loads up and forgives any sort of payment in taxes for people that make their income from investments and-- . >> rose: is the issue here fairness or is it the amount of revenue you would get, which is it? >> fairness or the amount of
revenue you get. i think-- . >> rose: meaning that the people who have been the most-- benefitted the most from america ought to pay more, rather than what they pay will dramatically change our deficit picture. >> is it fairness or is it -- >> i don't look at it as fairness, i look at it as doing the things that work. and i disagree with some people in my party. i'm more concerned about growing opportunity. i'm more concerned-- the opportunity argument i think is the most compelling. i mean we know we're undercapitalizing the potential of america to create jobs. we know from the traffic congestion from crumbling bridges, bridges falling into rivers, levees that don't protect people in new orleans. >> rose: and those are investments. >> those are investments. also that create jobs. i mean there are pillars of this, of this economy of ours that is both private sector and public sector. and if you have pillars in the private sector like the banking industry crumbling and falling part, are you not going to keep your
economy up. on the same respect, if you are not investing in your infrastructure and education on the public side, your economy is go og to fall apart as well. you need to have both of those pillars. and you need to have them strengthened in balance in order to make our economy move forward as it did for our parents and grandparents. >> rose: why is it that if you look at the polls, president obama does bet we are women and governor romney does better with men. >> well, i think there's many reasons for that. i think on the largest level, i believe that president obama's vision for our country is one where freedoms are enjoyed more equally and more fully by all citizens. that's why president obama signed lilly ledbetter into law as his first bill, so that equal pay for women and that's why so many on the republican side voted
against it. and opposed it. you see many of the republican governors passing very regressive sorts of measures to reduce women's rights. and take us back as a country. but the other reason is, so many of the sort of safety net issues, so many of those social commitments we've made in order to become a more compassionate and humane country, whether it's our commitment to people in their golden years in terms of the guarantee of medicare or whether it's to programs as basic and as supported and bipartisan ways like food stamps, effect women and women with children. and when you pull the rug, especially in these tough economic times out from under medicare, or food stamp programs as the ryan budget would, that disproportionately affects women and
disproportionately-- . >> rose: so it's an economic argument. >> it is definitely an economic argument and freedom argument. >> rose: cath likes in america. >> some of my best friends. >> rose: i know they are. are you one of them. will the democrats win the catholic voteness i think we will. i do. >> rose: there has been a littlivity between cardinal dolan and the president. >> you know,. >> rose: i have been wit tons that. >> that would be-- the sisters always turn out for the democrats. and the monsignors and bishops always stay for the republican. >> rose: same thing. >> same thing. and that was-- . >> rose: ed nuns are with -- >> so governor o'malley is here to say the nuns are with us. >> the nuns are with us. and that was actually robert kennedy that said that many years ago. because the nuns would always turn out with our we love bobby signs. and one of the quippes he would say that. yeah, social justice, the
feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, providing shelter for the homeless. >> rose: that is. >> that is the church i believe in. i believe in the beatitudes and the corporal works of mercy. and i believe in the dignity of every individual. >> rose: you a believe the church with the views on abortion that it does or on divorce that it does is the church you believe in. >> i think, i am, you you know, i do believe in greatly value my faith. i also believe that sometimes the hierarchy of our church fails to recognize that those of us who perform the public service of making sure that our laws treat people equally under the law, and that we protect religious liberty, have to be-- have to be mindful of the fact that we are a diverse
country. that we're a country of many different faiths. and i think sometimes i think that some members of the hierarchy lose track of that. but i do believe that catholics will support president obama because i mean look, look at the-- . >> rose: there are more nuns than priests. >> you look at the medicare. i heard james carville say, tell you what, we would rather have the nuns than the bishops, frankly, because the people are more likely to listen what the nuns have to say. >> rose: i just read this today, i didn't see t i was not watching sunday television yesterday. but did you get into a little bit of trouble on. i'm giving you an opportunity to explain yourself. >> i was a victim of a word supplies. >> rose: what did you do. >> i was asked if we're better off now than we were four years ago. >> rose: what did you say. >> and i immediately started to-- to the fact that we
haven't recovered all of the jobs we lost in the recession. and we haven't. what i should have said was look, we're clearly better because we're now creating jobs as a country, instead 6 losing jobs. but we haven't yet recovered everything that we lost in the bush recession. and both of those things are true. >> rose: so if the republican goes around the country as they did saturday an sunday and say using the reagan line against carter, are you better off today than four years ago, you say bring them on. we can make that argument. we're happy to contest on that battlefield. >> yes. we are better off as a country but we need to continue to move forward because there's still too many people looking for work and in need of jobs. but we've made clearly made progress from recovering from the worst recession that we've suffered as a nation since the great depression. we need to continue to move forward and not back.
>> rose: you mentioned robert kennedy. tell me who your political hero is or political heroes, people whose-- whose approach to politics resonated with you and made you think about, this may be a place i want to go. >> well, i mean one of them, one of them is robert kennedy. and another one is gary hart, whom i worked for for seven years throughout his presidential campaigns. another person is senator dd in the state of maryland who has a tremendous work ethic and treats every person that approaches her with a problem as if it's the most important thing in the world. >> she hasn't forgotten the neighborhood, has she. >> she has never forgotten the neighborhood and she understands that these jobs are jobs of public service. they might be public trust and they're very, you know, they're honorable titles to
have. but they're at their core service. and those are some of the people that have motivated me. and i also greatly admire, you know, franklin roosevelt, teddie-- teddy roosevelt, greatly admire lincoln. >> i hope we can consider this as we follow the campaign. governor o'malley from maryland, back in a moment, stay with us. we continue in charlotte with the mayor of los angeles antonio villaraigosa, the chairman of the democratic national convention and co-chair of president obama's re-election campaign. i'm pleased to have him on this program again. >> it's great to be on the show with you, again. so if the republicans felt that their mission was to define mitt romney, and somehow give the story of why people who voted for president obama in 2008 should vote now for governor
romney if that was their mission, what is the democrat's mission? >> i think our mission is to tell the story that we're better off today than when president obama was elected. we're better off because as you remember, we lost 800,000 jobs the month before he got sworn in. they lost 3.5 million jobs, six months going into that. he's had 29 consecutive months of a growing private sector job creation, about four and a half million jobs. we're better off today because he said he would get us out of the war in iraq and he has. he's beginning to the withdrawal from afghanistan. we're better off today because 32 million people have health care that didn't have it before. we're better off today because this president has chartered a path to cut $4
trillion in deficit but do so in a balanced way, doing it in a way by restoring the taxes-- the top 2 percent had during the clinton years when we had $23 million jobs created, when we went from deficit to surpluses. >> as you know, at the republican national convention closed, paul ryan has been going to a number of places. yesterday, today and saying are you better off today than you were four years ago. on the assumption that the countries were soft today that than four years ago, and most people feel that because the economy has not recovered and they expected it to recover after four years of the obama administration. >> well, paul ryan doesn't have a lot of credibility right now. i think many of you pointed out that paul ryan said, spoke to simpson bowles, said the president didn't
adopt a framework along the lines of the recommendations made by that commission, even though he didn't support it either. >> he didn't vote for it. in fact, his proposal has been criticized because all it deals with is the spending cut, not the tax, the taxes that we need to raise to address our deficit. now what's important-- . >> rose: what issue do you think the president should raise, we talked about the taxes on those people who made -- >> sumpson bowls would have cut, would have raised taxes on the middle class. the president rejected that. instead said let's not extend the bush tax cuts beyond when they expire. he said that because he knows that if we don't do that, if we do what romney and ryan would like to do, that is cut $5 trillion in taxes, it's going to force us to raise taxes on its middle class. >> rose: my question is the
president is in favor of extending for two years the bush tax cut force the middle class. >> yes. >> rose: simply opposes those for the top 1%. >> you-- you hit it right on the head, top 2%. >> rose: its president will extend the bush tax cuts on one hand but not on those people, highest income people in america. >> that's exactly right. that's the difference between the romney ryan plan. by the way, they talk a lot about the deficit charlie, what they don't say is that the romney ryan plan will take 29 years to solve the deficit. they-- it is a little thing that me-- . >> rose: how many years will it take for president obama's proposal. >> it will be much shorter than that. >> rose: 10 years, 20 year, 15 years. >> probably somewhere around 15. but i don't have an exact number. i do know because they haven't analyzed that, what i do know is that his plan would take about, almost three decades. >> rose: will the president lay out the future in this convention. >> without question.
he will play out his plan for its deficit, his plan for job creation, and by the way, moody analytic, do you know where mr. romney got the 12 million number, as you know, he talked about creating 12 million jobsment didn't say how he was going to do it. the president in in distinction will, but moody analytics, separate, independent of the president has said if we stay the course with respect to what we're doing in the economy and make the kind of investments that the president has said, we'll greet about $12 million over a four year period of time. >> what entitlements do you think the president believes we should cut? or reduce. >> well-- health care? >> the president's efforts have already extended medicare. i think the president said this. we know that social security isn't the reason why we got here. we got here primarily because we were in two wars, that we didn't pay for. we got here because of the bush tax cuts, primarily.
now it's true we also got here because of the banking crisis and all of the rest of that. in terms of the size of the deficit. now what the president is willing to do is willing to have a bipartisan discussion around social security. but it won't be privatizing security in the way that romney and ryan have proposed in the past it will be a bipartisan effort that is balanced, that protects seniors in a way that kports with our values and who we are. >> rose: most people believe this election is very close and will remain so until you get to 9 debates and forward to see if someone breaks out is that your analysis. >> absolutely. i have been saying this for a year. the country is evenly divided. it's going to be a very close election. you see we're leading in 12 of 13, maybe all 13 or certainly within the margin of error in all 13 states. the democrats are leading. but it's-- very, very close.
they have super pacs that are anonymous. but we're talking 1.3 billion dollars that they're expected to raise. and as you saw, as we've seen in their commercials, the welfare commercials an example, they don't let the troops get in the way of the facts. nd so we expect that we're going to have a tough election. we also believe that gauging the enthusiasm of the volunteers who have gotten behind this campaign over the last year, the enthusiasm of the people here at the convention, the enthusiasm in the swing states including this great state of northcarolina, we think we're going to get our people out to vote. in addition to that, we have the most expansive and deep ground operation. those are volunteers. >> did is within the martin of 1.-- beyond the martin of error.
we've got our work cut out for us. we won by 14 snou votes last time around-- 14,000 votes. we're going to contest north carolina. a lot of great people in this state and we're going to fight for every vote. >> rose: when you talk about the hispanic vote it's very different vote, different from california to texas, to arizona, to florida, correct? >> yes. but one other thing, we're not just going to have diversity. our platform speaks to those values. so in the case of the republican, they had some great speakers, i've said a number of times that marco rubbio and suzannea martinez were probably the two best speakers at the republican convention, their problem is they have a platform that calls for the deportation of 11 million people. >> that's my point. is the critical issue without painting with too broad a brush for hispanics and the difference in its polling for democrats and republicans, for president bama and governor romney mostly about immigration? >> it's about immigration, yes.
the south deportation of 11 million people. you know, they also brought out chris, the architect of the alabama and arizona law. they had sheriff arpao we have seen him from arizona, riding on his horse, rounding up -- arizonaans who may look like latinos. we've seen a number of comments from governor romney which talk about the dream act as a handout, serving in the military. you know, going to college, and contributing to our nation. the only country you know. when they talk about deportation remember this. they're saying we're going to make conditions so intolerable, so oppressive, so you know, miserable for people that they're going t to-- deport no country has ever deported 11 million people. and this great country will
never do it either. >> rose: do you think they will talk about amnesty during this political campaign? >> i think, we don't have to get-- this is earned legallization. it doesn't have to be amnesties it. has to be-- . >> rose: democrats shy away from that term, earned. >> democrats believe in earned legallization and securing our borders but also providing a pathway. >> rose: and earned legallization is? >> getting at the end of the line. you got to have paid your tax. you can't have committed any serious crimes. those, that's-- you have to have been here for a period of time. those are, that's earned legallization. >> rose: with respect to those people who supported the president but are less enthusiastic this time, do not believe a lot of it is expectation. because the president promised a post partisan beginning when he went to washington it didn't happen for a variety of reasons. dan ball wrote a brilliant piece in the "washington post" tracing what had happened since the president went to washington in 2008.
what do you think happened to bring the dysfunction so that one more trial we are looking at a fiscal cliff. one more time we are looking at a conflict over the debt sealing that may not result in an agreement. >> first of all, i believe there is a great deal of enthusiasm in this election. but let me speak to your question about the president extending the bipartisan hand. again and again he extended a bipartisan hand to the republicans. and senator mcconnell's response was his number one priority was to defeat president obama. yes, there is a great deal of partisanship in the nation. >> rose: if the republicans say the president did to the do enough to reach out to them because they did not have a backup strategy to make sure that they did make some progress in that area. >> well, look, they can say what they say as i understand it. very early on in his administration.
they met, they decided they were going to pose every single effort, every single initiative, every single piece of legislation that the president proposed even when it was bipartisan. even when the ideas had been supported in the past. and they have done that fairly effectively. how do we get beyond the cliff. >> rose: that's the question. >> i remember this. i think they have to lose another election. i think what happens is after they lose this election, they're going to realize that since 1992, they've gone further and further to the right. they're going to have to be able to take on that right fringe in their party. and then democrats are going to have to sit down and say, you know, as many of them have and as the president has said, we've got to put country before party. i believe that there is, that there are people, certainly among its democrats but also among the republicans that would be
willing to do that. but the moderate republicans will have to, they will have to lose an election before the moderates can say they have a right in their party, hey, it didn't work. your way of winning the elections doesn't work because america is in the middle. >> always has been. >> always has been. >> when you look at the same sex marriage, of the president making a change on that, finally saying i've been leaning this way, finally making. >> will that have an electoral impact? >> it might in some places. >> for him or against him. >> i think it will have a positive impact in some places. it will have a negative impact in others but i will say this. you know, people are searching for leaders who are authentic, who are true to their values, have the courage of their conviction. the president was true to his values here. the values as an individual and our values as a party. we've always been a party that wanted to expand rights to more people. i'm here because there was a
voting rights act and a civil rights act. democrats played an important role in achieving those milestones and making this a more per spec union. we believe strongly that marriage is a fundamental liberty and that the government should be in the business of deny-- shouldn't be in the business of denying that marriage of people who love each other. if we really believe in family values, than than marriage ought to be for all families. >> rose: so what worries you? >> the super pacs and the super-- . >> rose: how can they make a difference. >> well, you know, when you have-- it's estimated that they are going to raise 1.3 billion dollars. you said we have some too but we're not-- i done think we are even 50 i would be surprised. and we're not anywhere near them in terms of, they're outraising us, you know. last year,-- in the last months of the campaign. so we are concerned about that.
we do think, however, that we know one thing, we will have enough money to finish this campaign. and two, we are going to have a very important grass roots effort that is going to be unprecedented in any party's history. >> rose: will you have a bigger and better grass roots effort than the republicans. >> and it will be the difference. >> rose: what are your political ambitions. >> work as hard as i can to get this president-elected. >> rose: okay do that. let's assume that work as hard as i can to finish what we started in l.a. i want to right on it i said a number of times i want to ride into the sunset but i want to ride into the sunset with my head up high. >> great to see you. >> rose: good to see you.