November 11, 2012 “MEET THE PRESS” CLIPS & TRANSCRIPT -- SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 11 Mandatory Credit: NBC News’ “Meet the Press”
		Download WEB | HIGH | CART
		| Share

NOVEMBER 11, 2012-- Today's "Meet the Press with David Gregory" featured interviews with NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell; Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and member of the “Gang of Six” during the debt ceiling debate, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK); CNBC’s Jim Cramer; and a roundtable conversation with Rep.-elect Joaquìn Castro (D-TX); Republican strategist Steve Schmidt; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.

As the longest-running television program in the world, "Meet the Press" also celebrated its 65th birthday on today's show.

Below are highlights, video, and a rush transcript of today’s program. All content will be available online at www.MeetThePressNBC.com.

# # #

Woodward re: if Petraeus had to testify on Benghazi

BOB WOODWARD: I think it would essentially back up the White House. And there are still unanswered questions and so forth, but one of the things Petraeus always did was dig deep. And so apparently there are videos and there are tapes and pictures and things that can be shown, so it is not going away. And the question will be, I suspect, will he be asked to testify as a private citizen, either informally in closed door and so forth-- probably only Petraeus can, if he has the data, stop this Benghazi frenzy.

Mitchell: I am persuaded, as far as all of my reporting, that the White House did not know about this [Petraeus] until Wednesday

DAVID GREGORY:
All this comes in on election night. Clapper into White House.

ANDREA MITCHELL:
Which is why conspiracy theorists are running wild with it. I am persuaded, as far as all of my reporting, that the White House did not know about this until Wednesday; that Clapper didn't know about it until Tuesday night. And just a word: It's Veteran's Day. And we should say something about Holly Petraeus: She has been a hero among the military families for her work.

Sen. Schumer and Sen. Coburn on whether they wished Petraeus had not resigned:

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
I think I'd leave that decision to General Petraeus. He's been such a hero in so many ways; I've known him, he's a New Yorker. I spent time in Iraq with him. And, you know, your heart breaks for him and his wife. If he thought it was appropriate to resign, I'll leave it with him.

DAVID GREGORY:
Senator Coburn, your thoughts on that.

SEN. TOM COBURN:
Well, I think leadership matters and setting an example, and I don't think he had any choice, given the sensitive nature of everything that he does, that he could have any questions about his character or his integrity. And so I think he did the honorable thing.

Sen. Coburn re: allowing taxes to be raised on wealthier Americans:

SEN. TOM COBURN:
Well, I think they've already agreed to that. I think you heard John Boehner say that already. We've had votes in the Senate where we've actually gotten rid of tax credits. I think that's a given. And I think the vast majority of Americans agree with that.

The question is how do you do that, and how do you allow taxes to rise at the same time you fix the real problem? And the real problem is uncontrolled entitlement spending a government that has grown massively, not just under this administration, under Republican administrations.

Sen. Schumer on whether we'll get a comprehensive plan for immigration reform:

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
Yes, I think so. Senator Graham and I have talked and we are resuming the talks that were broken off two years ago. We had put together a comprehensive, detailed blueprint on immigration reform. It had the real potential for bipartisan support, based on the theory that most Americans are for legal immigration but very much against illegal immigration.

Our plan, just to be quick, does four things. First of all, close the border. Make sure that's shut. Second, make sure that there is a non-forgeable document so that employers can tell who is legal and who is illegal. And once they hire someone illegally, throw the book at them. That will stop illegal immigration in its track.

Third, on legal immigration, let in the people we need, whether they be engineers from our universities, foreign, or people to pick the crops. And fourth, a path to citizenship that's fair, which says you have to learn English, you have to go to the back of the line, you've got to have a job, and you can't commit crimes. Graham and I are talking to our colleagues about this right now, and I think we have a darn good chance, using this blueprint, to get something done this year. The Republican Party has learned that being anti-immigrant doesn't work for them politically, and they know it.

Sen. Coburn on lessons from this election for his party:

SEN. TOM COBURN:
You have to demonstrate what you're for, not what you're against. I think that's the key ingredient. And sell a vision that's positive for America, not a negative vision about what's wrong with America. I think you have to have both, but we didn't sell a positive vision. We didn't explain to people what we're for. And I think that's the one thing that I took away from the election, and that's what was lacking.

Sen. Schumer on a role for Romney in figuring out the fiscal cliff:

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
Well, I don't know about that, but I would like to see him speak up. I think you could see him struggling in the general election. The hard right had moved him so far over on issues like immigration, and I didn't think his heart was in it. So he could help.

You know, we need forces to help. When either party moves too far over, they lose. Democrats too far left; Republicans too far right. You need some mainstream Republican voices. You need the business community to speak up on the fiscal cliff and the need for revenues; you need people like Romney and Jeb Bush and others to talk about doing a comprehensive immigration reform so that the Republicans who have the courage to stand up, and Tom Coburn has had that courage, don't just hear from the shrill right. And Graham is willing to do it on immigration, he's going to say that this morning. We need other people to do the same.

Kearns Goodwin: We've got to figure out a way that we give a private sphere for our public leaders.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
I think in general I wish we could go back to the time when the private lives of our public figures were relevant only if they directly affected their public responsibilities. What would we have done if F.D.R. had not been our leader because he had had an affair with Lucy Mercer? Think of the productive years that Clinton could have had if Monica Lewinsky hadn't derailed them?

We've got to figure out a way that we give a private sphere for our public leaders. We're not going to get the best people in public office if we don't do that. This thing is really sad. This man was a great general, a great leader. And for his career to come to an end because of a private matter that affects his family and him, and evidently doesn't have national security concerns? I don't know how you unravel it, but I wish we could.

Schmidt: what the election has given the American people is divided government.

STEVE SCHMIDT:
I think the president has capital in the election. His victory was decisive. But the mandate should be determined by the outcome of the election and what the election has given the American people is divided government. And the sides are going to have to work together.

The president came to national prominence promising to be a repairer of the breach in our politics. And if he is going to go down in history as a successful president, or even a great president or a near-great president, he's going to have to repair the breach in our politics. And it will take leadership from him, specifically.

Kearns Goodwin: The president has to do to build his mandate is to play both an inside game and an outside game.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
Oh, I think what the president has to do to build his mandate is to play both an inside game and an outside game. He should use that political White House as an asset more than he's done before. I'd have a cocktail hour every night, have 40 Republicans there, 40 Democrats there, night after night after night. Do what L.B.J. did, do that more than he's done.

But the outside game means you have to mobilize that base. That base was energized on election night. He said to them, "Your job's not done." It's not just voting, it's there to bring pressure on obstructionists if they don't get a deal done, from the outside in. And I think he signaled that, as I say, that night because he said, "I've learned from you. I'm going to be a better president--"

Woodward explains a confidential White House document from the grand bargain negotiation:

BOB WOODWARD:
Well, this is a confidential document, last offer the president, the White House made last year to Speaker Boehner to try to reach this $4 trillion grand bargain. And it's long and it's tedious and it's got budget jargon in it. But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare.

And there are some lines in there about, "We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals but for businesses." So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far. In a sense, this is the starting point....

Schmidt re: the Hispanic vote: This is an important part of the future of the Republican Party.

The problem is that there are too many Republican leaders in Congress if you say the word "Latino" and you played a world association game with them, they would come back with "illegal immigrant." Not "silver star winner," not "doctor," not "lawyer," not "policeman," not "fireman."

This is an important part of our community. This is an important part of the future of the Republican Party. And the Republican Party needs to get it together on its outreach to Latinos. And it's good to hear that Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer are going to start advancing comprehensive immigration reform again because we have to get this off the table as a political issue for the party. And we also have to have a zero tolerance with the terrible term that's coming out of the talk radio universe and some of our leaders in Congress who are serially disrespectful to this fastest-growing demographic in the country.


# # #


Web clips from today’s program:

Journalists Mitchell, Woodward discuss Petraeus’ scandal
http://nbcnews.to/TU2JbM

Petraeus scandal overshadows Obama’s re-election
http://nbcnews.to/UwlgNJ

Senators talk politics
http://nbcnews.to/SFhYls

Schumer, Coburn discuss Petraeus’ resignation
http://nbcnews.to/PNFtM6

Focus turns to fiscal cliff
http://nbcnews.to/Qz4A6H

Senators recap lessons from the election
http://nbcnews.to/TU2MEx

Roundtable: Petraeus affair mum around White House
http://nbcnews.to/UBRK3g

Election aftermath: What to expect
http://nbcnews.to/W1M43D

Reaching a deal on fiscal cliff
http://nbcnews.to/TpVR3T

Latino states’ role in the political landscape
http://nbcnews.to/ZpylHB

Financial fix biggest priority for administration
http://nbcnews.to/VU2Oyq

Comparing Obama’s challenge to Lincoln’s
http://nbcnews.to/XvdSm1

Post Show Thoughts: Petraeus Resigns
http://nbcnews.to/SFhRGI

# # #


Below is a RUSH transcript of this morning’s broadcast -- mandatory attribution to NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” A final transcript of the program will be available at www.MeetThePressNBC.com.

“MEET THE PRESS WITH DAVID GREGORY”
October 28, 2012

DAVID GREGORY: This morning on the Meet the Press: The election is over but Washington intrigue has just begun. The president's top intelligence official resigns over an extramarital affair and the new battle begins over the fiscal cliff.

The election celebration is short lived. A surprise resignation by CIA Director David Petraeus comes days before congressional hearings probing the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. We'll get reaction this morning from Capitol Hill and the very latest reporting on this developing story from our chief foreign affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, who was the first to break the story Friday afternoon.

Also, the president and republicans get set to negotiate new taxes and spending cuts. Is a breakthrough possible? Where does it go from here? We'll ask Democratic senator from New York, Chuck Schumer and republican senator from Oklahoma Tom Coburn.
Also we check in with CNBC's Jim Cramer to hear about the economic stakes should Washington fail to avert fiscal disaster by the end of the year.

Plus, what is the future of the GOP after a stinging defeat for Romney and the Republicans? And how will president Obama govern in a second term? We'll talk to a newly elected Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro. Plus Republican strategist Steve Schmidt; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; NBC’s political director and chief White House correspondent, Chuck Todd; and the Washington Post's Bob Woodward.

And good Sunday morning. The newly President's message on Friday: Get back to work. But the focus of that work, and on that work, is now overshadowed by Friday afternoon's resignation of C.I.A. director David Petraeus which sent, as you know, shockwaves through Washington.

New details emerging now this weekend about the F.B.I. investigation that led to the discovery of what officials believe was an extramarital affair between Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell. And of course so many questions about where this goes from here.

Joining me now for the latest on this developing story, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, and our own chief foreign affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, who broke the story, as I mentioned, on Friday. So Andrea, here we are on Sunday morning, new details. We know there was someone close to Petraeus who got threatening e-mails, a whistleblower. She goes to the F.B.I. and that's how they get to the affair. Fill us in.

ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, this other woman, and we know that she is not in the government and that she's not a family member, complained to the F.B.I. about what she felt were harassing and threatening e-mails. It was that investigation that led to-- they were anonymous e-mails, that led to Broadwell's e-mail account. And by examining Paula Broadwell, the biographer's e-mail account, that's how they uncovered, or stumbled as they put it, into this.

DAVID GREGORY:
There were sexually explicit e-mails between Broadwell and Petraeus, that's what we're led to believe, talking to officials?

ANDREA MITCHELL:
Or some indications in those e-mails of an ongoing relationship. That's according to F.B.I. officials and other officials with whom we've spoken. So it is that (UNINTEL)-- now, we should stress, there was never an investigation into Petraeus. And they have pretty much shut down any idea that there was any kind of security or national security leak. So this is not a criminal matter.

And it would have rested there had not, and this is what is news in the last 24 hours, had not it come to the attention from an F.B.I. whistleblower to a member of Congress, who then reported to Eric Cantor, the Republican leader, who then said to the F.B.I., "You have to take this further." They were not at that stage, going to the White House with it.

And there have been a lot of questions raised: Why did it first come to the attention of the head of national intelligence on Tuesday at 5:00 on Election Day? Why did it not come to the White House's attention until the next day, Wednesday?

DAVID GREGORY:
Bob, before I turn to you, Paula Broadwell, she writes a book called All In, this is the biography of David Petraeus. And as part of promoting that book, she did some interviews, including on The Daily Show, that talked a bit about how they struck up this relationship, biographer and subject, and her trips to Afghanistan. Let's watch a portion of that.

(Videotape)

JON STEWART: You're a runner-- you're a runner and he--to get to know him-- he wanted to run with you. So you ran together.

PAULA BROADWELL: This is a typical mechanism he uses to get to know young people. He's done it throughout his life, so it was an opportunity for me to interview him on a run and I think it was-- I was--I thought I'd test him but he was going to test me and it ended up being a kind of test for both of us since we both ran pretty quickly. But that was the foundation of our relationship. And when I was in Kabul we would do a lot of interviews on runs. For him I think it was a good distraction from the war, you know? Of course, he's a bit concerned as someone in his position would be about legacy and he also, you know, came at it from a mentoring point of view and wanted to help me with this project.

(End videotape)

DAVID GREGORY:
Petraeus 60, she's 40, mother of two, married herself. What more stands out to you this morning?

BOB WOODWARD:
That obviously he was enchanted with her. Interestingly enough, I think the David Petraeus story is not going away. Just this coming week, there are going to be hearings in the House in the intelligence committees on the Benghazi episode a month ago where four Americans, including the ambassador, were killed.

It turns out that Petraeus, a week and a half ago, went to Tripoli, Libya, and conducted his own personal inquiry into Benghazi. Interviewed the station chief, actually got the base chief from Benghazi down, interviewed him. Interviewed the head, I think twice, of the quick reaction force that was involved in this episode. So he knows the full story. He has a lot of credibility with Republicans, who as we know are on fire about Benghazi. And now the acting C.I.A. director, Mike Morrell, is going to have to present that evidence--

DAVID GREGORY:
And this is new information that you have this morning. What was going to be the takeaway from what Petraeus would have presented, had he testified?

BOB WOODWARD:
I think it would essentially back up the White House. And there are still unanswered questions and so forth, but one of the things Petraeus always did was dig deep. And so apparently there are videos and there are tapes and pictures and things that can be shown, so it is not going away. And the question will be, I suspect, will he be asked to testify as a private citizen, either informally in closed door and so forth-- probably only Petraeus can, if he has the data, stop this Benghazi frenzy.

DAVID GREGORY:
Andrea, did he have to resign?

ANDREA MITCHELL:
A lot of people say not; that he eventually felt that he had to. We know that the head of intelligent, Clapper, told him he should. The president asked for 24 hours to think it over and then suggested--

DAVID GREGORY:
All this comes in on election night. Clapper into White House.

ANDREA MITCHELL:
Which is why conspiracy theorists are running wild with it. I am persuaded, as far as all of my reporting, that the White House did not know about this until Wednesday; that Clapper didn't know about it until Tuesday night. And just a word: It's Veteran's Day. And we should say something about Holly Petraeus: She has been a hero among the military families for her work.

When they were stationed in Kentucky, she was not "the general's wife," she was really one of the team, one of the (UNINTEL). And her work on consumer protection and financial education should continue, and I hope she can find a way to continue her career.

(OVERTALK)

BOB WOODWARD:
There's a political dimension to this for Obama and the White House. They wanted to keep Petraeus. Petraeus is very important, credible. As know from history, C.I.A. directors can cause presidents great grief, the Bay of Pigs, WMD not in Iraq, and so forth. Also they can do very important things for presidents, like the bin Laden raid, which was a covert C.I.A. operation.

DAVID GREGORY:
And I know from spending time with him in his current role how much he loved this job, was engaged by this job, and had tremendous bandwidth in terms of his counter-terror operations. So there will be a lot of questions about who replaces him, the continuity--

ANDREA MITCHELL:
And very quickly, he was transforming the agency. He had a rocky start, but he was seeing a global vision, the economic future, looking at Asia, looking China. He was going well beyond the counter-terror operations, really transforming that.

BOB WOODWARD:
And he did the honorable thing; he had to resign, given this. I don't think there was any question.

DAVID GREGORY:
All right, more on this when we discuss it with our roundtable. Andrea Mitchell, Bob Woodward, thank you both very much. I want to turn now to two key voices in the Senate, Democratic senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, and Oklahoma Republican senator, Tom Coburn. Senators, welcome, both of you, back to Meet the Press.

Senator Schumer, let me start with you this morning. Dianne Feinstein, the Senate intelligence committee chairwoman, indicated this after the news of Petraeus: "I wish President Obama had not accepted his resignation, but I understand and respect the decision." Do you wish he had not resigned over this?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
I think I'd leave that decision to General Petraeus. He's been such a hero in so many ways; I've known him, he's a New Yorker. I spent time in Iraq with him. And, you know, your heart breaks for him and his wife. If he thought it was appropriate to resign, I'll leave it with him.

DAVID GREGORY:
Senator Coburn, your thoughts on that.

SEN. TOM COBURN:
Well, I think leadership matters and setting an example, and I don't think he had any choice, given the sensitive nature of everything that he does, that he could have any questions about his character or his integrity. And so I think he did the honorable thing.

DAVID GREGORY:
Senator Coburn, let me stay with you. The Benghazi questions that Bob Woodward just mentioned, with new information this morning: Petraeus' own fact-finding on this, preparing to testify. Both Republicans and Democrats as well with a lot of questions about the C.I.A.'s role, whether there was enough communication, whether there was enough security on the ground, and why not (if that was not the case) that would endanger our personnel there in our consulate. What do you believe about the remaining questions and what role Petraeus still plays in answering them?

SEN. TOM COBURN:
Well, I think he needs to answer 'em. He was obviously the person in charge of the C.I.A. and he has information that probably other people don't have. So I think it's still going to be important that his input comes into the conclusion and what we find about what went wrong. (TAPE SKIPS) were made. We obviously weren't prepared. I think you have to spend time to find out what happened and how it happened and get to the bottom of it so we don't see this kind of mistake again.

DAVID GREGORY:
Senator Schumer?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
Yes. I think first, we ought to see what Mr. Morrell has to say, and is he able to give the committee the information that General Petraeus dug up when he was over there in Iraq. And then we should take it from there.

DAVID GREGORY:
Let's talk now about the fiscal cliff, where the debate turns in Washington after the election. Now let's remind our viewers what we mean when we talk about the fiscal cliff. This is what's happening at the end of the year: The Bush tax cuts expire, so taxes go up. The emergency unemployment benefits end. The 2011 payroll tax holiday expires. The alternative minimum tax kicks in.

So taxes automatically go up; plus, at the same time, you have nearly $1 trillion in spending cuts that are automatic. That's what we mean by the sequester. Half of that in defense, also non-defense cuts are triggers. That's what has to be averted, Senator Coburn, and here's my bottom line question. My view is that, if there's a mandate from this election, it's about compromise in Washington. So what pain do Republicans have to accept to get to a deal, in your judgment?

SEN. TOM COBURN:
Well, I think you heard the speaker of the House put forward that they're ready for the president to lead, they're ready to agree to revenue increases. But I think they're also interested in making sure that we downsize appropriately the federal government in terms of its waste.

Now, there is no question that we have a government that's twice the size it was 11 years ago, and we can find the money through sequestration or directly from what the House has passed, which is a different sequestration but the same amount. I'd also remind you that the $1 trillion is over ten years, so it's $100 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget which--

DAVID GREGORY:
But, Senator, let me zero in--

SEN. TOM COBURN:
--is less than 3%.

DAVID GREGORY:
--on my question. I just think it's important, before we go through the litany of this, is the bottom line that Republicans losing this election means, as the president said, that they have to give in and allow taxes to go up on wealthier Americans?

SEN. TOM COBURN:
Well, I think they've already agreed to that. I think you heard John Boehner say that already. We've had votes in the Senate where we've actually gotten rid of tax credits. I think that's a given. And I think the vast majority of Americans agree with that.

The question is how do you do that, and how do you allow taxes to rise at the same time you fix the real problem? And the real problem is uncontrolled entitlement spending a government that has grown massively, not just under this administration, under Republican administrations.

DAVID GREGORY:
Let me turn to Senator Schumer--

SEN. TOM COBURN:
But you have to approach both sides of it.

DAVID GREGORY:
Let me turn to Senator Schumer; I'm going to ask you the same question. If the mandate is compromise, what do Democrats have to be prepared to accept as a painful outcome in order to achieve compromise?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
Well, I agree with you, the mandate is compromise. That's why we have a divided House and Senate. And if the House stands for anything, it's cut government spending, as Tom Coburn said, and I think we're going to have to do more of it. We heard the mandate in 2010 where it was a clear mandate, "Cut spending," and we did. We cut $900 billion in spending that we didn't like, painful to us.

But there's also a clear mandate on the other side, David, and that is the president campaigned on letting the Bush tax cuts expire on people of $250,000 income. He campaigned on it clearly, he didn't back off from it. The exit polls showed that 60% of the people agreed with it. And I think that's the other side. And what's, in my judgment, that may be a little different than Tom's, what's next up for these agreements is revenues.

We never really get real revenues because people believe in some things like dynamic scoring, sort of a counterintuitive view that, if you cut taxes, you will get deficit reduction and increased government revenues. It doesn't make sense; I call it Rumpelstiltskin after the gnome who turned straw into gold. It's a fairytale. So we need the Republicans to do, in 2012, what we did in 2010. We hear the mandate: Continue to cut spending. But they have to hear the mandate: Real revenues, not this kind of stuff like dynamic scoring--

DAVID GREGORY:
All right. Well, let me follow on--

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
--that Speaker Boehner did mention.

DAVID GREGORY:
--that. I've talked to a top Republican in the Senate in recent days and said, "Look, the president's got some leverage on taxes." But it was nice to hear him say, this source said, that he talked about more revenue and not necessarily higher rates. You've talked about that this week as well, Senator Schumer. Could you live with not raising tax rates, and finding a way to get enough revenue through closing loopholes and by other means to raise revenues?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
Yes. Well, it's not mathematically possible, if you stick by the other tenet, which both parties agree on, which is not raise taxes from people below $250,000. In other words, if you're going to get to the Bowles-Simpson number of $4 trillion of deficit reduction, which we have to do, and you're not going to increase taxes on the middle class, $250,000 or lower, which we shouldn't, their incomes are shrinking, the only way to do it, the only way mathematically I've seen to do is, is go to that 39.6% rate. If someone can show another plan that doesn't do that, we can look at it. But no one's shown one because I think it's mathematically impossible.

DAVID GREGORY:
Senator Coburn, your thoughts on that.

SEN. TOM COBURN:
Well, I put out a year and a half ago that subsidies for the rich and famous, or the well-connected and well-heeled in this country, have benefited themselves through the tax code. And we can get $39 billion a year just through very simple changes in terms of tax credits and limiting total tax deductions.

And that's the other way which Chuck has not recognized, is if you limit total deductions and exemptions for those above $250,000, what you can essentially do is raise all sorts of money which nobody really wants to increase revenues, because it does have a negative, detrimental effect on the economy. But in fact, that's the part of the bargain that you have to do, and we're at historic lows on revenue.

So I've always agreed to it. I voted for Simpson-Bowles; I've been a part of the gang of six, the gang of eight. I agree that we have to go there, but how we go there is very important in terms of the incentives for capital investment in this country. And we have to do it in a way that does not diminish that.

DAVID GREGORY:
Let me turn quickly to lessons from this election and where things go beyond this negotiation over fiscal matters. Senator Schumer, immigration. Are we going to get comprehensive immigration reform? It sounds like, if you listen to the House speaker, they've had a change of heart. They want a comprehensive plan. Is there news to be made on this?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
Yes, I think so. Senator Graham and I have talked and we are resuming the talks that were broken off two years ago. We had put together a comprehensive, detailed blueprint on immigration reform. It had the real potential for bipartisan support, based on the theory that most Americans are for legal immigration but very much against illegal immigration.

Our plan, just to be quick, does four things. First of all, close the border. Make sure that's shut. Second, make sure that there is a non-forgeable document so that employers can tell who is legal and who is illegal. And once they hire someone illegally, throw the book at them. That will stop illegal immigration in its track.

Third, on legal immigration, let in the people we need, whether they be engineers from our universities, foreign, or people to pick the crops. And fourth, a path to citizenship that's fair, which says you have to learn English, you have to go to the back of the line, you've got to have a job, and you can't commit crimes. Graham and I are talking to our colleagues about this right now, and I think we have a darn good chance, using this blueprint, to get something done this year. The Republican Party has learned that being anti-immigrant doesn't work for them politically, and they know it.

DAVID GREGORY:
Senator Coburn, what is the lesson for your party from this election?

SEN. TOM COBURN:
You have to demonstrate what you're for, not what you're against. I think that's the key ingredient. And sell a vision that's positive for America, not a negative vision about what's wrong with America. I think you have to have both, but we didn't sell a positive vision. We didn't explain to people what we're for. And I think that's the one thing that I took away from the election, and that's what was lacking.

DAVID GREGORY:
Do you see Senator Schumer, very quickly, a role for Governor Romney in this process? Would you like to see the president bring him in to, say, the negotiations over the fiscal cliff?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
Well, I don't know about that, but I would like to see him speak up. I think you could see him struggling in the general election. The hard right had moved him so far over on issues like immigration, and I didn't think his heart was in it. So he could help.

You know, we need forces to help. When either party moves too far over, they lose. Democrats too far left; Republicans too far right. You need some mainstream Republican voices. You need the business community to speak up on the fiscal cliff and the need for revenues; you need people like Romney and Jeb Bush and others to talk about doing a comprehensive immigration reform so that the Republicans who have the courage to stand up, and Tom Coburn has had that courage, don't just hear from the shrill right. And Graham is willing to do it on immigration, he's going to say that this morning. We need other people to do the same.

DAVID GREGORY:
All right, we're going to leave it there as this debate continues.

(COMMERCIAL)

DAVID GREGORY:
We're back now, joined by our political roundtable. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose bestselling book Team of Rivals is now out in paperback ahead of the launch of the movie adaptation Lincoln, starring Daniel Day-Lewis as our 16th president. Doris herself will be starring in-- no, I'm sorry. We're so excited about Lincoln.

Our political director and chief White House correspondent, after epic, great work on the campaign, Chuck Todd. The Washington Post's Bob Woodward's still with us. Republican strategist, Steve Schmidt. And the newly-elected Democratic congressman from Texas, Joaquin Castro, who just happens to have a twin brother--

REP.-ELECT JOAQUIN CASTRO:
That's right.

DAVID GREGORY:
--who is the mayor of San Antonio. Oh my god!

(OVERTALK)

REP.-ELECT JOAQUIN CASTRO:
--mayor today.

DAVID GREGORY:
I will not call you the mayor. Let me just tell you something, the joke and the whole fun with the split screen, that will be done never. That will get old never.

REP.-ELECT JOAQUIN CASTRO:
Thank you.

DAVID GREGORY:
No, it's just fascinating. It's great to have you here; congratulations on your election. A lot to get to. Chuck Todd, let's start with this scandal about General Petraeus. Within the White House, this had to be something that really took them by surprise, but then there was a big question about does he need to resign?

CHUCK TODD:
It really did. And look, the president did take 24 hours. They didn't want to fill the step (?). You know, it was funny to watch so many fairly high level White House staffers on Friday didn't know why, what was going on.

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:
They didn't know this whole-- I mean, the president-- it was a tight circle of people that knew the specific reasons in going down that road. But, look, this isn't an opening they wanted to fill. They've got plenty of openings to fill, particularly in the national security team. This isn't one that they wanted to fill.

DAVID GREGORY:
Let's put up the chart of who--

CHUCK TODD:
And I think there was a chance--

DAVID GREGORY:
--could fill the void here, as you're talking.

CHUCK TODD:
Well, it's my understanding that Morrell's very popular--

DAVID GREGORY:
Mike Morrell, he's the acting now.

CHUCK TODD:
--both in the C.I.A.-- if there was one knock on Petraeus that you would hear, and this is usually the case when an outsider comes over to the C.I.A., Bob would know this better than most, they're not that popular with the rank and file. Morrell? He's a career guy, he's very popular. I wouldn't be surprised if that acting title goes away since Tenet got the job.

DAVID GREGORY:
Look, Steve, you know this from being in the Bush administration. General Petraeus, very tight with the Bush administration. There was not a lot of trust in the Obama team of him; the fear that he could run for president. Not a great relationship between him and the president, which seemed to have been repaired. That had to be part of the backdrop here, a certain lack of trust?

STEVE SCHMIDT:
Well, General Petraeus has spent much of the last decade abroad. He has served this country very well. He did the honorable thing. We have this tendency in Washington to want to tear people down when they've made a mistake, when they've fallen. But he's a legitimate American hero and I think he's got great contributions to make in the future.

He'll clearly have to navigate this very difficult personal issue. But he has served this country well, and this country is more secure today because of General David Petraeus. And this country owes him a debt of gratitude for that.

DAVID GREGORY:
No question about that. Doris, as I've said this weekend, not exactly a topic that brings husbands and wives closer together. But your thoughts about this, in terms of what should have happened?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
I don't know. I think in general I wish we could go back to the time when the private lives of our public figures were relevant only if they directly affected their public responsibilities. What would we have done if F.D.R. had not been our leader because he had had an affair with Lucy Mercer? Think of the productive years that Clinton could have had if Monica Lewinsky hadn't derailed them?

We've got to figure out a way that we give a private sphere for our public leaders. We're not going to get the best people in public office if we don't do that. This thing is really sad. This man was a great general, a great leader. And for his career to come to an end because of a private matter that affects his family and him, and evidently doesn't have national security concerns? I don't know how you unravel it, but I wish we could.

BOB WOODWARD:
Unfortunately, for the C.I.A. director, he has special status and he's got to be clean. He can't be blackmailed or threatened or even deal with the anxiety, "My God, are they going to find out about her?" And he did the right thing. He's telling associates now, and I think this is important, David, that he's not going to hide under a rock. He's going to do other things. As Steve suggests, his career is not over.

His career at the C.I.A. is over, and that's absolutely the right thing to do. I mean, I've known him for 20 years, and Petraeus is the sort of person who the smallest little thing bothers him. And to go through this, clearly a man of conscience made a grave mistake. And just that anxiety is the sort of thing that could set anyone on edge.

DAVID GREGORY:
I want to turn to, we just heard from Senators Schumer and Coburn about the fiscal cliff, and we've started to talk now about the mandate for the president in his second term. How do we define it? Our colleague, Ron Fournier, wrote the following piece in the National Journal on Wednesday, digesting the election results and this question of mandate.

Here's what he writes: "Obama victory comes with no mandate. Obama won a second term but no mandate, thanks in part to his own small-bore and brutish campaign. Victory guarantees the president nothing more than the headache of building consensus in a gridlocked capital on behalf of a polarized public. If the president begins his second term under a delusion that voters rubberstamped his agenda on Tuesday night, he is doomed to fail."

Congressman, you are a Democrat from San Antonio. You are in the House that is still run by the Republicans. We have a status quo election from that point of view. How do you define the mandate, specifically around the fiscal cliff?

REP.-ELECT JOAQUIN CASTRO:
I think the mandate very clearly from the American people was for the Congress to take action. David, we've sat here for four years in a gridlock situation and people, in 2010, and in 2012, were clearly frustrated by that. So I disagree to a large extent. I don't think it's a rubberstamp, but I do think that the American people have said to Barack Obama: "We agree with you on a lot of this stuff. And we want the Republican Congress to come along."

Remember, some of the most intransigent folks -- Allen West, almost Michele Bachmann, others -- in the Republican Party who made their political careers saying they weren't going to go along with anything that the president wanted to do, they lost their elections.

DAVID GREGORY:
Yes. I remember, Steve, President Bush two days after the election holding a press conference. The president will do it next week, so not immediately after the election. And he talked about how he viewed the mandate. This is what he said back in 2004.

(Videotape)

PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.

(End videotape)

DAVID GREGORY:
So how much capital does President Obama have, and where does he spend it?

STEVE SCHMIDT:
I think the president has capital in the election. His victory was decisive. But the mandate should be determined by the outcome of the election and what the election has given the American people is divided government. And the sides are going to have to work together.

The president came to national prominence promising to be a repairer of the breach in our politics. And if he is going to go down in history as a successful president, or even a great president or a near-great president, he's going to have to repair the breach in our politics. And it will take leadership from him, specifically.

CHUCK TODD:
Well, look, the challenge is going to be this. And I know you're going to bring in Cramer on this because I think Wall Street's going to end up playing the biggest role here. John Boehner, can he get a majority of his Republicans in the House to go along with whatever deal he cuts with the president? It's unclear to me.

It's clear that the Republican strategy is they want to try to drag out the negotiations; do some short-term compromises, drag it out and see if the political space is better for Republicans, say, in six months. The president's capital and leverage is in this small window, in the next I'd say two months, particularly VF the end of the year.

I'll be curious to see, does the president realize that the best way to do this: Go find ten Republicans in the Senate, go cut the deal with Tom Coburn, with Bob Corker, with Marv Zimmer. Keep McConnell out of it. Go do it with 65, 70 members of the Senate. Cut the deal. Bring it over to the House. Boehner secretly might want to be boxed in, by the way.

Box Boehner in. Maybe it goes down the first time, a la TARP, and then they have to come back again. But I'll be curious to see: Did the president learn anything from his first term about how to deal with congressional Republicans? Which is don't do it through the leadership.

DAVID GREGORY:
New York Times today, Boehner tells House G.O.P. to fall in line, had a tough conference call with them. I do want to bring in Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's Mad Money. He's up in New York. Jim, the reason I wanted to check in with you, we have seen in the course of the campaign that a lot of corporate CEOs could now suddenly become natural allies of the president. They want a resolution to this fiscal cliff business.

JIM CRAMER:
They have to. They have to, David, because we can gift-wrap a recession by Christmas. We can set it right into place without some agreement. So the CEOs have in many ways more to lose than everybody, which is why the market got hit this week. And the market will continue to be hit until year end, or an agreement.

DAVID GREGORY:
Explain further what the economic consequences are. What do you hear on Wall Street and among corporate leaders about, frankly, what happens if we go over the fiscal cliff?

JIM CRAMER:
Well, what I'm hearing, and I speak to a lot of CEOs in every single different industry, is they don't want to hire. They think that the single biggest consequence of not knowing what's going to happen is that it's just worth it to lay off. It is not worth it to hire because with just a series of unknowns, who can take a chance? Who can take a chance with Washington? Better to scale back retail, restaurant, industrial, bank. Fire people. That's the solution to the fiscal cliff until we get an actual resolution.

DAVID GREGORY:
Jim, I always thought that one of the mistakes of the first Obama term is that he never had a moment in the rose garden where he was flanked by the biggest business leaders in America and said, "Look, we're going to work together in common cause to deal with this economy, to deal with our fiscal position, and ultimately affect America's influence in the rest of the world." Can he have that moment now?

JIM CRAMER:
Yes, because this time--

DAVID GREGORY:
Well, will he?

JIM CRAMER:
The leaders need him. The CEOs need him, because their businesses are going to go down, their stocks are going to go down. This is what they care about: They care about their own compensations and they care about a higher stock price. You're going to get declining compensation, and I'm going you lower stock prices, for certain, without a deal.

DAVID GREGORY:
All right, Jim Cramer from Mad Money. Jim, thanks very much.

JIM CRAMER:
Thank you.

DAVID GREGORY:
Doris, your point about this, as you look at it?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
Oh, I think what the president has to do to build his mandate is to play both an inside game and an outside game. He should use that political White House as an asset more than he's done before. I'd have a cocktail hour every night, have 40 Republicans there, 40 Democrats there, night after night after night. Do what L.B.J. did, do that more than he's done.

But the outside game means you have to mobilize that base. That base was energized on election night. He said to them, "Your job's not done." It's not just voting, it's there to bring pressure on obstructionists if they don't get a deal done, from the outside in. And I think he signaled that, as I say, that night because he said, "I've learned from you. I'm going to be a better president--"

DAVID GREGORY:
"Be a better president."

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
--"because of you." That was an amazing statement, and I think he's learned that he needs to use the White House as a political asset more inside. And he's got to get those people-- the Tea Party pressured everybody that summer. Why can't his coalition, which is bigger, pressure people--

DAVID GREGORY:
I want to take a break.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
--from the outside in?

(COMMERCIAL)

DAVID GREGORY:
We're back with more from our roundtable. I want to talk politics and how the president won, but I want to stick with the fiscal cliff. Past is prologue, Bob Woodward, and you have a document here, a secret White House document, that goes back to the grand bargain negotiation. Tell us what it is and what it means, you think?

BOB WOODWARD:
Well, this is a confidential document, last offer the president, the White House made last year to Speaker Boehner to try to reach this $4 trillion grand bargain. And it's long and it's tedious and it's got budget jargon in it. But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare.

And there are some lines in there about, "We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals but for businesses." So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far. In a sense, this is the starting point, and I guess you're going to put it up on your website--

DAVID GREGORY:
Absolutely. Yes. So they can see it, yes.

BOB WOODWARD:
--so the budget wonks can parse through it.

DAVID GREGORY:
Right. We've got it here and we'll put it on the Web. But that's the point. And Congressman, I guess the question that Bob and I have talked about is there's a lot of spending pain in there that Democrats are going to go back to their folks and say, "Hey, this is the pain you're going to have to suffer." Are you prepared to do that?

REP.-ELECT JOAQUIN CASTRO:
Oh, look, there's no question. I mean, these are tough issues, and that's why there's been a lot of hand-wringing and wrangling over them. But, yes, I believe so. I believe he's got a Democratic Congress, especially in the House, and in the Senate, that are willing to make those tough choices, that know that in the long term we've got to reform entitlements. But we want some balance. We want to make sure that there's also revenue raising that's part of it. And for four years now, the Republicans have been unwilling to do that. I think this election will get them in gear and they'll do it.

DAVID GREGORY:
We'll talk about this election. Chuck Todd, bleary-eyed, but a little tough--

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
But unbattered.

DAVID GREGORY:
--here on the Sunday after the election. How is it that the president won?

CHUCK TODD:
Demographics, period. Pure and simple. You know, it's funny. People want to talk about Sandy and all of these other things. When you look at the structure of this electorate, I think he wins on September 6th, October 6th, or November 6th, and let me show you why here.

The first graphic we've put up shows you this is the makeup of the American voting electorate in 2004, 2008, and 2012. White to non-white. It's a trend line, and by the way, it's two or three points. You can keep going back. We move back to 2000, '96, it's unmistakable, the trend line here. And what happened was Mitt Romney--

DAVID GREGORY:
Pure white. Right on--

CHUCK TODD:
Pure white. Mitt Romney's campaign truly believed the electorate would look like 2008. They did not believe it was going to look like what it ended up looking like, which of course the Obama campaign (SIC). Two states in particular show you how, the dramatic changes.

Here's the State of Ohio, moved from 83-17, white to non-white, to 79-21, mostly African Americans in the northern part of the state. And then here's the State of Florida. You want to know how President Obama won the State of Florida? Look at this: It went from 71-29, the white to non-white, to 67-34, all of this (UNINTEL) with non-Cuban Hispanics. But a few notes on the Hispanic vote.

The president won Cubans. That is something that actually has gotten lost in all this. Yes, he did really well with Hispanics in Florida in general and overall, but he won Cubans, third generation Cubans. They weren't there for the Bay of Pigs. They don't think about hating Kennedy and the Democrats the way those first two generations did.

And then finally, I want to show you this map. This is the map of the top ten states, by population, with Hispanics in it. Here are the top ten: The ones in blue are the ones the president won, the two in red are the two that Mitt Romney won, and I would say this: Republicans, watch out. These two are next. I would say Arizona will be in the battleground in 2016.

Texas, Joaquin may have a different-- probably not quite because Texas Republicans a long time ago saw this and they have tried to adjust. But by the way, in case you're wondering, just these ten states are 216.

DAVID GREGORY:
Steve?

STEVE SCHMIDT:
No, it's incredible, and it's been coming for a long time. The last presidential candidate to get 60% of the white vote, which Mitt Romney did, was George Herbert Walker Bush, and he received over 400 electoral votes. Today, it gets you an electoral college drubbing.

President George W. Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote. The problem is that there are too many Republican leaders in Congress if you say the word "Latino" and you played a world association game with them, they would come back with "illegal immigrant." Not "silver star winner," not "doctor," not "lawyer," not "policeman," not "fireman."

This is an important part of our community. This is an important part of the future of the Republican Party. And the Republican Party needs to get it together on its outreach to Latinos. And it's good to hear that Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer are going to start advancing comprehensive immigration reform again because we have to get this off the table as a political issue for the party. And we also have to have a zero tolerance with the terrible term that's coming out of the talk radio universe and some of our leaders in Congress who are serially disrespectful to this fastest-growing demographic in the country.

DAVID GREGORY:
And yet, you have the likes of Rush Limbaugh taking to the radio on the issue of immigration. Congressman, this is what he said on Wednesday.

(Videotape)

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Don't tell me the Republican Party doesn't have outreach. We do. But what are we supposed to do now? In order to get the Hispanic or Latino vote, does that mean open the borders and embrace the illegals? I want you to think about this. Is that what this means? Is that what the Republican establishment means? We've gotta reach out to Hispanics, is that what they mean? If we're not getting the female vote, do we become pro-choice? Do we start passing out birth control pills? Is that what we have to do?

(End videotape)

REP.-ELECT JOAQUIN CASTRO:
David, and that's very telling, because part of the fundamental problem with a big wing of the Republican Party is that, when they think of Hispanics, they think of folks who are illegal immigrants. What they need to accept is that Hispanics, Latinos, are part of this American family, and they're not going anywhere.

You have folks that have been here, who are second generation, third generation, fourth generation Americans, and they're making them feel like they're not part of the United States. And that's a fundamental problem that goes beyond tone, it goes beyond rhetoric, and it actually goes beyond who you elect to Congress or the Senate. They've got Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others now. But it's more than just the personalities; it's the policy they pursue.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
You know, I think when journalists write about this campaign, the fun part will be all the moments that we experienced together, the gaffes that Romney made, the 47%, the things that Obama said, the first debate. But the fundamental loss of this campaign probably took place in the Republican primaries when they put out a group of people who were so far off the political cliff on issues that mattered to Latinos, to women, and to young people. And that is the new governing coalition.

And perhaps the fact that the economy got a little bit better is another fundamental fact. But all these other things preoccupied us at that time. We can only, looking back, see that those 20 debates that pushed everybody, including Romney, who became a moderate much too late, to get that nomination.

DAVID GREGORY:
But it's still striking. You have some 70% in the exit polls who believe the economy is in bad shape; 52% who feel like the country's off on the wrong direction. There's a lot of opposition out there to President Obama and his policies, and yet he prevails because of a coalition, ever expanding, that believes in a certain role for government, Bob, that is opposed to where the Republicans would like to take it.

BOB WOODWARD:
And the idea is, the big picture here is that President Obama has got to deliver on the big issue, which is fixing the financial house of the U.S. federal government. It is in disarray. It's not just the fiscal cliff, it's $16 trillion in IOUs out in the world; in a couple of months, in February or March, they're going to have to renegotiate an authority, borrowing authority, for another $1-2 trillion.

And if the president can fix that, and put us on some sort of path of restoration for the economy, that is a payoff for everyone in the community, not just his base. And he's got to think much more broadly the job of the president is to find the next stage of good for a real majority. And he's capable of doing that.

CHUCK TODD:
Let's look back at the Republican Party. How did they become a coalition of special interest forces? They really do look like the Democratic Party of the '70s and '80s, where the leaders in Washington can't control the special interest groups.

STEVE SCHMIDT:
That's exactly right.

CHUCK TODD:
And this is what happened to the Democrats: labor, all of these-- you had special interest groups that-- the folks in Washington knew what the right way was to try to win national elections. They couldn't quite do it because basically they succumbed to their base.

The Democratic Party, starting with Bill Clinton (and Obama successfully has been able to carry this over) has never been able to allow the base of the Democratic Party, special interest groups, to overtake the national message. The Republican Party--

(OVERTALK)

STEVE SCHMIDT:
--governing philosophy that has served this country well. But to too many swing voters in the country, when you hear the word "conservative" now, they think of wounds and whackos. We gave up five U.S. Senate seats over the last two election cycles by people who were just out there, completely extreme, manifestly unprepared for the offices that they're running for.

Our elected leaders are scared to death of the conservative entertainment complex, the shrill and divisive voices that are bombastic and broadcasting out into the homes. And this country is rejecting the social extremism of the Republican Party on issue after issue. And if you look at the four states that legalized gay marriage, on a range of issues, our coalition is shrinking. And the Republican Party has a lot of soul-searching to do if we're going to assemble--

(OVERTALK)

DAVID GREGORY:
Doris, I want to get to one other thing here, which is the movie Lincoln is opening around the country. And obviously, the divisions in America were so profound at that time, during the Civil War. And yet today, in a different way, we still have so much polarization. Here's a moment where the president, President Lincoln, in the film is talking about why it's so important to push for the abolition of slavery.

(Videotape)

DANIEL DAY LEWIS (as Lincoln): Euclid's first common notion is this, "Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other." That’s a rule of mathematical reasoning, it’s true because it works. Has done and always will do. In his book, Euclid says this is self evident. You see there it is, even in that 2000-year-old book of mechanical law, it is a self evident truth, the things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

(End videotape)

DAVID GREGORY:
Can't wait to see it. You brought your own movie clip, as Chuck pointed out. The polarization then, so profound. As this president now strives to be a great president, like Lincoln, what is his challenge to break this polarization? Does it all come back to bipartisanship, at some level?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
What it comes back to is a combination of conviction, which is what we just saw Lincoln talking about, and the willingness to compromise. Without a question. In fact, the whole movie is about the idea that, in a session of Congress after the election in 1864, they have to get this amendment passed and they have to do everything they can. At one point, he says, "I'm clothed by immense power, and I'm going to have you use it to get these votes, no matter what you have to do."

Just to go back to what Bob said, I think what the president needs to do is to bring some CEOs into his top positions. F.D.R. did that. He brought in the head of Chrysler, he brought in the head of Sears & Roebuck. What about bringing Romney in to deal with this whole problem of how do you keep manufacturing here rather than going abroad? What incentives do you use? What sanctions do you use against countries that are not dealing fairly? I think you bring people in but you don't lose your conviction. So you got to start with what matters to you, but then you compromise on everything else.

(OVERTALK)

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
And I think it can be done.

BOB WOODWARD:
--powerful olive branch that Speaker Boehner issued this week, where he said to the president, "We want you to lead." For the Republican leader to say, "We're willing to follow, to a certain extent"-- now, he puts limitations on it, there's no question about that. But for him to say that, you're going to go into the House of Representatives--

REP.-ELECT JOAQUIN CASTRO:
But, Bob, I think part of what you see, and what you've seen with John Boehner is that he'll say one thing and then have to reverse course the very next day, which--

DAVID GREGORY:
And that's-- yes.

REP.-ELECT JOAQUIN CASTRO:
--we saw this week. And that's the challenge that Chuck was speaking to.

BOB WOODWARD:
That as the New York Times story points out, and some people I've talked to, I think he's getting more control and more authority--
(OVERTALK)

BOB WOODWARD:
--in the House Republicans. We'll see.

DAVID GREGORY:
Got to take another break here.

(COMMERCIAL)

DAVID GREGORY:
Thanks to you all for a terrific conversation. Before we go, a quick programming note. For my Press Pass conversation this week, I sat down with BuzzFeed.com editor-in-chief Ben Smith to talk about what really was the first presidential campaign in the social media era. You can watch it at MeetThePressNBC.com. That's all for today, a special day for Meet the Press as we celebrate turning 65 years old, proud to be the longest-running television program in the world. It truly is humbling to be a custodian of such an important American institution. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.

####

END OF TRANSCRIPT