Return to Transcripts main page

Parker Spitzer

Democrats Lose House, Hold on to Senate; Predictions Gone Bad

Aired November 03, 2010 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN NEWS ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.

ELIOT SPITZER, CNN NEWS ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program. You know, Kathleen, the battle lines are being drawn. I don't mean between the white House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, I mean within the Republican Party, the Tea Party, can it fit into the Republican Party, can it work as one team? We will have that conversation with the spiritual leader of the Tea Party, Dick Armey, a bit later in the show.

But beginning tonight, as we always do with our "Opening Argument." You know, Kathleen, it is day-one of chapter two for President Obama. A chastened president showed up at a press conference today, clearly torn. He believes that everything he has done is right. He just doesn't think he's been understood by the public. He is frustrated. He needed to show contrition. He couldn't quite get it altogether. Because, you know what, yesterday was a dark, dismal day for the White House across the board, election rejection.

PARKER: I had mixed feelings watching President Obama, today. There was a part of me that felt a little bit sorry for him, he seemed so glum and depressed, but on the other hand, I was actually quite disappointed, because I kept thinking, you know, come out with a little spring in your step and be enthusiastic and rally the troops. You know, I wanted him to come out and be a little bit -- why not be a little bit humorous? Because, you know, he's made fun of his ears before, it seemed like, all right, so I've written his script for him, right?

SPITZER: All right, let's see it.

PARKER: He comes out, a little spring, he says, "OK, god didn't give me big ears for nothing, I heard you." He heard the American people, they spoke, "and I listened," how about that?

SPITZER: I don't know. Let me tell you, I haven't been quite there, but I know what it's like when things aren't going well. It's hard to get a joke like that out. I feel for the guy. I feel his pain. Is that a line somebody had once before?

PARKER: No, no, no because it defuses the whole situation by being humorous.

SPITZER: You're right. You're right, but it's hard.

PARKER: You know, if you tell a joke up front, make a little fun of yourself. Self-deprecation goes a long way.

SPITZER: But there was one moment at the end of the press conference, he showed sort of introspection we haven't seen in him over the course of this presidency. We should take a look at it because I think it's important to understand what he was going through.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: You know, the responsibilities of this office are so enormous and so many people are depending on what we do and in the rush of activity, sometimes we lose track of -- of, you know, the ways that we connected with folks that got us here in the first place. And that's something that -- now, I'm not recommending for every future president that they take a shellacking like I did last night...

(LAUGHTER)

You know, I'm sure there are easier ways to learn these lessons. But I do think that, you know, this is a growth process, and an evolution, and the relationship that I've had with the American people is one that built slowly, peaked at this incredible high, and then during the course of the last two years, as we've, together, gone through some very difficult times, has gotten rockier and tougher, and, you know, it's going to, I'm sure, have some more ups and downs during the course of me being in this office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: OK. Well, that was very touching, I must say and moving to see the president being completely sincere and, you know, he acknowledged the shellacking, but let me just say that it was almost an hour into his press conference and it would have -- if he had said shellacking up front, it would have helped him I think get through the rest of the hour.

SPITZER: Can we not cut the guy some slack?

PARKER: I'm cutting him slack.

SPITZER: That was a moving, tough...

PARKER: No, it was.

SPITZER: In front of the whole world, he is sitting there, rather than the cadence -- the persistence and the regularity of speech we always get from him, there were pauses. He was thinking. He was finding it hard to summon the worlds. And now we're saying, well, you should have said it at the top of the show, not the bottom of the show. Come on, he is the leader...

PARKER: Eliot, that's my job. SPITZER: I know, but he's the leader of the free world. Why not simply say he showed appropriate contrition?

PARKER: I said that first.

SPITZER: He understands. This is a man who has inherited the problems on an order of magnitude unlike any president in 50 years. He has been dealing with them. He just got himself kicked to the ground yesterday and he has to show up in front of the whole world today and act like this.

PARKER: Well, the thing is, you know, we all want to see the humanity of our leaders and I think that's what we're talking about. That's what we did see, but he struggled to get there.

SPITZER: Sure he did. You said studied and robotic. I would say thoughtful and wise. I think all four, perhaps, are fair...

PARKER: See, I'm not trying to get a job at the White House.

SPITZER: Trust me, I'm not going near that place. Let's do this, though, we all remember it, in fact, President Obama today referred to the reality, the harsh reality, that both presidents Reagan and Clinton went through a very similar, almost a hazing, two years into their presidency where they were both subjected to an enormous rejection on the part of the public and the electorate. Let's examine, let's take a look at how President Clinton responded when he went to that same podium, same events, slightly different tenure. Let's take a look at what he did.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON (D), FMR U.S. PRESIDENT: Well, I think that I have some responsibility for it. I'm the president. I'm the leader of the efforts we have made in the last two years and whatever extent we didn't do what the people wanted us to do, they were not aware of what we had done, I must certainly bear my share of responsibility, and I accept it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: So, you're going to give him higher marks because he said he got it up at the top instead of the end of the show?

PARKER: President Clinton, in that speech, later on, he also talked about optimism. He gave a rallying cry to his troops, not just to his base, but to the American people and I just feel like President Obama could do that.

SPITZER: All right, Kathleen, we're not going to reach agreement on this. I thought the president did one great job today, he hit all the right notes. I'm proud of him. Anyway, let's get into "The Arena," we have superb guests coming up, right now.

PARKER: President Obama today conceded he didn't bring the change he promised to Washington so is there a new era of compromise dawning in our nation's capital or are both parties all talk?

SPITZER: Joining us in "The Arena," tonight, Democratic strategist and CNN contributor, James Carville. Conservative activist and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Ralph Reed.

Both of you, thanks for being here. To whose benefit is it to compromise and who wins from gridlock? And so, what does that mean for what's going to happen?

RALPH REED, FAITH AND FREEDOM COALITION: I think it's to Obama's benefit to compromise just as it was more in Clinton's benefit to compromise. When this happened to Bill Clinton, unemployment was 5.4 percent and it dropped by the time he went to face the voters in '96. Right now, it's 9.6 percent, it's been that level or higher longer than at any time since the Great Depression. If that doesn't turn around, he's a one-term president. That's No. 1. No. 2, policy overreach. Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, then signed it. Vetoed our budget twice, then signed it. So if...

(CROSSTALK)

PARKER: OK, James is about to jump, here.

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yeah, I love his history. I love his history. The reason -- and I was there too, Ralph. The reason he signed it is because you gave him things he wanted in legislation. He didn't veto two of the same bills and you shouldn't tell people that. That's not right, because we both know what happened. That's the way things go.

REED: It is right.

CARVILLE: You veto something and you didn't get something, they say, OK, we'll put this. That's the way it works.

SPITZER: And then it comes back different and then you -- I've been there on that one, trust me.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: It was not significantly different...

CARVILLE: We should tell people the truth.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: ...that he said he wouldn't sign and he signed it.

CARVILLE: It was a little thing. We got to tell people the truth. That's what happened.

SPITZER: I think you're right. I want to ask a different question...

REED: People who resigned from Clinton's administration, they were so angry he signed welfare reform. SPITZER: Do you agree with Ralph, if unemployment doesn't come down significantly from 9.6 that it's not going to matter in 2012.

CARVILLE: Well, I don't know if it's going to matter, but I doubt if it stays at 9.5 (INAUDIBLE) ramifications are going to be unbelievable, particularly the state, local, God knows what kind of level (INAUDIBLE), we have no idea. But if it's that high, for all I know, he may not run. I mean, that's something I don't even want to contemplate. I don't think that will happen, but think about it.

PARKER: Was it 46 percent, 47 percent of Democrats said they thought someone should run against Obama in '012...

CARVILLE: Look, he's at a low point in his presidency. We'll see what will happen. I remember when Bill Clinton, who's by the way now the most popular politician in the United States, understand that -- you know, these things happen. We'll see...

SPITZER: These have high -- let me come back to this question. Both of them, and we listened to President Clinton's statement in the '94 press conference and President Obama, we saw today -- both of them seemed not quite able to say, you know what, we were wrong on substance. Do you think Obama's been wrong on substance?

CARVILLE: Well, obviously, people think that he's...

SPITZER: I'm asking you. I'm asking you.

CARVILLE: Oh, I think they let the banks off way too easy. I think they look way, way too -- way, way too easy when they signed off on TARP I think they should have (INAUDIBLE) with justice, I think they should have gone after them. I think, I think...

SPITZER: Pitchforks. Bring out the pitchforks.

CARVILLE: I think that what these banks did...

REED: Wouldn't have mattered.

SPITZER: Oh, yeah, it would've.

CARVILLE: I think what these banks did and what greed was exhibited there is on a level and a scale, we can't even imagine. And the fact they seem like they were anxious to do this, the fact there was not anywhere close to sufficient accountability. That's what the Democratic Party exists for. Exists to do that.

PARKER: ...from Eliot, but I want to hear what you have to say, Ralph.

REED: Can I get a stab at answering this question? The Rubicon was health care. When you lose Virginia by 18 points, the biggest landslide in the history in that state -- by the way, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee was the incumbent governor at the time. You lose New Jersey by the biggest margin in a governor's race since the '70s and then lose a Senate seat in Massachusetts for the first time in almost a half century, and your response is to say, full speed ahead, we're passing the health care bill anyway?

Now, here's what's going to happen. We've talked about Clinton. I think it's instructive. I think it's helpful as a mental exercise, but let's talk about Obama. Here's what he's going to get, he's going to get three things in fairly rapid order: he's going to get extension of the Bush tax cuts.

SPITZER: Right.

REED: If he vetoes it, it's going to be a big problem for him because taxes are going to go up. Secondly, he's going to get a Republican budget or something close to it. Does he veto it or sign it? It'll have a lot of deep cuts in discretionary spending. And thirdly, he's going to get either a fix or an outright appeal on health care. I think we all know what he'll do with that.

CARVILLE: This is my question: Why would you extend the Bush tax cuts? Because the one thing we know is they manifestly did not work. From 2002...

SPITZER: Are you talking the entirety or just...

CARVILLE: For the rich...

SPITZER: For the rich, for the rich, right.

CARVILLE: From '02 to '07, the height of the Bush recovery, median income went down $2,000. The only recovery you've had in the United States where incomes actually fell. So, if we about the budget and we about deficit rejection, why would we blow $700 million on something that we know didn't work? It was a colossal waste of money.

SPITZER: James, I'm smiling because Ralph and I have had this debate over and over.

CARVILLE: Oh, it's not a debate, it's a fact.

PARKER: No, you're right.

Ralph, try your answer on James, see if he's persuaded.

REED: Well, the answer is, James, that the average unemployment rate, during the period prior to the financial collapse of '08, which I...

(CROSSTALK)

You're -- surely you're not arguing (INAUDIBLE) by the Bush tax...

CARVILLE: From 2002 to 2007 (INAUDIBLE) height of the recovery...

REED: The answer is that the medium unemployment rate was 4.4 percent, No. 1. No. 2... CARVILLE: I said income.

REED: After tax, personal income rose over 10 percent.

CARVILLE: No, it went down.

REED: No, after tax...

CARVILLE: It went down. It went down.

REED: Real personal income was up over 10 percent.

CARVILLE: People weren't making money.

SPITZER: All right...

REED: And by the way, even if you disagree on this...

PARKER: Fact checker in here, please.

REED: Even if you disagree on this -- who wants to raise taxes during the middle of the deepest, longest recession since World War II?

PARKER: Well, that is the argument.

REED: They couldn't even pass it in a Pelosi House. There were 37 Democrats who said we won't vote for it. So good luck now...

CARVILLE: Incomes went down. You know that Obama's going to create more jobs this year than Bush did in eight years?

SPITZER: I did.

CARVILLE: Isn't that something?

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Neither are the American people. No one's buying...

CARVILLE: They aren't buying it, it's true.

REED: No one's buying it. That's like saying I lost 2.6 million jobs since I took the oath of office but I added 100,000 last week.

CARVILLE: Again, again, let me repeat, because somebody might not heard it. More jobs will be created in 2010 than was created from 2001 to 2009.

REED: After 2.6 million jobs evaporate evaporated, James.

SPITZER: Let's move this ball forward...

PARKER: I want to ask Ralph something before he cedes the table again. Can you tell us about your post-election survey?

REED: Huh?

PARKER: Your post election survey?

REED: Yes, our post election survey, which we commissioned last night, I was getting returns at 4:00 a.m., found that 40 percent of the entire electorate said they were Tea Party sympathizers, 20 percent were members. They voted 91-6 for Republicans. And 32 percent of the electorate was Evangelicals, self-identified Evangelicals, the largest turnout in an election in the modern era, and they voted 78-22 Republican. And the Catholics I've already mentioned. So those three groups, Tea Party supporters, Catholics and Evangelicals, broke between 60 percent and 91 percent Republican -- big reason for what happened.

CARVILLE: I think we found Tea Party sympathizers voted 90 percent for McCain. They're Republicans. Why would we be surprised Republicans voted for Republicans?

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Not all Catholics (INAUDIBLE) Evangelicals.

CARVILLE: And if you get an older and whiter electorate, Republicans are going to do well.

REED: By the way, the median age of the Evangelical voter was 44. It was younger than the overall electorate.

SPITZER: Let me state what James saying it different -- different way. If the chessboard doesn't change it's going to be bad news for President Obama 2012, but it's going to change. Things always change. Let's talk about 2012 for one minute. Hillary Clinton, what does she do? Does she want to be vice president?

CARVILLE: I don't think so.

SPITZER: Does she want to run against the president?

CARVILLE: I think she'd like to be president, one day. I don't think she'll run against the president.

SPITZER: So she's waiting for '16?

CARVILLE: I said once that running for president was like having sex. No one did it once and forget about it. It has a high recidivism rate, OK? Bob Dole would run for president if he thought he could win.

REED: Eliot, let me translate that for you.

SPITZER: Thanks.

REED: Hillary Clinton is going to be the loyal soldier, whether he goes down in '12 or not. She will run for president in 2016 and I think she'll be the Democratic nominee. PARKER: OK, hold it right there for a second, this is such a great conversation we're going to keep it going right after this break. Stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My impression was that the president felt like, gee, golly, whiz, I had done so much of all the right things and I was so busy saving America from the emergency, that I forgot to take time to explain it to all those slow learners out there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: We're back with Ralph Reed and James Carville. We're trying to find compromises, here. You talk about the tax cuts and look I'm with you substantively. But, there's going to be a compromise on that. There's no way we get to January 1 without there being...

CARVILLE: But the Republicans will get the better...

REED: It will be an extension of the cuts for one year and they'll kick the can down the road.

CARVILLE: Probably something like that.

SPITZER: And you think the White House just doesn't have the leverage now to stand up to it?

CARVILLE: Well, they don't have the leverage and they don't have the votes in the Senate and they don't have -- you know, they can do maybe tax cuts over 1 million or they'll think of something. But look, when you win an election -- when you win an election, it changes the power equation.

PARKER: Sure.

CARVILLE: That's just the nature of the beast. We got to understand that.

PARKER: Sure, and Democrats agree to limiting...

REED: When Republicans went to Obama and offered ideas on health care his response was...

CARVILLE: And 287...

REED: That's what elections are for.

CARVILLE: ...287 amendments...

SPITZER: Right.

REED: So, you know, the fact is, I think at a moment like this, whatever party you're a member of, whichever candidate you were for, if you step back and really look at this from the long train of history, the system works. The founders deliberately set up a system where one chamber would have all of its members stand every two years so that when the electorate was angry and passionate about something, it could express it. That happened yesterday. And it's going to change Obama's presidency, irrevocably.

CARVILLE: This is the first time, I believe, in history the House changed without the Senate.

REED: Right.

CARVILLE: It never has happened before. And, you know, if you look six Senate seats in one sense is a lot, compared to -- and it's going to be interesting to see sort of why, just struck me, you know, is that the -- out West the Tea Party candidates did not do as well as they did back East. I don't know why, maybe it's a -- the nature of it, maybe it's more of the Hispanic vote or, I don't know, I don't know the answer...

PARKER: I would think it would be the reverse.

CARVILLE: Yeah, but I just notice that they seemed to have done better in the East than the West, but I don't know. But look, the long arc of history is this, we're going the start the Republican presidential nominating process in January.

REED: No, it started today.

CARVILLE: Let me ask you this. This is my question. The over/under on the number of, like, real Republican candidates that run for president, that, you know, some experience, some chance of winning, some chance of raising money.

REED: Eight to 10.

CARVILLE: Eight to 10?

REED: Yeah, I think 8 to 10.

CARVILLE: That's pretty much the consensus.

REED: I'll say this, I think the water looks a lot warmer this morning.

CARVILLE: Sure does.

SPITZER: A lot of people who weren't interested before going to say this is the shot.

REED: And why not? Because if the ball bounces your way and you get a little luck along the way, who knows, you could be president.

PARKER: The big question...

REED: I think Palin is more likely after yesterday. PARKER: I was going to say, is she going to run?

REED: I think Newt is going. I think Pawlenty, Romney...

CARVILLE: Haley?

REED: I think Haley is probably going to go.

SPITZER: Huckabee?

REED: I would think so.

SPITZER: I got to...

CARVILLE: It all...

SPITZER: Did he say Romney?

CARVILLE: (INAUDIBLE) said he was going to run.

REED: Yes.

SPITZER: He said Romney, yeah.

CARVILLE: I think (INAUDIBLE) said he was going to run.

SPITZER: Does Romney get Mitch knocked out in the Republican Party because of his health care bill in Massachusetts? Which was, Ralph, I just got to say this, the health care bill that Barack Obama got passed was modeled after Mitt Romney's bill. This was a Republican concept. So, is Mitt Romney dead because of that?

REED: I don't think so. I think he's going to have to have an answer to that. I think he's -- that's going to be part of the conversation and he's going to have to have an answer. I assume he'll have one.

SPITZER: One of the things the Republican Party says it's going to do is roll it back, repeal it, tame it, do whatever metaphor. It's Mitt Romney's bill...

(CROSSTALK)

PARKER: But you know, the Republicans...

REED: Well, Obama also runs around and claims it was based on a Heritage Foundation study, so this is what primaries are for. This is why you have -- here's what I'm for. I am for a vibrant muscular competitive primary. Here's why...

CARVILLE: Can I tell you something?

REED: As with the Democrats in '08 with Obama and Clinton, it made the ultimate nominee better...

SPITZER: Stronger. REED: I'll tell you something else. You know, for all the talk of the Tea Party and it allegedly being a liability and not an asset, the fact is, there were four million net more Republican votes in the primaries this year than Democrats. And it was a precursor of what happened yesterday. And if we can have that same thing in the presidential primaries where there's three to five million net more votes, that won't be good for Obama.

CARVILLE: Let me tell you something. You want a vibrant, muscular, competitive Republican presidential primary? I think you're going to get it.

REED: I think we are going to get it.

CARVILLE: If I had to bet, I think it's going to be very vibrant. I think it's going to be one of the interesting political events that we're going to see. It's going to be fascinating. It's going to be fascinating to see who jumps in when, who thinks they can lay out...

SPITZER: Who you going to be working for?

CARVILLE: CNN.

(LAUGHTER)

SPITZER: I want to see you back in that arena. He is the best, most wisdom anybody I know.

CARVILLE: I'm not going -- Republicans -- I'm not going to get in the middle of - it will be interesting to see who my wife is for, if anybody. But this is going to be, like, fun -- you can't not like politics. Just like in some ways the Obama-Hillary struggle was unbelievable. This is thing is going...

REED: It helped the Democrats. And here's the problem if you're Obama. If I'm Axelrod or I'm David Plouffe, this is my concern, No, 1, the Republicans are done nominating whoever's turn it is. If I'm Obama, I don't get to automatically have a McCain or a Dole. I may end up with somebody that's going to be harder for me to put in a box. No. 1, No 2, I think Boehner will be much more difficult to demonize and make a foil than Newt was.

PARKER: Oh, absolutely.

REED: Don't underestimate John Boehner.

CARVILLE: What a standard.

(LAUGHTER)

SPITZER: Newt was the best gift, right? Newt was the best thing that happened to Bill Clinton.

CARVILLE: Suppose Jeb Bush gets in?

REED: Huh?

CARVILLE: Suppose Jeb gets in.

PARKER: Yeah, he might.

REED: It would be something. Could be a lot of support for him.

CARVILLE: Again, he would beat a (INAUDIBLE) candidate -- it's always the oldest white guy there. If not, Romney kind of fits that.

PARKER: Well, let me ask you about Romney. The defense on the health care thing is always that it should be a state policy, not a federal policy. Does that hold up?

REED: I think he's going to have to do more than that. I think he's going to have to express a profound philosophical difference between what he was trying to do in Massachusetts and what Obama did and I believe he's going to be able to make that case. Now, how that gets litigated is ultimately between him and the opponents, the other candidates, and the primary voters. But I can't imagine that Mitt Romney isn't aware that this is going to be an issue.

PARKER: Sure.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: And the defense of, gee, that's a state, not a federal -- who cares? I mean, I was a governor. I'm all for states' rights and that kind of -- who cares? Either you're for it, you're against it, doesn't matter who's doing it.

REED: But the fact is, look there were Republicans throughout the '90s who expands Medicaid at the state level in ways that were responsible and didn't bust the budget. And if the federal government had come in and said, you have to take everybody at 300 percent of poverty level on your Medicaid program and we won't give you a dime to cover it, you can't say those are the same.

SPITZER: No, no, no, what they're saying here...

REED: Even if the policy is the same, the execution was totally different.

SPITZER: What was the same here is the piece that Republicans say, look, which they say...

REED: And Deval Patrick has bankrupted Massachusetts with the way he implemented...

SPITZER: The piece the Republicans oppose...

CARVILLE: I thought he won that.

REED: He did.

SPITZER: ...the mandate that everybody participate. PARKER: James, Ralph, thank you all both so much for a very spirited conversation.

SPITZER: Don't go away.

PARKER: Don't go away.

SPITZER: We'll be right back.

PARKER: We'll be right back.

SPITZER: Will we?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Now it's time for our "Headliner." This afternoon, President Obama reacted to yesterday's monumental electoral losses. Taking questions from the press, he appeared somewhat humbled but not defeated. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: There's a reason we have two parties in this country and both Democrats and Republicans have certain beliefs and certain principles that each feels cannot be compromised.

I think we'd be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: And joining us with a reaction to the president's speech and last night's result, one of the driving forces behind the Tea Party's remarkable success, former House majority leader and author of "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto," Dick Armey.

Thanks for being with us. Congratulations. Wanted to ask you, first, about the president's remarks, today. He admitted some mistakes, but he was mostly digging in his heels and seemed to be sticking to his guns on policy. What were your impressions?

DICK ARMEY, FMR HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Yeah, my impress was that the president felt like, gee, golly, whiz, I had done so much of all the right things, and I was so busy saving America from the emergency, that I forgot to take time to explain it to all those slow learners out there and they ended up being oppositional to me.

I just don't think he's able to really come to terms with the fact that he might be wrong and America might be right.

PARKER: Well, you have said that you didn't think he was intellectually capable of admitting to being wrong or to even being flexible. What's the difference between President Obama and President Clinton in 1994? ARMEY: I think President Clinton, first of all, President Clinton I've always thought was never an ideologically defined guy. He was as probably as much a practical-minded politician as you could have found any place. And frankly, when he saw that look, the American people want us to move this way, he adapted very quickly.

And I have to tell you something. We spent hours and hours and hours, day after day after day, in direct negotiation between the leaders of Congress and the president himself, his budget director, his secretary of the treasury, working out the details of budget agreements. President Clinton was extremely well involved with his work. And I have a sense that President Obama is only passively disinterested in his work.

ELIOT SPITZER, HOST: Well, look, I just feel compelled to jump a little bit here to defend our president. And I think I have seen not only an agile mind but somebody who cares very, very deeply. And I sensed what Washington today, disappointment certainly, and a lot of reflection. And I think the question on everybody's mind right now is now what, how do we go forward? And one of the things, you know, we had some fun interchanges when you were on the show in the past weeks was name your cut. What we're trying to do now is see if you can name your compromise because we want to see if we can, in fact, see where there are areas of agreement.

So let's take what is certainly the issue that's on the table right now, the tax cut extension. Where do you think there's room for give on either side, you know, the middle class cuts 250 and below and those above 250 being referred to as the rich tax, you know, those who are wealthy. How do you compromise on this issue?

ARMEY: Well, there's really no need to. Just take to it to the floor and let the floor votes decide. Now the fact of the matter is, Nancy Pelosi was quite well aware of the fact that Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress would have voted to extend all of the Bush tax package as it is, and she withheld it from the floor. So the compromise might be we'll let everybody have their vote and let the one that is most popularly received by the Congress of the United States be the one we send forward to the Senate.

SPITZER: And, Congressman, just want to understand, you're saying have two separate votes, one that would apply to everybody below the $250,000 threshold and then one that would apply to folks above the $250,000 threshold?

ARMEY: Sure, put them both on.

SPITZER: OK.

ARMEY: That's what happened, had Nancy Pelosi been willing to go forward a month ago.

SPITZER: You know, Congressman, certainly the pivotal, sort of philosophical issue that is facing the public and was facing the Tea Party and all those who voted, what is the right role of government in creating jobs, in rebuilding an economy that clearly is back on its heels right now? So I want to throw out another one and see if we can forge some agreement here. And that is the issue of infrastructure. You know, whether it is the interstate highway system or the more modern equivalent which might be the Internet system, getting high speed Internet access into rural areas. Do you think there should be a role for government to play in funding and helping states pay for that infrastructure as we go forward?

ARMEY: Sure. And I can take you all the way back to Adam Smith in 1776, the wealth of nations. And he pointed out this is a legitimate necessary function of the government to provide infrastructure, which will result in greater profitability in the private sector. But what our government has been doing for decades is they've been taking money on false pretenses. They take your gasoline taxes. They say it's supposed to be devoted to highway maintenance. And they use it, instead, to fund some kind of goofy program like, say, AmeriCorps, which has nothing whatsoever to do with our infrastructure. It's simply a training ground for young political operatives. So the fact of the matter is, let the government be honest in how they use the taxpayer's money for the purposes for which the money is taken. And we will have the funds for infrastructure repair and rebuild.

PARKER: Several party members, Tea Party members, that is, said that their mission was to restore the party and they warned Republicans here not to view last night as an embrace of the establishment. How do you avoid tensions within the party and how much influence do you think the Tea Party should have?

ARMEY: Well, I think -- where the Tea Party movement is grassroots movement, we want to move to the arena where the power of your idea is what will determine the extent to which it will prevail. Increase the quality of workmanship. You have your point of view. I'll have my point of view. Put it together in legislative form. Knock all the rust off. Take the kinks out of it. Fix all the loose ends. Make it presentable and we'll debate it in an open debate. And, quite frankly, they're very satisfied to have their ideas compete openly and fairly with any ideas in America, so long as we do a quality of workmanship that makes it a presentable idea in the first place.

The biggest -- one of the biggest problems these activists have is Congress has been so indulgent and sloppy work that they've put bills out there of massive consequence to the American people without even taking the trouble of reading them. And that's where you get this thing called the law of unintended consequences which never is spoken about on behalf of private sector activity.

PARKER: Dick Armey, thank you very much for being with us.

SPITZER: Don't go away, we'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN HICKENLOOPER (D), COLORADO GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I'm John Hickenlooper. I guess I'm not a very good politician because I can't stand negative ads. Every time I see one, I feel like I need to take a shower. And you see a lot of them.

With all the challenges we face, Colorado needs a governor who brings people together. Create jobs and cut government spending. That's why I won't run negative ads. Pitting one group against another or one part of Colorado against another doesn't help anyone.

And besides, we need the water.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: And now it's time for "Fun with Politics."

SPITZER: Kathleen, I refuse, absolutely no fun in this political game today for Democrats. It's game over. I refuse.

PARKER: Come on, Eliot, nobody likes a sore loser.

SPITZER: This isn't being sore. We're just -- they must have miscounted. Give me a happy ending to this one. Something went wrong here.

PARKER: We're going to start with a new slate just like the new governor of Colorado.

SPITZER: Hickenlooper.

PARKER: Hickenlooper.

SPITZER: Our favorite ad, I remember that one.

PARKER: Say that with a straight face. Hickenlooper. Remember this ad?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN HICKENLOOPER (D), COLORADO GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I'm John Hickenlooper. I guess I'm not a very good politician because I can't stand negative ads. Every time I see one, I feel like I need to take a shower. And you see a lot of them.

With all the challenges we face, Colorado needs a governor who brings people together. Create jobs and cut government spending. That's why I won't run negative ads. Pitting one group against another or one part of Colorado against another doesn't help anyone.

And besides, we need the water.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: You know, the point is we can get a clean start no matter what you look like, that's fine. But you know what, a guy like that getting elected governor, stepping into the shower with his clothes on, it's not going to cheer me up one bit. PARKER: You know, what are we going to talk about? I mean, we're going to miss all these ads. It's been so much fun, Eliot, come on.

SPITZER: And there's good news, Kathleen. I will be cheered up, 14 months. The Iowa caucuses, the presidential 2012 race around the corner, always a political game to play.

PARKER: That's not fun.

SPITZER: You're right. It's sad.

PARKER: Don't go away. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: Welcome to "Our Political Party." This is a chance for everybody to speak their mind on a whole range of topics. But first, we have to introduce our guest. We have Alicia Menendez who is a senior adviser at NDN, a center left think tank. And John Ridley, who's a screenwriter and a columnist, and a frequent guest.

SPITZER: And Steve Kornacki, a news editor at Salon.com. Also a good friend of "Our Political Party." And Ralph Reed is back. Ralph, as we told you, is chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and author of the book, soon to be a best seller, "The Confirmation of Political Thriller."

Welcome, everyone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

PARKER: All right. We thought we'd start our party by serving a big platter of crow. So what was your prediction that didn't quite come true?

ALICIA MENENDEZ, SR. ADVISOR, NDN: I called Florida '25 for Joe Garcia. This was the seat that had belonged to Mario Diaz-Balart. He moved into his brother's district when he decided that he was not going to run. Joe Garcia ran in 2008, came extremely close, and he ran against sort of Marco Rubio's best friends. And so I think it was an interesting race dynamic. He definitely suffered because the Sink campaign decided not to go after the Democratic base but instead to court independent white voters in north Florida. Kendrick Meek did him no favors but --

SPITZER: A lot of rationalization.

MENENDEZ: I know. I know. I just want Joe Garcia to win so badly.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you'd have just called me, I could have told you.

SPITZER: Take his number.

MENENDEZ: Next time.

PARKER: How about you, John, any --

JOHN RIDLEY, CONTRIBUTOR, NPR: Feingold. I thought Feingold -- I'm from Wisconsin tonight.

PARKER: Oh, yes.

RIDLEY: And I really thought -- Wisconsin I suppose whether you vote left or right, they really tend to like a little more --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, you should have called me. I could have told you that.

(CROSSTALK)

RIDLEY: I was surprised.

PARKER: Yes.

RIDLEY: And I was in Wisconsin.

SPITZER: Ralph, does that one cause you a little bit of grief? I know you disagreed with Senator Feingold in a lot of stuff.

RALPH REED, FAITH AND FREEDOM COALITION: Grief, are you kidding?

SPITZER: He was --

REED: There's a celebration, Eliot.

SPITZER: But wait, he was one of the most principled senators. He was thoughtful. He didn't -- he bucked conventional wisdom. Don't you just hate to lose people like that?

REED: Look, I think he's a good man.

SPITZER: I made you think about it.

REED: I think he's a good man.

SPITZER: OK.

REED: As a human being and I like him on that level, but I mean he voted liberal. Come on.

(CROSSTALK)

Ninety-seven percent of the time, maybe 99.

STEVE KORNACKI, SALON.COM: But you know who came up and endorsed Russ Feingold two days before the election?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. KORNACKI: Bob Barr. It doesn't get much more conservative than Bob Barr from Georgia. And he said, I understand what small government really means. It means a government that's not too intrusive when it comes to privacy and civil liberties.

REED: Apparently the people of Wisconsin didn't buy it. Look, Bob Barr is a good friend but I'm not buying that either. Russ Feingold, first of all, I disagreed with him philosophically.

SPITZER: Oh, I know that. But he's such a good person.

REED: I believe the First Amendment is sacrosanct and we should have free speech, and it didn't work as we can all see.

And that was his central legislative achievement. And it was a disaster. We have more money in politics than we've ever had before. This was supposed to fix a problem of soft money. Now all that's left is salt money as we wait (INAUDIBLE) it's a disaster.

RIDLEY: -- on a national level, he's been very good for Wisconsin. And not only that, but it was Johnson. Guys like Tommy Thompson, Republicans we had there have been terrific and people in Wisconsin have no problem with that.

I don't think it's so much about him. I'm surprised as a Wisconsinite the choice we made in opposition. It's not a red/blue issue because we've had terrific reds out of there. It really is the individual that he was going up against. And to me, it was the -- it was Sharron Angle --

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it was a tough --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wisconsin across the board --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, I don't buy that.

KORNACKI: It's like the perfect bracket for the NCAA tournament.

Now, I'll tell you one and they were many. But I'll tell you one that stands out is Harry Reid in Nevada. I thought he was a goner all year because I went back at the start of the year and I looked at the polls. At the beginning of this year, polls showed Harry Reid trailing his probable Republican challengers by more than 10 points. And I look back since 1980 and I could find one senator in those 30 years who entered his re-election year facing that kind of political reality who actually survived, is Al D'Amato in New York in 1992. Some very extenuating circumstances there. They all lost besides that.

So I thought Harry Reid was a goner the whole way. I thought he had a terrible final debate performance against Sharron Angle. I thought he'd have a fight. And, you know, I think at the end, it was just, you know, she was too much. What this race was to me, it was like Oliver North against Chuck Robb in '94. The Republicans just went a little too far in a year when it was really tough to screw it up and they screwed up a race they had no business losing.

PARKER: Well, that's one the Tea Party I think screwed up. Don't you think Sue Lowden would have been able to defeat Reid if she's gotten the nomination?

REED: You know, it's counterfactual. I mean, I was there in Virginia when we nominated Olly. And you know, everybody said that somebody else would have been a stronger candidate but they couldn't win their own nomination. So if you're the stronger candidate, how do you --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The best and nicest thing with the political base.

SPITZER: You have to eat crow too.

REED: He stole my crow. I mean, I agreed with your analysis entirely. I was there repeatedly, and, you know, look, I never discounted that Harry Reid was a fighter. You know, that he was a former boxer. That he was tough. That if he went down --

SPITZER: None of which emerges when you just look at him and talk to him.

REED: But those are the guys that are the scariest, right?

SPITZER: Right.

REED: Because they don't come off that way. And I think --

SPITZER: Right. No bravado, which is real.

REED: I think because of his background, he didn't have any quit in him. It was almost Nixonian. He could take the punishment, he could keep going. But here's a guy who had been in Washington since 1982 in either the House or the Senate. He was the Senate majority leader. He was a virtual institution in the state. And the guy couldn't get above 45 percent. He should have lost. But here's what I think happened. I think the air war basically became -- assured her destruction.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

REED: I think there was one poll that showed 72 percent of voters were tuning it out at the end. And there's no question he had planned for a superior ground game and delivered.

SPITZER: Which hardly ever happens. Anyway, another question, we had been living in a tunnel the last two month, this midterm. Everything else in the world has fallen off the map. What is the most important thing that's happened out there that we've completely missed because of it?

REED: I don't want to say that it was totally ignored but it struck me that it was largely a sidebar is the United States has formally presented kind of a final counteroffer to the Iranians for how much enriched uranium they would be allowed to keep and how much would be shipped to other countries under this attempted compromise. And what concerns me is while we've been in the middle of this election, we're really reaching a probably eight to 15 month end game on whether or not Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, will have a nuclear weapon and if they obtained it --

SPITZER: I don't know if you saw --

REED: -- there are not a lot of good options.

SPITZER: They're starting to load uranium into their nuclear facilities.

REED: Right.

SPITZER: And so we are getting close to the point -- I don't know if it's eight months, two months, or 15 months, I just have no idea. But at some point --

REED: It's not a lot of time.

SPITZER: -- finite period of time between now and that point where they will begin to get the enriched uranium they need to do things that are really, really bad.

PARKER: There's no graceful segue from a nuclear Iran --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Apparently, that was not controversial --

(CROSSTALK)

KORNACKI: I don't want this country to get involved in a war with Iran.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know. You don't want to do anything to stop them from getting --

SPITZER: All right. All right. Here we go.

PARKER: I've seen it all -- war with Iran, but in the meantime, we need to talk seriously about "Dancing with the Stars." Because in another recent election, who's this guy, Rick Fox --

SPITZER: Who's this guy? Come on.

PARKER: He was voted off. OK, so who among the losers last night will next appear on "Dancing with the Stars"? All right. I'm waiting for that.

RIDLEY: Christine O'Donnell.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's obvious.

PARKER: I should have said except Christine O'Donnell --

RIDLEY: Right. If I could expand a little bit just keeping the reality TV, who I'd really like to see in a reality show next season, Meg Whitman on "The Apprentice." That's what I really like to see.

SPITZER: Ooh.

PARKER: That would be great, absolutely.

SPITZER: That's a good thought.

PARKER: Second act for everyone.

KORNACKI: You stole my thunder. Carl Paladino if he brings his baseball bat I think would be fun to watch on "Dancing with the Stars."

REED: Charlie Crist.

PARKER: Oh, dear.

MENENDEZ: Is he going to wear the polo or he's going to finally put -- because I can't watch the polo.

SPITZER: I don't know if he's a dancer. I don't know.

All right. On that note --

REED: He danced quite a bit around between the two parties in this last election.

He was nimble on his toes.

SPITZER: All right. Let's take a quick break. We want to hear from you. Go to our blog, CNN.com/parkerspitzer. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

PARKER: And we'll be right back with another quick question for "Our Political Party." Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: Welcome back to "Our Political Party." We're going to squeeze in one more quick question. If the election coverage were a drinking game, what's the one word that would get you drunk? Only one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you look at me when you said that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're defensive.

PARKER: You know, there are certain words that you keep hearing over and over. You know what the drinking thing is.

MENENDEZ: There's such a long list. It goes extremist. Shady third party groups. Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid. Washington, Washington, Washington. But my favorite is Nancy Pelosi. And it's especially when you have Nancy Pelosi as a non sequitur. Or it's like you're talking about something else. By the way, Nancy Pelosi. That's how you get drunk. REED: My favorite is not a name, it's a phrase. Lost control of the narrative.

SPITZER: Yes, yes.

REED: The folks in the West Wing you have to hear one more time, they lost control of the narrative.

SPITZER: Right.

PARKER: I am so with you. In fact the column I wrote this morning begins, narrative, shmarrative (ph).

(LAUGHTER)

So thank you, we'll promote that column right here now.

KORNACKI: Along the same lines, the word for me would be connect, as in Barack Obama somehow lost his ability to connect with the American people.

PARKER: I have to say that I am drunk on witch. I can't believe nobody said the word "witch."

SPITZER: John hasn't thrown in his.

PARKER: Oh, oh, I'm sorry.

RIDLEY: Mine would be a phrase. No, it's all right. Sometimes I'm fine to sit in the corner and drink. I don't need to hear anything.

Mine would be actually a phrase as well. It would be the American people. If the American people had -- one more time, the American people would be vomiting in a gutter right about now. Just please, stop channeling the American people.

PARKER: Oh, I'm with you, John. I'm afraid I'm guilty.

RIDLEY: That's it. Everybody.

PARKER: So, yes, OK, I'm going to retire that from now on.

RIDLEY: It just needs to stop.

PARKER: We're all drunk on wit here. Alicia, John, Steve and Ralph, thank you so much for being here. And thank you, Eliot, as always.

SPITZER: Thank you.

PARKER: Perfect host. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, I'm Randi Kaye. More of "PARKER SPITZER" in a moment.

First, the latest. We start with breaking news. An all clear has been issued at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York where a suspicious package caused a DHL cargo facility to be evacuated earlier tonight. Meantime, the FBI says ballistic tests have linked yesterday's shooting at a Coast Guard recruiting office in Virginia to four similar attacks on military facilities. Last month, shots were fired at the Pentagon, the national museum of the Marine Corps and a vacant Marine recruiting station. No one was injured in any of those shootings.

Calling the economic recovery disappointingly slow, the Federal Reserve said today it will buy up to $600 billion in treasury bonds over the next eight months. The move is designed to jumpstart the stalling economy by driving down interest rates on mortgages and other debt.

Minnesota Representative and staunch Tea Party Republican Michele Bachmann was re-elected last night and is now angling for a House leadership job. She ran as a fiscal conservative and tough budget cutter. So what does she plan on cutting first? Tonight on "360," we're keeping her honest holding her to her campaign promises.

That is the very latest. "PARKER SPITZER" is back right after this.

PARKER: Before we go, a postscript. We've heard the acceptance speeches and the concessions, lots of cheering and a few tears but short on inspiration.

SPITZER: So we thought we'd end tonight a concession speech that still inspires. Senator Edward Kennedy concedes defeat in the 1980 Democratic convention. Remember this one? It was great.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on. The cause endures. The hope still lives. And the dream shall never die.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Well, whatever else you thought about Senator Kennedy, the man certainly knew how to give a speech. He may also have been the last great compromiser in the U.S. Senate.

SPITZER: And let's hope that spirit of compromise lives on in the days, weeks and months ahead in Washington. It is going to be sorely needed.

PARKER: Amen. Thanks so much for being with us. Be sure to join us tomorrow night.

SPITZER: Good night from New York. "LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.