“People have a right to be grouchy,” Obama adviser David Axelrod said on CNN’s State of the Union when asked about Obama’s sagging approval rating, which is now just below 50 percent.

“There’s ten percent unemployment,” the top presidential adviser also pointed out. “These are tough times.”

“We took over in January in the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis, fiscal crisis, financial crisis, two wars,” Obama also told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. “The president has had to make a lot of tough decisions to try and rescue our economy from collapse, to move this country forward and we are going to reap the benefits of that.”

Although Axelrod acknowledged that Obama’s approval ratings had fallen considerably during his first year in office, Axelrod also said that the White House was not focused on polling data.

“One one thing I can assure you, though. The numbers the president is looking at aren’t these numbers,” Axelrod said as he pointed to a year-long graph of Obama’s approval and disapproval ratings.

Looking ahead to the 2010 midterm elections, Axelrod also tried to downplay the political headwinds Democrats are facing.

“We take the long view,” Axelrod told King. “The fact is: if we do our job right, if we keep worrying not about polls but about the jobs of the American people, about their health care, about their ability to educate their kids, stay in their homes and own their homes, send their kids to college – the basic pillars of a middle class life. If we keep worrying about the future and building a stronger future for this country, these things will take care of themselves.”

“Right now, we’re not worried about polls,” Axelrod said Sunday. “I believe we’re going to do well next November,” he added, “because the president’s making good, hard and important decisions to move this country forward.”

'He’s a great speaker, a great communicator,' Gov. Schwarzenegger said of the president.

Washington (CNN) – Not every Republican is a critic of President Obama. At least one thinks the president is doing a fine job – at least when it comes to the effort involved in being the country’s chief executive.

Asked to give Obama a grade as the end of the president’s first year in office approaches, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California’s Republican governor, gave Obama high marks.

“When it comes to effort, [Obama] should get a straight A,” Schwarzenegger told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King in an interview that aired Sunday on State of the Union.

“He’s out there with tremendous energy and he’s selling his ideas. And he has great enthusiasm there. He’s a great speaker, a great communicator.”

The one-time Hollywood action star also had some advice for Obama as the president tries to push his agenda through Capitol Hill’s partisanship.

“He has to hang in there,” Schwarzenegger told King, “be tough, just continue on, never give up, eventually he’s going to get all those things done.”

The California governor was echoing the sentiments of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who joined Schwarzenegger in the interview on State of the Union.

Bloomberg, a identified Independent and longtime Obama ally, was more circumspect in his assessment of the president’s first year.

After noting several challenges Obama has been facing since taking office, Bloomberg said he would give the president “a pretty high grade.”

“I hate to use letters,” Bloomberg said. “But [Obama] is working very hard and trying. And he’s got enthusiasm and drive. And I would just urge him to don’t – if he doesn’t get everything he wants – don’t get beaten down, don’t go back into your shell.”

Related video: Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg weigh in on the economy

'He’s a great speaker, a great communicator,' Gov. Schwarzenegger said of the president.

Washington (CNN) – Not every Republican is a critic of President Obama. At least one thinks the president is doing a fine job – at least when it comes to the effort involved in being the country’s chief executive.

Asked to give Obama a grade as the end of the president’s first year in office approaches, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California’s Republican governor, gave Obama high marks.

“When it comes to effort, [Obama] should get a straight A,” Schwarzenegger told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King in an interview that aired Sunday on State of the Union.

“He’s out there with tremendous energy and he’s selling his ideas. And he has great enthusiasm there. He’s a great speaker, a great communicator.”

The one-time Hollywood action star also had some advice for Obama as the president tries to push his agenda through Capitol Hill’s partisanship.

“He has to hang in there,” Schwarzenegger told King, “be tough, just continue on, never give up, eventually he’s going to get all those things done.”

The California governor was echoing the sentiments of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who joined Schwarzenegger in the interview on State of the Union.

Bloomberg, a identified Independent and longtime Obama ally, was more circumspect in his assessment of the president’s first year.

After noting several challenges Obama has been facing since taking office, Bloomberg said he would give the president “a pretty high grade.”

“I hate to use letters,” Bloomberg said. “But [Obama] is working very hard and trying. And he’s got enthusiasm and drive. And I would just urge him to don’t – if he doesn’t get everything he wants – don’t get beaten down, don’t go back into your shell.”

Related video: Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg weigh in on the economy

'What we've done and what we do is fight for what we believe in,' SEIU president Andy Stern said Sunday.

Washington (CNN) –Senate Democrats appear to have come up with a deal that holds their fragile caucus together in the face of a promised Republican filibuster of health care reform, but a top Democratic backer said Sunday that the fight for more progressive principles in the bill is not over.

Appearing Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, walked a fine line between continuing to express support for President Obama and threatening liberal grassroots action in the final stages of the year-long fight over health care reform or even ultimately withholding his influential union’s support for the final bill that could be presented to Obama early next year.

Asked about the Senate’s use of a tax on so-called high-premium, “Cadillac” insurance plans to help pay the bill’s nearly $900 billion price tag, Stern suggested his union would continue to oppose the tax.

“What we've done and what we do is fight for what we believe in,” Stern told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King.

“So, where we are now is we're saying to the president, to the House and to the Senate, we get another shot in the conference committee to deal with affordability issues,” Stern also said Sunday. “People need to be able to afford it, and that's what the fight is about.”

Stern listed areas where he thought the final bill could be changed before being sent to the Oval Office for Obama’s signature: the level of subsidies in the House and Senate bills provided to those who cannot afford entirely to pay for insurance on their own; taxing health care benefits including the high-premium plans many unions have negotiated on behalf of their members, and more regulation of the insurance industry.

But the union head was blunt and realistic about what will not be included in the bill.

“There is not going to be a public option, there is not going to be Medicare buy-in. I'm as disappointed as anyone. But progressives out there - it's about progress, and we now have to fight for the changes we want in the conference committee, and then make a decision when it's over.”

And Stern suggested that Democrats could pay dearly in next year’s midterm elections if more of the concerns of his members are not addressed in the final version of the health care reform bill.

“Our members are no different than anyone else,” Stern told King. “They elected 60 Democratic senators because they promised them they would promote change. And all we've done with that gift, I would say, is squander it. You know, we have not even been able to have a legitimate debate about some of these issues in the Senate. So I think people are going to look: did we get change, did people fight for change? I think it's clear they think that President Obama is fighting for health care, he's fighting for jobs, he's fighting for other issues. I think it's also very clear they're really disappointed with the Senate, you know, not being able to have a debate. This is crazy, that [senators] can use their individual votes to distort democracy. Americans wanted them to have real debates, they promised them an opportunity, and they need to do something about it.

“They need to have a reset button in the Democratic Caucus after this is over,” Stern said of the Senate, “and say what did we come here to do? Was it really to let any of one of us stop a debate in the U.S. Senate? That's not what people voted for.”

While he repeatedly criticized the Senate and its procedures, Stern had praise for the president.

“We are really proud that this president has kept this health care debate alive right now. It is pretty easy to say that on this road to change, there could have been a lot of exit ramps and detours, but the president has stuck to his course.”

According to information released by the White House, Stern has the distinction of being the most frequent visitor to the executive mansion since Obama took office nearly a year ago.

Related: Senate Dems win over key holdouts to reach 60 votes for reform bill

Since his announcement Saturday that he would be the crucial 60th vote necessary to secure cloture on the health care reform bill and avoid a likely Republican filibuster, Nelson has faced a storm of criticism from conservatives in both parties – and some liberal groups.

“I couldn't create the opportunity to be the 60th vote. It happened,” Nelson said on State of the Union. “If you think it's fun having both sides on an issue mad at you when you're trying to do something in good faith, just think, it's like going home and getting bit by the family dog. So - who enjoys that?” Nelson also said Sunday.

As part of the deal announced Saturday, the Nebraska Democrat said he would supply the key vote to move the bill ahead if it included provisions that did not allow federal funds to be used to pay for abortions. To satisfy Nelson, leading Senate Democrats agreed to amendments that will allow states to opt out of providing abortion coverage when the statewide insurance exchanges called for by the bill are set up. In addition, insurance providers who do provide abortion coverage would be required to pay for the procedure solely with premiums collected from policyholders. In order to ensure that federal funds are not used to pay for abortions, insurance companies would be required to set up a firewall between subsidies paid by the federal government and premiums paid by policyholders.

Responding to criticism from fellow lawmakers and advocacy groups that oppose abortion rights, Nelson pointed out that his effort to get even stronger prohibitions on abortion funding – like those passed in the House - had already failed in the Senate.

Asked why he did not hold out for even tougher restrictions since he was in the position to supply the 60th vote, Nelson suggested Sunday that instead of including prohibitions like those in the House health care reform bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might have opted to use a procedural maneuver called reconciliation that would allow some portions of Democrats’ health care reform agenda to be passed with a simple majority in the Senate.

“Then you would have gotten what’s in the bill right now,” Nelson said Sunday defending his negotiation of the contentious issue of abortion funding.

Nelson also defended another controversial part of his agreement that has caused some of his fellow lawmakers to be green with envy. Under the deal, the federal government will foot the bill in perpetuity for any additional Medicaid costs incurred by Nebraska as a result of passing the health care reform bill.

“I didn't ask for a special favor here. I didn't ask for a carve-out,” Nelson told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. “What I said is the governor of Nebraska has contacted me, he said publicly he's having trouble with the budget. This will add to his budget woes. And I said, look, we have to have that fixed.”

Pressed on whether Democratic claims about the bill’s ability to lower overall health care costs in the long term could be believed if other states sought deals like the one he negotiated on behalf of Nebraska, Nelson suggested that his deal points out why the federal government should not impose unfunded mandates on states.

“Well, if the money isn’t there, then the requirement needs to go away,” Nelson told King.

“It's one or the other,” Nelson also said Sunday. “If we're going to mandate these things on a state, then we have to pay for them. We don't pay for them three years, then pull back on them, leave the mandate there and pull back the federal money. That was my objective, to get that fixed.

“They fixed it this way. It's not the way I would have fixed it, but it's fixed, at least at this point in time. But I think in the future, either the mandate goes away or the federal government provides the money, as it should.”

Asked about the rampant partisanship that has characterized the health care reform debate on Capitol Hill, Nelson said it was unprecedented during his time in the Senate.

“The high intensity here is as harsh and as unforgiving and unrelenting as I have ever seen it in my nine years,” Nelson said Sunday on CNN.

And Nelson also defended his go-it-alone approach in the middle of the health care reform fight.

“I'm an independent-minded sort of person,” Nelson said on State of the Union. “And I think that's demonstrated. I don't take my marching orders from a party or a group or any other entity. And, as in this case, I put together what I thought was appropriate, and I'm sorry that both sides didn't enjoy it. And that's the way it works. I'm an independent type of person. I'm not a lone eagle. I do consult. I do get input. But at the end of the day, I make my own decision about what to do.”

Finally, the conservative Democrat cautioned that his party could still lose his vote in the contentious weeks ahead.

“I suppose putting in a public option would do it,” Nelson said Sunday.

The conservative Democrat added that imposing a tax on wealthier Americans, a funding mechanism employed in the House health care reform bill, could also cause him to withhold his vote for the final version of the bill.

Updated: 6:02 p.m.

Speaking Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, Graham, R-South Carolina, took issue with a campaign trail pledge made by the Obama campaign to change how things work in Washington.

Obama and his team “ran a brilliant campaign,” Graham told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King,” but they're doing a lousy job governing the country, in my view.”

“You know, change you can believe in,” Graham said referring to a frequent theme of Obama’s underdog presidential campaign, “after this health care bill debacle, [that] has now becoming an empty slogan. And it's really been replaced by seedy Chicago politics, when you think about it, backroom deals that amount to bribes.”

Acknowledging that those were strong words, Graham backed up his assertions by pointing to a number of attributes of the health care reform bill now under consideration in the Senate. “This bill personifies the worst of Washington,” Graham said Sunday.

Referring to one of the biggest accounting scandals in recent memory, Graham said the bill was characterized by “Enron accounting techniques.”

The South Carolina Republican said that the House and Senate are not likely actually to impose cuts on the amount the Medicare program pays doctors. “So when you put that into the health care mix, this thing doesn't save money; it costs money. And that's phony,” said Graham.

The Republican senator also said that Congress is not likely actually to cut $470 billion from the Medicare program, a move that finances roughly half of the Senate bill’s costs over the first ten years.

“We will start forgiving those cuts to doctors and hospitals,” Graham told King. “So it is Enron-accounting. It is a sham.”

Graham also faulted the Senate bill for beginning to collect taxes immediately in order cover its costs but only paying out benefits during six of its first ten years after passage.

And the often soft-spoken Republican let loose on a provision in the Senate bill that involves the federal government in paying for long-term care insurance.

Graham quoted fellow Senator Kent Conrad, D-North Dakoka, who had described the new long-term care program “a Ponzi scheme of the first order,” a program “that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.” Graham added, “So any Democratic senator who votes for this bill is a co-conspirator to one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in the history of Washington.”

And Graham took issue with a sweetheart deal Senate Democratic leaders negotiated with conservative Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Under the deal, the federal government will foot the bill in perpetuity for any additional Medicaid costs incurred by Nebraska as a result of passing the health care reform bill.

“Is it constitutional?,” Graham asked Sunday about the deal negotiated by Nelson. “I want the attorney general of South Carolina to look at this.”

Appearing earlier on State of the Union, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod defended the deal top Senate Democrats made with Nelson in order to secure the crucial 60th vote necessary to get the bill through the chamber.

“I think every senator uses whatever leverage they have to help their states. That's the way it's been. That's the way it will always be,” Axelrod said to King. “And people want their legislators to advocate for their states.”

David Axelrod spoke out Sunday about the non-binding agreement that five countries, including the United States, agreed to at the Copenhagen climate talks.

Washington (CNN) – A top White House adviser said Sunday that the limited, non-binding agreement between the administration and four other countries was a step in the right direction in the battle to control climate change that lays the groundwork for more independent efforts by the United States.

“Nobody says that this is the end of the road,” Obama adviser David Axelrod said Sunday of the agreement which calls on countries to identify their own voluntary commitments to reducing climate change so that compliance can be internationally monitored.

“The end of the road would’ve been the complete collapse of those talks [in Copenhagen],” Axelrod added. “This is a great step forward,” he said of the limited agreement reached just as the 12-day meeting in Copenhagen was ending in what many observers predicted would be failure.

Related: Climate change deal reached, U.N. Chief says

Axelrod pointed out that as part of the agreement China and India have set goals for combating climate change. “We’re going to be able to review what they’re doing. We’re going to be able to challenge them if they don’t meet those goals,” Axelrod told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King.

Axelrod also said Sunday that the administration intends to pursue efforts to lessen greenhouse gas emissions even in the absence of making a binding international commitment to do so.

“We’re going to pursue this anyway because the president understands that our future lies with a clean energy economy,” Axelrod said, adding that the administration does not want to put the United States at a competitive disadvantage relative to the world’s other large economies. “Now the Chinese, the Indians, the other major economies are coming along and this is the result of [Obama’s] strong leadership.”

While the White House has sought to tout the Copenhagen accord as a success, many environmentalists and political observers view it as the administration’s last ditch effort not to leave the closely watched Copenhagen talks completely empty-handed.

On the domestic front, a Democratic bill for a cap-and-trade system governing carbon emissions has passed in the House but a similar bill has been stalled in the Senate, which is focused on passing health care reform by year’s end.

Washington (CNN) – On the eve of a White House meeting where President Obama is expected to encourage the nation’s largest lenders to loosen up credit, personal finance expert Suze Orman says Obama should not get all of the blame for how some banks have behaved in the last year.

“It’s not all the president’s fault,” Orman said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

“You can pass every law that you want. You can try to do anything in the world – give these institutions money - if they don’t help their customers, what are you going to do about it?” Orman told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King.

Related: Obama adviser slams Wall Street

“I think a big part of this problem falls right back to the banks especially those with credit cards,” Orman also told King.

Asked what she would say if she had a seat at Monday’s meeting with the heads of the nation’s largest banks, Orman let loose.

“I would say: ‘Bankers, what in the world is the matter with you? You took taxpayers’ dollars in order to survive. You are giving out bonuses now. You are acting like nothing is wrong. Some of your stocks have increased in value from their low[s]. However, you are not serving the people that you should be serving.

“In my opinion, bankers,” Orman continued, “you are serving your own bottom lines and shame on you! And if you don’t get your act together, if you don’t start helping those that need loan modifications, if you don’t start helping those that need [small business] loans. . . if you don’t help those that really need you, then we’re going to have to do something about it.’”

Orman added that she did not know what the solution was to get banks to loosen up credit for consumers and small businesses but she suggested the possibility of a windfall profits tax. That, she said, might provide the incentive necessary to get lenders to do what the White House and many members of Congress want them to do to help turn the economy around.

Washington (CNN) – On the eve of a White House meeting where President Obama is expected to encourage the nation’s largest lenders to loosen up credit, personal finance expert Suze Orman says Obama should not get all of the blame for how some banks have behaved in the last year.

“It’s not all the president’s fault,” Orman said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

“You can pass every law that you want. You can try to do anything in the world – give these institutions money - if they don’t help their customers, what are you going to do about it?” Orman told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King.

Related: Obama adviser slams Wall Street

“I think a big part of this problem falls right back to the banks especially those with credit cards,” Orman also told King.

Asked what she would say if she had a seat at Monday’s meeting with the heads of the nation’s largest banks, Orman let loose.

“I would say: ‘Bankers, what in the world is the matter with you? You took taxpayers’ dollars in order to survive. You are giving out bonuses now. You are acting like nothing is wrong. Some of your stocks have increased in value from their low[s]. However, you are not serving the people that you should be serving.

“In my opinion, bankers,” Orman continued, “you are serving your own bottom lines and shame on you! And if you don’t get your act together, if you don’t start helping those that need loan modifications, if you don’t start helping those that need [small business] loans. . . if you don’t help those that really need you, then we’re going to have to do something about it.’”

Orman added that she did not know what the solution was to get banks to loosen up credit for consumers and small businesses but she suggested the possibility of a windfall profits tax. That, she said, might provide the incentive necessary to get lenders to do what the White House and many members of Congress want them to do to help turn the economy around.

Sen. Thune criticized the White House and congressional Democrats for their spending and also acknowledged that Republicans share some of the blame for excessive spending and borrowing in the past.

Washington (CNN) – On the same day that the Senate is expected to vote on a massive spending bill, a Republican senator says the best approach to getting the federal government’s finances in order is to begin reducing spending.

“You’ve got to start there,” Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

“Republicans share some of the blame,” Thune told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. “When we were in charge [of Congress and the White House] we didn’t control spending well enough either.”

But Thune added that Republicans in the last eight years looked like cheapskates compared to the spending going on under Democrats now.

Democrats “have their foot on the pedal,” Thune said Sunday. “I mean this thing is – they’re driving this thing over a cliff and somebody’s got to put the brakes on.”

“We can’t continue to borrow and spend at this rate,” added Thune.

On State of the Union Sunday, Sens. Warner and Thune discussed a proposal for a bipartisan commission that make budgetary recommendations to Congress.

Washington (CNN) – A freshman Democratic senator said Sunday that he supports a proposal that would create a bipartisan commission intended to help Congress control federal spending and borrowing.

Last week, the top Democrat and top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee introduced legislation that would create a bipartisan task force charged with making recommendations to Congress for reining in runaway spending that threatens to overwhelm the federal budget. Specifically, the commission would suggest ways to curb spending growth, especially in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and to boost tax revenue.

The proposed commission would include members of Congress from both parties along with representatives of the administration. Once the commission submitted its recommendations to Congress, Congress would then have to vote yes or no to the commission's suggestions without filibustering or amending them.

Related: Leading senators call for fiscal commission

Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, who also sits on the Senate Budget Committee, said Sunday that he supports the proposal.

“On a longer term, I actually believe this process [of federal spending] has totally got out of control,” Warner said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

“I came from being a governor where we actually had to balance our books each year,” Warner explained.

In the long term, Warner said he believed the only way Congress would be able to get spending under control is through the bipartisan commission proposed last week by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, and Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire.”

“Democrats and Republicans [should] come together, go ahead and put revenues and spending both out there and then come back and vote it straight up and down,” Warner said, in much the same way Congress handles the sticky political issue of closing military bases across the country.

“I don’t see how this process where everybody kind of lards on is going to actually ever come to an end unless we finally have the discipline to do a straight up or down vote across the board,” Warner also told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King.

“This is a moment of crisis” that requires both parties to put partisanship aside, Warner also said Sunday.

Asked whether his party would support the idea of a partisan budgetary commission, Republican Sen. John Thune was noncommittal.

“Most would support the commission process,” Thune said Sunday on State of the Union. “It doesn’t mean that Republicans would vote for what the commission recommends.”

Earlier on State of the Union, one of President Obama’s top economic advisers said Obama is open to approaches that will achieve the ultimate goal of controlling the federal budget deficit.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, have both expressed reservations about the commission proposal introduced last week by Sens. Conrad and Gregg.

Washington (CNN) – A top economic adviser to the White House said Sunday that the economy is beginning to show signs of a turnaround but cautioned that it could be some time before the unemployment situation begins to improve.

“It will take time,” for the national unemployment rate to drop, Lawrence Summers, the Director of the National Economic Council, said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

“A year ago, the question was: would we have a depression? Today, everyone agrees that the recession is over and the questions are around how fast we’ll recover.”

Summers explained that economic recoveries typically begin with growth in gross domestic product. “We’ve seen that start to happen,” Summers told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, adding that the economy then begins to create jobs on a net basis. “Most professional forecasters expect job growth by spring and I think that’s a reasonable judgment in an uncertain world,” Summers told King.

The former treasury secretary added that even once the economy begins to create jobs, it takes time to reduce the national unemployment rate “because when you start to create jobs, more and more people start looking for work because they’re encouraged.”

“But on the key measure” of job creation, Summers said, “we’re a lot closer than we were a year ago and the signs that are the first signs that things are turning . . . we’re now seeing progress.”

But, Summers quickly added that more needed to be done to improve the jobs outlook as the national unemployment rate sat at 10 percent.

Early indications of an economic turnaround were “not nearly enough, not nearly enough.”

“We’ve got to do a lot more,” Summers said Sunday, adding that “there’s no more important issue facing the country than job growth.”

Summers also told King that the administration’s $787 billion stimulus package will continue to play a role in the economic turnaround.

“The number of projects under the program… is going to be about twice as great over the next six months as it was over the last six months,” Summers said.

Larry Summers took issue Sunday with complaints from Wall Street about Democratic plans for more financial regulation.

Washington (CNN) – A top economic adviser to President Obama said Sunday that Wall Street should not be resisting Democratic efforts to impose new financial regulations in the wake of last year’s financial crisis.

“It was irresponsible risk-taking that brought the economy to the brink of collapse,” Lawrence Summers, the Director of Obama’s National Economic Council, said about Wall Street Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “It was their irresponsiblilty in many cases that brought the economy to collapse. And, frankly ... it wasn’t the first time.

Watch: Summers slams Wall Street

“And they don’t get, in some cases, that they wouldn’t be where they are today - and they certainly wouldn’t be paying the bonuses they’re paying today - if their government hadn’t taken extraordinary actions. Extraordinary actions, not frankly with the motivation of helping them, but with the motivation of helping the economy but of which they were nonetheless the beneficiary.”

Summers also told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that it was “wrong” for Wall Street to be “complaining about serious regulation directed at making sure this never happens again.”

“For firms that have benefited from taxpayer support to be complaining about the government burdening them is, frankly, a bit rich,” Summers also said Sunday.

After receiving so much help from the public in the form of support from the federal government in the past year, Summers said “now the financial community’s got to think about its obligations to the country.”

Summers identified preventing another near-collapse of the entire financial system, improving the flow of credit, preventing foreclosures, and improving lending to small businesses as areas the president might discuss with the heads of some of the nation’s largest banks in a meeting set for Monday.

“The president is going to focus on what the bankers can do for their country, what obligations they should feel,” Summers told King.

'I liked what he said,' former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said of the president's Nobel acceptance speech.

(CNN) – Sarah Palin had some rare praise Thursday for President Obama after the president delivered his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo. But the former Republican vice presidential nominee added that she would like to see the president act more like his predecessor, George W. Bush.

"I liked what he said," Palin told USAToday in an interview after the speech.

Palin said the president's remarks had a familiar ring. "I thumbed through my book quickly this morning to say 'Wow! That really sounded familiar.' because I talked in book too about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times."

Related: War sometimes justified, Obama says

But Palin suggested Obama could learn a few things from former President Bush.

"We have to stop those terrorists over there," she told the paper. "We've learned our lesson from 9/11. George Bush did a great job of reminding Americans every single day that he was in office what that lesson is. And, by the way, I'd like to see President Obama follow more closely in the footsteps of George Bush and [Bush's] passion keeping the homeland safe, his passion for respecting – honoring our troops."

Palin is the second prominent Republican to praise Obama's speech accepting the Nobel Prize, after former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it "very good."

Polls indicate that most Americans believe the award was given to the president prematurely. In his remarks, Obama acknowledged the controversy as he accepted the esteemed international prize after less than a year in the White House.

"I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility," Obama said in the speech. "Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize ... my accomplishments are slight."

Read: Obama's Nobel acceptance speech

'I liked what he said,' former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said of the president's Nobel acceptance speech.

(CNN) – Sarah Palin had some rare praise Thursday for President Obama after the president delivered his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo. But the former Republican vice presidential nominee added that she would like to see the president act more like his predecessor, George W. Bush.

"I liked what he said," Palin told USAToday in an interview after the speech.

Palin said the president's remarks had a familiar ring. "I thumbed through my book quickly this morning to say 'Wow! That really sounded familiar.' because I talked in book too about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times."

Related: War sometimes justified, Obama says

But Palin suggested Obama could learn a few things from former President Bush.

"We have to stop those terrorists over there," she told the paper. "We've learned our lesson from 9/11. George Bush did a great job of reminding Americans every single day that he was in office what that lesson is. And, by the way, I'd like to see President Obama follow more closely in the footsteps of George Bush and [Bush's] passion keeping the homeland safe, his passion for respecting – honoring our troops."

Palin is the second prominent Republican to praise Obama's speech accepting the Nobel Prize, after former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it "very good."

Polls indicate that most Americans believe the award was given to the president prematurely. In his remarks, Obama acknowledged the controversy as he accepted the esteemed international prize after less than a year in the White House.

"I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility," Obama said in the speech. "Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize ... my accomplishments are slight."

Read: Obama's Nobel acceptance speech

A California lawmaker announced Wednesday that he is no longer backing legislation that would honor disgraced golfer Tiger Woods with a congressional gold medal.

Washington (CNN) – A California lawmaker announced Wednesday that he is no longer backing legislation that would honor disgraced golfer Tiger Woods with a Congressional Gold Medal.

In March of this year, Rep. Joe Baca, D-California, introduced a resolution calling for Woods to receive the high congressional honor.

The award was justified, Baca's bill said, because, among other things, "Woods has broken barriers with grace and dignity by showing that golf is a sport for all people, regardless of race, color, or creed... Woods has inspired countless people of all ages, impressing upon them that their hopes, dreams, and prayers may be achieved through hard work, persistence, education, and good sportsmanship."

Baca announced Wednesday that he has had a change of heart about honoring Woods.

"In light of the recent developments surrounding Tiger Woods and his family, I will not pursue legislation awarding him the Congressional Gold Medal this session," the congressman said in a statement.

Baca's announcement comes amid reports that television ads featuring the embattled golfer have not aired since November 29.

A California lawmaker announced Wednesday that he is no longer backing legislation that would honor disgraced golfer Tiger Woods with a congressional gold medal.

Washington (CNN) – A California lawmaker announced Wednesday that he is no longer backing legislation that would honor disgraced golfer Tiger Woods with a Congressional Gold Medal.

In March of this year, Rep. Joe Baca, D-California, introduced a resolution calling for Woods to receive the high congressional honor.

The award was justified, Baca's bill said, because, among other things, "Woods has broken barriers with grace and dignity by showing that golf is a sport for all people, regardless of race, color, or creed... Woods has inspired countless people of all ages, impressing upon them that their hopes, dreams, and prayers may be achieved through hard work, persistence, education, and good sportsmanship."

Baca announced Wednesday that he has had a change of heart about honoring Woods.

"In light of the recent developments surrounding Tiger Woods and his family, I will not pursue legislation awarding him the Congressional Gold Medal this session," the congressman said in a statement.

Baca's announcement comes amid reports that television ads featuring the embattled golfer have not aired since November 29.

Washington (CNN) – A day after invoking slavery as he criticized Republican opposition to health care reform legislation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, explained his controversial comment but didn't acquiesce to Republican requests to apologize.

"When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said slow down, it's too early, let's wait, things aren't bad enough," Reid said Monday in a Senate floor speech.

Several GOP senators and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele have demanded that Reid apologize for the remark. But Reid refused to do so Tuesday when asked about the GOP demands.

"Well, I think the point is quite clear by this point," Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill. "That at pivotal points in American history the tactics of distortion, delay have certainly been present. They've been used to stop progress. That's what we're talking about here. That's what's happening here. That's very clear. That's a point I made - no more, no less. Anyone who willingly distorts my comments is only proving my point."

As majority leader, Reid is charged with getting the 60 votes needed to pass health care in the Senate. Early polling shows that Reid faces a tough re-election battle in 2010.

"When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said slow down, it's too early, let's wait, things aren't bad enough," Reid said Monday in a Senate floor speech.

Several GOP senators and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele have demanded that Reid apologize for the remark. But Reid refused to do so Tuesday when asked about the GOP demands.

"Well, I think the point is quite clear by this point," Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill. "That at pivotal points in American history the tactics of distortion, delay have certainly been present. They've been used to stop progress. That's what we're talking about here. That's what's happening here. That's very clear. That's a point I made - no more, no less. Anyone who willingly distorts my comments is only proving my point."

As majority leader, Reid is charged with getting the 60 votes needed to pass health care in the Senate. Early polling shows that Reid faces a tough re-election battle in 2010.

Louisiana's Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu announced Tuesday that he will run again for the mayor of New Orleans.

(CNN) – Louisiana's Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu announced Tuesday that he will run again for the mayor of New Orleans.

"I love New Orleans with all my heart and all my soul," the Democrat said in an online video announcing his bid. "It's where I grew up and where I'm raising my family. And I think anyone who loves this city like I do, understands that when New Orleans calls, you have to answer. She just won't let you go."

Landrieu said that if elected, he plans to create jobs, improve the city's schools, and make the streets of New Orleans safer.

"I'm going to need your help," Landrieu said. "We've got a future to create and a city to rebuild."

Landrieu, who is the brother of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, has run for mayor of New Orleans twice before. In 2006, Landrieu lost a bid to unseat incumbent Mayor Ray Nagin. His first unsuccessful bid was in 1994.

Landrieu's father was New Orleans mayor for eight years in the 1970's.

Landrieu joins a field contesting the Democratic primary that includes state Sen. Ed Murray and former Civil District Judge Nadine Ramsey.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele said Tuesday that disagreements with Democrats over health care reform have 'nothing to do with the historic roots of slavery.'

(CNN) – Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele Tuesday demanded that the Senate Democratic leader apologize for invoking slavery as he criticized Republicans for their opposition to passing health care reform.

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans can come up with is this: Slow down, stop everything, let's start over," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Monday.

"If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid also said from the Senate floor. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said slow down, it's too early, let's wait, things aren't bad enough."

Steele, the RNC's first African-American chairman, took exception with Reid's remarks.
"It was not a sober moment for Harry Reid at all," Steele said Tuesday morning on CBS. "It was an ignorant moment.

"I'm kind of sick and tired of the left and Democrats in this country. When they get into trouble and don't get their way and their backs are up against the wall on legislation or whatever it is that they're trying to do, they go to that card. They play that race card, that slavery card, that civil rights card."

Steele added that disagreements with Democrats over health care reform have "nothing to do with the historic roots of slavery."

The RNC head said Reid "needs to go to the well of the Senate, take it back, and apologize for offending the sensibilities of the American people on something so important."

On State of the Union Sunday, Republican strategist Mary Matalin said President Obama's Afghan surge is 'a reassertion of the Bush doctrine.'

Washington (CNN) – A leading Republican strategist and one-time aide to former Vice President Cheney said Sunday that President Obama’s recently announced decision to send an additional 30, 000 troops to Afghanistan is “a reassertion of the Bush doctrine.”

“The [Bush] doctrine is no safe havens [for terrorists intent on harming the United States] and we go after those that provide a harbor [for such terrorists]. That’s the doctrine,” Republican strategist Mary Matalin explained Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

Obama’s decision to surge additional troops into Afghanistan is “solid policy,’ in Matalin’s view and “a reassertion of the Bush doctrine.”

“Every strategic element is from the Bush doctrine. The tactics are from the Bush surge [in Iraq],” she said.

Matalin added that when civilian contractors and forces supplied by NATO allies are considered “there are enough troops” in Afghanistan.

But, Matalin also said Sunday that, by announcing a date to begin to remove some American troops, Obama had sent a mixed message about the United States’ commitment in Afghanistan.

In laying out his new strategy, Obama gave “a discordant speech,” the Republican strategist said of the president’s address last week at West Point.

“It’s hard to reconcile [saying] this is for the security of the whole world, but we’re going to get out in 18 months,” Matalin said.

“The problem for Democrats,” Matalin also said Sunday, “is that they’ve bashed Bush strategy and tactics for so long and now they have to embrace them because they’re the only ones that do work.”

On State of the Union Sunday, Republican strategist Mary Matalin said President Obama's Afghan surge is 'a reassertion of the Bush doctrine.'

Washington (CNN) – A leading Republican strategist and one-time aide to former Vice President Cheney said Sunday that President Obama’s recently announced decision to send an additional 30, 000 troops to Afghanistan is “a reassertion of the Bush doctrine.”

“The [Bush] doctrine is no safe havens [for terrorists intent on harming the United States] and we go after those that provide a harbor [for such terrorists]. That’s the doctrine,” Republican strategist Mary Matalin explained Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

Obama’s decision to surge additional troops into Afghanistan is “solid policy,’ in Matalin’s view and “a reassertion of the Bush doctrine.”

“Every strategic element is from the Bush doctrine. The tactics are from the Bush surge [in Iraq],” she said.

Matalin added that when civilian contractors and forces supplied by NATO allies are considered “there are enough troops” in Afghanistan.

But, Matalin also said Sunday that, by announcing a date to begin to remove some American troops, Obama had sent a mixed message about the United States’ commitment in Afghanistan.

In laying out his new strategy, Obama gave “a discordant speech,” the Republican strategist said of the president’s address last week at West Point.

“It’s hard to reconcile [saying] this is for the security of the whole world, but we’re going to get out in 18 months,” Matalin said.

“The problem for Democrats,” Matalin also said Sunday, “is that they’ve bashed Bush strategy and tactics for so long and now they have to embrace them because they’re the only ones that do work.”

President Obama used a speech at West Point last week to announce that he has ordered 30,000 additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan as part of a new, refocused strategy intended to quell the Taliban and help the Afghan government build up its own security forces. As part of the new strategy, Obama also said last week that the U.S. would begin to remove those additional troops in July 2011, depending upon the conditions on the ground in the war-torn country.

“I think he’s made the right decision with regards to Afghanistan in a general direction,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

“And, by the way, you’re noting that Republicans are not making this a political football,” the former White House hopeful added. “Republicans are saying ‘Yeah, he’s done the right thing here.’”

But, Romney’s praise of Obama quickly turned to criticism.

“It took him a long time,” Romney said of Obama’s 3-month deliberation process. “That was a mistake, of course.

“I think he is mistaken also in sending these conflicting and confusing signals about the timeline because you don’t want in any way to have [Pakistan or Afghanistan] thinking that somehow we’re only in there for 18 months and then we’re getting out no matter what. That’s not the message you want to have heard.”

Romney also questioned Obama’s judgment in providing Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan with 30, 000 additional troops when McChrystal had reportedly requested 40,000 more.

“My first question is not, ok, how do I get it down to 30,000?” Romney told CNN Chief National correspondent John King. “My first question is what’s the right number?”

“I think [Obama] may have been a little unwise to cut back on that number,” Romney said Sunday. “But we sure hope [Obama’s surge] works,” the Republican added.

Romney’s comments echoed those of Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl who said earlier on State of the Union that Republicans generally supported Obama’s decision to order the surge.

But “I think he has complicated matters by having this firm beginning-of-withdrawal date” of July 2011, added Kyl.

“The reason I said it complicates matters is that in war, will matters, “explained Kyl, “In fact, the whole object of war is to break the will of the enemy to fight.”

Sen. Kly said Sunday that 'the whole object of war is to break the will of the enemy to fight.'

Washington (CNN) – The number two Republican in the Senate said Sunday that his party generally supports President Obama’s recently announced surge strategy in Afghanistan. But, added Sen. John Kyl, by announcing a date to begin to draw down the additional U.S. troops sent as part of the surge, the president had “complicated matters” in the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan.

After roughly three months of deliberation, President Obama announced last week that he has ordered 30,000 additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan. As part of the new strategy, Obama also informed the nation and the world that the U.S. would begin to remove those troops in July 2011, depending upon the conditions on the ground in the war-torn country.

Republicans “are supportive of the president,” Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “They want this mission to succeed very much and we will do everything we can to support his policy.”

But, Kyl quickly added, “I think he has complicated matters by having this firm beginning-of-withdrawal date. He said it is chiseled in stone. But what happens the day after [Obama’s drawdown date] and how many troops come down, I think is the question. And, as long as that’s condition-based, it has a chance of succeeding.

“The reason I said it complicates matters is that in war, will matters. In fact, the whole object of war is to break the will of the enemy to fight.”

Kyl added that in order to win support from the Pakistanis, the Afghans, and NATO, the U.S. needs to demonstrate a firm commitment to fighting the war in Afghanistan.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein disagreed with Kyl about the president’s decision to announce a drawdown date.

Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sunday on State of the Union that she was satisfied with the mid-2011 date.

“I think it’s a transitional period,“ Feinstein told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. “I think it sets a goal. I think it enables an evaluation. I think it’s a concentrated sense of attention. And, if you can begin to remove troops, that will happen.”

Earlier on State of the Union, Obama National Security Adviser James Jones described the mid-July 2011 as a “ramp” or “glide slope” rather than a “cliff.”

“We are here to see that Afghanistan succeeds,” Jones told King.

Jones also said Sunday that a more complete draw down in Afghanistan will be based on the Afghan government’s progress in terms of its capability to provide security.

In a taped, exclusive interview set to air Sunday afternoon on CNN’s Amanpour, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his country would make its best effort in the next two years but at the same time cautioned that international community should be patient with Afghanistan as it attempts to stand up its own security and policy forces. Karzai estimated that it would take until 2014 for his government to be able to secure the country.

“The best estimate is that [bin Laden] is somewhere in North Waziristan - sometimes on the Pakistani side of the border, sometimes on the Afghan side of the border,” National Security Adviser James Jones said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, “very, very rough mountainous area, generally ungoverned.

“And, we’re going to have to get after that to make sure that this very, very important symbol of what al Qaeda stands for is either once again on the run or captured or killed.”

“By, ‘we’re going to have to get after that,’ you mean a more determined, a more focused – some new effort to get him?,” queried CNN Chief National Correspondent John King.

“I think so. We need to make sure that the al Qaeda stronghold in North Waziristan, in that region – which is still actively planning operations, they’re targeting us and targeting our friends and allies – does not become a reality.”

Also Sunday on State of the Union, Jones said the U.S. was working with the Pakistani government to eliminate safe havens for the Taliban and al Qaeda in the eastern parts of Pakistan near the Afghan border.

“Probably the most important thing that we need to achieve strategically in the next three years is to work with our friends in Pakistan and make sure that these safe havens are eliminated.”

Jones also told King that eliminating the safe havens on the Pakistani side border would make it easier to secure the western parts of Afghanistan.

“If the safe havens [in Pakistan] stay, then the problem [in Afghanistan] is longer and more difficult.”

Asked whether the Pakistani military was committed to helping eliminate elements of the Afghani Taliban seeking refuge inside of Pakistan, Jones said the administration is coordinating closely with the Pakistani forces.

“We are working with the Pakistani authorities, the Pakistani military in an increasing atmosphere of trust and confidence,” Jones told King, “and the realization that these problems have to be tackled.

“This is a cancer in the region that affects not just Afghanistan. It affects Pakistan as well.”

Washington (CNN) – President Obama’s national security adviser said Sunday that the administration’s announced date to begin the pull out of additional troops ordered by the president is a “glide slope” and a “ramp” to reducing forces, and not a “cliff” that would induce a precipitous decline in U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

“The president’s decision on 2011 has more do with a transition than anything else,” National Security Adviser James Jones said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

Asked whether the White House was committed to removing troops even if the Afghan government and Afghan security forces weren’t fully capable by mid-2011, Jones explained that the date “is not a cliff, it’s a glide slope.”

“Certainly, the president has also said that we’re not leaving Afghanistan. We are here to see that Afghanistan succeeds. We can’t want this more than the Afghans do. If [Afghan] President Karzai leads his nation the way we think he can, [then] this is a very achievable objective.”

“2011 is not a cliff, it’s a ramp,” Jones reiterated when asked to respond to criticism that the president’s new strategy is flawed because it includes a withdrawal date, critical information for those who would do harm to U.S. interests in and around Afghanistan.

“Where’s the end of the ramp?” CNN Chief National Correspondent John King asked Jones.

“Well, the end of the ramp will be predicated on exactly how much progress we’re making with regard to” the capability of the Afghan security forces and Afghan government, Jones replied.

Jones resisted when asked to give a rough target date for withdrawal of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

“We have strategic interests in South Asia,” Jones said, “that should not be measured in terms of finite times. We’re going to be in the region for a long time. . . . We want this relationship to be, as we have with all struggling democracies, we want to be helpful.”

Jones’ comments Sunday about the administration’s announced date of July 2011 to begin to draw down additional forces in Afghanistan was a reaction to recent comments by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

In a taped, exclusive interview, set to air Sunday afternoon on CNN’s Amanpour, Karzai said his government would try to build up its security forces and take control of the country as soon as possible.

“But the international community must have also the patience with us and the realization of the realities in Afghanistan,” Karzai also told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “If it takes longer, then they must be with us.”

During the interview with Amanpour, Karzai also estimated that Afghans should be capable of taking control of their country in five years, or sometime in 2014.

Related video: Karzai explains his five year estimate

A group that opposes illegal immigration announced Thursday that it no longer supports former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs.

(CNN) – A political organization that opposes illegal immigration announced Thursday that it will no longer support commentator and former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs.

After being a vocal critic of proposals for federal amnesty for illegal immigrants, Dobbs appeared to soften his stance late last month in an interview with Telemundo, a Spanish-language television network.

Dobbs told Telemundo he is one of the Latino community's "greatest friends."

"What isn't working is a penalty to those who are in this country illegally for whom we can both be building a bridge to the future in which there is legalization and at the same time constructing an environment in which everyone is clear and unequivocal about the need for border security and a regulated flow of immigration," Dobbs also said in the interview.

At the time, Dobbs maintained that his position on immigration has not changed despite what appears to be a more moderate stance.

But the political action committee that has supported Dobbs disagreed, announcing on its Web site Thursday that it now opposes him.

"Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is withdrawing support for Lou Dobbs after years, including the suspension of websites calling on Dobbs to run for President due to the perceived change in Mr. Dobbs's stances on immigration issues," the organization wrote.

"His recent comments on Telemundo and his national radio show supporting some kind of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is inconsistent with positions of ALIPAC and the views of most American citizens," William Gheen, a representative of AILPAC also said in the written statement.

In a separate telephone interview with CNN, Gheen said that the group continues to respect Dobbs for helping to highlight the issue of illegal immigration.

But, Gheen added that Dobbs' recent remarks have "just blown everyone's minds" and that the group found itself at an "unexpected impasse" with Dobbs at this point.

"We feel like: Who are you and what have you done with Lou Dobbs?" Gheen explained.

Dobbs, who parted with CNN in mid-November, has since suggested that he might run for president or challenge New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez in 2012.

–CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney contributed to this report.

Republican Tom Foley said Thursday that he decided to run for Connecticut governor after the state's incumbent governor Jodi Rell, pictured, announced she would not seek re-election.

(CNN) – Connecticut Republican Tom Foley announced Thursday that he is dropping bid for the GOP's 2010 Senate nomination in his state. Instead, Foley also announced, he has decided to run governor of Connecticut.

In explaining the switch, the business executive and former ambassador to Ireland said in a statement on his campaign Web site that advisers had initially suggested he run for governor.

"At the time, though, Governor Rell, whom I respect very much, was preparing to run for re-election," Foley said.

But things changed when Gov. Jodi Rell, Connecticut's Republican executive, announced that she would not seek re-election next year.

"Many of the same people who a year ago said the Governorship is where I could best serve Connecticut, have called to re-iterate that to me," Foley said on his Web site Thursday.

After also receiving many e-mails and speaking with "more than one hundred people – including many who are currently serving in [Connecticut] state government," Foley said he decided to switch races.

Foley added that he will be "assembling a policy team . . . to evaluate options and make recommendations for solving the problems we face."

The Connecticut Democratic Party immediately took aim at Foley after his announcement.

"Over the next few months, assuming Tom Foley doesn't drop out of this race, too, we look forward to hearing what he believes he has to offer the people of this state on any number of issues they find themselves facing," Colleen Flanagan, the state party's Communications Director, said in a statement.

Washington (CNN) – White House social secretary Desiree Rogers will not by testifying at Thursday's congressional hearing about the recent White House security breach, Robert Gibbs said Wednesday.

"Obviously there's an ongoing assessment and investigation by the Secret Service" into the breach that occurred during the Obama administration's first state dinner, the White House press secretary told reporters in his daily briefing, "We are working with and ready to work with anybody that has questions on that."

But, Gibbs added, "based on separation of powers, staff here don't go to testify in front of Congress. She will not be testifying in front Congress tomorrow."

Related: Lawmakers want answers on 'party-crashing' drama

In a break from the practice that the White House used on the night of the state dinner, Gibbs said that the White House had its own staff in place at a security check point Tuesday evening when visitors came to the White House campus for a holiday gathering.

Gibbs also told reporters Wednesday that no concerns about Rogers' performance had been raised with the president prior to the controversy surrounding the breach at the state dinner. The White House social office, which is run by Rogers, has done "remarkable work" in planning events at the White House. "The first family is quite pleased with her performance," said Gibbs.

The House Committee on Homeland Security is set to hold a hearing Thursday about how a married couple who were not on the official list of attendees managed to get past White House security into the state dinner.

As of Wednesday, the couple, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, have declined the committee's invitation to testify, according to the committee's chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson.

Mark Sullivan, the director of the Secret Service, has agreed to testify, according to the committee. In a statement issued soon after the breach came to light, Sullivan said the Secret Service was "deeply concerned and embarrassed" by the circumstances surrounding the state dinner.

During the previous administration, Bush aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers tried to resist calls from Congress to testify about the firing of several U.S. attorneys. At the time, the Bush administration relied on separation of powers, the idea that the Executive branch headed by the president and Congress are co-equal branches of government who cannot compel one another to act, and on executive privilege, the idea that the advice the president receives from his aides is confidential, to try to avoid responding to congressional subpoenas for testimony. After litigation to enforce the congressional subpoenas and after former President George W. Bush was no longer in office, Rove and Miers both ultimately gave depositions to investigators looking into the firings.

Washington (CNN) – A leading congressional Democrat who is the chief proponent of a new tax that would fund future military operations in Afghanistan suggested Sunday that continuing to fight the Afghan war under current conditions is “a fool’s errand” and, at the same time, said that his tax proposal would create a sense of shared sacrifice that has been missing in the last eight years.

Rep. David Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, is expressing serious reservations about the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan - just days before President Obama is expected to announce a substantial increase in U.S. troops in the country.

“The problem is that you can have the best policy in the world, but if you don't have the tools to implement it, it isn't worth a beanbag,” Obey said on CNN’s State of the Union, “And I don't think we have the tools in the Pakistani government and I don't think we have the tools in the Afghan government. And until we do, I think much of what we do is a fool's errand.”

Although Obey praised the process the president has used to revamp military strategy in Afghanistan, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said his differing opinion of the war is caused by consideration of the country’s long term fiscal resources and needs.

“The Pentagon has only one job, and that's to talk about this war and this war only,” Obey told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, “But [Obama] has, and I have jobs that require us to look at everything else that's tied into it. “I have to look at the entire federal budget, as chairman of the committee, for instance. I have to see what $400 billion or $500 billion, $600 billion, $700 billion, over a decade, for this effort, will cost us on education, on our efforts to build the entire economy. And - and when you look at it that way, I come to a different conclusion than [Obama] does.”

To fund continuing operations in Afghanistan, Obey has proposed what some observers are calling a “war tax.” The “Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010” would impose a one percent tax increase on most Americans. Obey’s proposal exempts service members who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001 along with families who have lost an immediate relative in either military conflict.

The point of the proposed new tax, Obey told King, is “in this war, we have not had any sense of shared sacrifice. The only people being asked to sacrifice are military families. They've had to go to the well again and again and again. And yet everybody else in society - you know, they're essentially told to go shopping by the previous president.”

“I just think that, if this war is important enough to engage in the long term, it's important enough to pay for,” Obey said Sunday.

Discussing the hundreds of billions of dollars that a possible long term commitment in Afghanistan could cost, Obey also linked funding the war to how President Obama and Democrats have chosen to pay for health care reform, one of the top Democratic policy initiatives in Obama’s first year in office.

“We've been told for a year that we need to pay for every dollar that it's going to cost us to reform our health care system,” Obey told King, “That's about $900 billion over 10 years. If we wind up being committed in Afghanistan for eight to 10 years, that's also going to approach $800 billion to $900 billion. And if we're going to do that, it seems to me that if we're being told we have to pay for health care, we certainly ought to pay for this effort as well.”

Rep. David Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, is expressing serious reservations about the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan - just days before President Obama is expected to announce a substantial increase in U.S. troops in the country.

“The problem is that you can have the best policy in the world, but if you don't have the tools to implement it, it isn't worth a beanbag,” Obey said on CNN’s State of the Union, “And I don't think we have the tools in the Pakistani government and I don't think we have the tools in the Afghan government. And until we do, I think much of what we do is a fool's errand.”

Although Obey praised the process the president has used to revamp military strategy in Afghanistan, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said his differing opinion of the war is caused by consideration of the country’s long term fiscal resources and needs.

“The Pentagon has only one job, and that's to talk about this war and this war only,” Obey told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, “But [Obama] has, and I have jobs that require us to look at everything else that's tied into it.

“I have to look at the entire federal budget, as chairman of the committee, for instance. I have to see what $400 billion or $500 billion, $600 billion, $700 billion, over a decade, for this effort, will cost us on education, on our efforts to build the entire economy. And - and when you look at it that way, I come to a different conclusion than [Obama] does.”

To fund continuing operations in Afghanistan, Obey has proposed what some observers are calling a “war tax.” The “Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010” would impose a one percent tax increase on most Americans. Obey’s proposal exempts service members who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001 along with families who have lost an immediate relative in either military conflict.

The point of the proposed new tax, Obey told King, is “in this war, we have not had any sense of shared sacrifice. The only people being asked to sacrifice are military families. They've had to go to the well again and again and again. And yet everybody else in society - you know, they're essentially told to go shopping by the previous president.”

“I just think that, if this war is important enough to engage in the long term, it's important enough to pay for,” Obey said Sunday.

Discussing the hundreds of billions of dollars that a possible long term commitment in Afghanistan could cost, Obey also linked funding the war to how President Obama and Democrats have chosen to pay for health care reform, one of the top Democratic policy initiatives in Obama’s first year in office.

“We've been told for a year that we need to pay for every dollar that it's going to cost us to reform our health care system,” Obey told King, “That's about $900 billion over 10 years. If we wind up being committed in Afghanistan for eight to 10 years, that's also going to approach $800 billion to $900 billion. And if we're going to do that, it seems to me that if we're being told we have to pay for health care, we certainly ought to pay for this effort as well.”

Washington (CNN) – Just days before President Obama is expected to announce his plan to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, the Ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday that the Afghan government currently is not a reliable partner in the American effort to build up Afghan security forces.

After Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar mentioned an ambitious plan to train 134,000 Afghan security forces in a year, which is expected to be part of President Obama’s larger Afghan strategy rolled out to the nation Tuesday evening, CNN Chief National Correspondent John King asked Lugar whether the Afghan government is up to the task of meeting the demands the Obama administration is expected to place on Kabul.

“Do you trust the other side of the equation?,” King asked Lugar on State of the Union. Do we have a reliable partner in the Afghan government?’

“For the moment, we don't have a reliable partner,” Lugar bluntly replied. “If the training occurs, will the government really take hold? We don't know, frankly,” Lugar also said Sunday.

Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Sunday that concerns about the administration of Afghan President Hamid Karzai should not impede President Obama’s reported plan to send roughly 30,000 additional U.S. troops to the war torn country.

“We have to, I believe, increase our forces - first, our trainers, which is consensus to do that - but also some of our brigade combat teams to give us the time and also to seize the initiative from the Taliban so that the Karzai administration can begin to carry through some of its commitments,” Lugar told King, “They made commitments left and right. Now they have to carry those commitments through.”

Reed added that the Afghan forces who have been successfully trained and who are operating on the battlefield have a reputation for being “actually very good fighters.”

“But we need more of those units, more of those small units,” Reed added, “It will take some time. But the effort here really is to stabilize the situation and insist that the government of Afghanistan begin to perform. And I think the other effort is begin to, at the local level, have effective governance.”

“That is something we're going to have to insist upon,” Reed also said Sunday, “And part of our commitment and part of the president's speech [Tuesday about Afghanistan] will be to communicate the fact that we have these understandings and that they're enforceable.”

Sen. Lugar said Sunday that the Senate should spend the remainder of 2009 focused on the Afghanistan war and budgetary matters.

Washington (CNN) – The Ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday that the Senate should set aside the impending debate on the health care reform bill and, instead, use the remainder of the year to focus on the appropriate strategy for the Afghanistan war, funding the war, and passing the appropriations bill necessary to keep the federal government running.

“I would just make this suggestion,” Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, “that in the three weeks of debate we still have ahead of us, we really ought to concentrate in the Congress on the war, on the overall strategy of our country and the cost of it. And we ought to be on the budget - passing appropriations bills in a proper way. . . . We may wish to discuss higher taxes to pay for [the war]. But we're not going to do that debating health care in the Senate for three weeks through all sorts of strategies and so forth.”

“The war is terribly important,” Lugar continued, “Jobs and our economy are terribly important. So this may be an audacious suggestion, but I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year, the same way we put cap and trade and climate change [aside] and talk now about the essentials: the war and money.”

Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, disagreed with Lugar.

“Absolutely not,” Reed replied when asked by CNN Chief National Correspondent John King whether the Senate put off debate on the health care reform bill until 2010.

“I think we're in the midst of probably the most significant debate and conclusion with legislation that we've ever had,” Reed told King, “And the health care debate is essential to our economic future. There are - Businesses and individuals each year pay more and more for health care. It has become unaffordable. We have to go ahead and conclude this debate.

“To stop now would be stopping on the edge of, I think, significant reform, which is so important for the country. And frankly, it's ironic, there’s - under the Bush administration, there was no serious debate about Afghanistan. That was relegated to the sidelines. There was no attempt to pay for it. And suddenly, now, that becomes a critical need that we put aside health care. I don't think so.

I think we have to push forward. I think the president's speech [Tuesday about Afghanistan] will be appropriate. I think the strategy we'll analyze in the committees and I think we can go forward on both fronts and we have to.”

After months of deliberation, Obama is set to give a speech Tuesday evening that outlines his plans for the war in Afghanistan. Also this week, the full Senate is set to begin debate on a health care reform bill crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who managed to garner just enough votes to get the bill to the floor.

Washington (CNN) - In his weekly Internet and radio address released on Thanksgiving Day, President Obama is mixing politics and policy with typical holiday sentiments.

Less than a week before Obama is set to announce his decision on troop levels in Afghanistan, the president paid tribute to the U.S. military and the families of service members.

"We keep in our thoughts and prayers the many families marking this Thanksgiving with an empty seat – saved for a son or daughter, or husband or wife, stationed in harm's way. And we say a special thanks for the sacrifices those men and women in uniform are making for our safety and freedom, and for all those Americans who enrich the lives of our communities through acts of kindness, generosity and service."

In the message, Obama also pointed to domestic challenges. "But as much as we all have to be thankful for, we also know that this year millions of Americans are facing very difficult economic times. Many have lost jobs in this recession – the worst in generations. Many more are struggling to afford health care premiums and house payments, let alone to save for an education or retirement. Too many are wondering if the dream of a middle class life – that American Dream – is slipping away."

"....That's why we passed the Recovery Act that cut taxes for 95 percent of working people and for small businesses – and that extended unemployment benefits and health coverage for millions of Americans who lost their jobs in this turmoil," Obama says in the Thanksgiving message. "That's why we are reforming the health care system . . . . We've worked to stem the tide of foreclosures and to stop the decline in home values. We're making it easier to save for retirement and more affordable to send a son or daughter to college."

"[N]ow our economy is finally growing again," Obama also says in the message, before noting that the struggling economy has not returned to positive job creation. "So we're made progress. But we cannot rest."

He pointed to his upcoming jobs summit with business and labor leaders, set for next week.

"And it is my fervent hope – and my heartfelt expectation – that next Thanksgiving we will be able to celebrate the fact that many of those who have lost their jobs are back at work, and that as a nation we will have come through these difficult storms stronger and wiser . . ."

Washington (CNN) - In the GOP's Thanksgiving Day message, Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence laid out the party's prescription for economic growth, and slammed the Obama administration's approach.

"[W]hile empty chairs for America's defenders were placed at Thanksgiving dinner tables in many homes, many other seats were filled with anxious Americans who are facing their own personal battles and struggles," Pence says in the latest weekly GOP radio and Web address. "Millions of families have seen jobs and careers vanish in the midst of this recession.

"Many are asking, 'when will things get better?' Many more are asking, 'where are the jobs?'

Pence slammed the administration's $787 billion stimulus package for failing to keep the nation' unemployment rate out of the double-digit range, as the White House had predicted.

"And what is the White House's answer to our struggles? Another meeting next week," Pence says referring to Obama's upcoming jobs summit.

"The Obama administration and the Democratic majority in Congress have taken our economy from bad to worse with their failed economic agenda and big government plans," Pence says in the GOP message.
"The American people know we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy."

Calling it "a push for government-run insurance," Pence also criticizes Democratic efforts to pass a health care reform bill.

On Thanksgiving, Pence also uses the message to honor those Americans who are serving in the military.

"Even in these times of struggle and trial, we have much to be thankful for, beginning with our men and women in uniform, many of whom will spend this holiday season away from hearth and home. The tragic events at Fort Hood remind us that whether they serve at home or abroad, we owe our soldiers and their families a debt of gratitude we will never be able to repay."

The two were discussing the recent controversial cover of Newsweek magazine, in which Palin is shown in running shorts. Carville said Palin should not complain about the use of a photo which was not a candid shot but one she had originally posed for, even if it were for a publication other than Newsweek. Echoing recent comments by Palin, Matalin disagreed and said she thought the Newsweek cover was sexist.

“You can agree on this,” Matalin asked her husband, “she looked good in it, right?”

“She does,” Carville said without hesitation, “Ain’t no doubt about that. You and her are the two best-looking women in the Republican Party,” the Democrat told his wife.

Related: Carville, Matalin share rare tender moment

But Carville did not have much more positive to say about Palin.

While the Democratic strategist said Palin is “compelling” and connects with her supporters “in an unbelievable way,” Carville also said the former Alaska governor, believed by some political observers to be laying the groundwork for a 2012 White House bid, is not fit to be the nation’s chief executive.

“What I said about Sarah Palin on the day she was nominated [for the number two spot on the Republican presidential ticket last year], is still true. She’s uniquely and supremely unqualified to be president of the United States. But she’s got real presence about her. I find myself wanting to watch her more than I do most other politicians,” Carville told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King as Matalin looked on.

Matalin said Palin was good for the Republican Party as it begins to position itself for the 2010 midterms and the 2012 White House race.

“We’re ascendant in 2010,” Matalin said Sunday, “but we need people who can communicate the framework, the philosophy into which policy prescriptions can be put and [Palin] does that better than almost anybody.”

After telling CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that she does not support the health care reform bill crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Republican Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina took on President Obama over his top domestic agenda item during the first year of his administration.

“If you listen to what the President Obama said about this health care proposal, even he agreed with me. He said he wouldn’t sign into law a bill that increased the deficit. He said he wouldn’t sign into law a bill that increased the cost of health care. If this bill goes through, President Obama will have to eat his words or break his promise.”

Depending on what time frame is used to analyze the costs and revenues associated with the bill, Republicans and Democrats dispute whether the Reid bill is deficit-neutral. And Fiorina’s assertion that the Reid bill would increase health care costs is the criticism often leveled by conservatives against the new taxes that would be levied in order to pay for some of the bill’s costs, and to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which found that premiums in the public health insurance option would be higher than average because people taking advantage of the public option would be sicker than the rest of the population.

“I agree with the goals of health care reform,” Fiorina also told King. “What I strenuously disagree with is [the idea] that this bill, or the one that made it through the House, solves the problem in any way.”

Fiorina, a breast cancer survivor, also took issue with new recommendations from an independent task force as to when and how often women should get mammograms.

“Had I followed these recommendations... I could well not be sitting here,” Fiorina told King.

“The truth is all of these preventative techniques… are saving lives. Who is to say that a nameless, faceless government bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. should determine that my life is too expensive to save?”

In response to the report, Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the guidelines do not set federal policy and don't determine what services are covered by the federal government. “Keep doing what you have been doing for years - talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions, and make the decision that is right for you,” Sebelius said in a statement.

Pressed on how health care reform could achieve cost containment, Fiorina responded that the focus should be on providing quality care.

“First, the decisions about care should rest between a patient and their doctor, the people who know the science. Second, if we would focus more on quality of care, we would lower costs. That’s been proven over and over again.”

“I don’t see this debate really focused, frankly, on the real issues,” Fiorina also said Sunday, “quality and let’s make sure that everyone is covered. Sadly, we have a business case [for health care reform] that doesn’t add up, quality isn’t going to be improved, and costs are on the rise.”

Fiorina has her sights set on challenging California Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer who is up for re-election in 2010. To do so, Fiorina must first win the Republican nod in a primary race against conservative California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. Fiorina is the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and the first woman to lead a Fortune 500 company. She was also an adviser to the 2008 McCain presidential campaign on economic issues.

Colorado Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet said Sunday that he is ready to lose his seat if that's what is necessary to pass a health care reform bill.

Washington (CNN) – A freshman Democratic senator said Sunday that he will support his party’s efforts to pass health care reform legislation even if that means losing his seat in next year’s midterm elections.

“If you get to the final point and you are a critical vote for health care reform and every piece of evidence tells you if you support the bill you will lose your job, would you cast the vote and lose your job?” CNN’s John King asked Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado on Sunday’s State of the Union.

“Yes,” Bennet bluntly and simply replied.

Bennet was appointed by Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter to replace Sen. Ken Salazar, who stepped down from the Senate to serve as President Obama’s Interior Secretary. Bennet, who was superintendent of the Denver public school system prior to his appointment, will have to seek election to the seat for the first time in 2010.

Related: West is tough terrain for Democrats

“We feel that we ought to go step-by-step,” Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

McConnell added that Republicans don’t think trying to enact comprehensive, systemic changes to the health care system is a good idea in tough economic times.

“[The Reid] bill is a job killer,” the Senate Minority Leader also told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King.

McConnell added that small business owners are not likely, in his view, to hire new employees in an environment of higher taxes imposed by Democratic health care reform plans and the expiration in 2011 of tax cuts passed early during the previous administration.

“The costs of adding additional employees will be greatly exacerbated by the steps [Democrats are] taking. This is the wrong direction to go,” McConnell also told King.

Notwithstanding the unity Democrats showed on Saturday night in getting the Reid bill to the floor for debate, McConnell suggested Sunday that the Democratic caucus could fracture under pressure from voters.

“If the majority is hell-bent on ignoring the wishes of the American people, they have 60 votes in the Senate. You would think that they might be able to do this, but I believe there are a number of Democratic senators who do care what the American people think and are not interested in this sort of arrogant approach that everybody - sort of shut up and sit down, get out of the way, we know what's best for you.

“Now, we're hearing from the American people, they don't want us to pass it. So I would - you know, it's hard to handicap the ultimate outcome, whether the majority will ignore the American people or not, but they'll be heard. The American people will be heard. They'll either be heard sooner or they'll be heard later.”

Sen. Brown said Sunday that he thinks key moderates in the Senate Democratic Caucus will decide they don't want to be on 'the wrong side of history.'

Washington (CNN) – A liberal Senate Democrat said Sunday that he thinks four key moderate members of the Senate Democratic Caucus will ultimately support Democratic efforts to pass a health care reform bill.

Composed of 58 Democrats and two Independents who caucus with the Democrats, the Senate Democratic Caucus potentially has the 60 votes necessary to break a Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana along with Democrat-turned-Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut have all expressed substantive concerns about various provisions of the bill crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and now set for debate before the Senate. Lincoln, Landrieu, and Lieberman have also said they do not want a public health insurance option in the final bill while Nelson has raised concerns about coverage for abortion and other issues.

On Sunday’s State of the Union, Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown said he thought all four would ultimately back the Democratic bill.

“I think, in the end, I don’t want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it’s not going to be in [the final bill],” Brown told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King.

“But in the end,” Brown added, “I think that all four of our colleagues survey this – look at this bill in the end and say – I don’t think they want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t think they want to go back and say, you know, on a procedural vote, I killed the most important bill of my political career. I don’t think they want to be there on that. So, I think in the end, we get them.”

Brown also expressed concern Sunday about the measures Majority Leader Reid reportedly took to win the votes of Landrieu and Nelson in order to begin debate on the bill. To obtain Landrieu’s support for a crucial vote Saturday night, Reid reportedly included a provision in the bill that could provide Louisiana with up to $300 million in additional Medicaid funding and to win Nelson’s allegiance, Reid reportedly removed a provision that would have repealed a long standing federal antitrust exemption granted to the insurance industry.

“Nobody likes these kinds of – any kinds of deals. I think anything that’s done [to get votes] needs to be in the best – in the best interests of those states and this country. I think those probably helped – if that in fact, really happened, I have no way of knowing if it did. I suppose that helped a lot of people in Louisiana that don’t have insurance, and so I think we move forward.

“We do what we need to do within ethical bounds. We do what we need to within practical bounds... keeping this bill – keeping the costs down and keeping this bill budget-neutral or better,” the Ohio Democrat also said Sunday.

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Brown’s remarks on taking measures to hold Senate Democrats together and maintain the 60 votes needed to move the bill through the Senate.

“In the end, this is going to be a compromise,” Shaheen told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. “It’s not going to be a perfect bill but it’s going to be a very important starting point.”

After emphasizing the need to bring health care costs under control and improve outcomes relative to the amount of health care dollars spent, Shaheen said, “we’ve got to change the way we do things. That’s what this legislation is about.”

The two were discussing the recent controversial cover of Newsweek magazine, in which Palin is shown in running shorts. Carville said Palin should not complain about the use of a photo which was not a candid shot but one she had originally posed for, even if it were for a publication other than Newsweek. Echoing recent comments by Palin, Matalin disagreed and said she thought the Newsweek cover was sexist.

“You can agree on this,” Matalin asked her husband, “she looked good in it, right?”

“She does,” Carville said without hesitation, “Ain’t no doubt about that. You and her are the two best-looking women in the Republican Party,” the Democrat told his wife.

Related: Carville, Matalin share rare tender moment

But Carville did not have much more positive to say about Palin.

While the Democratic strategist said Palin is “compelling” and connects with her supporters “in an unbelievable way,” Carville also said the former Alaska governor, believed by some political observers to be laying the groundwork for a 2012 White House bid, is not fit to be the nation’s chief executive.

“What I said about Sarah Palin on the day she was nominated [for the number two spot on the Republican presidential ticket last year], is still true. She’s uniquely and supremely unqualified to be president of the United States. But she’s got real presence about her. I find myself wanting to watch her more than I do most other politicians,” Carville told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King as Matalin looked on.

Matalin said Palin was good for the Republican Party as it begins to position itself for the 2010 midterms and the 2012 White House race.

“We’re ascendant in 2010,” Matalin said Sunday, “but we need people who can communicate the framework, the philosophy into which policy prescriptions can be put and [Palin] does that better than almost anybody.”

Former New York City Mayor Giuliani said Sunday that former Alaska Gov. Palin got a positive reception even in a Democratic stronghold like New York.

(CNN) – A prominent, socially moderate Republican said Sunday that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has achieved iconic status with the Republican Party’s conservative base, is an asset to the GOP.

“I think Sarah Palin is great for the Republican Party,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in an interview that aired on CNN’s State of the Union.

Giuliani said Palin generates a lot of enthusiasm for the party which has struggled to define itself and identify its leading voices after the McCain-Palin ticket lost its White House bid a year ago.

“She gets a tremendous reception even here in Democratic New York,” Giuliani, who hosted Palin at a New York Yankees game, told CNN’s John King.

“We’re very far away from a 2012 election,” Giuliani added, “Right now, I like figures who are creating interest in the Republican Party.

“Given the decisions that the Obama administration is making, particularly on this area of terrorism which concerns me probably more than any other, we’re going to need some pretty strong alternatives in 2012. I don’t know if it’ll be Sarah Palin or someone else. But right now it’s [about] developing interest in a Republican Party and we need a two-party system and we need a healthy one.”

Giuliani said he had not made any decision yet about whether he will seek the White House again in 2012 or run for New York governor. Asked when he had to make that decision, Giuliani told King “Not today, not this morning.”

Former New York City Mayor Giuliani said Sunday that former Alaska Gov. Palin got a positive reception even in a Democratic stronghold like New York.

(CNN) – A prominent, socially moderate Republican said Sunday that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has achieved iconic status with the Republican Party’s conservative base, is an asset to the GOP.

“I think Sarah Palin is great for the Republican Party,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in an interview that aired on CNN’s State of the Union.

Giuliani said Palin generates a lot of enthusiasm for the party which has struggled to define itself and identify its leading voices after the McCain-Palin ticket lost its White House bid a year ago.

“She gets a tremendous reception even here in Democratic New York,” Giuliani, who hosted Palin at a New York Yankees game, told CNN’s John King.

“We’re very far away from a 2012 election,” Giuliani added, “Right now, I like figures who are creating interest in the Republican Party.

“Given the decisions that the Obama administration is making, particularly on this area of terrorism which concerns me probably more than any other, we’re going to need some pretty strong alternatives in 2012. I don’t know if it’ll be Sarah Palin or someone else. But right now it’s [about] developing interest in a Republican Party and we need a two-party system and we need a healthy one.”

Giuliani said he had not made any decision yet about whether he will seek the White House again in 2012 or run for New York governor. Asked when he had to make that decision, Giuliani told King “Not today, not this morning.”

(CNN) – Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani strayed from the facts in discussing the discord within the Republican Party caused by the insurgent candidacy of Doug Hoffman, a Republican who chose to run on the Conservative Party ticket in the recent special election for New York’s 23rd congressional district.

Talking about the Bill Owens, the Democrat who won the special election, Giuliani erroneously said Owens had voted against the Democratically sponsored health care reform bill that recently passed in the House of Representatives.

Prior to Owens' win, Doug Hoffman’s candidacy, which was supported by prominent conservatives including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, exposed a growing rift in the Republican party between conservatives represented by Hoffman and moderates represented by New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava. After lagging in polls and fund raising and being the target of attacks from both conservatives and Democrats, Scozzafava abruptly decided to drop out of the race just days before Election Day. After receiving Scozzafava’s last minute endorsement, Bill Owens, a Democrat, won a seat occupied by Republicans for more than a century.

Giuliani told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that the nascent GOP civil war sparked by the NY-23 race was “not a good precedent for the party.”

“That’s the way you can allow Democrats to win even if the public has turned against them on certain things. I think in that particular case, I know that district. That’s a district that is very concerned about Obama’s health care [plan].”

“You see the Democrat has voted against the Obama health care program. That’s a district where we could elect a Republican if we get our act together and let’s hope don’t repeat that too often because then we surely won’t be a majority party.”

Giuliani’s comment about Bill Owens’ vote on the House health care reform bill was in error. Owens voted in favor of the bill.

David Axelrod tells CNN that he'll borrow a copy of former Gov. Palin's new book.

(CNN) – “Going Rogue,” the forthcoming memoir of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin may already be a bestseller but the former Republican vice presidential nominee won’t be getting a royalty from one Democratic politico.

Instead of purchasing his own, Obama adviser David Axelrod tells CNN he will borrow the much anticipated book from another veteran of the Obama campaign.

“I think I’ll borrow [former Obama campaign manager David] Plouffe’s copy,” Axelrod said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, “I don’t see why we both have to buy one.

“Once he’s done with it maybe he can summarize it for me or lend it to me and I’ll give it a look.”

Asked whether he thought President Obama wants to read Palin’s new book, Axelrod chuckled and said “I think the president’s pretty busy right now. I don’t know that that’s on his immediate reading list.

“He’s reading reams of papers related to the many issues that he has to confront so I’m not sure that will be at the top of his list right now.”

This is not the first time that Axelrod has expressed a lack of interest in all things Palin. Back in July, on the eve of Palin resigning as Alaska’s governor, Axelrod said he did not spend time thinking the former Republican vice presidential hopeful’s next move.

“I can tell you with absolutely honesty,” Axelrod said in July, “that when I sit around with my political friends . . . there’s very little or no discussion of Sarah Palin.”

“And I really have no idea what Gov. Palin is going to do,” the Obama aide told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. “She’s entering private life now. We wish her well and it’s up to her to decide what role she’s going to play in the future. She’s got plenty of advice, I’m sure. She doesn’t need mine.

Upated: 1:35 p.m.

Instead of bringing suspected mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspects to Manhattan federal court, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani says military tribunals are better suited to try those accused of terrorism.

“A military tribunal is certainly fair,” Giuliani said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, “it’s a great example to the rest of the world. The tradition for over 150 years has been to use those military tribunals.”

Giuliani said that law enforcement officials had made a mistake in using civilian federal court to try those accused of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

“To treat the 1993 bombing as if it were just a criminal act – just one of the 1,973 murders in the city of New York that year – was a big mistake. So, basically the Obama administration is repeating the mistake of history. . . . It should’ve been treated as an act of war.

“And it’s part of a bigger picture here,” Giuliani told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, “it’s part of Barack Obama deciding that we’re not at war with terrorism any longer. So this is not treated as if it was an act of war which is what it should be treated like.”

The former New York City mayor also said the Obama administration’s decision not to use the phrase “war on terror,” a phrase coined and used frequently by the previous administration, was problematic.

“The only problem with [Obama’s approach], John, is the terrorists haven’t stopped going to war with us. It may be that the Obama administration doesn’t think that we’re at war with them but they’re very clear on the fact that they’re at war with us.”

Giuliani also said the trials will pose security problems for New York City including additional threats in a city already regarded as a target, millions of dollars in additional security costs, and the inconvenience of having to close areas around the federal courthouse where the trials will take place.

Because military tribunals are available as an alternative means to try terrorism suspects, Giuliani said Holder’s decision posed “unnecessary risk” to the city and gave “unnecessary advantage” to the suspected terrorists.

“If it was necessary, if this was the only option, well, of course, I’d be in favor of it,” Giuliani told King.

Updated: 1:57 p.m.

(CNN) – As Democrats on Capitol Hill are trying to avoid a brewing intra-party battle over treatment of abortion in health care reform legislation, a top presidential adviser is reiterating that President Obama remains opposed to legislation that contains language preferred by more conservative Democrats in Congress.

In an effort ensure passage of the health care reform bill in the House, last week Speaker Nancy Pelosi permitted a group of approximately 40 anti-abortion Democrats to present an amendment that prohibits any insurance plan offered on a new health insurance exchange from offering coverage for abortion. The amendment is named after one of its sponsors, Bart Stupak of Michigan.

After the Stupak amendment passed with an assist from many House Republicans, more progressive, pro-abortion rights Democrats in the House and the Senate began organizing in an effort to eliminate the provision from the final version of the bill that will be voted on by both chambers and presented to President Obama for his signature. Abortion rights advocates regard the Stupak amendment as changing the status quo, a longstanding compromise between the two sides in the abortion debate. The compromise is best expressed through the Hyde amendment, a rider to an annual spending bill. The amendment, which is renewed every year, prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion and has, for many years, prohibited the federal government from paying for abortions as part of the Medicaid program. But abortion rights activists say the Stupak amendment goes further, effectively prohibiting even individuals who are using their own money to buy coverage on the exchange from obtaining coverage for abortion.

In an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, Obama adviser David Axelrod reiterated the president’s position on how abortion should be handled in the debate over health care reform.

“The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn’t believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion,” Axelrod told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. “He’s going to work with the Senate and the House to try to ensure that at the end of the day the status quo is not changed.”

Asked specifically whether the Stupak amendment changed the status quo, Axelrod replied “I think it’s fair to say the bill Congress passed does change the status quo. But I believe there are discussions ongoing as to how to change it accordingly.”

King asked Axelrod whether the president would sign a final health care bill that contains the Stupak amendment. Likening it to Obama’s position on the public health insurance, Axelrod said Obama “believes both these issues and can and will be worked through before [the final bill] reaches his desk.”

A top adviser to the president said the administration is 'making good progress' towards closing Guantanamo detention facility.

(CNN) – With the clock ticking down to the Obama administration’s self-imposed deadline for closing the U.S. military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, senior Obama adviser David Axelrod said the White House believes it will come close to the original deadline but may not exactly make the one-year deadline.

Announcing on January 22 of this year that “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now,” Obama himself committed the new administration to closing the controversial facility by late January 2010. Since then, the administration has confronted complex legal issues over what to do with the approximately 200 terror suspects still detained at Guantanamo, which has made the deadline increasingly unattainable.

But, in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, Axelrod said the administration will come close.

“We believe we’re going to substantially meet the deadline,” Axelrod told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, “We may not hit it on the date but we will close Guantanamo and we’re making good progress toward doing it.”

Asked by King how many more months the administration anticipated that Guantanamo would remain open, Axelrod refused to specify a time frame.

“I’m not going to put a deadline on it, John, but we’re going to get it done. We’re moving toward getting it done in all the different dimensions that are necessary to get it done.”

Democratic officials said White House Counsel Greg Craig was ousted because of frustration among senior White House aides over his handling of the plans to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He’s set to leave his post early next year.

Related: Top White House lawyer resigns

ACORN leader Bertha Lewis defended her group at a press conference in Washington last month.

(CNN) – The embattled community organizing group ACORN filed a federal lawsuit Thursday challenging a law passed by Congress that denies it federal funding.

Related: Liberal Dem blasts ACORN

The congressional appropriations resolution specifically provides that no federal dollars be provided to ACORN "or any of ACORN's affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations."

In a release announcing the suit, an attorney for ACORN said Congress had overstepped its authority in singling out the organization for denial of federal funding.

"It's not the job of Congress to be the judge, jury, and executioner," Jules Lobel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in the statement. "We have due process in this country, and our Constitution forbids lawmakers from singling out a person or group for punishment without a fair investigation and trial. Congress, as well as individuals and organizations must abide by the rule of law."

ACORN's lawsuit alleges that Congress' action is unconstitutional and seeks a court order prohibiting the federal government enforcing or complying with the congressional resolution.

The community organizing group came under increasing scrutiny in recent months after the release of videos produced by two conservative activists. The conservative filmmakers, posing as a pimp and a prostitute, sought advice from ACORN employees on setting up a brothel with underage girls from El Salvador. The activists recorded the videos in Baltimore and three other cities. The tapes show ACORN employees suggesting or condoning a series of illicit actions.

Related: ACORN sues filmmakers

The release of the videos caused federal agencies including the Census Bureau to reconsider their ties to ACORN and precipitated a number of investigations by federal agencies into ACORN's conduct.

Related: IRS inspector general joins entities looking into ACORN

The law passed by Congress denying ACORN federal funding also came in the wake of the release of the controversial videos.

Update: In a statement e-mailed to CNN, a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, the Ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, called ACORN's suit "baseless."