The McLaughlin Group

Host: John McLaughlin

Pat Buchanan, Author and Columnist;
Eleanor Clift, The Daily Beast;
Susan Ferrechio, Washington Examiner;
Mort Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report

Taped: Friday, March 7, 2014
Broadcast: Weekend of March 8-9, 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Federal News Service, LLC, 1120 G Street NW, Suite 990, Washington, DC 20005-3801 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, LLC. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Transcripts Database or any other FNS product, please email or call 1-202-347-1400.

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Issue One: Russian Irredentism.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: (From videotape.) Since the Russian intervention, we've been mobilizing the international community to condemn this violation of international law and to support the people and government of Ukraine. This morning I signed an executive order that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukraine or for stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people. The proposed referendum on the future of Crimea would violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: President Obama is facing the first major international crisis of his presidency in the standoff over Ukraine. Last Saturday, Russian forces seized control of the Crimean peninsula, surrounding Ukrainian troops in their bases and blockading Ukrainian naval vessels in ports.

Russia's actions are a clear violation of the Budapest memorandums of security assurances for Ukraine, signed in 1994 by Russia, the U.S., Ukraine and Britain.
In a show of solidarity, on Tuesday Secretary of State John Kerry flew to Kiev to deliver $1 billion in emergency aid to the Ukrainian government. On Wednesday, Kerry attempted to broker a meeting in Paris between the Russian and the Ukrainian foreign ministers. But Russia's Sergey Lavrov refused.

Russia claims the current Ukrainian president and his cabinet are illegitimate usurpers of the rightful president, Viktor Yanukovych, now in exile in Russia. Russia's parliament has authorized President Putin to use additional military force in Ukraine, an option Mr. Putin reserves.

The Obama administration is threatening Putin with additional punitive sanctions, ranging from trade restrictions to booting Russia out of the G-8. Problem: Our European allies, who are far more dependent than the U.S. on Russian trade and Russian energy supplies, are balking.

Question: Assuming the Crimean referendum goes forward on March the 16th, one week from this Sunday, and assuming it passes, will the U.S. and will the EU accept its legitimacy or reject its legitimacy? Pat Buchanan.

PAT BUCHANAN: I'm going to make a bold prediction, John. Putin's going to win the election this coming week.
But seriously, there's going to be no military response on the part of the United States or the EU. I don't think there's going to be a serious economic response for the simple reason that the Russians could turn Ukraine into a basket case. They could cut off gas to Eastern Europe --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mm-hmm. (Acknowledging.)

MR. BUCHANAN: -- and Central Europe. They could retaliate in a number of ways. Diplomatically also, I don't think there's going to be real sanction because we depend on the Russians for help in the Syrian negotiations, in the Iranian negotiations, help get our guys out of Afghanistan and our equipment out of Afghanistan.

So I think what's going to happen is Putin's going to win this, but nobody is going to recognize it. No normal nation is going to recognize this. And I think he will be holding his cards. And we will move on to another stage of this game, which is not yet over.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The population in Ukraine (sic/means Crimea) was overwhelmingly Russian-speaking, and the region had been part of Russia until 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev made it a gift to Ukraine on the 100th anniversary of the reunification of Ukraine and Russia.

In 1993, the Russian parliament passed a resolution declaring the Crimean port of Sevastopol, which I happen to have visited, a Russian city, and by implication Crimea a Russian province. This is known as irredentism, advocacy of the restoration to a country of any territory formerly belonging to it.


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Would you agree with that?

MS. CLIFT: It's a nice theory. But the Soviet Union disintegrated, and President Putin says it was the biggest tragedy of the 20th century, forgetting there were a couple of wars where millions of people lost their lives. It's hard to see the breakup of the Soviet Union on the scale of tragedy that he sees it. But he sees it that way.

And in Crimea, it's now 60 percent Russian-speaking. If the referendum goes forward, he will win it. But what does he get? He gets greater autonomy over this piece of a country, and he pushes eastern -- western Ukraine away and turns western Ukraine into an enemy, makes it more part of the West. So I think people can look at this as sort of a short-term victory for Putin, but I don't think he walks away with a grand prize here by any means.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think of that characterization --

MS. CLIFT: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- implicit characterization of the worth of Ukraine from Eleanor Clift?

SUSAN FERRECHIO: Well, I disagree, because, first of all, I agree with Pat. I think easily the referendum will go Putin's way. He'll regain a part of former Soviet territory. And it will be proof that he can sort of thumb his nose at President Obama and the West with no repercussions, because, let's face it, there won't be any serious repercussions, because Europe doesn't want to deal with economic sanctions against Russia. We're not going to bring any military presence there. So what will be the outcome for Putin? He's winning.


MORT ZUCKERMAN: Well, I think that's exactly right. There will be no repercussions. And this is one of the dangers, because Putin is not somebody who's just going to stay where he is now.

MS. FERRECHIO: He's going to keep moving.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: He's going to keep moving. If you've ever seen that guy move, believe me, he's very, very determined, very intelligent, very tough-minded. And he does not think that he's going to face any kind of serious opposition.
We're going to have to find -- the only things that we're going to be able to do, because there's no way that we're going to get involved in a military engagement there, is to really work out a series of economic sanctions and pressures on the Soviet Union -- on Russia.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It sounds like there's no crisis going on.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Oh, no, it is a crisis. That's (beside ?) the question.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's the crisis?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, what's the crisis is that you have --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Irredentism justifies what Russia's doing.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: You have someone who's taken over another country, or another part of another country. That's the kind of thing -- it's not something that we like to see happening in the world.

MR. BUCHANAN: John, let me agree with Eleanor.

MS. CLIFT: You don't want to --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Wait a minute.

MR. BUCHANAN: Let me agree with Eleanor here. First, when they say irredentism, I think Putin lost Ukraine through that coup d'etat politically, diplomatically and economically. And he moved, I think, quickly to make sure he didn't lose the Crimea strategically, which is his naval base.

But I'm inclined to agree with Eleanor on this. He has lost the big piece, which is the Ukraine, which has about 47 million people and is the size of France. But he's still got the Crimean peninsula, which they used to have.

But I think, going forward, John, people talk about -- I don't believe he's going to go into eastern Ukraine or Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia. If he did in the latter three, he's crossed --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We know that Ukraine --

MS. CLIFT: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- Ukraine (sic/means Crimea) is Russian- speaking. It had been part of Russia until 1954.

MS. CLIFT: You're wrong. You're wrong. Crimea is 60 percent Russian-speaking. The rest of the country speaks Ukrainian. They don't --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That's correct. The country speaks Ukrainian.

MS. CLIFT: And a lot of Ukrainians hate the Russians. And if Putin continues --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And Khrushchev gave Ukraine (sic/means Crimea) --

MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, gave Crimea, not gave Ukraine.

MS. CLIFT: Right.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- gave Crimea back to Russia.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: That's right.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Back to Ukraine.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Right. He gave it up in 1954.

MS. CLIFT: And so what Putin is -- what Putin is doing is he's driving the greater part of Ukraine --

MR. BUCHANAN: (Inaudible.) (Laughs.)

MS. CLIFT: -- into the arms of -- into the arms of the West, just like he's doing. And if he moves further and goes into any of the countries that have aligned themselves with NATO, that would trigger a military reaction.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right, let's see --

MS. CLIFT: Right now nobody's going to go to war over Ukraine.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- what kind of (arms ?) The Washington Post is extending in its editorial about President Obama's foreign policy and what it's based on, namely fantasy.

Quote: "President Obama's foreign policy is based on fantasy. President Obama has a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which the," quote, "`tide of war is receding,'" unquote, "and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders in this vision would behave rationally.
"Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st century behavior. Neither has China's President Xi Jinping. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that's harmful to U.S. national security," unquote.

Question: Is The Washington Post right? When it comes to foreign policy, is President Obama living in fantasyland? Eleanor Clift.

MS. CLIFT: I think The Washington Post editorial writer is living in fantasyland.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Writers. This is from the board.

MS. CLIFT: Well, writers. If the editorial --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It says -- the editorial board says it.

MS. CLIFT: Well, I disagree with one or whether it's a multitude.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: OK. But it didn't sound that way --

MS. CLIFT: I think they're --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- when it first came out.

MS. CLIFT: Well, I think that they're -- the editorial page editor is the dominant force on that page. And I think his views are pretty well known, and he is -- he comes more out of the neoconservative movement. And when you read that editorial, you get the feeling he wants us to continue to keep our troops in Afghanistan. He doesn't approve of any kind of shift towards Asia. This president, I think, is trying to take into account of a changing world. And nobody is going to go to war over Ukraine.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mm-hmm. (Acknowledging.)

MS. CLIFT: He's trying to work it diplomatically. He's trying to respect Putin and the grandeur that Russia once was, and recognize that Putin has legitimate reasons to be in Crimea.


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Susan. Hold on, Pat.

MS. FERRECHIO: Well, The Washington Post is not the only liberal newspaper or liberal group that has made a point of saying the president vastly underestimated Putin in this instance, as he has with other world leaders. And Putin double-crossed President Bush. President Obama should have taken a lesson from that.

There are incidents in the past with other foreign leaders where he just thought we can talk this out, when clearly that's not -- the other foreign leaders aren't in on that. That's not the way it's going to work. And I think that's what The Washington Post was getting at. He thinks we can resolve this all through just friendly discussion and negotiation.

Putin is no way going to go for something like that.

MS. CLIFT: There are no alternatives --

MR. BUCHANAN: The use of fantasy language here, John, though -- when John Kerry said we're not back in the 19th century again; we're in the 21st century. Look at what happened to Yugoslavia. You've got Slovenia torn away. You've got Croatia torn away; ripped to pieces. These things still happen in great-power politics.

The problem with The Washington Post is the Cold War is over. The Soviet Union is not communist anymore. It's not the Soviet empire anymore. It's a nation-state behaving like nation-states. And we have no vital interest in who rules in Simferopol in Crimea.

MS. CLIFT: Right. And the Washington Post editorial leads off, basically, assailing the president for reducing the size of the army. We're not going to send boots on the ground into all of these hot spots around the world. Wars are being fought in a different way, and hot wars are not as likely as economic confrontations. And I think that's where Putin could really get hurt, if he's isolated on the world stage in an interconnected economy.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: In the struggle over Crimea, who won the week, President Obama or President Putin? Pat Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: Putin lost Ukraine, but he has gained Crimea. But this is only the second inning of this particular game, which has a long way to go.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Who won the week?



MS. CLIFT: It's a diplomatic and geopolitical standoff, and we're in the middle of it.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Who won the week?

MS. CLIFT: I'm not going to -- I give it to the president, because they're talking.

MR. BUCHANAN: You think it's Obama?

MS. CLIFT: They're talking. Putin pulled back his troops. They're shooting into the air. The great physical or military confrontation hasn't happened. And I think it's pretty amazing the way so many commentators in this country --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mm-hmm. (Acknowledging.)

MS. CLIFT: -- find more wrong with the president than they do with Putin, when Putin pulled these same things when George W. Bush was in the White House. It has nothing to do with whether he thinks the president is weak or strong. It has to do with his own self-interest.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Who won the week? And you can bring Kerry into your answer if you wish.

MS. FERRECHIO: Well, Kerry definitely came across looking better than President Obama, I think; looking like less of a foreign policy novice than President Obama. And I agree with Pat that this thing is only in stage one here. We don't know how it's going to end up.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Who won the week?

MS. FERRECHIO: But I think really Putin did. I think he came across looking like, you know, a bold leader who wanted something and he got it. But we just don't know where it's going to go from here.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Clearly it was Putin, it seems to me, who won the week. He was very shrewd in the way he did it, without trying to provoke a major confrontation. And he is clearly an extraordinary player, Putin, and he's going to continue to be an extraordinary player in global affairs.
The problem with the president, he also bears a burden, as is implicit in the Washington Post editorial, that there are several other occasions where he drew a red line, like in Syria, and then didn't do anything about it. So in large parts of the world, he is not feared, which is one of the things you always want to have if you're a major leader. You want to be feared.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did he draw a red line in his -- in the rest of -- a couple of his press conferences this week?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, I don't think he really did. I mean --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He did not.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: -- he was acknowledging it.


MR. ZUCKERMAN: He knew what was going to be happening. So I think he was trying to put the best face on it. But, by and large, I don't think it succeeded.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I don't -- I think Putin won the week.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Oh, yeah.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But I think that Obama behaved reasonably well.

Don't forget, the McLaughlin Group has its own website, and you can catch this program or earlier programs on the Web at any time, anywhere on the planet, at Don't leave the planet.

Issue Two: CPAC Powwow.

When the minority leader of the United States Senate enters an event toting a rifle, and the audience goes wild with applause, that event must be CPAC. What is CPAC? The Conservative Political Action Conference. Every year -- and this year is its 50th anniversary -- CPAC showcases top Republican luminaries at its annual three-day powwow, the largest collection of conservatives in the nation.
CPAC is sponsored by the American Conservative Union, and it presents speakers and panels on the hot political issues of the moment. This week in Washington, CPAC's opening speaker was Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who took a jab at "Obamacare."

SENATOR TED CRUZ (R-TX): (From videotape.) How do we win? How do we inspire young people? Number one, we tell the truth. (Applause.) This president seems to have a little problem with that. Last fall Jay Leno said, so President Obama called me. He said, Jay, if you like your job, you can keep it.

Now, here's the chairman of the House Budget Committee and Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN (R-WI): The way the left tells it, the Republican Party is in this big massive civil war. It's tea party versus establishment, libertarians versus social conservatives. There's infighting, conflict, backbiting, discord. Look, I'm Irish. That's my idea of a family reunion.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie took the microphone and castigated the press.

NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE (R): (From videotape.) We have to stop letting the media define who we are and what we stand for -- (applause) -- because when we talk about what we're for, no matter what state we're in, our ideas win.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal updated an earlier assessment.

) Today let it be heard -- and I hope he's watching -- to President Carter, I want to issue a sincere apology. (Laughter.) It is no longer fair to say he was the worst president of this great country in my lifetime. President Obama has proven me wrong. (Applause.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Is CPAC the heart and soul of the Republican Party? Susan Ferrechio.

MS. FERRECHIO: Well, I wouldn't say it's the heart and soul of the party, but it's kind of a genesis of the conservative movement because so many young people flock to it. It's a lot of college kids, a lot of young people. And, you know, I think the heart and soul of the conservative party really doesn't have a central place. It's all across the country, depending on, you know, in many red states, in some blue states.

But I don't think that CPAC is just -- is it. But it's an interesting microcosm of the conservative party. You can see -- you can get there and see where the divide is and see where people agree on things. And I think what we just heard in some of the speeches that you played, I think, are -- there is somewhat of a divide.

You see a real, you know, desire on the part of mainstream conservatives to win and a fear that the more conservative group, the tea party group and the libertarian part of the party, are going to get in the way of that, because they feel their views are just a little bit too out there. And you see that at CPAC.


MR. BUCHANAN: The conservative movement in the Republican Party is really a house divided right now. That's a very broad group there. We were just talking about foreign policy. Rand Paul would bring troops home from various places; Korea. He would not get involved in the Ukraine. You've got John McCain, you've got Lindsey Graham, on the other side. You take some of the younger people; they're probably pro-same-sex marriage. And you've got the traditional social conservatives.

I think these things are all going to be worked out in the primaries of 2016. And there are so many stretches in the party that I wonder if eventually this thing is going to come apart.

MS. CLIFT: Well, it's the heart and soul of the contenders for the 2016 nomination. They had a parade of potential candidates. And I must say, based on the sampling you put on, those were pretty lame jokes. It's pretty lame rhetoric. The people who really got that crowd going -- Donald Trump is always a big star at CPAC. So I don't know how serious you can take a group that thinks that Donald Trump is --

MS. FERRECHIO: No, Chris Christie got a standing ovation.

MS. CLIFT: -- a worthwhile presidential contender.

MS. FERRECHIO: I disagree with that. There are a lot of -- there's a lot of enthusiasm there for speakers --

MS. CLIFT: They were polite --

MS. FERRECHIO: -- Rand Paul getting a great reception.

MS. CLIFT: They were polite to Chris Christie. But Chris Christie doesn't speak to their heart and soul. And I must say, Hillary Clinton, for all the --

MS. FERRECHIO: He does speak for the heart and soul for some people there. I think you're making really broad generalizations --

MS. CLIFT: I certainly am.

MS. FERRECHIO: -- about the entire crowd of people.

MS. CLIFT: I certainly am. But I think that's what we do on this show, isn't it? (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Can we -- can we talk about the primary calendar? It's been moved up. The fact that it's been moved up, does that help conservatives?

MR. BUCHANAN: Well, they're not going to change. The Iowa caucuses always come first; New Hampshire primary, followed by South Carolina. And, yes, I mean -- and social conservatives are --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: They're compressing the primary calendar also.

MR. BUCHANAN: Yeah, but this -- all right, the Iowa caucuses, you've got to be -- you have to be a social conservative to do well up there. New Hampshire is more libertarian, pro-gun and the rest of it. But you get a hard-line conservative. McCain did very well there. South Carolina, you've got to be a conservative to come through there. So that is the hurdles you run. And so it's going to -- the party is probably going to produce a conservative. Even Mitt Romney --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think --

MR. BUCHANAN: -- was a strong conservative by the time he got through South Carolina.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think -- let's see how deep your wisdom is. Do you think that a compressed calendar helps a conservative and a dark horse?

MR. BUCHANAN: I think what --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: A dark horse.

MS. FERRECHIO: No. It works against them.


MS. FERRECHIO: Because the compressed calendar -- the reason why we had so many rises and falls from various candidates in the 2012 primary -- we saw Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich. Everybody had their day in the sun. It was a very long calendar. Everybody had the opportunity to shine.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, would it help --

MS. FERRECHIO: Plus we had a lot of debates; this time fewer of those.

MS. CLIFT: It was a clown show that they're trying to get away from.

MR. BUCHANAN: They've got to make --

MS. CLIFT: And they're trying to force a conclusion earlier in the game.

MR. BUCHANAN: And they've got to end it sooner, John.

MS. CLIFT: And right now Rand Paul looks like their best --


MR. BUCHANAN: They have to end the primaries sooner.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Right. Right.

MR. BUCHANAN: You can't go six months --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I want to know whether that helps a dark horse.

MR. BUCHANAN: -- like they did, 20 debates and all the rest of it.

MS. FERRECHIO: No, it doesn't help a dark horse.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It doesn't help a dark horse.

MS. FERRECHIO: No. No, it does not.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Who's the dark horse that we see on the horizon?

MS. FERRECHIO: No, it does not. It helps the mainstream candidate.

MR. BUCHANAN: If you suppress it --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I understand that.

MR. BUCHANAN: If you suppress it, the guys with the money will win.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is there a dark horse that's going to come along?

MR. BUCHANAN: There always is.

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue Three: The Battle of the Budget.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (From videotape.) The budget I sent Congress this morning lays out how we'll implement this agenda in a balanced and responsible way. It's a road map for creating jobs with good wages and expanding opportunity for all Americans. And at a time when our deficit has been cut in half, it allows us to meet our obligations to future generations without leaving them a mountain of debt.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: On Tuesday, President Obama sent Congress his largest budget yet -- a $3.9 trillion tax-and-spending blueprint for 2-0-1-5, 2015. Total federal spending climbs to 21.4 percent of GDP next year, with $1 trillion in new spending by 2020.

Here are some of the highlights.

Taxes up $1 trillion over the next 10 years, chiefly by hiking the so-called death tax on estates and raising taxes on upper-income earners. Corporate tax changes are estimated to yield a 35 percent increase in revenues next year.

Where will that money go? Interest payments on the federal debt, $251 billion in 2015. That will triple to $886 billion by 2024.

Mr. Obama's new spending proposals include universal pre- kindergarten education, free child care for some 100,000 children, more spending on construction projects and green-energy subsidies, job training for the long-term unemployed, and a national parks centennial initiative.

Here it is -- 215 pages. Can you see it? Can you see it now? Beautifully bound and (striking ?).

MS. CLIFT: You can get it on the Internet too. (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah. Look up what your favorite activity is and see how much they're giving, for example, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I hope they've been generous. Do you?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I think they have been generous in many different ways. What they -- it's basically not so much a budget document as it is a political document. And by that I mean if you see where he's going to get all the revenues to make all these new expenditures, it's all going to come from the very wealthy, which is his general rhetoric. And he may succeed in part. I doubt if it'll get through the Congress.

MR. BUCHANAN: John, it's a Democratic wish list.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: It's dead -- it was dead on arrival.

MR. BUCHANAN: It's a Democratic wish list which is dead on arrival. But it has more meaning than that. I mean, he's got all these taxes. And there's no mention of controlling the cost-of-living increase or anything in Medicare and Social Security.

What it means is the idea of a grand bargain, which we've been talking about for a long time, is certainly dead for this year --


MR. BUCHANAN: -- and very probably dead till the end of the Obama presidency.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I agree with that.

MS. CLIFT: It's about time, I think, we moved off of the austerity business anyway, because we do need to --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mm-hmm. (Acknowledging.)

MS. CLIFT: -- invest in the country and the future, and we need to get jobs --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: (Inaudible.)

MS. CLIFT: We need to get jobs going.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Off of the austerity business?

MS. CLIFT: But, you know, the Republicans --

MR. ZUCKERMAN: What austerity?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think of this --

MS. CLIFT: Plenty of austerity. Talk to kids who didn't get into Head Start. Talk to the military. There's been lots of cutbacks, Mort.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Quickly on this, Ms. Ferrechio, what do you think of this? It revisits many policy proposals from years earlier -- inequality in 2014. It would give (the D.C. ?) more autonomy. What do you think? You've got about five seconds.

MS. FERRECHIO: It's going nowhere in Congress because it raises taxes and it brings in programs that are just unsustainable. And it doesn't touch Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Predictions. Pat.

MR. BUCHANAN: The election in Crimea, John, smashing victory for Putin.


MS. CLIFT: Conservative radio host who upset the primary in Texas will be the next lieutenant governor in Texas, which is a very powerful position. And the tea party reigns in Texas.


MS. FERRECHIO: I think next week that the Congress will take up another unemployment proposal and it will fail.


MR. ZUCKERMAN: The Israelis have emerged as the outstanding country in terms of cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. And everybody in the world is going to be going to them.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I predict that the Ukraine crisis will spell the end of utopian dreams of global governance. You know the one-world thinking, Pat?

MR. BUCHANAN: New world order.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: New world order; in fact, quite the contrary -- a fresh epic of rivalry between the great powers on one side and nation-states on the other. Globalism is out. Nationalism is in. Do you agree?

MR. BUCHANAN: It's part of my book, John. (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You're writing another book?

MR. BUCHANAN: No, "Suicide of a Superpower."

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: This is your 14th book, isn't it?

MR. BUCHANAN: Fourteenth is on the way. (Laughs.)


(C) 2014 Federal News Service