"Face the Nation" transcripts January 27, 2013: Feinstein, Kelly, Gingrich, Blackburn

(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on January 27, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and a panel featuring Obama 2012 deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, Romney adviser Kevin Madden, David Ignatius of the Washington Post, and David Sanger of the New York Times.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on "Face the Nation," another inaugural is history. The president laid out an ambitious agenda, but can the Washington gridlock be broken? In one stroke the administration reversed the policy barring women in the military from combat units. But another priority - strengthening gun laws - will be much harder.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): These weapons do not belong on the streets of our towns, our cities, in our schools, in our malls, in our workplaces, in our movie theatres - enough is enough.

SCHIEFFER: Almost 20 years ago, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein pushed an assault weapons ban through Congress - can she do it again? And is it the answer? She's with us this morning along with New York City's top cop, Ray Kelly. As the president begins his second term, Republicans are rethinking who they are and where they go from here.

REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI): We can't get rattled. We won't play the villain in his morality plays. We have to stay united.

SCHIEFFER: We'll hear more on that from former Republican speaker Newt Gingrich, Tennessee Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn. For analysis, we'll bring in David Ignatius of the Washington Post, David Sanger of the New York Times, and from campaign 2012, Obama adviser Stephanie Cutter and Romney adviser Kevin Madden, back to face off one more time. Because this is "Face the Nation."

SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. California's Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is joining us in the studio this morning. Senator, you introduced this legislation Friday to ban assault weapons, reinstate the ban. You got this passed once before. It was uphill all the way. You can see this time it's going to be uphill, but why do you think you can get it passed?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I think I can get it passed because the American people are very much for it. There's a new poll out, 50,000 people in the field, 68 percent supportive of a ban on assault weapons. I think what happens is that you have one group, namely the National Rifle Association, that has such a pronounced view that dominates the arena. But we have the United States Conference of Mayors. We have the major city chiefs. We have the largest police organization in the world supporting us. We have individual chiefs and sheriffs. We have pediatricians, trauma room -- trauma room surgeons, teachers -- you name it -- all the way down. We have the clergy. We had the dean of the National Cathedral launch this and talk about the effort that he's going to put together among clergy of all types and sects and religions in the United States to support this. This is an uphill climb. It is a slightly -- it is a different bill than I introduced. We go from two physical characteristics in the definition of an assault weapon to one. We ban 158 specific guns by make and model. We grandfather 2,200 weapons by make and model that are rifles, shotguns, pistols used for recreation, defense, hunting. We ban clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets, prohibit their manufacture, their sale, their transfer. We are different from the New York state law. We do not require registration of grandfathered weapons. In that regard, we are also different from the California law. In a sense, it's a little more moderate in that regard because the gun organizations regard registration as, quote, "the first step to confiscation."

SCHIEFFER: But when you -- when somebody sells one of these guns that they may have now, or gives it to someone else...

FEINSTEIN: We require a full background check of the transferee, the person to whom the gun is transferred.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think that the NRA is now more or less powerful than it was 20 years ago when you passed this legislation?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I think they're equally as powerful. They're now supported by a lot of the gun manufacturers. They've certainly extended their arm. This morning's front page story in the New York Times tells about their efforts to provide training and weapons to youngsters, eight to 15-year-olds. As a matter of fact, I saw a very young youngster with an AR-15 in the newspaper this morning. That's the same type weapon that was used at Sandy Hook school. I know what happened to the bodies at Sandy Hook school. And to have these weapons just floating around our society and particularly with youngsters who are by nature unpredictable is a bit frightening.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this. Some people clearly see -- and I think they're sincere about it -- that they just feel this infringes on their rights and that this is the first step to taking their gun away from them.

FEINSTEIN: Well, let me talk about rights for a minute. Does a child have a right to be safe in school? Does a law client, when he goes into a law firm, have a right to believe he's safe? Does a shopper in a mall have a right to believe that she's safe? I think so. And what's been happening, as these incidents happen -- look at Aurora, people sitting in a theater. Somebody with 100 rounds in a drum came in and just mowed down people. Do people going to movies have a right to be safe? You want to talk about rights, talk about the rights of the majority, too.

SCHIEFFER: What about -- what about the idea that -- which some gun rights supporters cite -- they say, "Look, all of this is just to make people feel good. It's just, kind of, feel-good legislation, that, in the end, it's not going to stop these kinds of incidents?

FEINSTEIN: Well, that's absolutely not true. What we are trying to do is overall see that weapons -- I would like to see them all registered -- it's not in our bill -- but see that weapons are in the hands of responsible citizens, that they are used legally, not illegally, that they do not fall into the hands of gangs. Do you realize we have 150,000-plus gang members in this nation? When they go up against the police, it's generally an AK-47. You realize that police have had to break into gun stores to get weapons that would be stronger than the adversary they had? Do you realize that one out of every five law enforcement officers that's killed is killed with an assault weapon? Do you need assault weapons? These are weapons that are made to kill large numbers of people in close combat. And what we have found, that, now, with the AR-15, they have a slide stock which you put in. It's legal. And it makes the gun act fully automatic.

SCHIEFFER: Let me change the subject just quickly because you're also chairman of the Intelligence Committee. We've got some bad stuff, apparently, going on in Mali and other places. You know, a couple of months ago, people were saying we'd basically won the war on terror. How much of a threat do you think terrorism is right now?

FEINSTEIN: I think it remains a real threat. I do not believe it has gone away. I believe there's now -- this is just my belief -- an effort to establish a beachhead for terrorism, a joining together of terrorist organizations. I think Benghazi was a small symptom of that, in northern Africa, in Mali, in other countries in that area. I compliment the French for taking vigorous action. I believe very strongly what the United States needs to do is put together our allies into an alliance, bring in Russia, bring in China. Because I think it's to the interest of civilized countries to have an apparatus to be able to take down and rend asunder terrorist groups wherever they appear.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Dianne Feinstein, thank you so much for being with us.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much.

SCHIEFFER: We're going to get a slightly different take on all this now. We're going to New York and police commissioner Ray Kelly. Commissioner, you just heard Senator Feinstein. Do you think -- is this the right way to approach this? Is banning assault weapons where you start, banning these magazines that hold more than, say, 10 rounds? Or do you see it in a different way there in New York?

KELLY: Well, I commend the senator. I think it's certainly a move in the right direction. I agree with it. As the senator said, it's probably a heavy lift in Congress, but for us in New York City and, I believe, in most urban centers throughout America, the problem really is concealable handguns. Only 2 percent of the people that we've arrested for guns in the last two years have had assault weapons. We don't want them on the streets, make no mistake about it. But the problem is the handgun. Sixty percent of the murders in New York City are caused by handguns. And we simply have too many of them, even though, last year, we had a record low in murders in New York City, and a record low in shootings, it's still way too many.

SCHIEFFER: If you had a wish list of what you would like the congress to do, what congress could do to help you and your policemen who are out there on the streets, what would it be, commissioner?

KELLY: I think the universal background check can be helpful. About six million weapons is estimated were sold last year without a background check. So that's a significant -- that's the loophole that they talk about. I think the background check will also be helpful in identifying straw purchases, making them more aware of the fact that they're now on record and you can record purchases that they make. So I think over time, the universal background check will have an impact.

SCHIEFFER: I want to talk to you a little bit about this new technology that you're using up there in New York, or at least getting ready to use, where you can kind of -- I don't quite understand how it works, but basically, you can point it at somebody and tell if they're carrying a weapon I guess would be one way to put it.

KELLY: Well, we're not quite there yet. But it's called terahertz technology. We have been looking at it for several years, looking at it with the Department of Defense and also metropolitan police in London. Basically, everyone emits what they call terahertz radiation. And if that radiation is blocked by something, such as a weapon, you can see the outline of it. Now we've tested it. We just received the latest prototype. And it's very encouraging. It's still too big for deployment in -- you know, in a reasonable way. But we're getting there. It's sort of like the cell phone was 20 years ago. So we're encouraged by that. And the British are encouraging as well. We hope to be using it, at least experimentally, in the next six months.

SCHIEFFER: Do you foresee any problems with civil liberties groups who may say this is invasive on people's privacy?

KELLY: Oh, sure. This is New York. No question about it. And we're working with our attorneys to see to it that it is appropriately used. We understand there are fourth amendment issues here. So we want to get everybody on board before this goes to any widespread use. But it is -- it is encouraging. And as I say New York is probably most litigious environment in the world. And we have to be aware of that before we implement it.

SCHIEFFER: What about people who sincerely believe that when we institute tighter controls on guns, even background checks, that it is infringing on their rights?

KELLY: Well, we understand that. There are different cultures in this country. And I think, you know, the Supreme Court case, the District of Columbia versus Hella (ph), pretty much made certain that the concept of people having a right to guns with some legitimate regulations is here to stay. We're not looking to infringe on anybody's right to have guns legally. What we're looking to do is get the illegal guns off our streets. And for our city, 90 percent of the guns that we confiscate are coming from out of state. So we need a national, comprehensive strategy, or we need other states to put in the very strong, aggressive gun legislation that just passed under Governor Cuomo's leadership in the state legislature. So we are the target, so to speak. It's coming in from other places, but we're clear not looking to infringe on the rights of legitimate people to possess guns legally.

SCHIEFFER: All right, well, commissioner, it's always a pleasure to have you. And good luck on keeping those streets safe up there. We'll be right back in one minute.

SCHIEFFER: Well, we're back now. And we hope to get another perspective on guns and this whole problem that the country is passing. With us this morning, former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich and Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee. Congresswoman Blackburn -- but you actually liked to be called congressman, don't you?

BLACKBURN: Congress Marsha.

SCHIEFFER: Congress Marsha.

BLACKBURN: Whatever works.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well you Dianne Feinstein.

BLACKBURN: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: Miss Blackburn and you heard Ray Kelly. What's your take on this?

BLACKBURN: My take is first of all, we need to make certain we keep children safe. And that's what we want to do. But I've got to tell you, when I hear some of this conversation, I think that we're looking at symptoms, we're not looking at the root causes. And I've talked with a lot of teachers, classroom teachers after the Sandy Hook situation, and they say, look, we need to be looking at mental health. We need to be looking at the root causes, some of these psychotropic drugs, and not let this be about the weapon, but let's talk about some of the root causes in these issues. And I understand the senator's passion for this, but I got to tell you, an assault ban is not the answer to helping keep people safe.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think it's the answer, speaker?

GINGRICH: Well, as the New York commissioner said, the overwhelming problem for him is handguns, not the -- assault weapons are about 2 percent. But I also think the term assault weapon is propaganda. Any true military weapon is illegal, has been illegal since 1934. If somebody is using an AK-47, they're using an illegal weapon because it is an automatic weapon. We do not allow people to buy automatic weapons unless they have a very strict collector's license, and that's been true now for almost 80 years.

SCHIEFFER: But these are rapid-fire weapons.

GINGRICH: You pull a trigger and it fires a shot...

SCHIEFFER: They're not machine guns but they're rapid fire.

GINGRICH: Every pistol does that. The person who killed the most people at Virginia Tech used two pistols. The fact is every political attack from John F. Kennedy to the present has involved a weapon which would be legal under Senator Feinstein's law. I mean, pistols -- you go to Chicago, the murder capital of the United States, and neither the House or Senate has gone and held hearing, but they ought to find out how did over 500 people die last year? They are weren't assault weapons. And I think -- this is a serious question of where we ought to have the courage to look at facts, not create propaganda.

SCHIEFFER: I agree with you, Miss Blackburn, that I think mental health needs to be a part of this. I think it's got to be a comprehensive plan of some sort. But I also wonder -- I mean, don't we have to find some way just to reduce this access to guns that some of these people have? I mean, you know, if the guy had walked into the Connecticut school with a baseball bat, he could have put some bumps on a couple of people's head, but I don't think that many people would have been killed.

BLACKBURN: Well, you know, I think that there, again, you look at the safety issue. Some of the school districts in my congressional district are looking at resource officers, and how they secure that environment. But, you know, the speaker is right. You look at what is actually causing the problem. This means you look at the weapons that are there. You do some hearings that are on, that have occurred in some of these areas like Chicago, where they have a problem. You look at the mental health issues. You look at the psychotropic and psychiatric drugs that a lot of the youth are taking that individuals that have committed these crimes are taking. You look at the violence that is there in entertainment, in video games, and don't just go say, "we're going to do an assault weapons ban, and that's going to solve the problem," because it is not going to get to the root of the problem.

SCHIEFFER: How do the two of you feel about background checks? Do you think that would be helpful?

GINGRICH: Well, we have background checks now. I think there are substantial number of felons who have actually applied to buy a gun. The Obama administration to the best of my knowledge, has prosecuted virtually none of them.

SCHIEFFER: But there are no background checks at gun shows, right?

GINGRICH: But let's start with what I just said, Bob, we already have a background check when you go to a regular gun dealer. A gun dealer who is at a gun show, in fact, does a background check.

BLACKBURN: That's right.

GINGRICH: If he's an authorized dealer. All of those folks fill up on the paperwork. It goes to the federal government. And I think there's something -- don't hold me to this -- but I think there are 70,000 cases of people who are convicted felons trying to buy a gun who were turned down. It's illegal to apply to buy a gun if you're a convicted felon. I think this administration has prosecuted virtually none of them. So they already have the data. They are not doing anything with it. What I'm fascinated with is there is a perennial desire to make the innocent have a more complicated life because of a handful who are the guilty rather than focusing on the guilty.

SCHIEFFER: But you still have, at the end of the day, you have these awful things that happen and they happen over and over, and they seem to happen more and more. Aren't we going to have to find out and aren't we going to have to get serious about doing something about this?

BLACKBURN: Well, absolutely. You do because you want to make certain that people are safe in public places. You want to make certain that children are safe at school. But, Bob, I've got to tell you, doing a so-called assault weapons ban is going after a symptom, and as teachers have said to me, don't focus on whatever is the weapon, get to the root cause. Look at some of these mental health issues. Look at some of these drugs that are involved in this. Look at some of the is violence that is permeating this society. Teachers, parents are all saying, you know, you need to drill down on this a little deeper. Be a little bit more thoughtful on it. And, you know, I'm with the speaker. Why should law-abiding citizens be compromised because you've got some bad actors over here that are not complying.

GINGRICH: I think it would be very compelling -- there are a finite number of mass murders in the last 25 years, a series of hearings has started with actually evaluating these people. Who are they? I just sat through a wonderful report by the author of "Rawhide Down" which he talked about Reagan being shot by a .22 pistol by the way. The reason Hinckley shot him is he wanted to get Jodi Foster's attention. Now, I mean you look at these kind of things, and the guy who killed people tragically in Newtown was using his mother's guns. So the background check wouldn't have done any good. The young man in New Mexico who killed his family, tragically, had actually been given the guns by his father to protect the family. I mean, I think we have to look at what's really going on and not just rush in to a 20-year-old idea that didn't work. By the way, gun murders have gone down since the assault weapons ban ended. There are fewer gun murders today since the ban ended.

SCHIEFFER: I want to ask both of you to stick around, because I want to talk to you about the Republican Party and how it's trying to rethink what it is and where it goes from here. But we'll do that on page two. I'm going to be back with more from our guests on "Face the Nation." And in a moment, I'll have some thoughts on women in the military.

SCHIEFFER: So, the military has decided to let women who qualify join combat units, and everybody's talking about what a good thing that is for women. I have a slightly different take. I think it is a good thing for the military. I'm sorry, guys, but we're not doing all that well these days. Maybe you haven't noticed, but for years now, women have been outperforming men at every level from elementary school to graduate school. There are still more men running companies, but there are more and more women moving into top jobs every day, and how could it be otherwise? Women are now the majority on college campuses, more of them graduate, more of them earn masters degrees. Last year's hedge funds run by women did better than those managed by men. If current trends hold, by mid-century, the majority of doctors in this country will be women. There are still more guys than women hanging out in sports bars and at the risk of interrupting their games, I just have to say to you guys is it might be a good idea to check out what these ladies are up to if for no other reason they're probably going to be your boss some day. It won't hurt to figure out now what impresses them. Back in a minute.

SCHIEFFER: Some of our stations are leaving us now, but for most of you we'll be right back with more from former Speaker Gingrich and Congresswoman Blackburn and our political panel. So stay with us.

SCHIEFFER: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We're here with former speaker Newt Gingrich and representative Marsha Blackburn of the great state of Tennessee. I want to talk to you all because this is a week that you really saw Republicans start to say who are we and what did we do wrong the last time out? Haley Barbour says we should have won the presidential election. And you had different people had different things to say. And I thought one of the more interesting was Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana. Boy, he laid it out on the line. So let's just listen to what Mr. Jindal had to say.

GOV. BOBBY JINDAL, R-LA.: We've got to stop being the stupid party. It's no secret we had a number of Republicans that damaged the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I'm here to say we've had enough of that.

SCHIEFFER: So there you go. Newt Gingrich, you ran and tried to get the nomination to run for president. Bobby Jindal's got a point, though, doesn't he?

GINGRICH: You know, it's ironic. In 1976, Irving Kristol wrote an essay for The Wall Street Journal entitled "The Stupid Party," which I commend to every Republican, and also one called "The Future of the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan came along with Jack Kemp and they basically moved us back to being an idea-oriented party. I think we clearly have to change. I don't agree -- I mean, maybe we could have won or not won this year. I was certainly wrong. I thought we would win up until about 5:30 Election Day, when we began seeing election polls. But when you -- I wrote a paper recently, which is on gingrichproductions.com, which outlines 23 different areas Republicans ought to look at. When you lose Latinos by 71 percent; you lose Asian- Americans by 74 percent; you lose people under 30; you lose single women -- I mean, you go down the list. We have not won a majority -- except for 2004, with an incumbent -- we have not won a majority since 1988.

SCHIEFFER: You know, I mean, nobody in any party can be responsible for what anyone is going to say, but there were some Republicans that really, for one thing, turned young women off with their comments on right to choose and all of that, Ms. Blackburn. What...

BLACKBURN: Well, you're exactly right. There were. And I think that one of the things that we as a party have to do -- and I think Bobby was right on track. The governor really laid it out. Reince Priebus laid it out. What we need to do is get rid of grand old party. We are the great opportunity party. We're the growth and opportunity party. We are the government of the people party. And that needs to be the point of view and the perspective that we come from and that we carry our message forth. You were just talking about women in the military, women in the workplace. What they want to know is that they are going to be treated equally under the law and that they're going to have great opportunities. And we are the party that stands for freedom, free people, free markets, faith, family, freedom, hope and opportunity for each and every person in this country. And that is a great message. And that is what our focus ought to be.

SCHIEFFER: Newt Gingrich, I'm going to call back a statement from the past because my -- well, I'll be interested to what you have to say about this. But back there a while ago, you -- they were talking about women in the military. And you said there might be some problems with it. You were talking to a group of college students and here's what you said.

GINGRICH: If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections.

SCHIEFFER: Have you evolved on that, as some politicians say?

GINGRICH: Well, I don't know that I've evolved. First of all, I think we've all learned a lot more. And the first thing I said when somebody talked about allowing women in combat is women have been in combat for at least the last 20 years. Because, if you're serving in the American military and you're in Iraq or you're in Afghanistan, you're in combat. Women in the State Department are in combat. Women in the intelligence service are in combat. Look at Benghazi. So I think part of it is -- and you do have to make different arrangements under different circumstances. But I do think the fact is that anyone who is going to serve the country is going to be at risk, and it is a lot better to have them combat-trained when they're at risk than it is to have them be helpless.

SCHIEFFER: So you -- you would now favor...

(CROSSTALK)

GINGRICH: I think we've had 20 years...

SCHIEFFER: You're good with it? GINGRICH: We've had 20 years of experience, and, objectively, they are in combat already. This is simply recognizing a reality that exists.

BLACKBURN: Well, what we have is women who have performed admirably in combat, and what Panetta is trying to do is to get rid of some of these artificial barriers and say go away with those, because, when you look at how the units deploy now and the technology, you have many I.T. specialists that are females, medics that are female. And they are already deploying with these units. Fort Campbell, which is there in my district, the 160th special operations forces, you have women that are performing necessary skills. I think you're going to see more qualified women. I'm looking forward to seeing women break these barriers, serve as mentors, and bring younger -- younger women through the ranks in this process.

SCHIEFFER: What do you think -- what do you say, what is the one thing -- what's the worst thing or the thing that the Republicans did wrong last time out, Ms. Blackburn?

BLACKBURN: I -- I think that the thing that we did not do well was to penetrate the marketplace with our message. We didn't have a broad enough basis using social media, using all the different media formats that are there. People -- the network of you is how people get their message now, their media. They are pulling together different sources via the Internet, electronic media, TV, print. And we need to utilize each and every one of those and realize that, at the grassroots, there's an army of people out there that are ready to be the happy warriors in this fight and get the job done because they're committed to freedom.

SCHIEFFER: What would you say?

GINGRICH: I'd say Republicans had better listen very carefully to Marco Rubio. When I said as a candidate we're not going to deport a grandmother if she's been here 25 years, and we have a nominee who said, yes, we would, that she would self-deport, I think, at that point, we lost Asians; we lost Latinos. You can't lose Asians, Latinos, African-Americans and young people and think you're going to be competitive. So I think -- I think we have to come to grips with the reality. I agree exactly with Marsha. We have to learn to communicate in the world of young people on their terms. But we also have to understand that we need to be a country of immigrants, where Republicans are seen as welcoming hard-working competent people, not prepared to kick grandmother out.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you all, both, for being here. We're going to continue this conversation when we'll bring in some other folks, folks from the Romney and the Obama campaigns and a couple of Washington's smartest analysts. We'll be back in a minute.

SCHIEFFER: Back now for a little analysis. And we welcome Kevin Madden and Stephanie Cutter, who spent a lot of time on this broadcast and others during the campaign going at each other...

MADDEN: That doesn't mean we still can't fight. We can still fight.

(LAUGHTER)

CUTTER: We can get along, too.

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIEFFER: And we're glad to have both of you back. Also with us is the -- Stephanie, of course, was the president's deputy campaign manager. Kevin was an adviser. And with us also, David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent of the New York Times; and David Ignatius, the associated editor and columnist for The Washington Post.

Well, we talked earlier on the broadcast about what's going to happen on guns. I think everybody agrees it's going to be an uphill battle if any kind of thing gets passed. David, let me start with you. We heard the president's inauguration speech. I thought it was rather unusual in the fact that he did not ask for help very much. I was, kind of, expecting maybe a Lyndon Johnson "Come and let us reason together" kind of speech. We didn't get that. This was a much different speech, I thought, than the president made at his -- certainly at his previous inaugural. Do you think it will help or hurt, bringing the partisan -- ending the partisan...

IGNATIUS: Well, in the short term, the president's message was "I won, deal with it." I was expecting a speech that would be more expansive, a speech in which the president would reach out to the people who didn't vote for him, including the people who didn't vote for him, and say somehow we've got to put the country back together and solve big problems. And I think that's his opportunity to be a great president. That's what the country is waiting for. He started off in a different direction, a more -- to me, a more partisan direction. But, you know, we're just beginning the second term, and we'll see. We'll see how he -- how he evolves his rhetoric. Is he going to get pushed back, a little bit, by the reaction that you and I and I know many thousands of people had of the speech.

SCHIEFFER: Stephanie, what did you think of the president's speech? I bet you liked it.

(LAUGHTER)

CUTTER: Shockingly, yes. I had a different reaction. And when I -- you know, I've read what you've written about it, and certainly there has been some discussions since the president gave the speech. I didn't see it as a partisan speech, because there was nothing in there that didn't speak to what the majority of the American people voted on and support whether it's, you know, addressing the threats of climate change, global warming, keeping our kids safe at school, giving, you know, a poor girl the same opportunity as somebody else in her generation who was born into wealth. It was about going back to our founding principles -- justice, fairness -- and attacking our big challenges. And the president did say in the speech we don't have to debate -- you know, we don't have to solve the centuries-long debate over the role of government in our society, but we can find place where's there is common ground, and there are plenty of places where there is common ground.

SCHIEFFER: Well certainly, it was historic when he said what he said about the next step basically in equal rights is equal rights for gay people.

CUTTER: Absolutely. And millions of Americans support that, tens of millions of Americans support that position. so that's not a partisan thing to say. And it's certainly not even left of center. That is the center of the country now. So it was-- the reaction to it has been very interesting.

MADDEN: Yeah, but what was strike about it was the coverage leading up to the president's inaugural address was all about how this is a moment where there's a potential to bring together a pretty united country. And instead I think what happened was the coverage afterwards was about how confrontational it was. It seemed as if the president was almost sort of embracing the idea that we have this very divided American electorate and we have a very divided political system right now. And I think that's problematic right now. I mean, right now the president is forced to -- by taking that stance -- is forced to sort of guide the country from crisis to crisis, week to week, month to month, whether it's the fiscal cliff or the. continuing resolution debate that we're going to have during this -- during this spring and summer. So I think that is a bigger problem is how does the president bring people together in a way where he can forge the grand coalitions that he's going to need in order to get things done? The country's challenges require that.

SCHIEFFER: I mean, I kind of wondered if it was more "well I tried to get them together and it didn't work so now I'm going to try something else." David?

DAVID SANGER, NEW YORK TIMES: I think, Bob, that's what was going on. I think this was born, to some degree, of what he regards as a bitter experience in the first four years where he would lay out the proposal, and I think in the eyes of the many in the White House, he would begin to compromise before the negotiation really got under way. And what they discovered was, along the way, that the Republicans pocketed a lot of those changes and then pushed him further. I think this was an effort to say that he wasn't going to do that anymore, that he was going to take his victory and start from a stronger position. What that leaves us without, though, right now -- and you don't do this in an inaugural speech but you do you do it in the upcoming state of the union -- is lay out a strategy for how he's going to get from here to there. So on global warming, and particularly on the assault weapons ban that you heard Senator Dianne Feinstein discuss, the strategy of how much he's really going to press for these is unclear. He may simply be trying to move the meter slightly in the other direction.

SCHIEFFER: How much do you think he can get done, David? What is your feeling about that?

DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: Well, he can't get much done without -- without picking off some Republican votes, and without having a coalition of support behind him. I've written that I think he needs, as Ronald Reagan did to speak over the heads of a very divide congress to the country and mobilize public support. Take an assault weapons ban or other gun control measures. Somehow the politics of that have to change so that the NRA gets nervous. People who got 100% NRA voting records get nervous that they may be in trouble politically because the country, the majority of people who don't want to see those policies, are getting angry about it. So that's kind of political, tactical side. At the same time, as we've been say, I think there is a need for broad vision. The president had one really memorable line in this speech about our gay brothers and sisters. And it really spoke to the moment. But I didn't find many others. And I was disappointed because rhetoric does matter, as Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, so many people showed us.

MADDEN: And there were a lot of Obama -- the Reason Reagan was so successful was that there was a thing called Reagan Democrats. There aren't many Obama Republicans. It's almost nonexistent.

CUTTER: There are plenty of Obama voters whether your Democrats, Republicans, or independent. I think this last election showed that. I agree with David that he needs to take this to the country, and that's precisely what he's going to do and what he has been doing. You'll see that this week on immigration. You'll probably see it on some of these gun control, anti-violence measures, whether it's the assault weapons ban or the background check or addressing mental health issues. And that's proven to be successful for him.

SCHIEFFER: Kevin you heard Newt Gingrich. He said the first thing Republicans need to do is start paying attention to Rubio, Senator Rubio from Florida, because he said if you can't find a way to appeal to the changing demographics...

MADDEN: No, that's right. I mean, that's an incredible lesson that we learned from this last campaign. You take 1992 when Bill Clinton won his first election, Hispanics represented about 2 percent of the electorate and won about 700,000 of those -- by a margin of 700,000. In this electorate right now, President Obama won with 10 percent of the electorate. So we are seeing a changing of this American electorate. And so we have to do a better job as Republicans of reaching out. The biggest -- it really comes down to this fundamental idea, this principle -- which is are we going to talk about what we're for or are we going to talk about what we're against? We've lulled ourselves into a belief that in the 2010 elections, because we had very good results in the midterms, that we could be a party of no and run against spending, run against deficits. But in order to prosper and become a majority party we have to talk about what we're for. And immigration is a perfect example. What do Republicans stand for, what is an aspirational, modernized immigration system look like? And how is it part a larger economic argument, how is it part of the argument of values and families? That is our challenge as part of the rebuilding process going forward.

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk a little bit -- and I want to talk to you two about this overseas problems that may be coming up. Clearly, Dianne Feinstein says, hey, the war on terror I is not over. It's still alive and well and it poses a real threat.

SANGER: Well, I think she's right on that. What we've seen happen in the past few weeks -- obviously the events in Mali, which is now leading to a slightly greater American role. The president approved yesterday sending in refueling capability to help the French jets as they go in on this. But you see this White House caught between two very different imperatives. On the one hand, they want to go after al Qaeda and all of its affiliates. And that's what you're seeing happen across northern Africa. At the same time, this is a president who is very aware of the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are tired of 11 years of war. It's the reason he does not want to be taking the lead in many of these battles, and instead trying to get those with more direct interests into it. And many of the terror groups that you see in North Africa don't have designs on the homeland of the United States. And under the president's own doctrine, if they don't then it's got to be a regional issue led by the region. And that's the tension that's in every debate in this White House right now.

SCHIEFFER: David, one thing that got almost no attention during the campaign was North Korea, and we're talking about stopping Iran from building a nuclear weapon. The North Koreans have one. And they're now talking about maybe a test of some sort of a missile that would have the capability maybe to reach the United States.

IGNATIUS: The North Korea problem keeps getting under dangerous under a new young North Korean leader Kim Jong un. It is in some ways more unstable and unpredictable. And you would have to say this is an area where the Obama administration foreign policy has not been successful. Just to come back for a moment to the question of terrorism. I thought Senator Feinstein said something really important on your show when she talked about the need to reach out and form a broad coalition that would include Russia, that would include China, that would include other nations that care about this new morphing, evolving, fragmented al Qaeda. That's what George Bush and George Tenet did in 2001. They went knocking on every door around the world, every security service that faced a danger and said let's work together. Let's figure out ways to share information, money if needed. And I heard Senator Feinstein saying let's do that again, and I thought it was a really good idea.

SCHIEFFER: Stephanie, what do you think? How do you see this administration now over these next four years? We heard the president's speech you talked about how, you know, he did lay out his priorities. But what's really important to them? What do you think they'll concentrate on?

CUTTER: Well, I think that much of this is going to be discussed in the State of the Union, the details behind the vision that the president laid out. But the president was very clear in running for reelection what he wanted to work on. He wants to address immigration reform. That's going to be a big, comprehensive effort where I do think there is room for us to come together and finally get something done.

SCHIEFFER: You still have to do something about the finances, the deficit.

CUTTER: Absolutely. And as Kevin said, right now, for a variety of reasons, including House Republicans, we're living crisis to crisis. Hopefully we can get past that and come together on an agreement to pay down deficit in a balanced away way. We've made progress. We've already cut spending. There are other areas we can address, including some entitlement reforms the president has been clear about but away do need the Republicans to come to the table to work on that with us. Immigration reform, deficit reduction, further investments in our economy, whether it's addressing global warming and climate change, increasing opportunities in education and making sure we're keeping tuition costs down. Our infrastructure is critical to our economy, but we continue not to be able to get something through congress. These are big areas where we can move something forward. I think you'll see the president address many of these issues in the State of the Union.

SCHIEFFER: All right, well, I want to thank all of you, most enlightening, as we say on television. And we'll be back in a moment with our Face the Nation flashback.

SCHIEFFER: There has been so much bad news lately. After stories like the Connecticut shootings, we always look not only for lessons learned to ensure it never happens again but also for some kind of redeeming national conversation to help us understand. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes not. But one time that it did was after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster which took place 27 years ago tomorrow. That's our Face the Nation flashback.

SCHIEFFER: After a series of delays and in unseasonably cold weather, the Shuttle Challenger lifted off successfully.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And liftoff.

SCHIEFFER: But only 73 seconds later, the unthinkable occurred.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a report from the flight dynamics officer that the vehicle has exploded.

SCHIEFFER: All seven crew members lost their lives in the tragedy and put the whole idea of America's space program at risk. Across the country people were asking was the price too high to send humans into space? On Face the Nation, Pat Smith, the brother of Challenger pilot Michael Smith said yes.

PAT SMITH, MICHAEL SMITH'S BROTHER: I was asked was it worth seven lives? And I said that's a hard question for me to answer because one of the lives was somebody so very dear to me, But I believe the country needs the manned space program.

SCHIEFFER: President Reagan agreed. In an oval office address just after the disaster, he promised Americans that space exploration would continue and his words captured the grief and the gratitude of the entire nation.

RONALD REAGAN, 40th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger honored for the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them nor the last time we saw them this morning as they prepared for their journey and waved good- bye and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of god.

SCHIEFFER: A poignant reminder of the power of the English language well delivered.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Challenger go with throttle up.

SCHIEFFER: Our Face the Nation flash back.

SCHIEFFER: That's it for us today. Next Sunday, we won't be here in Washington. Face the Nation will be broadcasting from New Orleans, the host city of Super Bowl 47. Somebody's got to do it. Our guest will be NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. We hope you'll join us down there. And tonight, don't forget to watch "60 Minutes." Steve Kroft interviews President Obama and Hillary Clinton. I think you'll want to see this one. That's it for us. See you next week from New Orleans.