Face the Nation Transcripts July 5, 2015: Corker, Santorum, Klobuchar
(CBS News) -- A transcript from the July 5th edition of Face the Nation. Guests included Margaret Brennan, Michael Morell, Elizabeth Palmer, Jericka Duncan, Sen. AmyKlobuchar, Sen. Bob Corker, former Sen. Rick Santorum, Fernando Espuelas, Mike Allen, Peter Baker, and Molly Ball.
JOHN DICKERSON: Today on FACE THE NATION: America steps up its fight against ISIS, and the 2016 race heats up.
America celebrates its 239th birthday peacefully, but is the heightened security that surrounded it the new normal? And, as U.S. airstrikes pound ISIS headquarters in Syria, is this a new stage in the fight against terrorists overseas?
U.S. and Iranian nuclear talks are heading toward the Tuesday deadline. Will they get a deal? And will Congress support it? We will talk to the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.
Plus, as the 2016 candidates spend their Fourth of July parading around New Hampshire, Republicans welcome another addition to the field.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have lost count of how many Republicans are running for this job.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: They will have enough for an actual Hunger Games.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DICKERSON: We will handicap the odds and talk to candidate Rick Santorum, and preview the World Cup soccer final.
That's all ahead on FACE THE NATION.
Good morning. And welcome to FACE THE NATION. I'm John Dickerson.
Overnight, U.S. and coalition forces launched intense airstrikes over Raqqa, Syria, where, according to the Associated Press, at least 10 militants were killed. CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer filed this report from Tartus, Syria.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ELIZABETH PALMER, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: This was one of the heaviest bombardments, if not the heaviest, since airstrikes began back in September.
There were 16 strikes on various targets, but most roads and at least one bridge, all important for ISIS to move men and equipment around their territory. They're going to have a lot more trouble doing that now. Many of the strikes appear to have been to the north of Raqqa.
Now, we know ISIS has been reinforcing on that front, in anticipation some of kind of attack from the Kurdish army. We may actually be witnessing a preparation for that, a softening up, if you like, of that perimeter, in order for a full-scale assault on the very heart of ISIS territory inside Raqqa city.
Some of the ISIS fighters were live-tweeting the bombing as it happened, and they said that the city of Raqqa was shaking.
For FACE THE NATION, I'm Elizabeth Palmer in Tartus, Syria.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DICKERSON: Back here in the United States, American celebrated the Fourth of July yesterday under heavy security. There were 7,000 additional officers on the streets of New York City, and Washington's National Mall was also under tight watch.
CBS News senior security contributor and former number two at the CIA Michael Morell joins us now.
Mike, we got through the July 4 holiday, but is this heightened alertness, is that the new normal?
MICHAEL MORELL, CBS NEWS SENIOR SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: So, John, there were three reasons why we were so focused on this weekend.
One was the large number of Americans who have been radicalized by ISIS, 40 arrests since the beginning of this year for people who want to conduct attacks here or who want to go fight in Syria. The second reason was the call to arms by ISIS for the month of Ramadan, which -- mid-June to mid-July, and then the third, right, the Fourth of July being a symbol of America.
Put all three together, right, and that's why we were so focused on this weekend. Two of those remain after this weekend until mid-July, and one will remain for the foreseeable future. So, I do think this is the new normal.
DICKERSON: We have two kinds of terrorist threats, at least two big ones, ISIS and al Qaeda. Which one worries you more? MORELL: So, in terms of quantity, it's ISIS, right, because they can radicalize people here at home so easily. You could have a series of attacks here.
But in terms of quality, in terms of size of the attack, I think al Qaeda is still the biggest. And, here, we're talking about al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda in Yemen. They could bring down an airliner. ISIS can't do that yet.
DICKERSON: Of those two, which do you think U.S. has a better handle on pushing back against?
MORELL: So, we have to push back on both. I think, right now, we are probably doing better job on pushing back on al Qaeda in Yemen because we're conducting a series of strikes there against the leadership.
I think, with ISIS, the biggest -- the biggest thing we have to do is change the momentum on the battlefield, because the perception is that ISIS is winning. Right? And that makes their -- that makes their narrative, that makes their call to arms so much more powerful.
So, that is why today's strike in Raqqa is so important. The tactical objective is to make it difficult for them to move men and weapons out of their capital to the rest of Iraq and Syria, all right? But the strategic objective is to put their leadership under pressure and to make it look like they're losing. And that will change the dynamic here, if we keep it up.
DICKERSON: And let me just jump on that point about making it look like they're losing, because that has a public relations benefit in the social media realm, where part of this battle is taking place. Right?
MORELL: Right.
So, their social media so powerful for three reasons. One is their narrative is powerful. We have established the Islamic caliphate. America is trying to destroy us. Defend us. Defend us.
The second is the way they deliver it, right, with their social media, a couple hundred thousand tweets a day, Madison Avenue-style quality. And then the third is this perception that they're winning, right, which draws people to you.
So you have to get at all of those, but that most important one, I think, is to change the view of who is winning, and strikes like this today matter.
DICKERSON: In the larger effort against ISIS, is your view that it can only be contained, or can it be wiped out?
MORELL: I think we have to contain it first and then we have to wipe it out, so it can be wiped out.
And to wipe it out, we have to take that territory away from them in both Iraq and Syria, not just one, but both. And then we have to get after their narrative, right? We have to change that narrative.
DICKERSON: And so was this a significant attack, this new one, and do you think it's a new stage? Do you see this attack in Raqqa and their headquarters as a kind of new stage?
MORELL: So, I hope so. Right?
So, I think in order to defeat a terrorist group, one of the lessons, one of the big lessons we learned post-9/11 with al Qaeda is you have to keep pressure on the leadership of the terrorist organization. And if you do that, you make it more difficult for them to plot and -- because they're worrying about their own security, right?
And so I think the more strikes that you can do on their leadership, the better off we're going to be.
DICKERSON: All right, Mike Morell, thanks so much.
MORELL: Good to be with you, John.
DICKERSON: We turn now to the talks between United States and Iran over that country's nuclear program. The deadline for a deal is Tuesday.
CBS News foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan is in Vienna with the negotiators.
Margaret, what's the latest?
MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS NEWS FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning.
Negotiators here in Vienna say progress is slowing. But there has been movement on two of the thorniest issues. The first is sanctions. For the past few years, billions of dollars of Iran's assets have been frozen. And under this deal, those would be unlocked. Further sanctions would then be lifted over time, as Iran takes steps to freeze its nuclear program.
And there's another promising sign. Weapons inspectors say that Iran has agreed to cooperate with an investigation into charges that they secretly tried to develop weapons in the past. But Tehran is still stopping short of allowing inspectors into all suspected nuclear sites, including military installations.
So, American diplomats tell us that this deal could still fail, particularly if Iran doesn't agree to restrict nuclear development over the next 10 years or more. So, Secretary of State John Kerry may need more than these next two days to hammer all of this out. And that could be a problem, because Congress wants a deal in their hands by July 9.
DICKERSON: Margaret Brennan in Vienna, thanks, Margaret.
For more on the Iran deal, we turn to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, who is in Chattanooga, Tennessee, this morning.
Senator Corker, what worries you the most about where things are right now in this negotiation?
SEN. BOB CORKER (R), TENNESSEE: Well, we have gone from dismantling their program to managing proliferation.
That's the biggest concern. That's already done. But right now, we have the issues of, are we going to have any time, anywhere inspections? Will we know what their past military dimensions were? It's very important. Every person who has come in to testify has talked about the importance of that. Will the IAEA ever be required to declare that Iran over time has a civil program, and not a military program?
So, there are numbers of issues. It's been going on a negative trend for some time. And, John, back to what your correspondent just mentioned, it's not Congress that's pushing to have all the documents here by July the 9th. It's these six major countries, plus Iran, that really, on behalf of the American people, they want Congress only to have 30 days to review this deal, instead of 60.
That has been going on now, and seriously, for almost two years. And it's amazing to me that, as we come to the end of this deal, the biggest issue of concern to these countries right now is that Congress would only have 30 days, not 60 days, to review the deal.
So, I did talk to Secretary Kerry yesterday. I urged him to please take their time, try to get -- make sure these last remaining red lines that haven't been crossed -- they have crossed so many -- do not get crossed, and, qualitatively, they don't make it worse than where it already is.
DICKERSON: So, just to be clear for people, if they meet the first deadline, if they get it done by Tuesday, and you get it by Thursday, then Congress will have 30 days to discuss it. If they miss that deadline, then Congress will get 60 days to discuss it.
Let me ask you this question, Senator Corker. When you talked to Secretary Kerry, what did you get from your conversation with him? Is he too anxious to get a deal?
CORKER: Well, obviously, they're very anxious.
I think they look at this as a legacy issue. I have had several conversations with him and meetings to say, look, you create just as much of a legacy walking away from a bad deal as you do headlong rushing into bad deal.
So, look, I know they want to consummate this. This has been going on -- actually, the original discussions began back in 2003. I would just hope again that they would take their time and finish this in the best way that they can, even though we have already gone down a bad track.
One of the things about this, John, is Iran has done an excellent job of getting these countries to focus on the IR-1 centrifuges that they have. They're almost antiques. And what we're going to end up is with a -- the deal that we know about. There's some other things they're working out right now.
But you are going to have basically a 10-year pause, a 10-year pause in enrichment, but what you're going to have during that time is them continuing their ballistic missile development, which is already very sophisticated. They're going to be able to continue their research and development. As was mentioned, they're going to have their sanctions relief.
So, you're going to have a country whose economy is growing rapidly that's going to have all kinds of -- over $100 billion of money to help create further terrorism in the region. And so they're going to be growing. They're going to be getting more established.
And then, after 10 years, there's something called the Iranian nuclear development program that's been agreed to. And at that point, they're basically going to be able to industrialize their program.
And, by the way, this is a program that has no practical needs. This was the baseline that concerned so many people. Why would they have 19,000 centrifuges? They have no practical needs for that. So, look, there are lot of concerns. Obviously, we have had a number...
(CROSSTALK)
DICKERSON: Are these concerns red lines for you, Senator, or are these just things you would like them to button up in a deal here?
CORKER: Well, these have been their stated red lines.
The red lines that I'm talking about have been President Obama's red lines, John Kerry's red lines, the other countries' red lines. And yet those have all been crossed. The remaining red lines are the anywhere, any time inspections. Now, they're obviously making sure that we have full access to scientists and they declare what their past military dimensions were.
Again, if you don't know what their capabilities are, there's almost no way to really gauge where they are. The IAEA certainly has raised this issue numbers of times. So those are two remaining red lines that hopefully will not be crossed. That's certainly what we talked about yesterday on the phone.
And then again, to set this up, John, we're basically at a time frame, and after 10 years, in essence, Iran is off and running again, and never have a situation -- and having a situation where the IAEA can declare that this is a civil program, not a military program, they have no military dimensions. To me, those are things that hopefully will not be crossed and haven't been crossed yet as they come to the close.
But, again, they're rushing, John. They're rushing so that we -- we don't have the ability -- we only have 30 days to look at this, instead of 60, which in itself should send a signal to Americans. What's that about?
DICKERSON: Do you think Iran is capable at all of complying with the deal? What is your baseline feeling about Iran?
CORKER: Well, so one of the important elements of the Iran nuclear Review Act that we passed through Congress, I think you know, the president, unfortunately, had the ability to unilaterally put this in place by going straight to the U.N. Security Council.
He was given sanctions waivers through a national security waiver process. And so he could go directly to the U.N. Security Council. One of the important elements of what we were able to pass in Congress to take back some of that power, John, is the fact that after -- if a deal is reached, then the president has to certify every six months that Iran is in compliance.
Look, I think no one trusts Iran. I will say, on the other hand, the type of agreement that has been reached certainly is one that is more to their benefit than it is the rest of the world that does not want to see them proliferate. So we will see.
They're not in agreement right now, John. They're not in agreement with JPOA that was put in place a year-and-a-half ago.
DICKERSON: All right.
Senator, finally, with about 30 seconds left, I want to get your thoughts on the strike in Syria. Do you think it's a new stage in the administration's war against ISIS?
CORKER: I don't think so.
This again is air. We still have not worked out an agreement with Turkey on the air exclusion zones along their border, which again would bring greater ground troop ability in. We still are having issues with the train-and-equip program. I think you have read about that.
So, I don't really look at this as a new stage. The president's strategy really is one of containment in Syria and in Iraq. And I really don't see new developments. I'm not aware of any developments that would cause us to think that this is a new stage in the effort.
DICKERSON: All right. Senator Corker, thanks so much.
We will be back in one minute with more FACE THE NATION.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DICKERSON: We're back now with Minnesota Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, who joins us from Minneapolis.
Senator, I want to start with this possible deal with Iran over its nuclear program. If there is a deal and it comes to Congress, is it really possible that Democrats are going to buck their president on the international stage and not approve of a deal that comes out of these negotiations?
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D), MINNESOTA: Well, I think most senators are reserving judgment.
We want to see what the deal is. And I want to thank Senator Corker, who worked with Senator Cardin, to come up with this review agreement, so that we have an orderly way to look at the agreement. And I think no one knows what is going to happen at this point. The president just said last week that he would walk away from a bad deal.
So, we're simply waiting to see what the agreement is. Some of the things that came out of the April preliminary framework were positive in terms of the intrusive inspections and other things. But since then, we have heard words from the ayatollah about how he expects that somehow Congress would agree to just having them sign a piece of paper and then all the sanctions that we have worked so hard to put on would go away.
I don't think that is going to happen. So, I think everyone is united in this idea that we simply have to see what the agreement is before we jump in and say where we are on it. But, clearly, those talks are continuing, and the whole idea of the sanctions, John, was to bring Iran to the table to have these kind of negotiations, since one of our top foreign policy priorities is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
DICKERSON: So, but, clearly, Senator Corker and others who are worried about this deal are trying to affect the deal as it's being negotiated, because they worry, once something is agreed to, it gains a kind of momentum that cannot be stopped. And to stop that momentum would require Democrats to push back against it.
Just as a political matter, do you really think that Democrats would vote against their president?
KLOBUCHAR: Again, Democrats have voted against the president before, but I do think you see a lot of Democrats simply want to see what the deal is.
And like the Republicans, we have been pushing for the strongest deal possible, the most detail possible. We know Iran has cheated on these agreements and said words and then not followed up on them before. And there are alarming things about what the ayatollah has said. And that's why we simply want to see what the agreement is. And no one wants to rush to judgment.
DICKERSON: We will pivot now to another country, troublesome in the past in its relationship with the United States, Cuba. This week, the president announced he's opening an embassy in Cuba.
You have been working very hard on a bill to increase trade, open trade to Cuba. But those who are opposed to these normalizing actions point to couple of things. They point to U.S. fugitives who are being held in Cuba, one of whom who shot a New Jersey patrolman. Cuba is a violator of human rights.
What evidence is there that Cuba is changing its behavior, in the light of all of these new overtures from the United States?
KLOBUCHAR: Well, first of all, the big news this week, John, was that opening of the embassy and the announcement that that is going to happen. I think that is going to help with these kinds of negotiations.
Not only are more Americans interested in going to Cuba, so that they can use an embassy. Not only do we need more negotiations on what is happening with the economics there, but finally our personnel are going to be able to go out into the field, meet with dissidents, and meet with exiles where they are, and work on these issues and negotiate these human rights concerns.
The pope is coming to Cuba. I don't think he's going to be shy about bringing up human rights issues. And I just think 54 years of a failed policy, where we haven't seen the kind of change in the government that we'd like, means we need change.
And I am really excited about the possibility, not only for Cuba, but for America as well, in terms of producing goods and sending American goods to a country of 11 million people 90 miles off our shore.
DICKERSON: And now we're going to turn to politics here. This is a big weekend for campaigning on July 4.
Bernie Sanders seems to be getting bigger crowds than anywhere -- anyone else running. Why do you think that is?
KLOBUCHAR: Well, I came into the Senate with Bernie, John. And he is someone who speaks from the heart.
He is someone who has always had a strong grassroots following. So, I'm not surprised by this at all. What I do think we need to look at here, as a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton that I am, she's also running a good campaign. And all the latest polls show her well ahead of a number of her Republican opponents.
And so the fact that he is in this race, I think, is a good thing for my party. I think it's healthy to have these kind of debates. And she's said the same thing.
DICKERSON: Do you think Democrats are getting something from Bernie Sanders they're just not getting from Hillary Clinton?
KLOBUCHAR: I think you're hearing many ideas coming from both of them that are very similar about economics, in terms of trying to help the middle class, and help kids get student loans, and help seniors feel comfortable in their retirement.
These are things that are on the -- in the hearts and minds of Americans. It's what I heard during the five parades I did on the Fourth of July. They're very focused on these issues. And so I think -- I was down in Iowa and I saw the kind of operation Hillary Clinton is running down there. It is grassroots. It is strong.
And I'm looking forward to the debates, but I think, when you look what is happening around America right now, people are focused on the issues that the Democrats are talking about.
DICKERSON: All right, Senator Amy Klobuchar, thanks for joining us this morning.
Back in a moment with a look at straight-talking presidential candidates. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DICKERSON: Politicians are supposed to tell the truth.
On this July 4 weekend, we praise our founders for their honesty. Even as a boy, the myth said, George Washington could not tell a lie. But these days, we're starving for a little candor, which is why Chris Christie promised to tell it like it is when he announced his candidacy this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I mean what I say and I say what I mean, and that's what America needs right now.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DICKERSON: The New Jersey governor is the latest in a long line of politicians who promised to put the candid in candidate. Here is Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: We can't just tell people what they want to hear. We need to tell them what they need to hear. We need to tell them the truth.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DICKERSON: When he ran in 2000 and again in 2008, John McCain called his bus the Straight Talk Express. And in 1976, Jimmy Carter said:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY CARTER, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would not tell a lie. I would not mislead the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DICKERSON: Running on the truth and honesty ticket implies you're not calculating. But you have a made calculated decision to seem that way.
It also suggests you're going to do more than just tell the truth; you're going to tell a deep truth. That's a very high bar. These candidates all want to be perceived like Harry Truman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Usually, someone in the crowd would yell, "Give 'em hell, Harry." Truman would reply, "That's exactly what I intend to do."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DICKERSON: But Truman said things no candidate is brave enough to say these days.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRY TRUMAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you stay at home, as you did in 1946, and keep these reactionaries in power, you will deserve every blow you get.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DICKERSON: He criticized the voters he was trying to get to vote for him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMAN: If they don't do their duty by the Democratic Party, they're the most ungrateful people in the world. And I will say to labor just what I have said to the farmers. They are the most ungrateful people in the world if they pass the Democratic Party by this year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DICKERSON: Usually, we let other people testify to our truthfulness and don't boast about it.
It's a little like what Margaret Thatcher used to say about being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you might not be.
Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DICKERSON: Some of our stations are leaving us now, but, for most of you, we will be right back with a lot more FACE THE NATION, including former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DICKERSON: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. I'm John Dickerson. Joining us now from Charleston, South Carolina, is Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum.
Senator Santorum, when you were in the Senate you spent a lot of time thinking about the Iran issue. I wanted to start with what we've heard from Secretary Kerry, who said in a press conference just moments ago, at this point, negotiations could go either way.
What is your feeling about these negotiations?
RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I've been very clear from the beginning. I think this is a unwise move on the part of the president. The -- as was mentioned by both Senator Klobuchar and Senator Corker, Iran is never really -- never kept an agreement. There's a standard agreement right now, where they have to report on 12 items to the United Nations and that's been in place now for four years.
And they partially answered two questions. The interim agreement that's in place right now, they're not living up to that.
Why do we think that all of a sudden that we -- we're going to give them billions of dollars, looks like right off the top, but there's somehow or another going to come around after they've gotten what they really want, which is the money, that they're going to come around and now pay attention to these restrictions.
This is a folly from its -- from its foundation.
DICKERSON: All right, I'm going to pivot now to an issue that you talked about this week in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage. Some of your competitors in the Republican race have said, well, the issue has been decided and the country needs to move on.
You have taken a different position; you've said, no, there needs to be a conversation and you're trying to lead that conversation. You said that the ruling potentially, quote, "disrupts the foundation of the world."
What does that mean?
SANTORUM: Well, I said three things.
Number one, that there's a real question here about the role of the courts in our society, Justice Scalia I think said it best. He says when the -- when we subordinate the rights of the people to nine unelected judges, we can no longer be called a democracy.
And what the court did here as Justice Roberts said, was -- there's no constitutional basis for what they did. They simply just acted out of, as one said, a whim. That's not how a democracy functions. That's not how a republic functions.
So you've got to a basic question, are we going to stand up to the court in doing something that's really outside of their bounds?
Number two, there's an assault on religious liberty here. The court basically said, no, churches, you're allowed to teach what you want but it really didn't say you're allowed to practice what you want. I mean, this is, again, a huge infringement on the foundational right that we have which is the First Amendment.
And then third, and this is to the point you make, that it's a -- it really is a further erosion of this founding -- foundational building block of society, which is the nuclear family.
And this goes further -- I mean, over the last 40 years, we've seen a degradation of the nuclear family, no doubt about it. But this further, I say, put the nail in the coffin that we now disconnect the nuclear family from the idea that it's there for the purpose of having and raising children.
Marriage no longer about kids. It's simply about adults. And I think that -- now that United States is a -- it's still the moral leader of the world, that we've now disconnected marriage from children, I think that has profound consequences for not just for America but for the world.
DICKERSON: Can I talk about those consequences a little bit?
In your remarks you said that the children need a mother and father to have a stable, healthy home. You said and also that they need heterosexual parents will love those children and raise them to be good citizens of America.
Can same-sex couples not raise children to achieve those same things?
SANTORUM: I think what we have to do as society, orient ourselves toward what's best. What we know what's best from thousands of years in human history is for children to be raised with mothers and fathers, preferably but not always, but preferably with their biological mothers and fathers but certainly adoptive homes are great and wonderful places, too.
But if we are going to try to aim for the best, then we have to have laws that orient society to what's best.
And we have laws that say, fathers, really, you don't have to raise your children; mothers, you know, we're going to provide all sorts of things that make fathers less necessary, if you will.
If you have laws that say, you know, marriage isn't about children, now for the first time in the history of our country a majority of children born out of wedlock, which is about 40-45 percent of children in America today, are born in homes that the father is still living. That's -- they're seeing a huge increase in this.
Why? Because we have now said marriage isn't -- I mean, children -- having children has nothing to do with marriage so people aren't getting married. That's not a good situation to maximize the potential for each and every one of our children.
And that's really what I'm talking about here, is setting up policies that orient ourselves toward the best end, which is a healthy, stable family for children.
DICKERSON: But, quickly, which is better for families, or which is more of a challenge to families, divorce and adultery and out-of- wedlock births or same-sex marriage? Which is worse? If you had to spend your time prioritizing on one of the two.
SANTORUM: Yes. Yes, I -- as you know, John, I've been oriented on that, focused on that for a long time. I wrote a book 10 years ago called, "It Takes a Family." And didn't talk very much about gay marriage back then; it wasn't as big of a topic.
I talked a lot about the breakdown of the institution of marriage, the role that fathers need to play, that, you know, 96 percent of Americans are in those types of traditional homes. That is the bigger problem.
And so I would agree with you on that, that we really need to focus a lot more time and energy on reknitting the American family, the -- and allowing children to have the best opportunities to succeed.
DICKERSON: I'd like to get your thoughts now on some remarks that one of your competitors, Donald Trump, made. Let me play this clip from his announcement speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists and some I assume are good people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DICKERSON: He's talking about Mexicans there in that comment.
What is your reaction?
SANTORUM: Well, my reaction is I certainly wouldn't have said those things. I don't agree with his comments obviously.
The vast majority of people coming legally into this country from Mexico and other places are people who want to do the right thing. People who are coming illegally obviously are coming with a bad intent, let's just be honest. They're coming in with the clear intent of breaking the law.
I don't think we should -- can sugar-coat that but that doesn't mean that everybody who is coming across is a rapist or a murderer or anything else. Obviously -- but they are breaking the law.
And I think Donald points to a very important thing, which is we have a serious problem of illegal immigration in this country that is undermining American workers. We have 12 million illegal immigrants in this country that are flattening out wages, lowering the standard of living for people who are here legally, both -- mostly by the way, the most biggest impact of illegal immigrants is our legal immigrants, who have actually played by the rules and are coming to this country because we said we want you to come in here. And they're the ones being punished by all of this illegal immigration. So while I don't like verbiage he's used, I like the fact that he is focused on a very important issue for American workers, and particularly illegal immigrants in this country.
DICKERSON: Senator, Mitt Romney said this was not good for the party, it was hurting the party. When I talked to voters some of them may think you're not going to make it all the way to the presidency but they say I like having Rick Santorum in the Republican Party.
Do you feel that way about Donald Trump?
SANTORUM: Well, Donald Trump is -- I've gotten to know Donald, he's a, well, a unique individual, let's just put it that way. And he's not someone that, as I can say with all the others, who I would like to have my president.
I -- that's why I'm running for president because think we have the best ideas that's going to unite this country and create the best opportunity for people to rise. And that's really what I'm focused on. I don't really try to comment too much on whether someone is good for the nomination, if I thought they were that good I wouldn't be running.
DICKERSON: All right. Senator Santorum, thanks so much for joining us, we'll be right back our political panel. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DICKERSON: And we're back to talk politics with Molly Ball and the "Atlantic" magazine.
Plus, we're joined by Politico's one and only Mike Allen.
Peter Baker is the White House correspondent for "The New York Times."
And Fernando Espuelas is a former Univision Radio host and a contributor for "The Hill" newspaper.
Welcome to all of you.
And that was Rick Santorum not exactly embracing Donald Trump, another one who's running, who is distancing themselves from his remarks.
But I want to play a clip from Jeb Bush, who kind of took it one step further and talked about the party.
Let's listen to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEB BUSH (R), FORMER GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA: But politically, we're going to win when we're hopeful and optimistic and big and broad rather than, you know, grrrr or errrr, just angry all the time. And this is an exaggerated form of that. And there is no tolerance for it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DICKERSON: I wonder how that's going to look on the the second point, errrr.
Fernando, is this a big problem for Republicans or is this just one of those moments that will pass?
FERNANDO ESPUELAS, FORMER UNIVISION RADIO HOST, CONTRIBUTOR, "THE HILL": I think it's a big problem because it plays into a larger narrative, which is that the Republican Party is hostile to Hispanics and Hispanic voters in particular.
And that last comment we just heard from Governor Bush actually is after his first comment, which was, it's wrong and then avoided the -- the whole question.
So I think a lot of the candidates have had a bit of trouble trying to deal with what Trump said, but have not wanted to cross the line to criticize him.
DICKERSON: Mike? (INAUDIBLE)?
MIKE ALLEN, "POLITICO": No, they were afraid of him. The reason that -- that Senator Santorum didn't just say no, to your last question, is that Trump has a very specific constituency. He's second in New Hampshire now. And it goes beyond the sort of Kardashian, my car crashed appeal. Is this sort of anti-Washington, mad at politics appeal that Perot, years ago, tapped into.
And remember, a few years ago, these candidates were going -- including Mitt Romney -- going to Trump trying to get his endorsement, because he does have a following and they're afraid, A, of alienating the people who like him, and, B, they're afraid of him going after them.
DICKERSON: Molly, Donald Trump has said he has not backed away. He's doing a lot of things we are not used to seeing in politics. He has not sort of gone away from these remarks, he's jumped in with both feet. He's saying he's just telling a truth and that the rest of these Republicans are mealy-mouthed.
Does he have somewhere to go with that?
Is that...
MOLLY BALL, THE ATLANTIC: Well, there's obviously, like Mikey said, talks about 10, 15 percent of the Republican base who believe that very, very passionately. And you see, I think, the candidates are not just afraid of Trump, but they're sort of afraid of that segment part of the base and its ability to get very passionate and to rise up, particularly over this issue of illegal immigration.
You see, you know, Jeb Bush, someone who said that he was going to run in a way that would be willing to lose the primary to win the general election, but it took him two weeks to respond to these comments by Donald Trump and he seemed to sort of be hiding from it. This is someone who, you know, also said that, someone who's -- who's married to a Mexican woman, whose children are Mexican-American. He takes this personally.
But I think a lot of Hispanic voters are going to wonder why, then, did it take him so long to express that?
DICKERSON: And remember, just to give you a sense of the spectrum and -- and of the conversation, Jeb Bush was the one who, a year ago, said that people come to America because they love -- they do it for love.
(CROSSTALK)
BALL: Right.
DICKERSON: So the other side of Donald Trump.
Peter, "The Washington Post" said Democrats love this.
PETER BAKER, WASHINGTON POST: Yes.
DICKERSON: Do you think so?
BAKER: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
BAKER: Sure, why not?
Yes. Look, you know, Democrats had their divisions on this displayed just a couple of weeks ago on trade. They were at war with their president. Of course they would rather Republicans be talking about things that the Republicans don't want to be talking about.
They don't want to be talking about their own divisions on immigration. They don't want to talk about their own divisions on same-sex marriage.
All the candidates are against same-sex marriage, but there are degrees. And -- and they're uncomfortable with the issue because they -- they know that while a lot of their base still believes very fervently this is a wrong decision morally and legally, there are a lot of Republicans these days who feel differently.
And it's been striking to see not the liberal reaction to the same-sex marriage ruling, but the conservative reaction to same-sex marriage, in which any of them have actually embraced this as a, you know, a reasonable thing. And others aren't.
And they -- they don't want to talk about that right now.
DICKERSON: Mike Allen, Donald Trump is likely to be on that first ta -- stage on the debate.
Do you think that matters, that it -- that it's a problem for other candidates?
ALLEN: Sure it does because he soaks up air time that others would like. This week on Tuesday, Marco Rubio is going to be in Chicago giving a speech about 21st century jobs, tech and innovation. The next day, Donald Trump, we've learned, is kicking off a five day, five state tour. He's going to be in California when -- where there's been huge attention to these remarks. Nevada, Arizona, Louisiana, Florida -- Louisiana and Virginia.
Which of those do you think is going to get more attention?
And on the stage, you would think that Chris Christie would be the big presence and the drama about will Carly Fiorina need to be on the stage, which, if I'm a Republican, I really want her to be on the stage, just for the optics, but Donald Trump, with his name recognition, it's going to be hard for him not to qualify.
DICKERSON: Molly, another entrant joined us in the race this week, Chris Christie. Mike just mentioned him.
Where is he in the -- in this large group of people?
The president said it was like the Hunger Games?
BALL: Right. Well...
DICKERSON: Where -- where does he fit in the panoply?
BALL: He seems to be near the basement at this point. And he's looking to New Hampshire as his only chance to redeem himself. He's doing these small events, these town hall meetings. And -- and he's, as you said before, running on this sort of straight talk idea.
But if you have to say it about yourself, you've got to wonder.
The only problem for him is that New Hampshire is the window for a lot of candidates. It's Jeb Bush's only hope. If -- if John Kasich is going to get any kind of lift, it's going to be through New Hampshire.
So it's a crowded field there in New Hampshire. And I think that Christie faces the same problem Rick Perry does, where there's just a plausibility hurdle for him with a lot of voters, because he's been so damaged, because they're inclined not to trust him.
No matter how much they like him in person, they're going to wonder if he's their first choice.
DICKERSON: The path for him, is it -- it's a very fluid field right now. Nobody is very strongly for -- at least not large segments of the Republican voters are strongly for this candidate and aren't able to be shaken off of them, right?
So you go into these debates and you make a splash, you say something interesting, you grab somebody's attention and you suddenly can re- shift the field. I mean right now, Chris Christie's path looks kind of hard to see. But there's such an open field right now. We've never seen a Republican primary in our lifetime...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, I was just going to say, yet again, most of the candidates have very little support. And I think are functionally invisible to the voters. So I think that the base will be critical. And I think Donald Trump's involvement in those debates, while perhaps very interesting from a television standpoint, I think, is going to derail that debate, because people are going to have to respond to him in some fashion. They can't run away from him like other people have.
DICKERSON: Mike, should -- should Chris Christie have jumped at his chance in 2012, when people were flying from Iowa, when people were gathering in conference rooms to say please run?
Should he have jumped at it?
Is that the lesson in presidential politics these days?
ALLEN: Well, and it was the lesson long ago. Barack Obama, everybody thought he should wait. And the Obama lesson is jump in. That's why Senator Warren will never be hotter. And it's some praising that she didn't go this time, because Chris Christie now has a lane problem. And it's not just on that bridge, but his lane problem is that there are so many other establishment candidates, of course, soaking up his money and his votes. A lot of the Jeb Bush money, Jeb Bush votes, the Ohio governor, John Kasich, getting in later this month. Any support that he gets in New Hampshire or Molly is exactly right, so many people are banking on it, those would be Chris Christie votes, as well.
So you saw a mash-up at his announcement speech and you were reminded why people like him and what his appeal is in a kind of angry country where people don't know who to trust.
But the math is just very tight.
DICKERSON: Molly, Chris Christie also did something else this week that was a little extraordinary. He had a slumber party with -- at Mitt Romney's house with Marco Rubio. They stayed up all night playing air hockey.
(LAUGHTER)
DICKERSON: They didn't do that.
The...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you know they didn't?
DICKERSON: What role does Mitt...
BALL: I bet you he has an air hockey table.
DICKERSON: -- what role does Mitt Romney...
(CROSSTALK)
DICKERSON: -- play?
He spoke out against Donald Trump. He -- all the candidates, Jeb Bush is going to be seeing him.
What role is he playing in this?
BALL: You know, it's very interesting to look at sort of the long arc of Mitt Romney since 2012, becoming a sort of elder statesman of the party. And I think a lot of us expected him to kind of disappear after he lost that election, go back to his private life, where he certainly is very comfortable and could -- and it seemed like he didn't really like the spotlight as a candidate.
And yet, he campaigned so aggressively for candidates, earned himself so much goodwill in 2014, in the midterms.
Since then, he's really been a leader for the party in sort of saying the things that sort of the establishment Republicans believe and that candidates appear afraid to say. He was the first one to come out strongly against the Confederate flag. And it was after that that a lot of candidates felt emboldened to say me, too.
And I think we're seeing that with Trump, too. He came out and said no, we don't like this, this is wrong. And then a lot of the candidates followed him.
So on the one hand, it's an indictment of some of sort of the other candidates and not really showing leadership on some of these issues, these very toxic issues, for the party. But on the other hand, I think it's very interesting and surprising that Romney has become such an elder statesman.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he's cemented his new role with that Confederate flag comment.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was so obvious that that's where things were headed and it was such a missed opportunity for these other candidates. And they haven't even really said, me, too. A lot of what they said is more, as we heard earlier, sort of mealy-mouthed than that.
So he's playing kingmaker with the slumber party now and then this week seeing Jeb Bush at the family compound in Kennebunkport.
DICKERSON: Fernando, I want to switch now to the other party.
ESPUELAS: Yes. DICKERSON: Bernie Sanders is big crowds. People are -- he's got the excitement right now in the Democratic Party, maybe, to argue, all the parties.
What do you make of his campaign?
ESPUELAS: Well, I think he's also talking to an angry group of voters who feel disillusioned by the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the system in general. And here you have a very articulate voice of dissent, that he's saying things that perhaps make him unelectable, but at the same time have a natural appeal.
So the idea of fairness, the idea of income equality, all those things that he's playing very strongly on are going to be critical talking points, I think, for any Democratic candidate. He's maybe not the right vessel for it.
DICKERSON: And he wins authenticity points.
Peter Baker, Hillary Clinton was also out campaigning, a different image came out of her campaigns --
(CROSSTALK)
DICKERSON: -- of a piece of rope that was cordoned around her to keep the press away from her.
Does that matter? Or only to us who are trying to actually get the candidate to answer something -- ?
(CROSSTALK)
BAKER: Yes, it sort of reinforces our role as the herd.
It's unfortunate for her because I think definitely provides an image that looks scripted and looks controlled, it looks keeping her away from any questions that might actually trip her up. She's a very, very cautious candidate at the moment, she's not out there answering a lot of questions.
You saw that picture of Jeb Bush just kind of like sitting three, wading into the crowd and even if the questions are uncomfortable, he's going to answer them.
She has not given that impression. And the rope doesn't help in that image. This is a small thing but it definitely feeds into a narrative.
DICKERSON: Mike Allen, what is the real threat from Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton?
ALLEN: There's no threat from Bernie Sanders in particular. If something bad happens to Senator Clinton it's not going to be any one thing; it's the death by a thousand cuts. Now what Clinton people will tell you is that about a third of Democrats are willing to talk about somebody else. And that number moves around, from O'Malley to Warren to Senator Sanders, but it's always about a third.
And eventually as she puts out her more progressive policy she will be able to get some that back.
But the excitement about him is authentic. His crowds are not just big, as you said at the beginning. they're the biggest of either party. You go on Peter's --
(CROSSTALK)
ALLEN: -- yes. You go on Peter's website, "The New York Times," and you look at what people are searching for. And on the last day, the last week, the last month there's only two candidates who show up on that list and that's Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. And I think people are actually interested in him.
BALL: And like Donald Trump, the Republicans, the other party sort of loves the idea of Bernie Sanders being the candidate of the authentic Democratic base because they can say, see, this is what they all -- they're all really socialists deep down in their heart.
But and we shouldn't compare the two; Bernie Sanders is a serious person, a serious candidate. He's senator, but there is that same element of a protest vote and of a candidate who's saying something the front runner is afraid to say.
And what Hillary Clinton so far has been afraid to say is we've got to take down the rich. We've got to take down the CEOs and the billionaires, that's Bernie Sanders' message and it's something that -- I would be surprised if we hear from Hillary.
DICKERSON: All right. Thanks so much.
I want to thank our panel. We'll be back in a moment with a preview of tonight's big soccer game.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DICKERSON: Tonight all eyes will be on the soccer field in Vancouver, Canada, where Team USA will take on Japan in the women's World Cup final. CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan is there.
Good morning, Jericka.
JERICKA DUNCAN, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
American soccer fans have invaded Vancouver. Hotels are filled to capacity and more than 53,000 fans are expected to pack BC Place Stadium behind me. The streets here are covered in red, white and blue.
Last night thousands were cheering and chanting; some waited for hours to get into this 4th of July pregame pep rally hosted by U.S. Soccer. Now these aren't fair weather fans. Thousands have followed the team since the tournament began a month ago. The team has come to count on those pro-USA crowds.
Now Saturday America got its final practice, Hope Solo and the U.S. defense have recorded five straight shutouts. But Japan has a crisp and precise passing attack. Today's game will be the latest chapter in a growing rivalry.
In 2011 Japan crushed America's World Cup dreams in a penalty shootout; heading into this showdown, the U.S. team appears confident, relaxed, even having a little bit of fun taking some selfies before tonight's big game.
So we're in the final stage as America continues its quest for the cup. The last time the U.S. women's national team won a world championship was 16 years ago, back in 1999 -- John.
DICKERSON: Jericka Duncan, thanks.
Go Team USA. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DICKERSON: That's it for us today. Until next week, for FACE THE NATION, I'm John Dickerson.