consequences if the panel failed to decrease the debit. he's one of most popular bloggers in cyber-space. can he still call himself a conservative? our conversation with andrew sullivan. >> especially during the iraq war to have made such a massive blunder and be forced to hold myself to account for it and have my readers do so and stick with me, that was a very maturing experience. >> plus, the "huffington post" expands to canada. so what's up with the canadian woman who's running it, eh? we'll meet her. i'm howard kurtz, and this is "reliable sources." in an increasingly shrill media environment, running for president means being attacked, assailed, mocked, ridiculed, bashed, and otherwise denigrated. rarely have we seen the harsh rhetoric unleashed except from a man who's been a political leader for the past two decades, the former speaker of the house. >> gingrich is an amazing efficient condition dc in that it -- candidacy in that it embodies everything about washington, the classic rental politician. >> it's not surprising coming from me, but that was about the most arrogant and unself-aware, and those are probably the only words i can use, thing for any politician in this republican field to say. >> disgusting. >> he is a mean, vindictive s.o.b. who does not really care about anything other than power. >> if anyone's dirty, it's newt gingrich. a man whose personal morality has been drawn from the sewer. a man who pontificates about his catholic faith and morality but repeatedly commits adultery. >> and that's just some of what's been on television. how much of this has to do with gingrich's record and how much has to do with his relations with the washington press corps? joining us in washington, danielle crittendon, author and managing of blogs for the "huffington post" canada. eleanor clift, for "newsweek" and "the daily beast." and jackie kucinich for "usa today." that was sizzling stuff there. why do some commentator have such a deep-seated an muss toward newt? >> it's hard to feel too sorry for him. people remember when he came in washington and instructed republicans to call democrats pathetic and corrupt. he pioneered going on c-span and tearing apart your opponent. but any -- in this presidential season, he proves there's more than two or three act in american life because he's conducted himself very well. i love some of his positions. and i think the press is just having fun with him. and he can handle it. he's handled it very well. >> not too much -- >> no. >> danielle crittendon, even pundits, george will there, hardly the only one, can't seem to stand this guy. is it certainly. >> i don't know that it's personal. i met newt gingrich types, and he's actually very charming and entertaining person one on one. but he is -- i think he does embody a certain amount of that -- that george will line of rental politician. he's coming out this fannie may stuff looking very badflation. there's a whole sort of tawdry tiffany -- thing around him. in the debate when he was making that pitch for immigration, one of your cnn contributors shrewdly noted it wasn't just about being compassionate for immigrants or reach for the spanish vote, that his constituency of donors is very much connected to restaurant, to the gaming industry -- >> uh-huh. >> and they employ a lot of illegal immigrants. so it's hard for me to look at him, and i think a lot of people to look at him and see a sincere, unsullied, you know, person that they would want as their president. >> so many politicians are unsullied. we'll come pack to that. jackie kucinich, journalists in this city have known and covered newt gingrich for something like 30 years. when he became speaker of the house in 1995, he was treated as a deputy president of the republican takeover. and some level, does familiarity breed contempt here? >> he's got a long record, long record that we all are digging through again, what's old is new again right now. and i think that's -- maybe there's some frustration not for me, but i think with some of the people who have covered him for a long time, that they know he said x, y, and z. now he's saying, c, d, f. so it's -- >> lots of politicians change their positions on things or appear to be -- have situational ethics. you heard some of that. >> it's true -- >> morality from the sewer. >> it's true, but it's unapologetic -- newt gingrich social security this unapologetic, this is what i'm saying today because i'm saying it today. that might be a part of it. >> is there a lingering resentment for the way he belittled the media. often the debate moderators in televised faceoffs. >> he's gotten the best of us as an industry for long time. i think there's a love/hate relationship here. he doesn't have cad soundbites, he invites them on the spot. you never know what he's going to see. more sincere than -- to say. more sincere than mitt romney. he's intellectually capable, one of the few on the stage in the republican debates who actually belongs there. >> in other words, he didn't have a 53-second pause when somebody asked him about libya. >> no. >> danielle, another factor here. the pundits, collected conventional wisdom of the news business said he was dead a few months ago when he had no money and most of his staff quit. how dare he come back and make us all look silly. >> well, okay, i'm going to throw out a bizarre analogy out here. the race with mitt romney reminded me of, if you remember the plot from "sleep unless seattle." meg ryan is engaged to the perfect guy, checks all the boxes. then she falls this love with tom hank. and -- there's been that -- the non-mit -- >> who plays tom hanks -- >> this is the problem. newt has come back but he's no tom hanks. it's another brief, you know, desire to find that tom hanks character. but he's not in the -- we're going to have to marry mitt. >> did it make the press look silly to write his o bit wear? >> they always do that. two months from now it will be someone else. >> john mccain, if you remember, his staff quit the last cycle. everyone proclaimed him dead. >> in 2007 the priss said john mccain was toast. he -- press said john mccain was toast. you would think perhaps we would learn a lesson from the premature bauerial from the senator from arizona. going back to eleanor's point, jackie, do many journalist have a respect -- maybe a grudging respect -- for gingrich's intellect. he is a man of idea. some people say he's got a lot of ideas, a few good ones, some not so good ones. he does -- his supporters would say he elevate the debate. >> i don't think anyone's ever said that newt gingrich isn't the idea guy. he's been -- he was the idea guy when he wasn't in congress. he's been the -- the republicans have been carting him back to the house and to the senate to talk about his ideas since he's been out of office. i don't think anybody said that. i think what comes when he -- the ideas change and they're the exact opposite of what he -- like with the fannie mae and freddie mac thing, he was saying the president's staff should resign because of their relationship with it, yet he was working with them. >> there's an air of condescension. at the debate he said if a serious country we'd do this. he accused moderators of asking mickey mouse questions, gotcha questions, 30 seconds on the future of health care. i wonder if that gets under the skin some people. >> i think he's right about a lot of that. and i think that's even more irritating, the fact that he is right. i think he -- he will make a great non-romney. he will make the race entertaining. he'll make romney perform. i think -- i don't think many of us believe that he's going to go on to win the nomination of presidency. but we could be priechb wrong again. >> you may be right. but many of us did not believe he would be leading in polls at the end of november. let me come back to the cnn debate on foreign policy. wolf blitzer, the blitz, as herman cain calls him, asked about his support for immigration reform law past in the reagan administration. here's how the former speaker answered the question. >> some called it amnesty then. they still call it amnesty now. what would you do if you were president of the united states with these millions of illegal immigrant, many of whom have been in this country for a long time? >> in f you've been here 25 years and got three kids and two grandkids, paying taxes, obeying the law, belong to a local church, i don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out. >> are you saying that what he's proposing, giving amnesty in effect, allowing illegal immigrants to stay is a magnet that would entice others to come to this country illegal? >> there's no question. >> first of all, jackie, how did wolf blitzer did in framing that question? that was the news of the debate. >> i think so. it was interesting to see the reaction here in washington, and the reaction in places like iowa and in -- some of these early primary states. in the venue, this are a lot of people who are like, you had, that's a -- newt gingrich, a really reasonable answer on immigration. but then you read some of the plogs in iowa, and it was like, my gosh, this is a mortal wound for newt gingrich. he -- >> was it smart for blitzer to follow up and bring romney in and also bachmann -- >> absolutely. to show the contrast. that was one of the great things about the debate. it wasn't a lockstep debate with the candidate saying different things on one issue. that hasn't been necessarily the case in some of the other debates. >> some of the questions from the people at heritage and aei who co-sponsored the debate. the median narrative, eleanor, is that this humane answer on gingrich's point of grimds is going to kill him with grassroots conservatives. i think it gets him nice notices from the media elite who think his position is reasonable. >> right. it violates ideological purity on the right. if ideological purity is what newt gingrich is about, he can't survive. he's not pure on -- in so many cases. this was a realistic answer. and i think it shows that he's not willing to change his positions to pander -- >> does he get points for candor or non-pandering or recognizing reality from people in the journalism business if not from people who are going to necessarily vote in the republican primaries? does the press like what he did? >> the press liked what he did, yes. and i think the press was appalled at mitt romney's scrambling to get to newt gingrich's right. what kind of world do we live in? >> now, do journalists also like it, danielle, when a politician -- we saw this with bill clinton in 1992, what was called the sister-soldier moment. takes a stand that he knows is going to be unpopular with the base of his party. again, this may really hurt gingrich. but do you get points for standing up for -- appearing to stand up for principle? >> well, i already gave you my cynical response to that. but i think even now, the problem is it's during the primary. and as we've seen, the republican party right now is really holding its candidates to extreme litmus tests. that it seems that there is no room for any kind of reasonable debate on immigration or these issues without saying, oh, he just supported -- even, you know, immigration -- against illegals in a humane way. he's out, he's dead. you have to wait until the -- you've got to wait until you're the candidate i think before you can risk taking those positions. >> that's an interesting point because it suggests that the way the press scores these things, the instant reaction was, okay, he hurt himself, he's going to bleed. on the other hand, why did the press not look at the substance of it and say, you know what, we're really not going to kick 11 million people out this country. so good for newt. >> well, also, we're watching this in sort of -- because of this, i think this increasing litmus time, we're watching this state of cognitive disdense, that reasonable things that candidates are saying will play very well in the country. they seem totally reasonable. but they are not reasonable to the republican base. >> in other words, the -- >> jonhuntsman is a perfect example of this. if the media or the elite were electing a president, jon huntsman would be president. >> instead he's at 1%. when we come back, remember all the terrible things we were told would happen if the supercommittee failed? would it all just media hype? o, and in 1942, of course, they were sent away. after the war, as a japanese coming back from camp, he started a little store on main street in seattle. of course they needed some money, and bank of america was the only bank who would talk to my father. and we've stayed with bank of america. we have four stores now, three in the pacific northwest and one in oregon. my parents would not believe how popular it is now. nice, huh? yeah. you know what else is nice is all the savings you can get on cruze and traverse over there. oh! that's my beard. [ chuckles ] it's amazing. ♪ [ male announcer ] this holiday, chevy's giving more. now very well qualified lessees can sign and drive a 2012 cruze ls for around $199 a month. ♪ and here's what we did today: supported nearly 3 million steady jobs across our country... ... scientists, technicians, engineers, machinists... ... adding nearly 400 billion dollars to our economy... we're at work providing power to almost a quarter of our homes and businesses... ... and giving us cleaner rides to work and school... and tomorrow, we could do even more. cleaner, domestic, abundant and creating jobs now. we're america's natural gas. the smarter power, today. learn more at anga.us. the headlines played up the super drama in august when washington's paralysis brought the country to the brink of default. the last-minute deal including a plan to turn over the debt debacle to 12 people in congress. they'd not known as the supercommittee, and journalists solidly informed us they would be under tremendous pressure to reach a compromise because otherwise, there would be terrible, no good, horrible, unthinkable consequences. jackie kucinich, the media were given that there would be awful consequences if the supercommittee fails. this week it couldn't even get a vote on anything. now we're hearing, the cuts don't take place until 2013. and congress could undo it. what happened? >> they hadn't met for weeks as a group. i mean, if -- unless they were working the phones quite a bit, there wasn't a lot going on. yeah, there was totally -- i agree, i think it was hyped. it was hyped that the -- it was apocalyptic. you can always tell when it comes to washington whether something's actually apocalyptic or not in theory. is that they will get something done. might not be great but it get done. >> what would be the motive for the press trumpt etting the storyline? >> i think it's more fun to talk about what could happen than what actually, you know -- >> you know, we were downgraded, the u.s. credit of downgraded after the debt debacle. and i think the genuine concern was that if this committee did not reach some sort of deal that the other two rating agencies would do the same. the other agencies sort of assumed they would fail. but this committee did have special powers. they only had to reach a majority. the bowles-simpson, the gold standard needed 2/3. i bought into it. i thought they were rigged to succeed. >> you thought the drama as trumpeted by the media was legitimate? >> i did. the one area where we fell short was not pointing out that congress would have a year to shape the cuts. and i think that was kind of a hidden nugget. >> looking at it from the outside, danielle crittenden, all the media huffing and puffing over this the last three or four months, does it seem an absurd spectacle now that it became nothing -- >> which story are we talking about now? that seem to be something up absolutely -- >> the super duper committee. >> i know, i know. of course. you say why do networks put these in -- >> you say this can be applied to any washington -- >> exactly. we could bring up any topic and have the same -- same reaction. >> do you think -- i mean, republicans moved a little from their no way, no how, any tax increases. but not very much. do you think that journalist have gotten sucked into a he said/she said narrative. both parties equally to blame when that may not have been why this collapsed? >> i think this thing collapsed because the republicans wouldn't go as far as any of the other debt commissions, the gang of six, all of them. and the democrats actually gave more than president obama wished them to do. you know, i do think that the fault lies with republicans. most don't want to come out and say that. >> do you want to challenge that? >> it always -- it's always the republicans these days. >> well -- >> i'm going to acknowledge that i am not an expert on the supercommittee. and i will -- i will reserve judgment on that one. >> see, i would contend this is fundamentally what the parties argue about, we're talking taxes, we're talking entitlement reform, talking not wanting to cut entitlement and wanting to raise revenue. that's why they're republicans and democrats. this is difficult stuff. >> in order for the issue to go away, it's still, you know, huge amounts of spending. potential spending cuts, potential revenue. it has to be thought out. maybe it get done after the election. the question to you is, did the -- did this highlight the dysfunction of washington? >> they've been all year the stories. not only with the supercommittee, with the debt -- with the debt limit, everything is highlighted that the fact that congress cannot meet in the middle right now for whatever reason. they -- there is not -- they're not in a compromising mood. >> you don't think it's's been swept under the rug nobody seems to be able to get anything done in the city? you think that's been front and center in the stories -- >> no -- >> it's a deliberate strategy on the part of the republican party frankly. >> it may be part of the tone that we have gone through the fourth thanksgiving in which the country is in a dire economic strait such as which none of us have ever seen in recent memory. and thus, you know, the fact that all of these issues seem to be paralyzed and not getting done i think would build up a lot of anger and apock lip tick feeling -- >> millions unemployed and that bothers me. thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. coming up in the second part of "reliable sources," conversation with blogger andrew sullivan about journalism's changing landscape and life as a conservative who's become caustically critical of the republican party. plus the "huffington post" canadian style. danielle crittenden will talk about tailoring that web site to fit her country's taste. and later, actor hugh grant takes on britain's tabloid press. andrew sullivan was an accomplished journalist at a young age, coming from britain to become editor of "the new republic" at 27. heats been a newspaper columnist and author. most of all a blogger. one of the first online writers to attract a big following. the dish moved from the atlanta to my web site, thedailybeast. i spoke to him down the hall to dish about journalism. andrew sullivan, welcome. >> thank you, howie. >> you are a conservative. you wrote a book called "the conservative soul." yet, you've been vitriolic toward the republican party. what explains that? >> because i'm still a conservative, and they're not. >> they're not? >> well, no. i think if you -- if you look at what they're saying, which is that really the most of major institutions in this country and government should be exploded, i mean, should be sdproi be destr get rid of traditions like medicare, cut it off with a voucher system or preemptive war again iran which, ag