captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> brown: good evening. i'm jeffrey brown. on the newshour this friday, the lead story takes us to afghanistan, amid the deadliest month ever for u.s. soldiers and a tense vote count for a new president. then, the other news of the day: the farewells for senator edward kennedy; and a ray suarez look at the senator's impact on immigration and the changing face of the nation. plus, betty ann bowser talks with writer t.r. reid about how health care is done in other countries; and judy woodruff closes with the analysis of mark shields and david brooks. major funding for the newshour with jim lehrer is provided by: >> what the world needs now is energy. the energy to get the economy humming again. the energy to tackle challenges like climate change. what if that energy came from an energy company? everyday, chevron invests $62 million in people, in ideas-- seeking, teaching, building. fueling growth around the world to move us all ahead. this is the power of human energy. chevron. intel. supporting math and science education for tomorrow's innovators. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: an american service member was killed in a bomb blast in eastern afghanistan today, making august the deadliest month for u.s. military forces in the eight- year war. the death brought the monthly toll to 45, exceeding last month's previous record. in all, 732 american service members have died since 2001. and even as the violence continued, ballots were still being counted from last week's presidential vote. margaret warner continues our lead story report. she spoke earlier today to "washington post" correspondent pam constable in kabul. >> warner: pam constable, welcome. it was this deadly milestone today, u.s. military fatalities hitting be all time monthly high. what do u.s. commanders attribute this increase to? >> well, i think it's clear that the tlb is proving to be a -- the taliban is proving to be a far more resilient, aggressive and sophisticated enemy than almost anyone had predicted several years ago and maybe even several months ago. they are ruthless. they written tent on undermining the foreign president and the government of this country. and they are a very wiley guerrilla opponent that is not going to give up easily. >> warner: is the u.s. troop build-up also contributing to the higher rate of fatalitys? >> in a way, yes, it's ironic. the more international forces and the more international weaponry comes here, the more they stir up theo9ñornet's nest of the taliban and provoke the retaliation which in a sense they want. the problem is that this causes a surge in violence and a surge in conflict temporarily. one hopes that that will not last a very long time. but it's almost inevitable that as the international troop presence increases, so will the level of violence. >> warner: and with those bloody bombings in kandahar and elsewhere this week, the taliban seems to be also killing and terrorizing the afghan population. >> absolutely. they kill teachers. they kill mayers. they kill anyone who works with the government. they have killed and maimed people who dareed exercise their right to vote. >> warner: so was it clear now that the taliban successfully intimidated people to not voting in last week's election, at least in some areas? >> absolutely. this happened throughout the country. but it happened principally in the south and southeast where the taliban is strongest, in the southern provinces of kandahar, helmand, even as far north as lordak and nodar. you had many districts where no one voted at all or perhaps one to two percent of the voters turned out even though there was quite good afghan security presence at many of the polls. there were a number of polls that were not able to open at all because of insecurity and which would say although we don't have a final count yet, you know, dozens and possibly even hundreds of polling places throughout the south where almost no one was able to vote. >> warner: now there's also been wide spread allegations of vote rigging. you and a colleague went out to investigate those yourself. what did you find? >> well, we found a number of similar reports throughout the country, accusations made on all side, although principlesfully made against partisans or officials from the government candidates and from his major opponent dr. abdullah, accusations of ballot-box stuffing. for example n polling stations where there may have been say 20 or 30 votes, people said that somehow the ballots ended up being sent to kabul with hundreds of votes in them, hundreds of paper ballots in them. we heard allegations of officials at polling places, police, army members, local important influential people pressuring voters to vote one way or another. and remember, a lot of voters here cannot read and write. and are easily intimidated by authority figures. there were a number of different kinds of allegations. and the really sort of poisonous combination was that of insurgent intimidation which kept people away from the polls. and thus made it much easier to do mischief with the ballots themselves. >> warner: are u.s. officials concerned that all this could undermine the credibility of whatever result is ultimately announced? >> it's a little bit too soon to tell. i've talked to a number of officials at the international election complaints commission which is doing its best to sift through what i believe is almost, they've gotten at far as 1800 official complaints of fraud now. that's a lot of work. they still have ahead of them. and i think there's a lot of concern not only that the allegations of fraud will be something that can undermine the credibility, but the fact that it's taking a long time to investigate. the final results are supposed to be announced by the first week in september. and it's highly doubtful that any kind of meaningful investigation of fraud can be completed by that date. and therefore you're going to have a situation of great tension and uncertainty that will prevail for quite some time over the actual result. >> warner: are u.s. officials also concerned that if undermining the credibility of the karzai government? >> yes, that's very clear. american officials are very worried that if it is true that there has been widespread vote rigging on behalf of the karzai administration, it's very worrisome to them. especially if it turns out that he has won re-election and will be in office with his team for another five years. there apparently was a meeting between president karzai and special envoy mr. holbrook in the past day or so which we're told was a very tense and terse meeting in which mr. holbrook expressed, i think, extreme concern and displeasure with some of the allegations of fraud. so we don't yet know if they're true. but the number of allegations seems to be quite high and quite worrisome to american officials here. >> warner: finally, what's the time line for resolving all this, for the final vote tally and if needed a runoff? >> the vote count is supposed to be complete by september 3rd. we do not know if that date will hold. if there is a runoff election, it would take place at the very, very beginning of october which is the very long period of time to have sort of uncertainty and limbo and there's a lot of concern that there might be vie lent retaliation by various groups during that time so it's a time of great uncertainty and tension here for the entire populous. and as you mentioned, there's a great deal at stake here for washington's forward looking strategy in afghanistan as well. >> warner: pamela constable from "the washington post" in kabul, thank you. >> you're very welcome. >> brown: in other news today, the u.s. military announced the deaths of two soldiers in iraq. they died from wounds sustained in a roadside bomb attack on a patrol in eastern baghdad. a new report from the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog found iran has not suspended its nuclear activities, but it has allowed greater monitoring of nuclear facilities by u.n. inspectors. still, the report from the international atomic energy agency said, there remain a number of outstanding issues which give rise to concerns." iran's top representative to the i.a.e.a. called the assessment a "fabrication". the u.s. participates in six- party talks next week to consider new sanctions on iran. in the latest political developments in iran, president mahmoud ahmadinejad stepped up pressure on opposition leaders today, for the first time, demanding their prosecution for what he called orchestrating post-election unrest, with the help of foreign enemies. he spoke to a crowd gathered at tehran university. >> serious confrontation has to be against the leaders and key elements of 9 incidents. these secondhand elements have to be dealt with islamic mercy. don't give protection to the main elements and punish the deceived and secondhand elements. >> brown: ahmadinejad's remarks went further than those earlier this week by iran's supreme leader. in a statement released wednesday, ayatollah ali khamenei said: new mexico governor bill richardson will not be charged in an alleged "pay-to-play" scheme. the u.s. attorney who led the probe confirmed that today. the inquiry lasted a year, and forced richardson to withdraw as a nominee for commerce secretary in the obama administration. florida governor charlie crist picked one of his former aides to fill the senate seat of mel martinez. earlier this month, martinez, a republican, announced his resignation with more than a year left in office. today, the governor chose his former chief of staff, george lemieux, to serve out the rest of the term. crist, also a republican, has already announced plans to run for the same senate seat in 2010. in the west, four wildfires burned thousands of acres in the mountains and coastal areas of southern california. teams of firefighters worked around the clock to contain the flames that threatened nearly 900 homes and forced hundreds to evacuate. today, governor arnold schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for both monterey and los angeles counties. an official battling one of the blazes described what the forest service is up against. >> it's really thick in here so we can't see a whole lot. once this breaks up a little bit and we can get the air in here, we will hit it hard. people that live down below, you can smell it, you can see how bad it is. >> brown: southern california is also in the midst of a heat wave. forecasters expect triple-digit temperatures to continue until sunday. pop star michael jackson's death was ruled a homicide today. the los angeles county coroner said the cause of death was "acute propofol intoxication," but other sedatives contributed. a criminal investigation continues; no charges have yet been filed. household incomes across the u.s. stayed flat for the month of july. the commerce department attributed that to wage freezes and temporary layoffs facing many americans. but consumer spending rose slightly in july, thanks in part to the popular "cash for clunkers" program. it ended on monday. on wall street today, stocks were split on the income and spending news. the dow jones industrial average lost 36 points to close at 9,544. the nasdaq rose just over one point to close just under 2,028. for the week, both the dow and nasdaq rose less than 1%. and still to come on the newshour tonight: changing the face of the nation; looking abroad for health care solutions; and shields and brooks. that follows the day of farewells for senator edward kennedy. newshour correspondent kwame holman has the story. >> reporter: by this evening, tens of thousands had filed past the flag-draped casket of senator edward kennedy at the john fitzgerald kennedy presidential library in boston. many stopped to pray.. some offered a salute... others simply paused. hundreds were waiting when the library's doors opened this morning. >> i got here around ten minutes to 5:00. >> reporter: some of the mourners talked about personal connections to the senator. >> he was a great man. he did a lot of great things for a lot of great people, especially my family. my daughter is autistic and... oh, god... and he helped us out with certain issues and he is a great man. >> oh, my god. it's just like i lost my father. i think the world of him. i worked for him when i was in high school and got the opportunity to march in parades with him. >> reporter: edward kennedy's widow, vicki, and his last living sibling, jean kennedy smith, greeted many visitors, among them celebrities, dignitaries, and local and national politicians. some who streamed in brought signs; some read "thank you, teddy." library officials kept the doors open an extra three hours, until 2:00 this morning, to accommodate those in line last night. condolence books were filled with tributes. >> i basically just said i admire his heart and his courage. >> reporter: last evening, vicki kennedy spent about an hour greeting mourners. >> our whole family is deeply grateful for this outpouring of love. >> reporter: senator kennedy's nephew, robert kennedy, jr. >> there would have been nobody as moved as teddy. he would have loved this. one of the blessings of his illness-- he got to take a kind of victory lap. >> reporter: all night, a group of friends and family kept vigil by the casket, a kennedy tradition. at arlington national cemetery today, preparations for tomorrow's burial continued. senator kennedy will be buried near his brothers, john and robert. gardner baggao traveled to arlington cemetery from california. >> this opportunity would be a great one for us to be a part of history and the final moments of his legacy. we know we can't make it to the funeral, so we just want to see where his final resting place is. >> reporter: tasso mousmanis came from canada. >> i'm sure back in canada a lot of people are going to be watching on the news, people of my parents of my generation, especially. >> reporter: tonight there is a private "celebration of life" for family and friends at the library in boston. tomorrow, president obama will deliver a eulogy at the funeral before senator kennedy is laid to rest. more now from "boston globe" reporter michael leffinson who joins us just outside the kennedy library. michael, how would you describe the mood there today? >> i think the smood both somber and celebratory. there's been a line of tens of thousands of people here outside the library. some of them have been weepings they come here. some of them have been very happy and almost cheering as they honor the senator's life. they've also been swapping stories as they wait in what was an hour's long line here waiting to view his casket and then to sign a book for him here at the library. so it's been a real in tense emotion and a lot of things swirling here in the city. >> reporter: we, of course, have talked a lot here about senator kennedy as a national figure. but he and his family are deeply ingrained in that city, practically institutions there. how does it show itself as you go about town these days? >> i think there's been an incredible intensity of feeling that really shows what a local figure senator kennedy was, in addition to being, obviously, a powerful statesman and exoughted senator he was even -- eck alled -- exalled but was seen really as -- i have seen people tacking american flags outside their houses in south boston, passing outposters of the senator in mission hill where the funeral will be held tomorrow. and even here in line outside the library there was a 50-year-old construction worker from summerville just outside of boston, born in belfast who wanted to come here and thank the senator for his work helping to broker peace in that region. i also talked to another 82-year-old woman who waited for an hour in line, leaning on her son. she had grown-up with a picture of jfk on her mantel piece here in dorchester, a blue collared section of boston. and wanted to bear witness to the senator here at the library. then she wrote a page-long entry in his book. so people aren't just coming here to sign their names but they are really pouring out their feels. and i think that is something incredibl rare especially when it comes to a political figure. >> reporter: what can you tell us -- >> for me --. >> reporter: excuse me. >> you know, i was going to say for me it harkens back to, you know, some of the stories of political past here in boston. you know, i think back on, you know, the funeral possession for james michael carly, the legendary rascal king, mayor of boston when a million people thronged the streets for his funeral in 1958. that is something you don't really see often for political figures now. but it definitely holds true for senator kennedy now. >> reporter: and what can you tell us about the events for tonight and tomorrow's funeral? what is known about the plans? >> tonight there will be private memorial service here at the library. it's being billed as a celebration of the senator's life. and we're going to hear from several of his colleagues in congress. senator john mccain, as well as senator orrin hatch, vice president biden and former senator culver of iowa who was actually a college roommate of kennedys at harvard and played with him on the football team there will also be a number of friends of his and former staffers speaking. so we will hear a lot of anecdotes about his life, obviously an extraordinary life. and i think a lot of that will be come together memorial tonight. tomorrow will be obviously the funeral at a church in mission hill, the eulogy will be delivered by president obama. the mass will be celebrated by the archbishop of boston, cardinal sean o'malley and the homily will be you delivered by two priests who know senator kennedy a little more personally than the cardinal. one is reverend monin, former president of boston college and another is pastor of a church on cape cod where the senator was an occasional communicant. so it will be quite an extraordinary funeral. >> reporter: michael levenson of the "boston globe", thanks very much. >> thank you. >> brown: over the past few days, much has been written and said about edward kennedy's imprint on a wide spectrum of issues, from health care to poverty to education and more. but one area of special interest to him has received little attention. that's immigration, and it's the focus of ray suarez's report. >> suarez: as a first termh8 senator, edward kennedy championed the rewriting of america's restrictive immigration laws, drafted in the 1920s. he fought hard for the immigration and nationality act of 1965, signed by president lyndon johnson. and as america inches toward majority-minority status, with the descendants of european immigrants a declining share of the population, the face of today's america is the one kennedy's efforts helped create, for better... >> i think it is fair to say that senator kennedy was one of the architects of the america of the future. >> suarez: ... or for worse. >> the '65 act put american immigration on auto-pilot. >> suarez: by the time of the john kennedy administration, america had absorbed the huge ellis island generations of immigrants who poured in from europe from roughly 1880 to 1920. president kennedy, whose great- grandparents came to boston from ireland, supported scrapping the existing quota system that used 19th-century america's ethnic makeup as a template for letting in new arrivals, favoring europeans and effectively sealing off newcomers from the rest of the world. on the senate floor in 2007, senator kennedy looked back on his role in passing the '65 immigration act with pride. >> it was in this chamber, a number of years ago, that we knocked down the great walls of discrimination on the basis of race; that we knocked down the walls of discrimination on the basis of religion. we knocked them down with regards to national origin. we knocked them down with regards to gender. we knocked them down with regards to disability here in the senate. >> when l.b.j. signed the law, he said he was correcting a "cruel and enduring wrong." >> suarez: professor alan kraut is a scholar of american immigration history at american university. >> the origins of who's coming to the united states as an immigrant has changed dramatically. yes, in the early part of the 20th century and mid-20th century, southerners and eastern europeans coming to the united states in great numbers. indeed, between 1880 and the 1920s, 23 and a half million came, the great majority of them from southern and eastern europe. today, it's very largely southeast asians, latinos from mexico, from central america. it's a much different immigration. >> suarez: different, in part, because it was a chain migration, not only opening up to the developing world, but giving preferences to families with members already here. dan stein is executive director of the federation for american immigration reform-- fair-- and a critic of current immigration law. >> historically, the view has been and was through much of the 20th century, and we think should be now, is if you want to bring somebody here, you should bring your spouse and unmarried minor children. but we have to use rule of reason in this day and age-- with the ease of transport and communication, if you want to visit your aunt and uncle and adult married brothers, sisters, siblings, go home and visit. you can't start a chain of migration that goes on years and years and years. quickly, by 1970, the system of chain migration had become unworkable. >> suarez: the new law made it easier for families like the kims. jina kim's family began heading to america in the early 1970s. >> the oldest son, my uncle, he and his wife came because his wife's family had invited her and a sibling. so after they came in 1971, they sponsored and invited their parents, which is my grandparents. they came, and the next was us, and my dad has five brothers under him. >> suarez: so beginning with her uncle less than 40 years ago, the kim family now numbers more than 60. dan stein insists the 1965 reforms were needed and rooted in human rights, but complains that senator kennedy was never willing to go back and fix his legislative handiwork. >> because immigration is often crafted in the judiciary committee by lawyers who are completely detached from the actual consequences and costs associated with medical care and housing and infrastructure issues, you have this detachment that made it possible for people like ted kennedy to never come back and say, "you know, the spirit of the '65 act was fine, it was noble, but as practical matter, it needs some tweaking." >> suarez: professor kraut says the unintended consequences don't stop there. while changing the makeup of america, the 1965 law helped create the pitched battles over immigration today. >> prior to 1965, mexican immigrants could come to the u.s. virtually at will. after 1965, it was much less easy for mexicans to come across. the result is large numbers came across in undocumented ways. and today, one of the issues that faces the congress and faces the president is how to deal with unauthorized or undocumented immigrants. >> suarez: clarissa martinez came to this country from mexico as an undocumented immigrant, and became an american citizen. now director of immigration for the national council of la raza, the country's largest latino civil rights organization, she looks at the kennedy record and recalls that 1965 was the middle of the cold war. today, she says, immigration is debated largely as a domestic or economic issue. >> but at the time, these steps on our immigration policy had to do with increasing america's standing in the world, and demonstrating that if the country had an open door, people in other countries who had systems that we didn't agree with would choose to come here, and that would demonstrate that the american way of life was a desirable system. >> and this is a picture taken about 20, 25 years ago, with all the grandkids... >> suarez: at the time of the senate debates over the immigration and nationality act, senator kennedy reassured his fellow senators that the new law would not bring immigrants pouring into america's cities, and would not change the ethnic makeup of the country. he was wrong. without realizing it, jina kim and her large and now prosperous family is part of a new america, created, in part, by senator kennedy. >> it's definitely impacted my life. i have renewed respect for him and i do thank him and his family, i guess, for sponsoring that bill. i think i am the direct beneficiary of that bill. >> suarez: congress is now waiting for the president's proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. it will be the first major immigration law debated without senator kennedy in half a century. >> brown: now, a conversation about health care reform. as the debate in this country continues, health correspondent betty ann bowser talked to writer t.r. reid about what we might learn from the experience of other countries. >> the search for successful health-care reform has taken many shapes. embattled lawmakers have crunched numbers, studied business models and researched payment options. but one prominent journalist thinks he's found a better way to achieve affordable, high quality health care in america, by looking outside the nation's borders. in a new book and a 2008 front line documentary, tr reid, a correspondent for "the washington post" reports on national health system in other industrialized countries. some are government run. some rely on private insurance companies but all have one thing in common. almost everybody gets covered. the newshour spoke with him as part of our ongoing series on health-care reform. first of all, thank you for being with us. >> i love your show. i am delighted to be on it. >> so let's begin with what other industrialized countries do. what do they do about health care? >> well, all the other countries manage to cover everybody with high quality and spend half as much as we do. and i was trying to figure out how do they do that. you know in germany you can pick any one of 200 health insurance plans. if you don't like your plan, you can switch to the other guy with no increase in premium. how do they do that? i went to this hospital in canada, 800 beds. the billing office is two part-timers. how do they do that. >> well, how do they? >> well, i think i figured that out. and they don't all do it the same way. it's not all socialized medicine. many countries cover everybody at reasonable costs with private docs, private hospitals and private insurance. that's a kind of stunning discoveree of the tour. it doesn't have to be government run. it doesn't have to be single payor. japan has 3,000 payors. >> but all of these countries have some sort of government control or regulation, do they not? >> yeah, these are all regulated. even in the countries that are private. but i argue in my book that some foreign countries are less socialized than the united states. in the u.s. everybody when they turn 65 switches to government-run health insurance, medicare. in germany, netherlands, switzerland, et cetera, people stay with the private insurer cradle to grave. yeah, it's regulated insurance, that's definitely true but it's private. >> so what are some of the things that they do that the united states could perhaps benefit from learning from them? >> well, the regulation of the payment system, for example. on the payment side, where they have insurance companies the insurers have to cover everybody. they have to pay every claim. they can't deny any claim as long as it is certified by a doc. they usually have to pay within a week or two. they have very strict time limits. get this in switzerland, if they don't pay on in five days your next month's premium is free. and they allow you to switch. if you don't like your plan you can switch to another one and usually they can't raise your premium. this is done by regulation. and the way they do it is the governments say to the insurance companies you want to be in this business, we are going to put a limit on your paperwork costs, your administrative costs. so you know what, france, 61 million people, 14 payors, administrative costs of 4%. in our private insurance industry the administrative costs are about 20%. >> and what are the health outcomes in some of these other industrialized nations that you went to. >> yeah, this was really depressing for me, frankly, to find out that almost all the other countries have better health results than we do. longer life expectancies. much lower neonatal death rates. better recovery rates for major diseases. and to me, my age, here's the stunning one, life expectancy at age 60, when you turn 60, how long will you live and be healthy? all the other countries do better than we do. the united states ranks 23rd out of the 23 richest countries on life expectancy at 60. >> you said in your book that when all of these other -- these other countries, the one that recently have done health-care reform, that they went and looked to see what other countries were doing. it doesn't seem to be any attempt to do that in the united states. >> doesn't it seem obvious? i mean these are countries like us. they're advanced free market democracies. they have exactly the same problems. aging populations, rapidly increasing health-care costs. and yet they've found good solutions. >> what is socialized medicine? is that what they have in great britain? and how does it work. >> that's a good question. what is socialized medicine. so the term was invented by a pr firm working for the american medical association in 1947 when harry truman tried to do universal health care. the argument was if you want to provide health care for your neighbor you are a commie kind of thing. what is socialized medicine? i think britain probably comes pretty close. the government owns the hospital. government pays all the bills. government buys most of the pills. government owns the lab. in britain government employs about 40% of the doctors. the other 60% are private but they bill the government. if the government pays and the government provides the care, then it is socialized medicine. now canada, taiwan, australia in those systems, the government pays the bills but the providers are private. and the hospitals are private. so what do you call that, causei socialized medicine. i don't know. but then let's go to japan, netherland, switzerland, france. private doc, private hospitals, private insurance plan. to me that's not socialism. >> is there one thing that all of these countries have in common? >> yeah, they all agreed first of all, what the goal was. we're going to make sure that everybody in our country is who is sick can have access to a doctor. and then they found a way. >> rather than focus on cost. >> yes, that's quite interesting. if you look at the problems in america, you can say cost, coverage and quality, and washington seems to be focused on dealing with costs first, kind of logical, let's get the costs down. we can cover everybody. all the other countries did it differently. they said let's cover everybody and once you get everybody in the system, then you have the political will to make tough decisions about cost control. and they're tough decisions. we're learning that now. but if you have everybody in, then you can make those decisions. >> one of the things you hear a lot now that the temperature has increased around this debate is that in countries, canada and great britain come up all the time. you have to wait six months if you have breast cancer to have an operation. those kinds of things. is it true? >> every country rations health care. they all do it. nobody can afford to pay for everything. and the united states rations reality care. and i think the key distinction is we raise differently from everybody else. all the other countries have a basic floor of care that everybody can get. and you know the result, nobody dies in those countries because they can't see a doctor. in the united states some people have no ceiling. they get the greatest care in the world, no waiting. and a lot of people don't have access too much of anything. and the result is, as you know, the national academy of sciences says 20,000 americans die every year of treatable diseases because they can't see a doctor. to me that's the harshest form of rationing in the world. all countries raise. nobody rations the way we do. >> do you think universal health care is a moral issue or a political issue. >> well, in all the other countries, they made a fundamental ethical decision, a moral decision. everybody in our country is going to get health care. obviously any country's health-care system is a political issue, it's a medical issue, it's an economic issue. i concluded after going around the world that fundamentally it's a moral question. if a country decides doggone it, we want to cover everybody, there's a way to do it. and the other countries have done it but we've never made that decision. the thing i would kind of like to say, if i went around the world trying to figure out why it is all the other countries manage to coveeverybody and spend half as much as we do. and i thought i had to figure out how they do it. but you know what, a more important question turns out to be why do they do it. why does the country commit to provide health care to everybody who needs it. and that leads to the question, why doesn't the richest country commit to providing health care to everybody who needs it. well, in my book i think i answered the how do they do it i think i answered item do they do it but i still can't figure out why we don't do it. viii >> brown: on our web site, newshour.pbs.org, you can find a link to "frontline's" documentary with t.r. reid. it's called "sick around the world." we'll have more perspectives on health care reform next week. and finally, to the analysis of shields and brooks. judy woodruff is with them tonight. >> woodruff: that's of course syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. good to see you both. gentlemen, let's start out with health care. davids, we're a week away from congress coming back from the august recess where does this big battle stand and especially now that ted kennedy is gone. >> well, it's still no not good, if you are looking for passage. if you look at the president's approval rating, they were up at 70 a couple months ago. now a steady decline down to about 50, around there. if you look at public view of the health-care plan specifically, it's a slight majority against, but that seems to be pretty hard. so what i would expect the administration to do is to do two things. one, actually come out with their own plan to try to6= relaunch this with their own plan. and second, do something dramatic, maybe have a joint session of congress, something like that, to really relaunch the debate. because the way it is going now, i don't think there is a member of congress who is moderate or leaning who has leaned in favor in the last couple of months. and i number, and many have been sort of leaned a little against. >> woodruff: is that how you are reading it, mark? >> sadly, i agree with david on most of what he said, judy. it's not a question of messaging. the president is an effective messenger. people like barack obama as president. they want him to succeed. the republican pollster, john mccain's pollster made that point to me as recently as yesterday. but the problem is, i think, the content. i really do. and i think whether you call it relaunching, rebranding, whatever, they've got to come out with what they want. there are interestingly enough, consensuss emerging as others have pointed out as well. i mean there is an agreement that there wasn't 15 years ago about insurance companies that they cannot deny. coverage because of a preexisting condition, that they can't take away coverage when somebody gets sick. that they want to remove the limits on lifetime benefits received. but insurance companies, legitimate, understandably are saying look if all the reform is going to be us, you know, what's to prevent anybody from just saying, i will wait until i get sick. before i buy health insurance. so you know, i think there is consensus emerging that you could do, but that has nothing to do with the costs. and controlling the costs over the long run. and not a heck of a lot to do with extended coverage. but i think there is a merging consensus as well about providing subsidies for people to get health insurance who can't afford it. to small businesses to provide it who can't afford it. so i think there is a consensus and this is where ted kennedy is so dearly and acutely missed because he could seize that kind of an opening. >> but if there is an opening, if there are these emerging concensuss, david, than why is it so hard to do? >> well, there are three things. first, the country is nervous about the whole government changing, getting too big. it comes in the wake of the takeover of aig, the takeover of the car companies, radical expansion of government in other things. so people are just extremely anxious. then secondly, people are afraid of cutting benefits. they're going to cut medicare by $500 billion. they want to cut it in ways that won't hurt health-care costs, people are a little dubious. and then there is the matter of costs mark eluded to. barack obama started this as a cost control measure. there is no real serious cost control in there in some ways he tried to be political smart. and the smart thing was you can't take away people's existing health care. and that was politically intelligent. the problem is, if you are going to preserve that much of the current system you're to the going to be able to control cost. there was another option sitting out there, this thing came called the -- bennett plan that had bipartisan support but would alter people's health care. >> take away employer. >> take away the employer tax credit and give people a subsidy. but that really would have shook up the system and they decided that was too politically difficult. they didn't want something that radical. but by keeping so much of the current plan, they haven't solved a lot of the current system's problems. >> woodruff: but mark, if the president needs to weigh in, does he simply need to reexplain it or does he have to change his position. >> i think he has to change his position. i think they have to acknowledge the president is an effective, brilliant, spelling communicator. yet during the month that he had to make his case, the numbers went down. and i just, i think at some point, you have to acknowledge that the message, you know, the old line judy about, you know, they don't like the dog food. i mean when they put out the best can, the best advertising campaign, the best grocery store placement of this brand-new dog food, the dogs didn't like it. it is not, the plan is now and is not selling. and i think that the president, it's more than just refashioning the message. >> the question is does he go big or does he go small. there are a number of people like joe lieberman saying let's pull back. >> woodruff: you meaning more expensive -- >> more expansive or more radical change. the radical change is the widen-bennett thing. the small is the more incremental approach. expand coverage, give people some health insurance, seize on the things mark was talking about a that a lot of people agree with. but maybe not try to do everything all at once. just do more things so more people are covered. >> woodruff: mark you were starting to say that it does make a difference that senator kennedy is gone. how so exactly? what, i mean we knew that he was not likely to am could back. >> no, but judy, what has been mostly ignored in the tribute business have been remarkable, is that ted kennedy at a fundamental level was a brilliant politician. in a human sense. mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, told the story to jim carroll that when john barasso came into the senate there was a reception for him in 2007. senator from wyoming. nobody probably knew him, couldn't pick him out of a police line-up. one democrat showed up, ted kennedy and he spent all the time talking to barasso's family, and his children. it's that gift. that ability to reach across that line that you were never a permanent add certificate saree. there were no enemys in ted kennedy. and ted kennedy could understand what somebody was. and he could have an opening. if he saw an opening, though were big consensuss, those were lot bigger points where they agree the silliness about the death tribuneals, the old age, these are really big policies. and that's where, that was his gift. and once he made his commitment, he could then sell it to the democrats because -- because ted kennedy was the -- of modern liberalism. nobody could question o, did he sell out when he collaborated with nancy cassenbaum on portability. with orrin hatch on schp, children's health coverage. that is a special gift. >> woodruff: do you think his presence would have made a difference. >> he has that smaller -- he has that special gift but he is all in smaller incremental. he wanted national health care for decades because hasn't been able to get it because the political culture wasn't there even with a majority of democrats. so he has important incremental changes with the children's health care most important. but he hasn't had big national things. and personally for all, it would have made a big difference now because the opposition is out of the country. and it's just too -- charlie cook, i mentioned this last week, that it's more likely that there will be 20 house losses than less, losses of seats in the next election. so if you are going to lose your job, although you love ted kennedy paying attention to you it is probably not --. >> woodruff: speaking of seats, how much difference does it make to democrats whether they get a successor for ted kennedy named quickly, changing the law which is what senator kennedy wanted done. and it's the flip side of what democrats were asking for not long ago. >> massachusetts democrats are redefining hypocrisy politically. we've always regarded hypocrisy as a given. they changed the law there 2004 to deny a republican governor the power to appoint a successor to president-elect john kerry. and that was mitt romney, john kerry did not win. so 2009 with the death of ted kennedy, now they want, and replace a special election was mandated. now they want to have an interim senator appointed by the democratic governor deval patrick. if a special election will not be held according to the secretary of state until january 19th or january 26th, 2010, so that means the democrats are without that 0th seat. and massachusetts without a senator for all that time. >> woodruff: does that one vote, david, does that make a lot of difference in the senate, if the democrats have 59 vote. >> i actually probably think not. there are over a hundred votes but i think, you know, with the hill -- you got a sense of where it going. people do to the want to take an uncomfortable vote that will cost seats unless they are sure it will pass and that probably means by more than one seat. on the massachusetts thing, i just find it offensive. the constitution is not a ping-pong ball. you don't change it from year-to-year depending on your own political advantage. you don't change the rules. the rules are the rules. and if they name a senator through this interim procedure, that senator will be tainted by the fact that it was so transparently naked a political ploy. >> unless it is somebody with a -- like somebody who is really respect . >> woodruff: just to fill the seat. >> sure. >> woodruff: the story that came out earlier this week, terror suspect being not only harshly interrogated but abused, allegedly, at the hands of the cia. we're now reading more and more including a story in "the new york times" today about how the justice department and the cia are maybe even more at war than we thought. where is all this headed? >> well, nowhere good. first i hate the idea of special prosecutor involved in something so political. why are they prosecuting the lower level guys, not the higher level guys. why did they not pros kult when career prosecutors looked a couple years ago and now they are prosecuting. on the cia, i had an old washington hand say to me the other day, you do not want to go to war with the cia. they keep every document. they're really good at this. and there are some dangers that the obama administration and the white house perceived in the cia as going to war with the cua. the obama administration and the white house did not want to do what justice eric holder wanted to do. he was off on his own. but i think there is a perception at the cia that they are being attack -- attacked. they are to the being defended when attacked by outsiders and there is friction between the cia and white house. >> how odd to have the white house in 1 place and the justice department over here. >> well, we didn't have it in the last eight years. there is no question that the political office and the white house, justice department were more than chumy. it was a wholly owned subsidiary. eric holder is an interesting case. he left as deputy attorney general tarnished in large part because he had been too subservient to the clinton white house on the pardon, the unforgivable pardon, let it be noted of mark rich by president bill clinton on the way out the door. and holder had raised no objections to it. and he obviously is going to make sure that that doesn't happen again. if he were pleasing the white house right now, he would not be proceeding with this. because the obama white house would prefer that it go away. but i don't think there is any question, judy, what is most fascinating. i mean first of all you've got the geneva convention. you've got the u.n. resolution on treaties, on torture. and recommended championed by reason ald reagan. and so that puts us in in a serious bind. it's not simply torture. it's cruel and unusual treatment as well that is outlawed. and so that is the position. interestingly, and fascinating to me is the division between people who have served in uniform and been exposed to it like petersen, the former ambassadors john mccain, colin powell, general joe ford, general anthony zinni, they are totally subscribing to outlawing all forms of torture where the civilian warriors in many cases seem to be showing their toughness by endorsing it. >> woodruff: on the left you have folks criticizing the justice department for to the doing enough. >> right. the question is how do we settle this. you know, what those guys did, what they tell pem we're going to kill your daughters, we will rape your daughters, that should never happen. the question is whether we settle it through political means which is what i support. or whether we send prosecutesers in and settle political differences through prosecutorial means. and i'm not totally against it but it raises a lot of problems, i think. >> woodruff: david brooks, mark shields, thank you both. >> thank you. >> brown: again, the major developments of the day: august became the deadliest month for american troops in the eight-year afghan war; a new report from the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog found iran has not suspended its nuclear activities. and california governor arnold schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for both monterey and los angeles counties after wildfires burned thousands of acres. on newshour.pbs.org, an online- only feature tonight-- an "art beat" conversation i had with josh neufeld, author of the new graphic novel, "a.d.: "after the deluge, four years after katrina flooded new orleans." here's a short excerpt. >> what i did in ad was to tell the storys of seven different people, real new orleans, actual living, breathing human beings who survived katrina. it was something that i wanted to do as a cartoonist. and i figured that there were going to be plenty of other ways that this storm was going to be commemorated and these events were go stock talked about in books and dualary films. and this was my opportunity to add to that canon of historical records. >> brown: also online, you can find archive video from the hurricane, and a report from louisiana public broadcasting about how one rural parish is faring four years later. and once again tonight to our honor roll of american service personnel killed in the iraq and afghanistan conflicts. we add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. here, in silence, are 11 more. >> brown: "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online, and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. i'm jeffrey brown. thank you for watching. good night. major funding for the newshour with jim lehrer is provided by: >> this is the engine that connects abundant grain from the american heartland to haran's best selling wheat, while keeping 60 billion pounds of carbon out of the atmosphere every year. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> chevron. this is the power of human energy. and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org