Transcripts For CSPAN Tonight From Washington 20101105

i'm really excited about him. host: independent line. jack, you are on the air. caller: thank you. i would like to ask you how you doing,- how phil gramm's and his life. he created the enron scam with kenny boy. host care to respond? guest: you are kind of a non- kind person and i feel bad for the people who have to live with you every day. phil gramm is a wonderful person and his wife as well. they are both, i uerstand, quite happy in private life. if you had a chance to sit down with them and talk about their happiness, one of the things that would say that one of things that is so wonderful about bein of three citizen in private life is that i don't have to listen to barbsrom people who got a mean, nasty attitude i bet they are enjoying the fact that they did not watch the show this morning. host: we will go to the republican line, wyoming. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have watched for years the stock market going up and down. and social security being talked about. it is goingo be insolvent. i am getting close to the age when i am going to be looking adt it, hopefully 10 years. i am really concerned that we need to do something so that we do not give it to the pirates out there on wall street what do we do to make sure they are more honest with our money? guest: well, i mean -- i don't know, it it sounds like you are about 60 years o. take a look of the money you put into social security during all your working years, and how it grew or did not grow, the return, the level of annuity benefits you get when you are , and compare that with what you would have done having put the same amount of money into the stock market or an annuity program there. now, having done that, recognize that that money that you have put into your private savings account and is now due t you in your old age, at your choice, when you want to start a new peace and flopped -- start annuities and flow money back to you, is a mter of contract law. at the age of 60 today, here is what i would be worried about -- five ars from now, if i am 65 and i go to apply for social security and they asked me to report on the other private savings and other sources of retirement income and they see that, indeed, i have done well at taking care of myself in addition to social security, they are very likely to tell you, "i'm sorry, but you are not getting your retirement back." the same government would prosecute the private enterprise a firm that holds your 401k, but they did that, and is very likely today to do that to you. watch the next five years and see where you got the best return on your investment, in the private sector, wre you saved and grew, or the public sector, where you grew at a governme >> in about 10 minutes, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell of the gop agenda. after that, more election analysis. you hear from stuart rothenberg. >> it is harmless if someone is making a star elton britt the spears or share -- someone is making a star out of britney spears or cher. they may not be what they are cracked up to be. chaos and mayhem come to rain. >> henry kissinger, robert mcnamara, double rooms filled -- just some of the policy leaders critique by a derek leebaert. this weekend on "afterwards", the 12 u.s. presidents elected since world war ii, their achievements and failures. they are interviewed by richard smith. that is on but tv on c-span to. president obama has invited congressional leaders to the white house in a couple of weeks. he spoke for about 10 minutes before today's cabinet meeting. >> i console some of our democratic friends about the results. it is clear the voters sent a message. they want us to focus on the economy and jobs and move this country for. they are concerned about making sure that taxpayer money is not wasted. they want to change the tone here in washington. that is where the two parties are coming together to focus on the people rather than focusing on political points. i had a meeting with my cabinet and key staff. i let them know that we have to take those efforts to heart. we have to make a sincere and consistent effort to try to change all washington operates. the people around this table have done extra year -- extraordinary work in their agencies. they have cooperated consistently with congress. they are interested in bipartisan ideas. they are going to be entered goal with helping me root out waste in government and make it more efficient. they will help generate more ideas to weaken the american people back to work. at the same time, obviously what is going to be critically important over the coming months is creating a better working relationship between this white house and the congressional leadership that is coming in as well as the leadership that carries over from the previous congress. i want everybody to know that i have called mitch mcconnell, john boehner, harry reid, and nancy pelosi to invite them to a meeting at the white house the first week of lame-duck on november 18. we need to move the agenda for. it will not just be a photo opportunity. the immediate focus is going to be what we need to get done during the lame-duck session. i mentioned yesterday that we have to act in order to assure that middle-class families do not see a big tax hike because of how the bush tax cuts were structured. it is very important that we extend those middle-class tax provisions. there is a whole range of economic issues that have to be addressed. unemployment insurance for people who are still out there looking for work, business expenditures to encourage businesses to invest here in the united states. if we do not have those, we are losing a very important tool to increase business investment and job growth over the coming year. we have to provide businesses some certainty about what their tax landscapes will look like. we have to provide families with certainty. that is critical to maintain our recovery. i should mention that in addition to those economic issues, there are some things during the lame-duck -- there are some for policies that will be very important for us to deal with. one in particular is the start treaty. we have negotiated with the russians to reduce our nuclear arms. this has traditionally received strong bipartisan support. we have people like george shultz who helped to organize or control treaties with the russians that when it was the soviet indian. he has come out in favor of this. this is not a traditionally democratic or republican issue, but rather an issue of american national security. i am hopeful we can get that done before we leave and sent a strong signal to russia that we are serious about reducing nuclear arsenals, but also sent a signal to the world that we are serious about non- proliferation. we have to send a message to iran that they are isolated internationally. we are serious about taking our responsibilities when it comes to naught revelation. that has to continue. there will be a whole range of work that has to be done in a short time. i am looking forward to having a conversation with the leadership. the last point i will make, i had invited the newly elected democratic and republican governors to the white house. it is a terrific opportunity to hear from them -- the folks working at the state and local levels about what ideas they think washington needs to be paying more attention to. a lot of times things are a little less ideological when you get governors together because they have very practical problems that they have to solve. how did they make sure that roads and bridges or funded? how did they make sure schools stay open and teachers stay on the job? that kind of nuts and bolts stuff, the kind of common sense approach that the american people, i think, are looking for right now. we have a lot of work to do. people are still catching their breath from the election. the deficit is still selling. the one thing i am absolutely certain of is the american people do not want us just standing still. they do not want us engaged in gridlock. they want us to do the people's business, partly because they understand that the world is not standing still. i am it will be leaving tomorrow for india. the primary purpose is to have some u.s. companies to open up markets that we can sell in agents -- in asia. and we can create jobs here in the united states of america. my hope is we have some specific announcements that show the connection between what we are doing overseas and what happens here at home when it comes to job and economic growth. the bottom line is that all around the world countries are moving. they are serious about competing. they are serious about competing with us, not just on manufacturing, but on services. they are competing with us when it comes to educational attainment, when it comes to scientific discovery. so we cannot afford two years of partisanship. we need to pull together. private sector with the public sector. we need to make sure that america retains its competitiveness, retains its leadership in the world. that is something i am very much looking forward to and happy to be a part of. thank you, everybody. >> senator minority leader, mitch mcconnell, also talked about the elections today and the republican agenda. this is a little less than one hour. >> on behalf of all my colleagues, it is my pleasure to welcome you here this morning. ladies and gentlemen, to paraphrase the vice president of the united states, tuesday was a big deal. it was a seismic rejection of the left's agenda. to quote the president of the united states, elections have consequences. the election is over. the battleships to public policy questions. we move from the arena of electoral politics to that a policy politics. that is what we are involved in at the heritage foundation. with our more than 700,000 members around the country, we work every day to build an america where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourished. to every policy, we fight alongside our allies on capitol hill for the success of our ideas. just yesterday released our top priorities in the form of the checklist for washington to cut spending, to repeal obamacare, to stop tax increases, to protect america, and to stop stifling regulations. over the last two years, senator mitch mcconnell and other beleaguered conservatives in the congress have boldly and in many cases successfully toed the line against many initiatives that would have moved the country in what we believe is the wrong direction. senator mcconnell has led the good guys in battle over health care, campaign finance, real tax reform, sensible for defense policy, and so many other policy issues. for all of that, senator, we are grateful. we are happy to work with you and your reinforcements as they arrived in the capital of the next few weeks and we look forward to the policy of battle and the policy discussions in the months ahead. mitch mcconnell was first elected to the united states senate in 1984. he has been the republican leader of the united states senate since 2007. it is my great pleasure to welcome back to the heritage foundation senator mitch mcconnell. taken away, mitch. [applause] >> thank you very much. let me start by telling you how grateful conservatives all across america are that you have found this organization and a lead it so exceptionally and successfully these many years. [applause] i would be remiss if i did not also congratulate you on your good judgment in having among your distinguished fellows the most conservative secretary of labor in american history and the only cabinet member of the bush administration to serve from beginning to end. i am speaking of my roommate. [applause] over the past two years, the american people look at what was going on in washington and they became increasingly worried. not only were democratic leaders ignoring our nation's ongoing job crisis, their big government policies, and out-of-control spending which causes some to wonder about the future of the american dream itself. americans worry about the consequences of a $14 trillion debt. about a health care bill that creates 159 new bureaucratic entities including two massive new entitlement programs. they worry about all of the bailouts. they worry about every other piece of legislation that seemed like it was designed to kill jobs rather than create them. most of all they worry about what some have called the european his asian -- some have called the europeanization of america. two days ago, those worries gave way to a new optimism. for the past two years, democratic lawmakers chose to ignore the american people. on tuesday the american people chose new lawmakers. they held their elective representatives into account. that is what the founding fathers had in mind for the midterm elections. they demonstrated to all of us the -- the constitutional conservatism is alive and well. there is a reason for republicans to blunt. it is a time for both parties to realize who is really in charge -- the people. to be grateful for the opportunity we now have to turn the ship around. tuesday was indeed a referendum, not a choice. it was a report card on the administration and anyone who supported it's agenda, plain and simple. it does not take a room full of political scientist to figure that out. americans voted for change in the last two elections because of two difficult wars and they hope the changing of the guard would stabilize the economy and get america moving again. then the people they elected set about dismantling the free market, handing out political favors at taxpayer expense, expanding government, and creating more -- creating a more precarious future for our children. democratic leaders used the crisis of the moment to advance an agenda americans did not ask for and could not afford. then they ignored and dismissed anyone who dared to speak out against them. the voters did not suddenly fall in love with republicans. we know that. they fell out of love with democrats. while they may have voted to send more republicans to washington, they are sending them here with a clear -- with clear marching orders. very clear marching orders. stop the big government freight train and respect the will of the people who sent you there. as churchill once observed, courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. i cannot think of a better way to sum up tuesday's election than that. this morning i would like to talk a little bit more about how we got here and the task ahead. i wanted to do it here at the heritage foundation because for nearly 40 years, heritage has played a crucial role in promoting and defending the principles of free enterprise, limited government, freedom, and a strong defense. in other words, the very principles of the american people voted to uphold in tuesday's historic election. first, how we got here. let's cast our minds back for a moment too early 2009. week" cover from early february sums up the conventional wisdom in washington at that time. this was the headline. it read, "we are all socialist now." all lotus note parenthetically that newsweek was sold for less than the cover price of a single copy of the magazine. hopefully the democrats will not bail them out, too. while the media was still groping to define the 2008 election, republicans were taking stock. we knew the principles that had made our party great were the same principles that made america great. if we were going to solve the problems of the day, we would have to embrace and explain those principles, not discard or conceal them. so we renewed our commitment to core principles win, lose, or draw. if we had not done this, the administration would have never suffered the consequences for pushing policies americans oppose. americans would not have had a clear alternative. that is why this, in my view, is the single most important thing that republicans in congress did to prepare the ground for tuesday's election, by sticking together in principle and opposition to policies we've viewed as harmful. we made it perfectly clear to the american people where we stood. we gave voters a real choice. at the same time we made it perfectly clear from the beginning that if president obama proposed policies that were consistent with our principles we would work with them. just two days after the inauguration, i made a public offer to accept the president's campaign promise of post partisanship by proposing to work with them on a number of goals that he himself had suggested, such as reforming entitlements, reducing the debt, decreasing our energy independence, and lowering taxes to create jobs. but it turned out the white house had different plans. their strategy from the start was to gordon -- was to govern a hard left and use their big majorities to push back the most left-wing agenda possible and helping americans would forget the details and the unseemly process over a period of time. the democrats' idea of consensus was for republicans to do what every man is dead -- whenever the administration wanted us to do. that is why they plowed ahead with one piece of legislation after another written by liberals for liberals. by the spring of 2009, they had given us ample opportunity to stand up for the principles of limited government, lower taxes, and a strong defense. first they called for the closing of guantanamo without any plan for housing the terrorist who were held there. they had forced through their stimulus. the bill out of boot makers that should have been allowed to reorganize or fail. it should not be lost on anybody that the only ones who refused the bailout, ford is the one that is doing the best today. as democrats covered left, republicans did together time and time again. making the case for conservative alternatives. over the course of 19 months, democrats added 3 treen dollars to the debt, more than 2.5 million americans would lose their jobs, and republicans would win races in states that voted solidly for democrats in 2008. states like virginia, new jersey, and of all places, massachusetts. clearly the democratic agenda was not the change americans had hoped for. republicans were offering a clear alternative. that was the message of those races and that was the message on tuesday. the question now is whether americans were wise to entrust republicans with the task of reversing the damage. in answer, i would argue that republicans can be trusted with the task voters have given us, not because we say so, but because we have already been at it for two years. we have shown that we share the priorities the people have voiced. we have fought to defend them, now we are ready to get back to work on their behalf. which raises a practical question -- what can americans expect from republicans now? let's start with the big picture. over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority of the next two years should be to deny it to the obama a second term. but the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the help spending bill, to end the bailouts, cut spending, and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do those things is to put somebody in the white house will not veto any of these things. we can hope the president will listen to the electorate after tuesday's election, but we cannot plan on that. and it would be foolish to expect that republicans will be able to completely reverse the damage democrats have done as long as a democrat holds the veto pen. there is no getting around it. by their own admission, leaders of the republican revolution in 1994 think the greatest mistake was overlooking the power of the veto. they gave the impression they were somehow in charge when they were not. after president clinton vetoed their bills, making it impossible for them to accomplish all their goals, they were viewed as failures, sellouts, or both. today, democrats not only have the white house, they had the senate as well. we have to be realistic about what we can and cannot achieve while at the same time recognizing that realism should never be confused with capitulation. on health care, that means we can and should propose and vote on straight repeal repeatedly. but we cannot expect the president to sign it. so we will also have to work in the house on denying funds for implementation and in the senate on voting against the most egregious provisions. at the same time we need to continue educating the public about the ill effects of this bill on individuals young and old, families, and small businesses. this is why oversight will play a crucial role in republican efforts going forward. we may not be able to bring about a straight repeal in the next two years and we may not win every vote against targeted provisions even though we should have but for support on some of those efforts, but we can't compel the administration officials to -- but we can't compel the administration officials to study the effects of the health care bill and show how implementation is working families, seniors, and small businesses limiting choices and making us less competitive. we welcome any help we can get in reversing the damage this bill has done and will do in the future. through oversight will also keep a spotlight on the various agencies the administration will now try to advance their regulation what it cannot to legislation, potential backdoor efforts include imposing a new national energy tax to the epa now the capt. trade is dead, additional health care provisions through hhs, and some form of immigration change to the use of administration amnesty and the selective enforcement of our walls. good oversight can also make more accountable all of the policy czars the administration has installed without any accountability to congress or the american people. another obstacle is the -- americans are more interested in a republican plan to reengineer society than they were in the democrat's plan to do so. government has limits. thank heavens. voters want us to respect them. that is why republicans will focus on doing a few things and doing them well. we will stop the liberal onslaught. we will make the case for repeal of the health spending bill even as we vote to eliminate its worst parts. we will vote to freeze and cut discretionary spending. we will fight to make sure that any spending bill that reaches the senate floor is amendable. we will push to bring up and vote for a house-passed spending recision bill. we will work hard to make sure democrats do not raise taxes on anybody, especially in the middle of a recession. we will badly oppose future stimulus bills that only stimulate the deficit and fight any further job killing regulations. we will fight tooth and nail on behalf of american struggling to find and create jobs. when it comes to educating the public about the effects of democratic legislation, which will fulfill our constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch through smart, aggressive oversight. we will scrutinize democratic legislation and force them to defend it. we will continue to make the case that the democrats' big government vision endures freedom, prosperity, and opportunity. while it may benefit some in the short term, it exposes everyone to calamity down the road. i believe the voters will be pleased but for what they did on tuesday and republicans will be in a much better position to reverse the worst excesses in the last two years and make the change we want and need. meanwhile, republican governors will show at the state level that the kind of change we want is not only possible, but also effective in cutting waste, creating jobs, and showing that government can work for the people, not against them. tareq this will help to by arming us with ideas like the check list on getting americans back to work. tea party activists will continue to energize our party and challenge us to follow through on our commitments. none of this is to say that republicans have given up cooperative with the president. the american people reminded us this week that we work for them and we owe it to them and future generations to work together to find solutions to present troubles and to help guide our nation to better days. but as i see it, the white house has a choice. they can change course or they can double down on a vision of government that the american people have a rally late rejected. if they choose the former, they will find a partner in republicans. if they do not, we will have more disagreements ahead. the formula is simple. when the administration agrees with the american people, we will agree with the administration. when it disagrees with the american people, we will not. this has been our posture from the beginning of this administration and we intend to stick with it. if the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction. there is no reason we cannot work together to prevent a tax hike on small businesses. there is no reason we cannot work together on energy independence, cutting spending, where increasing american exports by completing free-trade agreements. we can continue to work together to give our armed forces in afghanistan, iraq, and around the world whenever they need to accomplish their mission. so this morning light we extend an offer that has been on the table for two years to cooperate on shared goals. because ultimately this is not about an election. it is about doing what is best for our country. the american people want us to put aside the left-wing wish list and work together on helping to create jobs and restore the economy to health and prosperity. there is no reason the two parties cannot work together on achieving these goals. but whether or not the administration has a mid-course correction, republicans have a plan for following through on the wishes of the american people. it starts with gratitude and a certain humility for the task we have been handed. it means sticking ever more closely to conservative principles that got us here. it means learning the lessons of history. above all, it means listening to the people who sent us here. if we all do this, we will finish the job. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, very much. that was wonderful. questions? please keep the questions short and pointed. no speeches from the floor, please. >> i am matt dover. the fed just announced it is going to buy $600 billion in federal debt. will republicans try and pass legislation to prevent or restrict this? >> i was having a hard time picking up your voice. you're asking about spending and debt? the two pieces of the puzzle -- #one is annual discretionary spending. -- number one is annual discretionary spending. i do not have an opinion on that at this point. >> senator? craig fergusen -- the u.k. tax reform is an issue you can work together with democrats on? >> the first thing we have to do is make sure taxes do not go up. we have a tax rate that has been in place for almost a decade. our friends on the other side, at least some of them, were divided on this issue. they thought it was a good idea to have a tax increase for some people. we will have a very serious question about whether we will prevent a tax increase on anybody or anything at the first of the year. that needs to be resolved first. tax reform is a huge, complicated issue. i am always interested in tackling back, but in the short term, we have to make sure that taxes do not go up on anybody. by the way, there is bipartisan opposition to raising taxes on anybody. we are up to 40 house democrats say they agree with the republicans and we should not be raising taxes on anybody. there are at least five senate democrats that say the same thing. you have heard the president and others say that this is just a tax increase on the rich. when you get down to defining what that means, a tax increase on the top two races would affect small businesses in this country that pay taxes as individuals, not as corporations. it would affect 50% of small business income and 25% of the work force. this is a serious tax increase in the middle of the recession. it is a bad idea. i hope we will come together during the lame-duck and agree to extend the current tax policies for everyone. >> what do you think right now is the very top priority for people out there? what do you think the people that voted this wave of conservatives want done first? >> i think people are interested in spending, debt, and private sector job creation. they have taken a look at the effects of borrowing money from foreigners that will have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren and what kind of impact that has on job creation. they do not see much evidence of that. i think most americans think we should be stimulating job growth in the private sector. so, spending, debt, job creation in the private sector or the things i think americans -- are the things, i think, americans are upset about. it is at the root of the success we had last tuesday. >> you have been quoted as saying the election debut a mandate -- the election gave you a mandate. >> i am not sure i remember saying that? >> you did not say that? >> it sounds pretty good. >> [laughter] >> i think i mentioned earlier, and let me say it again, tuesday's election was not about republicans, it was about the democrats. they got a report card. they got an f. we are not going to misread the mandate. you did not see speaker to be john boehner or myself spiking the ball in the end zone, acting like this was about us. candidly, it was about them. everybody knows that. so the mandate, if you will, for change is directed at the other guys. we are right where we have been. the wonderful thing about that, two days after the election, we know for sure that the american people agree with the policies and arguments we have over the last two years. it was very clear that republicans in the house and senate did not think this was the course to take. that is the message i take out of debt. i think we will find out in the next few days if the president takes the same message out of it. i expect his consultants are telling him privately that this was about him. he was pretty much agree to that yesterday in a press conference. we will see how they want to change direction. i have said repeatedly and i will say it again, i do not want the president to fail, i want him to change. he is one to be in office two more years. we were not sent here to do nothing. if he wants to discuss private sector job creation, he will find a willing partner in house and senate republicans. >> senator mcconnell, yesterday president obama indicated he worked with republicans on an earmarked moratorium. will you support that? >> every president, republican or democrat, would love to have a blank check from congress to do whatever he chose to do on every single issue. we will be discussing the appropriateness of giving the president that kind of blank check in the coming weeks. that is what the issue is about. as all of you know, you can eliminate every congressional earmarked and save no money. it is really an argument about discretion. we decide how much we are going to spend when we pass a budget, or in the case of this year, if we do not pass a budget but create a top line for discretionary spending. that topline indicates what will be spent. there are arguments going back to henry clay and andrew jackson between the executive and legislative branch over "to say so." that has been a much discussed issue on the campaign trail. i am sure the president would love to have a blank check. >> a number of members of your party expressed dismay with jim demint and sarabyn and for pushing tea party backed candidates. they say that while it was a great win for your party, you did not win the senate and had there been other candidates, you would have won the senate. >> we had a good day. we went from 41 to 47 at least. we'll see what happens in washington state. they have been endless process of counting. there are other precincts in washington state anymore. it goes on and on endlessly. we will have at least 47. i think that is a pretty good day. we can go back and second-guess about whether we could have had a better candidate here or there, but the primaries decided those outcomes. we are pretty happy with the outcome. i would remind everyone there were 23 democrats and only nine republicans in the next cycle. we have a realistic shot at getting into the majority in the very near future. >> my question follows on a question that was just asked witches in pushing a conservative agenda for next year, i d.c. the moderates in your caucus fitting in with that agenda and you fear it may cost them in the primaries in the next election cycle? >> i think the thing to watch in the next congress is how many democrats start voting with us. you know? we saw that there was bipartisan opposition to raising taxes. i think we are more likely to see a unified set of republicans and democrats peeling off to support our initiatives. i think every one of the 23 democrats in the next cycle had a clear understanding of what happened tuesday. i think we have major opportunities for bipartisan coalitions to support what we want to do. we will see how that develops. there is a never ending cycle of politics. the president and 23 senate democrats are in cycle. we are optimistic that maybe the 23 senate democrats will take the same message at a tuesday's election that we are pretty clear the voter's -- we are pretty clear the voters gave. >> do you have any issue with the administration on power and policy, -- demonstration on foreign policy, particularly on china because china is a very important factor in america's economic recovery? >> most republicans, in fact mostly all republicans in the senate, have allport -- have supported the president's policy in iraq. it was exercised during a previous administration. and members of the senate republicans have supported the surge in afghanistan. where i think we have some problems with regard to the president is over this whole issue of american exceptional as some, whether america really is an exceptional country and whether it is a good idea to go abroad and kind of suggest we have been wrong over a variety of different things. that is kind of then -- kind of a broad observation. with regard to any particular country or china policy, i do not really have an observation about that. >> i wanted to ask, what specifically could you find common ground on in terms of energy independence and, also, if lisa murkowski is reelected in alaska, which she continue to be the top republican on energy and natural resources? >> on energy, the president said he is for nuclear power. we are for nuclear power. the president has said he is for clean coal technology. we are for clean coal technology. there is bipartisan enthusiasm for plug in hybrid cars, reducing carbon emissions -- those are areas of potential cooperation. with regard to alaska, it is clear to me that we will have a republican senator from alaska. the process will unfold up there. that will happen over the next weeks or months and will finally determine who won. whoever it is, whether it is the -- who averages, they will be covers it with the republicans. harry and i will sit down and negotiate the ratios and size of committees and then we get to a process internally in the senate where members of committees select the ranking chairman and that is ratified by the full conference. all of that will be determined in the coming weeks. we would just have to wait and see what happens. -- we will just have to wait and see what happens. >> you mentioned repealing health care reform. you did not call for a repeal of the dodd-franc bill. what parts of that do you want to change? >> i am sorry i left that out. you cannot cover everything. i think it was a horrible bill, too. i cannot find a banker of -- i cannot find a banker in kentucky that had anything to do with the financial crisis to think this bill remotely addresses that. it was a terrible piece of legislation. health care was the worst piece of legislation passed in my time in the senate. financial-services bill is out there somewhere close to that. we will be looking at it and try to figure out how we can improve its. >> one more. >> thank you. my question is how the republican control of congressman -- republican control of congress will affect the use of troops in afghanistan. >> i think senate republicans are generally supportive of the administration's policies in afghanistan and iraq. i do not see the senate or the house having an impact over the current policy of this administration in both afghanistan and pakistan. >> thank you very much, everyone. [applause] >> thank you, senator mcconnell, to take time out of your busy schedule to be with us this morning. ladies and gentlemen, we or adjourned. -- we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> questions about senator mcconnell said comments came up today at the white house briefing. this portion is just a few minutes. >> if yes, ma'am? >> if the administration wants cooperation for the next few years, you have to move in the republicans' direction. >> i think first and foremost the message of tuesday's election was the american people want both political parties to work together. there will be time for another political campaign, but we just finished one. the candidates were not elected to have more fighting in washington or reflected battles of the past two years. what the president has said today in inviting senator mcconnell and other leaders to the white house on november 18 is to sit down, listen to each other, work together, and find common ground. i think that is what the election was about and that is what the president is intending to do. >> when you hear these remarks from mcconnell, the you think republicans think they walked away with the same message? >> i think that if you look at candidates, they typically did not portray washington as a place where people work together. given those down and extenders' images, what they are looking for is what this campaign's were about -- working together. the president, yesterday, signaled his intention to work with republicans on extending tax cuts. our first priority, obviously, being the middle class. to work with republicans on education policy and to work with them on energy independence. they are not wedded to all those ideas. i hope that senator mcconnell comes to the white house with that in mind in a couple of weeks. >> the president is open to possible compromise on the tax credits? >> we are certainly open to listening to their position, talking about it, and working together to find a compromise that news this issue forward. our biggest concern is if this congress does not act by the end of the year, taxes for middle- class families is going to go up. we cannot and we should not let that happen. we have the power to change that. i think the powers sitting together and coming up with a plan that works for both sides. >> 10 house races are still undecided after the elections, including two seats each in california and arizona. next year's congress would have wondered 89 democrats and 21 to 39 republicans. all senate races that are undecided or seats held by democrats. in the next senate, there will be at least 50 democrats, 46 republicans, and two independents. two races in washington and alaska are undecided. in that race in washington, the seattle times is reporting that patty murray's lead continues to grow this afternoon as she won more than 2/3 of the vote calculated today in the seattle area. >> it is only going to occur if the people of our country began to get involved in the political system and began to run for congress and make the changes that are necessary. >> john boehner on a c-span new members roundtable in 1990. you can learn more about the speaker of the house in his own words in over 800 appearances at the c-span in a little more than an hour, stuart rothernberg. later, president obama on his invitation to congressional leaders to a white house meeting. several live in states have you about. we will have more election coverage. that is life and sees them2 5 6:00 a.m. -- that is live on c- span2 at 6:00 a.m. eastern. participants include former ambassador to iraq ryan crocker. on c-span, a forum on the election. panelists include bill kristol and fred barnes and the .xaminers michael >> this weekend on american history tv, who will show you some of the art created by japanese americans in internment camps. we will take a look at the increasing freedom of women in the early american republic. all weekend, every weekend on c- span3. >> and now a roll call discussion of what the elections mean for congress and president obama. this is a little more than an hour. >> good morning. welcome to the second session to. let me briefly introduce myself. i am the newly minted managing editor of cq weekly magazine having moved from political and the washington post. there are different kinds of publications. when the things the editor has to do is go back and previous how the news media coverage of their elections once the results were in. i went back into the 1980 posted to do that. it was a humbling experience to do what we said each election. if you is humiliating. almost without fail, we were in not only wrong, we were dead wrong. we have a tendency to declare things did that where a life and a life that where dead. realignments never done this. we are in the business a short- term observation. that is why we call our panelists predict a . they had seen it before. they understand where it may lead. they understand what is possible and what is not. is a column called "permanent campaign, " it is a brilliant description of what happened to the elected government in the united states. i think it still holds third to this day. you can get a free if you google properly. >> we are going to start with more today. item think they need an introduction. the question is, what is the agenda? i will start by holding up this comment. if voters want the two parties to work together. it starts off as some analysis of the polls. will the politicians listened? energy dependent say is second rate. chances are they will spend the next two years struggling to win the 2012 elections for the of >> that is what i fair. -- elections. >> that is what i fear. the debt bomb is the most serious long term. very shortly we will be spending seven and a billion dollars a year paying interest on the national debt. we are borrowing $700 billion from china to build weapons remain have to build someday. it makes no sense. it is a balance of power. these are problems that the system has got to address. everyone knows it from th when it comes to doing it, if the kind of says never get taken. i fear they will not be taken. we have a chance when the commission reports. i doubt they will come up with what will put it into automatic attention of the congress. there will be a lot of ideas there. if the congress is willie willing to tackle this problem today is really willing to tackle this problem and they can work it out, maybe something can be done. i fear because the president will be pulled by the left, i do not think he is bill clinton. i think his mindset is that of a liberal democrat. there are certain things that are out of bounds. there will be shaking off any time any leader intends to make a compromise with this. rush limbaugh and sarah palin are saying not sit compromise. these air make a lot of gridlocks. -- these are the making of gridlocks. there are other things than a and b done. -- that can be done that they can work on. one of them is education reform. no child left behind needs to be read authorized. arne duncan and barack obama are doing things where they are really taking on the teachers' union. that can be done almost immediately after they agree on extending the bush tax cuts. there are things that can be done. i have a whole list of them. i am pessimistic. >> on that uplifting note, tom. >> thank you very much. what a pleasure to come back. norman and i started these conferences in 1980. this is 30 years later. we began with that extraordinary 1980 reaction. think of 94, 2000, 2006. everything seems to change in the media aftermath. we tried to figure out what is going on. alas, oftentimes the immediate take makes them claim a mandate in defined in meaning of the election and for others to pull out their ideological frame that they apply every day to their jobs in their life. we figured it is useful to sit back and see if we can imagine what stream of political activity in developments, what structures exist that might help us get through this. before launching into that, i am always reminded of a story of when something happens in an election. this one is perfect. most of the swatch of the obama press conference -- most of us watched the obama press conference. he said he did not give the reporters what they wanted in that he indicateing heard the message of the people and he is prepared to do all disposition and rejects his health reform bill and believes that stimulus is important. he did not. they were not happy. obama was even less happy than the others. i kept thinking and imagining what he was really thinking when the words were coming out of his mouth. file is reminded of that famous story that some of you have heard before about the presidential democratic nomination contest of 1976. he was up against jimmy carter and other candidates. carter kept coming in just ahead of him in new hampshire and down south. it is very frustrating. he is a perennial second finisher in all of these races. they finally came to the progressive state of wisconsin. it was there he would make his stand. on election night, the return for coming in. -- the returns were coming in. it took hours for them to come in. now it takes weeks. he decided he had to get a little sleep. a staffer will come up. the late returns were from the rural areas. jimmy carter actually got the votes to win go ahead. udall said to call a press conference. his staff did. he said the people have spoken. the bastards. i am sure that is how many democrats are feeling today. but we had was a 6.5 swing in the national vote toward the republican party. we have had that kind of swing several times and the last decade when we have been doing that seminar. it produced more turnover. republicans could move up to 65. it did not produce a majority in the senate. what i was struck by in reading the papers this morning, it is a rejection of liberalism. it is the country signaling that this administration has gone too far to the left. i am just struck by how much my town be is captured by a ideological thinking. there is a belief that when a politician has a bad election is because they have swung too far away from the center. it is all about ideological positioning. in my own view, and it is not rocket science to see what has happened. we came out of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. the recovery is painfully slow. the democrats were in power. it is a midterm election. the economy was in dreadful shape. the whole nature changed from a presidential trade greek from a presidential -- from a presidential to a mid term. of course it'll be a big swing toward the republicans. they identify as conservatives for moderates. the scene to be trailing rather than leading indicators. they were getting scared, really scared about what is going on and seeing big active government. not only did the big government not help, it goes really because of all these problems. if we put it back, we will return to some kind of nirvana. with almost never ask this. it is considered elitist. what did the public is wrong about the policy and legitimately concerned about the consequences of what is going on in the face of a recession that could turn into a depression. hats off to george w. bush for doing what had to be done in a crisis despite of the unpopularity. i would say the same for the stimulus. you are going to criticize that it is because it is too small and and and and not too large. the same for the auto company bailout. you can apply that city new agenda. how will we produce new jobs? if we do not get growth going, you cannot cut spending. it will overwhelm any savings from spending alone. one of the sad thing is is that they a party coming in now is articulating an agenda that is not have a chance of doing anything about the problems that are consuming the american public right now. he talked about the desire of the public for people in congress working together. i think that reflects a basic ceiling they have always had. they like to see politicians coming together and doing the right thing. the right thing differs. they do not accept that there are profound differences on how to go about this problem. this has reinforced and theological polar is a sham. i do not think there is a way of dealing with the deficits are finding any policy. i think we ought to understand that the public has to be brought into this in more substantial ways if we are going to get anything done. >> let me start by saying that the elections are not over. my eyes are turned to alaska. i'm waiting with bated breath to see if levi johnston can get into the double digits to springboard to bigger things. i want to start with a story i've told many times before as a cautionary note, it is a story that takes place in medicare will school. the professor turns to the class and says -- and what human organ when appropriately estimate rose to eight times its normal size. she says i refuse to answer that question. he looks around a room and says mr. porter. the people of the human eye when it entered a darkroom. one of you did not do your homework. to come and have a dirty mind. three comic york -- three, you are doomed to live a life of unfulfilled expectations f. [applause] that apply to liberals after -- apply to liberals fid. the argument about whether voters have swung toward a much smaller government i found quite striking. a cnn poll of fat ass, what is the first thing you want government to do? coming out on top by a very wide margin was an economic stimulus. they want to take a meat ax to government. was there is no doubt though we have more people who self identified as conservatives, americans are pragmatic. they go for what works. if it is government that is working, that is fine. once the private sector it screws up, and they will look for something else. the most interesting statement came from john boehner. well i new majority will serve as your voice, we must remember is the president who says the agenda for our government. you could have won a two interpretations. the first is that the civic them isng for ou abysmal. my guess is that level framers would be spinning in their graves at the notion that it is the president to set the agenda for our country. our president is the executive who disposes of the agenda set by congress. i do not think that john boehner is ignorant. it has become an effort to lower expectations and try in dampen the fervor of new people coming in that may say it is not about us to believe that it is and to really do want to turn up the heat and pass an agenda. for both parties, some of the most interesting struggles will be internal. for the republicans, it is a set of pragmatic leaders whose goal is to win elections. the second goal is to win a majority in the senate and keep the majority in the house. 11 members did not come in with that as their primary goal. they dramatically reverse the policy course that this thing said in washington. there of a lot of elements of tension there the uighur reflected in a rather stunning statement of jim demint as a cautionary note to the new members. they come up with policies. it has nothing to do with a working together. i never heard a politician say to incoming members, and never mind the committee's you will serve on. jim demint has been like the neighborhood freddie krueger living down the street. obama move sharply to the left. if he has, why is the left so dissatisfied? they are. the fourth statement was election eve and russ feingold saying it goes on where to 2012. i am not sure that means he is already planning a primary challenge from the left to barack obama. it may mean he is looking toward what future he will have. i am sure it'll be a robust one. it is a suggestion that there are headaches for the president and head. as to the fed some areas where cooperation is possible, let's start with trade. there is organized labor. john klein is not going to be inclined to do anything on that front in the house of representatives. this will be another burr under their saddle. kenny make a compromise and still keep his own base intact? before we get to the agenda, we have to navigate through a very difficult lame duck session. one critical question is, can they reach some kind of an agreement to pump the tax issue of for another year? we will be watching to see whether the campaign that began a couple of months ago will look delegitimize the lame duck session. it'll make it more difficult to do the kind of thing 7 pragmatic republican leaders would prefer to push off. tax increases will take place on january 1. it will be a jolt to people in a whole host of ways. some of her constituents why killed herself that she is the elderly people on dialysis to pull the plug so that they would not screw their children out of other properties that they had. it may do take notice. beyond the estate tax, and a fragile economy take a sharp increase for everybody? how long will it take to reach the kind of agreement that might continue things for a year? will they push this forward a few months? to therobably the government. we will have to major ethics trial is taking place during .his lame duck session for th it fell apart before the election when republicans demanded that the trials which take place before the election. it is another practical. several members were in a tough reelection battle for himself -- themselves. partisan pitched battles over issues. there is little doubt that the policy agenda in congress will be a constrained one. we will move from the most productive congress to warn the least productive in our lifetime. how much can they do fear regulatory power and bureaucratic action? the "wall street journal" will discover article one of the constitution buried in its files. you'll find a lot of people in congress with a tug-of-war over the use of executive power. they have a longstanding bias. they will suddenly change as it is controlled by people they do not like. it is going to bring this into a completely different venue. we will see some action on energy. that is an area where there could be a significant amount of common ground. one of the most interesting to be over in share structure. we did over infrastructure. they want a major move made. the new members coming in do not want a major new area of government spending in infrastructure. can they get their act together? it is a very interesting area. >> well i think some of you are playing down the notion that there is a message from the voters here, norm mentioned that the republicans have taken a message away from this. what people want is a germanic reversal in the course of government. whether that is an accurate definition, that does seem to be the agenda of the republican party. my question, and a star with healthcare, i like to ask each of you what conceivably might republicans the able to do on health care. how might they respond? >> it presents a view is willing to tweak the health care bill. the republicans are calling for repeal and replace. i think that many of them think that providing health care to the uninsured is something that is not explicitly referred to in the constitution and is therefore illegitimate. you have a fairly wide range of opinions about what to do about health care. the 1099 form that congress required that every transaction that any business conducts of any kind over $600 has got to have a 1099 form issued about its is deemed by everybody to be onerous. it is a fund-raising mechanism purda. it will certainly be pulled out of the bill. the republicans really think fed repealing -- that repealing the health care bill is a job creator. they believe small business looks at this -- and i am now quoting lamar alexander a very moderate republican who said that he was with the chain restaurant owners predicted they claimed to him -- owners. they claimed to him that the health care bill is going to put a burden of $40,000 per employee on administrative taxes, mandates, all of that. that encouraged them to have less employees. thatblicans believe fade substantially amending health care is a major item on their agenda. this has the makings of a total breakdown of the government. i can well see that the republicans in the house of going to pass bills one after the other after the other to repeal and inhibits the implementation of the health care bill. there is a 22 page document that was issued today by erick kanter that talks about the steps that the house republicans envisioned putting into of fact. one of the items in fact is to bar the irs from the funds that it takes to implement the health care bill. this is not only a savings but it is a way of throttling the implementation of this. if they do not appropriate the money, this in his the ability to follow through on health care. it could be the making of a government shutdown. i do not see it coming to terms syrup. coming to terms here. the democrats believe their highest priority woke was due care access to health insurance to the 51 million that were uninsured. of the republicans care about was lowering the cost. i do not see how they ever come to terms on this. >> i think it will be a source of conflict between the parties over the next two years. i think republicans will encounter great difficulties. i cannot remember whether it to carol or bob that reported on the exit polls. the republicans are divided on this. if there is not a majority favoring repeal of health care. if anything, leave it alone or strengthen it. it really gets hard. economic repeal it with the senate. you can harassed bureaucrats. we will see a lot of that. i think obama would veto and shut down hhs. let's have social security checks not go out because of disagreements between the president and the republicans in the congress. they are running so fast to keep ahead of his troops. here is the other thing i anticipate. there is a philosophical e.fference fr it is a dramatically different from what the republicans are prepared to do now. there were substantial subsidies for individuals on low income households. mitch pulled the plug. he said your all of this bill. we are not negotiated over health care. even if we turned it to a bill more to our liking, obama and the democrats would get credit. we would not have the kind of political success the ones. there is less principled and less partisanship for th. almost all of them are very popular. tax credits for small businesses that led to a market increase in a number of insurance -- all the other insurance provisions were quite popular. i predict the senate will hold hearings well people come forward to talk about the favorable elements of the health care bill now. that will begin to get away from the rhetoric of government takeover of health care and socialized medicine. >> i find some of the arguments somewhat surreal. if you look at what some have said, this is the kind of plan with some problems that moderately conservative republicans have put forward as the alternative to the clinton bill in the early 1990's. many ideas coming out of the right. debatews how much of the bas and dialogue had shifted. thinks this is the best way to bring some change to the process. i'm a little bit of a skeptic. we have this notion of the of by people by credit cards everything will be just fine. what happened? it was a race to the bottom? every moment to the state a given day least regulation. this put to a new little bit of a tricky ground. this started with repeal. of course, we will keep the popular things. no more pre-existing conditions from t. how you get to the point where there is no more a pre-existing condition unless you vastly expand the risk pool. why pay for insurance? you have to have a different kind this system. the logic led to predict your you going to believe? -- the logic that led to the notion of a mandate. are you going to repeal the end of lifetime and annual limit? we used to think $2 million lifetime limits, who could read that? a couple of weeks in the emergency -- intensive care unit and you are bumping up against that. he cannot begin to unravel something without having other consequences. that will be difficult. one thing john boehner said was we are going to first move to repeal the $550 billion in medicare cuts that make most of the financing of this program. i was a little bemused that he used the word cut. democrats talked about cuts during the reagan administration and republican said how unfair that was. now cuts are back. think of what happens if they put out a proposal to eliminate all those things. you also have to deal with medicare. if you do not do with medicare, you will not have a plan to do with the fiscal problems. if you get an attack on medicare, you come up with a plan that says we are going to tackle social security believe the defense. we will cut off the taxes. you not have an agreement. this moves into a very tricky territory. i agree it could and probably will lead to a least one of the many shutdowns in government that we have. the bigger thing to watch for is when the debt limit is approaching some time in the spring. >> which leads me to a second related question. how will the debt limit, this urge of the electorate that once to dramatically cut spending, how will that manifest itself? how far will it get? how will we see a play out? >> this is clearly a part of republican party to delay spending. it is a structural imbalance between revenues and expenditures. ironically, it is almost all symbolic. laying off federal employees is one of the dumbest things you can do when the economy is in the shape it is now. ed'll probably have limit impact on the deficit itself. it is anti-stimulus at a time when others are calling for more stimulus. i think it will be there. they will come back. they will try to stay away from specifics. i have death machiavellian view of this. what would keep barack obama from being reelected? one would be a challenge in the primaries. we never get out of this slow growth 2% or over. republicans cutting spending probably increases the probability of more immediate pain, fewer jobs, lower growth. >> i view the next few years as a great empathetic game of chess if you like. maybe if this checkers. both sides will try to maneuver the other one in to the blame for what does not happen. just think about this for a second. in order to give back to 5% unemployment, we have to agree to a new thousand jobs a month for five years. we are currently creating jobs at the rate of 12,000 jobs a month. the fastest growth in history, post-war history, was 90,000 a month. they give you some idea of how far short we are doing what we need to do in order to restore the economy to health. i submit that that is not a ^ for anybody's. a good sign for anybody's reelection. they are going to the judge, too. obama is one to be judged for short on whether he can get something going. all i see is an inability to get stuff done and the maneuvering over who will get money for it. >> let me take you back to john boehner. is the president who says the agenda for our government. you can blame us. you are right. we will see questions of shifting of lamb. -- shifting of blame. we will see if obama can be as agile as clinton was with a speaker who is not want to have anywhere near the power to overreach and create a backlash in the power of this -- over his own colleagues. can boehner do that? the fact that eric kanter is coming out with a 22 page majority leader's agenda -- never mind what the speaker has pence -- and that mike hens is saying the only kind of compromise if they want is capitulation. never mind if i have another hurricane or oil spill. the owners may get the bulk of their reaction, some of these changes will impinge against them. >> are you saying he is a greater threat to the republican leadership and freddie krueger? >> i am saying in the nightmares that john boehner may have over the next few months, there may be at least some of their own colleagues. in the end, it is the president to is held accountable, even though the president is not in a position to deliver. i think one of the unfortunate things about washington talk, everything is so symmetrical. we do not look at the substance of what is going on. we some money to get higher growth. i do not know anyone that argues that cutting spending in the short term will increase jobs for growth. we ought to be able to say that. the president has discovered one of the dilemmas. we are parliamentary like parties. we do not have maggiore -- .ajoritarian rule if we did, obama would have put a larger stimulus into play. reform would have been passed in three years. he could have made adjustments. it will ultimately be held accountable. it gets worse because of the republican opposition. >> a few other things might actually work and began to creep some stimulus. we knew the incoming chairman of the ways and means committee is action engaged in conversations with the senate about tax reform. you could see a deal that would involve a pretty dramatic transformation of our tax system that the part of a larger package. the odds of that happening are not great for the. even with this gulf between the parties, there may be something that can be done. >> there is an idea that bill has been promoting and he is not alone. this is an independent institution free from politics that will pick out significant infrastructure projects based on merit. basically, it will leverage a small amount of government money and attract in a lot more private money to get it off the sidelines in order to develop major systems. obama -- he proposed that back in 2008 and then forgot about. suddenly, it has re-emerged. i have seen in his policy prescriptions indication that he is willing to move a little bit. the infrastructure base is one. yesterday, he said the most important thing we have to do is make sure that small business is hiring and that business is the foundation of our economy purdah this is different from the tone you have heard from the administration a lot. the small-business bill contained a lot of tax breaks for small business. it may be that the sun has dawned on the it ministration and that the private sector is where the jobs created. improving the climate is what they have to do. if that is to come and they can sit down with republicans and say, how do we do this? i think it is largely tax cuts. >> they have a model that obama has enthusiastically supported. it is exactly the same thing to create jobs. >> these would work. more than a tax cut, it would increase demand for de it is holding back confidence that there will be enough vitality and demand to merit new investment. >> it is later than i thought. alibied to open it up to you folks that might have some questions. >> >> we have microphones? >> i am here from prudential financial. it seems to me that cynthia lewis is onto something with the estate tax. it seems to me that republicans cannot possibly allow the state tax to snap back on january 1 to a 01 million dollar floor with a 55% rate. i wonder if you think that some deal on the estate tax might serve on to where -- >> i agree that there is a nightmare scenario with the estate tax. the last few years, we knew that the estate tax would go to the unruly situation where it is now. you also have to go back and calculate capital gains on assets that people may have accrued for 50 years and then move to this draconian level. they should have been able to work out a deal at two and three years ago which is to keep the 45% rate. republicans were holding out for a much larger number. we are going to get into a series of negotiations. it is going to be a tug of war within the party is whether you want to reach that deal even if it you play the usual game of chicken that right until the end of the lame-duck session. even though logic would suggest that you make a deal, logic does not seem to apply it. >> anyone else? >> yes, ma'am. >> i apologize thank you addressed this this morning. could you talk about the interplay between state issues and the response of the federal government? that will be an ongoing concern. especially if states continue to rack up bad deficits. >> i do not see prospect of help from the federal government to the states. you are going to have a crisis in state after state after state where state workers are going to have to be laid off. we had the last bailout of the state. there is one problem with all of this. some states have been frugal. some states have balanced their budgets. there is no way that -- there should be a percentage or effort kind of formula that could be worked out to award the state's that have lowered their own deficits. this falls into the category of bailout. nothing is going to be done about it. >> it is truly perverse because whatever remaining stimulus there is at the federal level is absolutely countered by what is happening in the state. it is insanity. there are some policy analysts that have drawn up some proposals where you could have a program of revenue sharing. that was an old republican idea. tie it to performance on dealing with pension liabilities. in order to keep the money, you have to act in a fiscally responsible way when the economy returns and you are in position. avoid draconian cuts in times of economic downturns. that ends up being counterproductive. >> no more medicaid dollars for states propping up the deficits? >> absolutely. it was interesting in mitt romney's solution for fiscal sanity, to put an absolute cap on medicaid dollars. i do not think that would be greeted with governor -- from governors with great enthusiasm at the moment. >> there was a mention this morning of a battle on the republican side. how about elections for house leadership on the democratic side? >> we are all waiting to see what nancy pelosi will do. i do not think it is clear cut. some believe that she might step down. others that she will not shrink from the fight. i am not even sure that she knows herself. if she decides to step down from a leadership post, then i think it is a slam-dunk for steny hoyer. i do not see anybody challenging him. we will have some battles further on down the line for the it chairmanship of the democratic national committee. i believe that chris will remain a rising star and a top leadership member of the party. >> i just have to do this. since we are getting into personalities, the impact of sarah palin over the next two years? >> the little covered story, use the occasional references to this, the people that got slapped the hardest this election aside from barack obama and nancy pelosi, and jim demint and sarah palin. jim demint is responsible for the fact that the senate did not go republican. they are responsibility for it -- responsible for christine o'donnell, they are responsible for alaska, they are responsible for angle in nevada. those characters were all rejected. in every single case, when the republicans won a senate seat, except in the paul case, the margin was considerably smaller for 80 party candidate than a regular one. -- for a tea party candidate than a regular one. the irregulars across the board finished far better off. but you could put rubio in that category. he moderated his case. he got less than 50% of the vote as well. i think that jim demint should not have been a happy camper yesterday. furthermore, and his colleagues mostly hate him. i think that he will have more troops than he had before. his conservative caucus in the senate is not all that big. the same applies to sarah palin. i think she is a phenomenon. i think she is a rock star. she attracts cameras wherever she goes. she is a joke, even within her own party. the idea that she would be the presidential nominee is unthinkable. she has got a following. i do not think that she triumphed in this campaign. >> the majority of americans agree with you. i suspect the republicans do not. you are right in your analysis of the impact on the senate races in the tea party, but not in the house. in the house, the energy and activity really did help the party. a large number are coming in with an affiliation of one sort or another. michele bock and is starting her tea party caucus -- michele bock ben -- bauchman is starting her tea party caucus. i think the responsible figures in the party will have a hard time treating them with anything other than absolute respect. >> i say this about the ability of collaboration with us in the press with a sarah palin issue, this is a way that leaves a really important legacy it with the death panels being a really dramatic example of framing an issue in such an extreme way. it set off a whole chain of events that more reasonable people came in and said that you cannot use the word death. it is like a death panel. she created an outer edge for the debate. she made other things that seemed more extreme seem reasonable. they became a dominant theme in the debate. i will be interested to see how that plays out. >> let me take a slightly contrary point of view. what palin and demint were able to do was to able to channel the anchor with the power structure in watch -- anger with the power structure in washington against the democrats. she can bring that against the republican establishment if they are not able to do anything on the wish list of some of the people that nominated the candidates that lost. if at it she cannot get this energy channel, they would have fallen short in the house. there is a case to be made, i would not rule out the possibility that unless the republicans dramatically change their nominating process, that there will be a backlash against the establishment of that party that could be strong enough to nominate somebody that is outside of that larger mainstream. once somebody is nominated, we have an economic problem with the ability to create jobs. that is what happens when you have a downturn caused by a financial crisis. you do not get a quick spring back. when you want a nomination at between two people, this may bring a third party in. you have sarah palin as a third- party nominee, and barack obama, that might increase the chances three-g able to win thin a way race. something to keep in the back of your minds. >> the person that i hope will run for the republican nomination, mitch daniels of indiana, says that it is not written in the stars that the united states after 250 years needs to remain a great power. you have just described a scenario where we would not be a great power. >> i think that our time is up. i want to close on that note. thanks to all of you. thank you very much to our panel. [applause] c-span3 >> the oregon congressman is leading the transition team in the house. he told reporters thursday that the team will look at process and policy including the weekly work schedule and the future of earmarks. the transition team's first meeting is on monday. in minutes, we will have more election analysis. in about an hour, freedomworks with dick armey and his assessment of the elections. later, mitch mcconnell on the gop agenda. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will be joined by somebody from the group, americans for prosperity to talk about their legislative priorities. insley andeak with kns jacobson. > of this year's student cam documentary competition is in full swing. your documentary should include more the one point of view along with c-span programming. upload your video before january 20 s to win the grand prize of more than $5,000. the competition is open to middle and high school student'' grades at 6-12. for how to upload your video, go online to studentcam.org. >> up one of the speakers -- >> good afternoon, my name is david hawkins. this is my first speach for cq roll call. i have a new job as of today. after six years of being the managing editor of the cq weekly magazine, which launched the daily briefing, which you can sign up for for free, which is a rare thing for our company. it is a good thing. i will be editing this briefing and providing links to some of our best stuff and also having something to say it, hopefully something insightful and forward-looking. i hope that you all sign up. that is the plug for myself. my main job is a happy one, which is to introduce the lunch speaker. i generally hate introductions and listening to introductions. i will say why i volunteered to do this. there are few things more important in our lives than great teachers. i have the great pleasure of introducing one of my best teachers. when i signed up to go to college in bucknell in 1978, i could not get into a political science the first semester. i waited until the next semester. i was told that it was going to be a great class because of the t.a., a kid from new jersey. andrews went in -- went on to become a representative from new jersey. the assistant professor was today's luncheon speaker. i can say that this was one of the best college class is that i ever took. there are lessons that i took from that class that i think about every day in my work. i think about the one question on the final exam their rings in my ears every day. here is the question. i will step off of the podium after i asked the question. three hours, blue book in hand. politics is everything, explained and support by specific example. [applause] >> thank you, i believe you still have it -- i believe i still have one of your blue books in my drawer somewhere . he was just a kid then. i was, too. that was a joke that we used to do. i do not really ask that as an exam question. it is a pretty good story anyway. this is one of the hard rooms to do a speech in there are -- hard room to do a speech in. there are people over there in west virginia and they are waving. you did good. i hope i contributed a little bit. those who heard me know that i approached this as a cold- blooded observer of american politics. i do not have issues. i do not care what you think about the issues. i talk about what happened, why it happened, why you should not have thrown back curveball. any other sports metaphor that i can think of. i am going to go back to the action, not the results. i will not be going alabama one or alabama two and look at the winter. we will look at the access and look forward to what it means. or maybe this will be 2016. i was going through my files. i prefer to call them my junk. this article appeared in the "l.a. times." she wrote the social history of the united states, the 1990's. she wrote a book about the reconstruction of american liberalism. this was an op-ed piece. it was an tiled -- entitled, 2010 is 1994? it should have been, 2010 is 1994? it is going to happen again. we had 1994 again, except it was bigger. many of us saw it coming. at some point, it was inevitable. the exit poll showed americans were angry, worried, fearful, upset, and disturbed. it different kinds of people had different kinds of emotions. all of the emotions came andether as anger anxiety. 89% of voters said that the economy was in bad shape. when 89% of voters agree on anything, you know it must be something dramatic and crystal clear. 89% of voters cannot agree on the color of the sky. 23% said that their own family situation improved in the last two years. most people are not in the ronald reagan building having a nice lunch. only 14 out of 100 of you think that your family situation has improved. think back two years ago to that election in 2008 and what the expectations were and the sense of change and drama and turning things around. i talk to more republican groups. i assume that every group was mixed. i would raise the subject of george bush and the last couple of years of the bush presidency. you could hear republicans in the audience sighing. they were not angry. the democrats were angry. democrats were better. democrats felt that the president lied about the war in iraq and allied to get the u.s. involved. republicans did not feel that way. they hoped for better things. the longer they waited for the bush administration, the more they sighed. it did not work out. two years later, when we had allegedly turned the corner, only 14% said that their family situation had improved. there were different reactions in the electorate. there were different reactions among to the president. we just had an election where republicans were really important and independents were important. they were motivated by different things. sometimes people get on tv and they say this election was about jobs. it was about jobs for some people. for republicans, i do not think it was about jobs. if you are a conservative republican, you did not go out to vote with the energy and enthusiasm with the energy and enthusiasm that you told pollsters. you did not go up because of jobs. you're regarded this administration as going too far on the stimulus, a mandate on health care reform, cap-and- trade, involvement in chrysler and gm, nationalizing the banks. if you are a conservative republican, you are angry because you thought this government was too expensive and getting in your private life and telling you what to do. you were afraid of that. you were afraid of what it would mean to continue that kind of policy. if you were an independent, it was jobs. if you were a swing voter, it was much more about the economy job -- the economy and jobs. swing voters are much more casual voters. should they do not pay as much attention to politics. if you have a strong opinion or an ideology, you are either going to be a republican or democrat, and not an independent. independence actually have real lives. those of you who are partisans do not. independents that are worried about taking suzy to dance and billy to little league, they cannot spend the time watching four hours of tv per night on fox or msnbc, pick your poison. they have stuff to do. these people are sensitive to the mood. there is nothing wrong with being sensitive to the mood. it sounds like i am dealing these people. i am not. if you are not obsessed with politics, then how do i feel about things? am i optimistic or hopeful or am i disappointed? the swing voters tend to evaluate politicians, parties and decide their vote on that basis. what you arenow going to do, the d's, we know what you are going to do. the independents and swing voters have behave very differently than we're used to. mood voters, independent voters that create the mood. if you had jobs the last two years, you were feeling good. you would feel better. we turned the corner. we had the change. people do not feel like we had a change. all that you have to do is to look at the exit polls. we had different kinds of people voting that we did in 2006 and 2008. the electorate was a little bit different. we expected that what happened. there was a change in sentiment amongst the people that did vote. let's run through a few of these categories quickly. this electorate was whiter, older, and more republican than it was two years ago and four years ago. two years ago, whites constituted 74% of the electorate. -- african-americans, two years ago, 13%, this year, 10%. who votes this rates -- decides which party gets which votes. age was a dramatic difference. the old folks voted. i guess i should say that with some pride. you all are saying, what do you mean? i was once talking to a group and i looked around and i noticed, there must of been a lot of republicans in the audience. a bunch of old white guys. he said, have you looked in the mirror least -- recently? i said that i see a young, suave debonair died -- guy. two years ago, they constitute 16% of the electorate. in the last midterm, and 19%. this time, at 23% were 65 and older. they were much more important. their opinions changed. 2006, the midterm, the republicans lost the senate. 49% voted democratic and 49% voted republican. two years ago, with a presidential election with barack obama and john mccain, the 65 and older is, they moved slightly more republican. mccain and 53%, obama 45%. this year, 38% democrat. 21 points more republican this time. four years ago, they were split evenly. seniors and voted dramatically more republican. was it health care? was it the dramatic change proposed by the administration? seniors have trouble with change. trust me if you are not older. two years ago, voters 18-29 constituted 18% of the electorate. this time, it was 11% of the electorate. the makeup of this electorate was different. let me give you one other one. i mentioned independents. in 2006, they voted 39% republican. 18-point democratic advantage among independence in 2006. 18. two years ago, democrats had an eight-point advantage. they voted for obama. this year, republicans had an 18-point advantage. in four years, these independents voted democrat 57- 49. ts matter.ce why does it matter whether republicans or democrats matter? you look to see where republicans pick up seats. i picked this up many moons ago. it was on cq politics. this was a list of congressional districts that were split between john mccain and the democrats in 2008. there are now 48 districts. 48 districts going into november's election where mccain won, but they voted for a democratic member of congress. of the 48, the republicans have won 36. there was a reservoir of republican districts represented by a democrat or republican voters had voted democratic. it two years later, after 2008, four years later, after 2006, we are not talking about independents, they said, i am giving up, i am voting republican. they have been voting for some of these democrats for many years. edwards from texas. some of these democrats they had voted for only recently. bobby from alabama, travis from mississippi. these are republicans that voted for the democrats. they said, we are sorry. we are voting republican because we have to change washington. it is not enough to re-elect you and hope that washington changes. we have to change washington and that means that you are toast. jim leech, a very moderate to liberal republican congressman from iowa that represented a moderate to liberal district that included the university of iowa. they are reelected him. he was a typical liberal democrat. he would wear a sweater under his jacket. he looked like a college jacket. -- college professor. in 2006, they said, we are sorry, but you have got to go, because we have got to change washington. some of these 36 democrats did it to themselves. betsy represents the entire eastern half of colorado. when she came to see me for her interview, she came in and she talked about how independent she was going to be and the republican congresswoman at the time was a robot and she would vote for anything that the republicans did. she was too conservative. she came in and said that she is a moderate. she won and she voted for the stimulus, for health care, and for cap-and-trade and everything else. you may be for those things. that is not those. -- that is not the point. she was representing a conservative republican district. she did not display the independence that she needed. if that is all it was, i would understand. somebody from idaho voted against a democrat who voted against the stimulus, against health care, against cap-and- trade. and then voters voted against walt. the same thing in alabama. they were not discriminating in this regard. you normally hear about how people do not like congress, but they like their own member. members that are smart and articulate and savvy, nancy pelosi, i do not like her, but i like my democratic member. it has worked in the past and the future. it did not work for republicans when they try to do it. this was a dramatic party election. it is important to think about who came in. i just want to add this. this kind of change occurred up and down the ballot. you may think this does not occur in the senate. they are only going to win six seats. the last time the democrats won six seats, we thought it was a big number. there were only 19 seats up this year. 19 democrats and 18 republicans. the senate class was very equally divided. this class is evenly divided, which should tell you about the next two classes, which are loaded with democrats. to take the majority in the senate, the republicans would have had to take 10 seats. that is a tall order. six seats is a substantial win. the real republic kohl -- republican wave is down ballot. the following state legislative chambers change power. the alabama house, the alabama senate, the colorado house, the indiana house, the maine house, the maine senate. the minnesota house, the minnesota senate. the new hampshire house, the north carolina house, the north carolina senate, the pennsylvania house, the wisconsin assembly and the wisconsin senate. 19 chambers changed. there were still two or three outstanding. 500 seats in state legislatures switched. this was dramatic. people who it turned out voted for change and voted for change up and down the ballot. they took their anger out on democrats. the republicans picked up the governor in pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, wisconsin, there are a bunch of places that they picked up. when you look at that map for governors, and then state legislators on that, it is a dramatic development. this is the worst year to have a bad election. somebody is going to tell me, is there ever a good year to have a bad election? there are better or worse years. as my friend charlie cook will like to say, the worst year to have a bad election is a year that ends in zero. that is when you do reapportioning and redistricting. the republicans won so many congressional districts that they will now be unable -- physically unable to screw the democrats because there are so few democrats. in ohio and pennsylvania, they will lose districts. you have democrats that are locked into the small, urban districts. the republicans will not be able to eliminate them. they may have to eliminate a republican seat here and there. this is an exaggerated response. this was a bad election for the democrats up and down the ballots. who are these republicans? there are a lot of different kinds of guys. former members coming back in that cincinnati area. in new hampshire, fitzpatrick. in the philadelphia suburbs, tim wahlberg. proof that you can run a bad campaign and win in a wave year. there are a savvy political appeal -- political people. that waswebster president of the florida state senate. scott, a state legislator from central and southern georgia. dave runs for something every two years. there are plenty of these people. a former u.s. attorney. there are also a bunch of guys that are really different. bobby comes into my office about a month ago. he is from northwestern illinois. across the river is a town. i can never remember whether it is davenport for debuke. this is the northwest. this used to be a republican area. he used to represent the district. there is an international harvester factory. you have a number of farm equipment. it has been held by a democrat for a number of years. schilling won it. talk about yourself and what do you do? he owns a pizza house in rock island. 10 children. wow. this guy obviously does not have a summer home in montana or vale. the pizza place is closed on sundays so that he can spend time with his family's and his employees can. you start to get the picture. ever been involved in politics, never ran for office. why did you decide to do this? three months after obama took office, he saw that the president was driving the country off of a cliff. he went home to his wife and heat -- they prayed and he decided to run. two or three days later, paul came in in arizona. if you put your finger on where phoenix is, come 4:00 in the afternoon, he represents that whole area. it does not go down to the hispanic areas. a lot of native american areas in the northeastern part of the state. he comes in and he says, how do you do? i am a dentist. have you ever run for office? no. have you ever contributed to a candid it? nope. he was involved with the american dental association and health care. you are a dentist, you must have lots of money. he said that my practice is located in not a particularly affluent part of town. that is what he decided to do. how are you balancing your dental practice with being a candidate? he said, i sold my practice to run for congress. i almost had a heart attack. you what? what happens if you lose. i will move and i will hang a shingle. if i told my wife i would do something like that, i would be divorced and she would shoot me. i am going to roll the dice and risk it all running for congress. he did wind. i think it tells you something about motivation. one guy that i talk to who is the new republican congressmen in southeastern the louisiana, have you ever run for office? no. have you ever been active in republican politics? no. he is a doctor. i said that it sounds like you are a perfect tea party candidate. you got motivated because of the obama administration and you want to change things. he said, you are right. i said that the tea party must have loved you. he is very conservative on the issues. he had not been active on politics and suddenly got involved. it sounds like a perfect tea party candidate. when i indicated that i was interested in running, i met with the local republican party people and they liked me and they endorsed me. when they endorsed me, the tea party people told me that i was part of the establishment and found somebody else to run against me. some of these people are bounced off by steve and dan, and somebody that won in franklin county, columbus. he was appointed to the state senate for part of a term. he was very poised and experience and savvy. a lot of these people are blank slates. i asked almost all of these candidates, what they thought about the department of education and the department of energy. a lot of them wanted to do away with it. i asked them about the class of 1994. i have the same response over and over. they said that those guys have the right instincts, the right values, the right goals. when they got to washington, they sold out. we are not going to sell out. they regarded the class of 1994 as guys who caved. i could see why you say that. as a washington person, you have to cave a little bit. some people learned a different lesson from 1994. the people ended up creating a backlash. their lesson was that they came and they went to earmarks. you throw money at the district and they will reelect you. we do not think that is the way you have to do things. i am not saying they are right or wrong. they are different. there is nothing wrong with being different. it puts a great burden on the leadership, particularly the republican leadership in the house. i think that mitch mcconnell ducked a bullet in the senate. he was going to have a group like this that he would have to try to corral. what do they say about cats? herding cats. he has to deal with jim demint and now he has to deal with rand paul and this guy lee from utah. he will not have to deal with angle, buck, miller in alaska. christine o'donnell never got close to that. in some respects, i think the cattle -- mcconnell is thinking the good lord that the republicans did not gain as many seats as they could have. if you have been in washington or you are of washington, we all know john boehner. if you are washington person, you have either played golf with john boehner, had a drink with john boehner or smoked a cigarette or a cigar with john boehner. everybody has done that. i have done a couple of those. at least one. he is washington. he is the lobbyist member's lobbyist. he may be able to deal with some of these people because he comes from a couple orchard, ohio. i do not know where he is from? westchester. he is from very are read republican of ohio. -- very red republican ohio. they talked about where he came from and mopping the floor in the family bar. he knows the small businessmen and small town people. this is crucial, how the republicans behave against the democrats. maybe the president will not play this is exactly like bill clinton did. he probably will. bill clinton and barack obama are different personalities. 1994, bill clinton said that i hear the message. the era of big government is over. if you told bill clinton and you need to be over here, he would not ask questions. he had to move over here, bang. he would move over there. i talked to a high democratic white house person. bill clinton's issue was that he really wanted to be liked. i thought he was going to say loved, but that would have raised some other issues. they got spanked in the midterm. when the party got spanked in the midterm, he said to himself, what do i have to do to regain the people's support and affection? he did what he needed to do. the question is whether this president will do that and whether you are convinced that he sufficiently understands that he bears responsibility to in how he needs to change. even if he does not, there is a significant burden of the republicans to figure route how to deal with him. i was surprised that the incoming speaker -- on election night, boehner said that we should not be celebrating now. we now can get back to doing the people of's business. it was acked in that smart political move. it reminds me of after 2006. i happen to see ron emmanuel at the airport. after the election, i was talking to schumer. what do you think about the democratic agenda? how far are you going to push. you are going to be surprised. we are going to be cautious. charles schumer has written a book on the middle class. we have to show that we can govern, that we are grownups. that if we are put in charge, we are not going to spend the country into the poorhouse. we have to show that we are grownups. we cannot actually do a lot of stuff until we get the white house. it may be that boehner and the republican leadership understand that as well. they have a balancing act to do. there are the tea party people that back home, they are not going to respond to a sophisticated political analysis of what you should do and should not do. you should look at my e-mails. they do not respond to my sophisticated analysis. you jerk. you are a part of the washington insiders. i am just offering analysis. they want to take the fight. boehner talk about repealing obamacare. he understands that there is a way to take the fight. you made your point and now you have to find a place to exit, or a place to say that we made our point successfully and let's move onto something else. the new speaker will have a challenging environment. i am sure that you do not assume, i am going to talk a little bit about this. i hope you do not assume that barack obama cannot be reelected in 2012. when i think how things have changed in the last two years, anybody that tells you that they are absolutely positively knows, they are somebody that i do not want to listen to. i am sure they will be all over hannity and olbermann, resist the temptation to listen to them. think back to the first quarter of 2009. the first quarter of 2009, the job approval was in the low to mid 60's. the democrats won an election in new york. it is north of the city. she was appointed to the senate. the democrat ran supporting the stimulus, against george bush, saying that the republicans did not want to give the president an opportunity to bring about economic change. the first quarter of 2009 and was still about george bush, the republican congress, and change. a year and a half later, the republicans were the party of change. everything that intervened, bp, we are so event driven and news driven and how the politicians respond to that. the president needs it you all to start feeling about yourselves and the country. turning thek we're corner. things are starting to get better. they are going to get better. we do not need 5% growth in the third quarter of next year. he needs a sense of recovery. the republicans may feel like they need that too. you do not want another whipsaw election every two years. you see, you elected a republican congress and we are doing pretty well. again, anybody that tells you that they know who is going to be in the field is worth ignoring. the front runners are mitt romney and tim pawlenty. i would be skeptical, with mitt, he has been there before. he would have to explain how his health care bill in massachusetts resembles the federal law. newt wants to be president, but he does not want to run for it. sarah palin, i will not go there. this is a sarah palin free zone. somebody said to me, can you get into her head? i said, what? i just think that she has not done the necessary things. i am not saying that she could not do the necessary things to become a serious presidential contender. she has made no effort to create the depth, the seriousness that one needs to be president. we will elect some squirrelly figures to lower offices. professional wrestler to governor of minnesota. a comedian to senator from minnesota. maybe it is just minnesota. a weightlifter in california. you can find strange people. i do not want to go into detail on this. for president, i had a democratic pollster that said this. the people in iowa and new hampshire, they take their jobs seriously. they are looking for somebody with some stature. with some stature. i will vote for somebody

Related Keywords

Louisiana ,United States ,Alabama ,Nevada ,Alaska ,China ,Minnesota ,California ,Franklin County ,Washington ,Russia ,District Of Columbia ,West Virginia ,Arizona ,India ,Massachusetts ,Wyoming ,Iowa ,Greece ,New York ,Hampshire House ,New Hampshire ,North Carolina ,Texas ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,Philadelphia ,Pennsylvania ,Kentucky ,Florida ,Westchester ,Ohio ,Illinois ,Indiana ,Columbus ,Virginia ,Georgia ,Wisconsin ,Oregon ,Cincinnati ,Pakistan ,Mississippi ,Maine ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Idaho ,Rock Island ,Colorado ,Phoenix ,Capitol Hill ,Utah ,Americans ,America ,Greek ,Soviet ,Russians ,American ,Marco Rubio ,Phil Gramm ,Henry Kissinger ,Matt Dover ,Michele Bock Ben ,Michele Bock ,Nancy Pelosi ,Arne Duncan ,Levi Johnston ,George Bush ,Patty Murray ,Lamar Alexander ,Tim Wahlberg ,Elton Britt ,Charles Schumer ,Henry Clay ,John Boehner ,David Hawkins ,Tim Pawlenty ,Fred Barnes ,John Mccain ,Richard Smith ,John Klein ,Andrew Jackson ,Robert Mcnamara ,Mitch Daniels ,Russ Feingold ,Stuart Rothenberg ,Jimmy Carter ,Eric Kanter ,Barack Obama ,George W Bush ,George Shultz ,Erick Kanter ,Sarah Palin ,Freddie Krueger ,Ryan Crocker ,Mitch Mcconnell ,Charlie Cook ,Dick Armey ,Lisa Murkowski ,Jim Demint ,Steny Hoyer ,