Transcripts For FOXNEWSW FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace 20150118

Bush versus gore and the case to overturn the california ban on same sex marriage. And tony perkins, president of the Family Research counsel. And plus mitt romney and jeb bush seal the 2016 spotlight. Our sunday panel weighs in on how two of the gop names could shake up the race for the white house. All right now on Fox News Sunday. And hello from fox news in washington. President obama prepares to deliver his seventh state of the Union Address this week. His first before republicanled congress. After hitting the campaign trail to push a reboot of his domestic agenda unveiling proposal to fight cyber crime, help people go to college and give families extended family leave but last weeks paris attacks and sanctions against iran has pivoted against domestic agenda. Joining us now, from wis, senator ron johnson, chairman of the Home Land Security Committee and from maryland, ben cardin a member of the Foreign Relations committee. Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Thank you. Hi, shannon, chairman, what is your take right now . Do you believe there are lone wolves or sleeper cells here in the u. S. Motivated by radical ideology that are capable of and or planning attacks on the homeland . Im not aware of any sleeper cells but when you see what is happening in europe and from france to belgium and germany that is certainly a risk we have to consider and do everything we can to make sure that our intelligen are working working cooperatively and that our agencies here in america are fully communicated to we dont have the stovepipes that led to 9 11 a dozen years ago. And senator cardin, one of the main concerns are those that travel on western passports freely in and out of areas that have been known to host terror Training Camps and where that ideology is growing, what can we do about that potential loophole . Well as we saw in france, i think we have to be very concerned about foreign fighters who hold western passports that have been to syria, who have fought with isis and now in europe and could travel to the United States without a visa. In some cases these are americans who we know have been associated with the extreme groups. It is really important that our Intelligence Community concentrate on those who are the highest risk to the United States. And we have to share that information between our European Partners and the United States. So we know exactly where these individuals are and we can be on the highest alerts. Senator johnson your colleague mentioned syria. Of course that is an issue of growing concern. I want to put up a map showing what appears to be almost a doubling of the territory controlled by isis and that is since weve began with airstrikes with Coalition Forces in the area and we also have the complication of Bashar Al Assad still operating in the area and there are reports that his forces and those loyal to him are fighting against the forces we are counting on to fight against isis. What does this administration need to do with regard to syria . Well what we need to do is accomplish the goal that president obama stated. Degrade and ultimately defeat isis. The sooner the better. But the problem is we are not seeing the leadership out of president obama do that. We had a committee on the force and they wouldnt bring forward the language. We need to define what he means by defeat and define a strategy for accomplishing that goal and come to Congress Asking for the authority to accomplish that to employ that strategy and accomplish that goal. And senator cardin, to that point, we know the Defense Department is reporting there could be a thousand or more u. S. Trainers that are going to head overseas to that region and there to train Syrian Opposition forces. We already have 2,000 u. S. Personnel in the ground in iraq. Were told that number could go as high as 3400 later this year. All along though the administration has said no boots on the ground. A very specific language that theyve been using there. I want to play what sect of state john kerry said when he was testifying before you at the senate Foreign Relations Committee Last december. The president has been Crystal Clear that his policy is that u. S. Military forces will not be deployed to conduct Ground Combat operations against isil. So a strategy, troops in and troops out. Senator cardin, at what point do you think the president has an obligation to come to you for the cooperation for use of military force. I think he should come to us for the use of force and ive been pretty vocal about the fact that congress has a responsibility to clarify exactly what the president s authority is. But i want to disagree with senator johnson in regards to the president s strategy. I think the president is right this is a complicated situation. In iraq, we think stable government that includes moderate sunnis is critically important to cut off the support for isil. We are working on that. We do have greater ground capacity in iraq to deal with the growth of isil than in syria. And in syria were doing a Training Mission and we started that Training Mission. Were giving air support. But i agree with the president , i dont want to see us involved in a protraktsed ground proef tracted Ground Campaign where we saw in iraq that was ineffective for the security of that country. I think it is important that the Ground Support be done by those in the countries themselves. All right. So senator johnson i know you voted against in Committee Last year that discussion about the authorization. What was wrong with it for you and what specifics do you need to see for the administration from them so you can move forward with this conversation . Well the authorization voted on was very limited. And im not going to vote for an organization for use of military force and put the finest among us at risk unless the commander and chief is fully committed to success of the goal. You just dont do that. And shannon, here is the problem. As long as isis is not losing they are perceived as winning. And if they are perceived as winning they are good at recruiting off the internet, using social media. They will inspire the types of attacks carried out in paris, ottawa sydney, ft. Hood texas, this is not a threat going away it is exceeding, matt aft sizing. So a key point to protect america and keep it secure is we have to defeat isis. We cant continue to let them threaten the rest of the world for years. And speaking what inspires the groups. The administration said this week that Guantanamo Bay has been an inspiration for terrorist groups. So senator cart card cardin, five more release this is week, five men from yemen and they are being released to these borders and we are told that the koachi brothers travelled in that area and got training in yemen and returned home. So is this the time to be releasing detainees like the ones we saw released just days ago . It may not be the time to release these detainees but it is past time to close Guantanamo Bay. The cost to american taxpayers, those funds can be put to better use in protecting the security of our country. This is millions of dollars per inmate we are spending to maintain Guantanamo Bay where we could, if congress would permit transfer some to the United States. We know how to keep them safe from the public. Or we could bring them the just bring them to justice or transfer them to other countries where they can handle it. But to continue with Guantanamo Bay is an expense but an iconic symbol to the world of a past that we want to move away from. One last point, if i might, on the use of force. The president s operating on the use of force on isil based on 2000 and 2001 authorization. Things have changed dramatically. Congress needs to pass the use of military force for the president. And what i continue to hear from folks on both sides of the aisle on the hill they need to hear from the administration and the specifics so well watch to see if that is coming in the in the days and weeks ahead as both sides are asking for it now. I want to play a bite from josh earnest this week talking about Guantanamo Bay and give you a chance to respond. Here is what he said. The prison at Guantanamo Bay continues to inspire violent acts around the globe. It is not as if we can avoid violence by keeping the prison open and keeping them all locked up. So senator johnson, senator cardin said we know how to them and over a long period of time, you interrogate them. That is how you gather the intelligence to foil future plots. And that we are going to close guantanamo and the place we dont have anyplace to put the ones we gather, this is no time to transfer the individuals that are all highrisk that is what is left. Weve released literally hundreds of prisoners from gaub taun mow guantanamo. The people there are the worst of the worst and should not be released. Another our yeah of Convention Area of convention are nuclear arms over in iran. And you have both signed on to legislation to add tougher sanctions. And the president is saying stay in your lane hold your fire for this particular issue and saying that youre going to be responsible if things go south with this deal because of the provocation regarding sanctions. Here is what he said on friday. Well ive consistently said we leave all options on the table. But congress should be aware if this diplomatic solution fails, then the risks and likelihood that this ends up being at some point a military confrontation is heightened. And congress will have to own that as well. Senator cardin is that a Fair Assessment . Are you willing to take that risk . Well i think there is no disagreement between the overwhelming majority in congress and the president that if iran does not agree to give up its Nuclear Weapons we will not only reimpose the relief theyve already received but there will be much tougher sanctions imposed. And we want to work with our Coalition Partners to make sure the sanctions are enforced internationally. So i think the only issue now is the timing. We hope that negotiation will go satisfactorily and iran will not become a Nuclear Weapons state but if they move in that direction, were going to pass tougher sank shunz and the question is sanctions and the question is when do we do it and that is the discussion on capitol hill. And the president said he will veto it, so can you overcome that . First of all, i have no faith this administration this president has the negotiating capacity or the ability to do a good deal with iran. I think the negotiations are lost from the getgo when we lessen sanctions and we basically allowed iran to continue to enrich uranium. Contrary to the u. N. Resolutions. I do not see a good deal coming out of this administration and a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. So i think imposing additional sanctions is the only way to bring iran to the negotiating table in good faith. Senator johnson and cardin, thank you both for joining us today. Thank you. Have a good day. You as well. Up next, does releasing detainees from Guantanamo Bay make us safer. We take to the panel. And what would you like to ask the panel about Guantanamo Bay . Just go to Fox News Sunday and we may use your question on the air. E re ab ou to have a heart attack. Petes heart attack didnt come with a warning. Today his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. If youve had a heart attack be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. There was a unanimous recommendation from his National Security team that steps could be put in place to ensure when the individuals are transferred that we can significantly mitigate any threat they have to the u. S. Or our interest around the world. The only reason most of these people have not planned another 9 11 at Guantanamo Bay is because theyve been in jail. You let them out of jail, they are going to be on the ground planning another 9 11. White house spokesperson josh earnest and Lindsey Graham clashing over the potential threat posed by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Time for our sunday group. Columnist george will and evan bayh. Kimberly strausen and political analyst ron williams. Welcome to all. And before we get into the discussion of Guantanamo Bay i want to show you polls to show how americans are feeling about this. Should it be open or closed. 56 say keep it open and 32 say close it. And when we talk about the president transferring out detainees the question of whether he is exceeding his authority, doing that 54 say yes and 37 say no. George, what does that say about the administration . They have an uphill climb and paris didnt help this. But the two arguments are, one, that it is expensive. Whatever it costs, it is rounding, nothing in terms of the federal budget. And then the idea it is a recruiting tool for terrorists. As i recall, the uss cole was attacked before gitmo was opened. The World Trade Center was attacked twice before gitmo was opened. There is no empirical evidence or plausible assumption that says people are becoming terrorists because of gitmo. We asked viewers what they wanted to ask you, the panel about this and so this is what we got from social media. Two related questions on facebook. Kelly bailey wrote why on earth cant Congress Step in and put an end to the president overstepping his bounds. The American People do not trust washington, d. C. At all. Does anybody want to make a bet at the end of his presidency, he pardon every prisoner there. And on twitter is there any way to stop president from releasing these terrorists. And were going to have a group of gop senators introducing legislation attempting to block gitmo. Will they get anywhere with it . They might get a majority. But will they break a filibuster is another question. The president will keep enough democrats in line to keep that or sustain a veto. But i tend to side with george the root causes of alienation that lead to terrorism in the middle east are economic, political and much deeper. Gitmo is a symbol and i dont think it will have much impact. It is hard to believe that isis or al qaeda or the recruits will lay off the americans simply because they are closing Guantanamo Bay they will just simply find another excuse. And we talked with senators johnson and cardin about the growing threat in syria and how that continues to bubble up as a player as folks are training there, traveling there and returning to their countries. Kimberly kimberly, how does that impact our conversation about missed opportunities for this administ it is remarkable that they are doing this at the time they have. Remember the hist ory the president campaigned on this and Congress Said no and barred him from moving prisoners to the United States and trying them here. It has smoldered since then. Theyve now picked up the pace, at exactly this moment where we have this enormous question about all of these people using syria and afghanistan and iraq as a terrorist sanctuary. And we know from the director of National Intelligence that 30 and thats probably a lowball number of those weve released from gitmo, have gone back to violence. So there is no question about what is happening. And the idea were going to actively feed this group of people to go out and cause more mayhem is remarkable. An the administration tuckishu with the numbers this week. But as ed henry was appreciating josh earnest whether it is what the recidivism, it will cause another charlie hebdo. And is obama prepared to do whatever it takes to defeat islamic extremists, 38 say yes and 55 say no. I think he is losing the battle on this. I think the democrats are a momma party and the republicans are the daddy party and the republicans will get out there. Dick cheney and the like and take it to the terrorists. And that sentiment remains especially when you hear criticism to closing Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court has ruled this is an affront to american constitutional law. That you cant keep people for an uncontrolled amount of time without charging them with crimes without taking them to court. This is just not legal. This is not american. But given the amount of fear in our Society People say dont let those guys go if it is one person i think the white house said 6 or 30 as kimberly was saying. So people have a sense, we have to fight them at every edge. And when you hear from this white house the refusal to call this terrorism islamic then the right, the base on the Republican Party said this president is weak on fighting terrorists. I think the record is to the contrary. I think this is a president who uses drones. I think we have done well in terms were the only country going after isis right now. All of these europeans and the concern about president obama not standing in the front of the rally last weekend i think it is the United States that puts blood on the line to fight the terrorists. We do have some Coalition Forces working with us although at a much lower rate than we are at syria and iraq. There has been bipartisan success in keeping transfers of the gitmo detainees from coming here on to u. S. Soil and federal prisons. Somewhere else were seeing bipartisan unifications is on the sanctions with regard to iran. We heard there was a dustup of sorts as only there would be in washington between the president and senator menendez. Talking to them privately hold your fire dont move forward on this. Youre going to undermine what im trying to do and senator menendez stood up and said he was offended that theyve been working on this for 20 years. Where do they go from here . My guess is senator menendez is offended by cuba and felt he probably wasnt collaborated about on this issue. And this is a fundamental issue of how you vieh the regime. A majority in the senate will include they are radicals that respect only power and force and the threat of additional sanctions will be essential to any hope of getting an agreement. Some other people possibly the administration, feel they are more of a rational regime and we can get an agreement that will be enforceable. So therein lies the fundamental difference. They just have a different opinion than the president. The president went out of his way to be offensive. He cannot credit the good motives of people that disagree with him. And in this closed meeting, according to people that were there, talk the long view and dont listen to your donors. And people said well who are you to talk . So the president says furthermore, he said if we pass the sanctions, we will be blamed if the talks collapse on or around the june 30th deadline. Sounds to me as though hes planning for a collapse and looking for an alibi. I think it is a mistake on the president s part too because hes facing domestic policy to struggle to get democrats to come on i mean republicans will struggle to get democrats. Foreign policy there is some bipartisan unity out there and on the sanctions and needling senator mel epdez doesnt help his case. And they have been ruling out all kinds of things before the state of the union because there are so Many International issues. And overnight we get from the white house the plan to raise taxes on those making more than 500,000 to get rid of the inheritance tax loopholes. And there are good things attaches to that things we would agree for cuts to middle class families and child tax credits. But listen, he knows this wont get through the house and senate so is it just making the gop go on defense and look like they are advocating for rich people . Um yeah. Politics of the moments is working class discontent. And you see this on both sides. Mitt romney tries to relaunch his efforts focusing on trying to do more for the middle class. The president talking about more in terms of everything from leave to our people, to doing more with Community Colleges and now this tax break. And it is strongly focused again, on saying that democrats care about the working class. I think youll see from republicans, senator mcconnell doing the same thing with xl gas pipeline and cutting back on the numbers of hours you qualify for obama care and i think that is what youll see in the state of the un union. We have to leave it there. But well see you later in the program. What do you think about the dustup with senator melendez. Let us know what you think at Fox News Sunday. And up next the Supreme Court about same samesex same sex marriage. Well hear from both sides up next. Didnt come with a warning. Today his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. If youve had a heart attack be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. The Supreme Court announced it will take um samesex marriage. We want to discuss what the constitution says, if anything about the right to samesex marriage with two top advocates. Leading kofrnive conserve to have lawyer, and tony perkins. Gentlemen, welcome back to Fox News Sunday. Good to see you both. Good morning. So when the Supreme Court takes up the case, they set up the questions they want the advocates to answer. These are the two questions theyve posed. Does the 14th amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. And then does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was out of state. The reason those two questions were asked by the Supreme Court is because though were the issues in the states from which the four states, kentucky, michigan tennessee and ohio those cases came up to the court from those states. Some of the states prohibited recognition of marriages that were lawful in other states some of them prohibited marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman. So that was two of the questions they were presented with and they want to hear from the litigants as to those two questions and not a lot of other stuff. But the phrasing in the first question, does that stand out to you, the 14th amendment, requiring a state to license the marriage versus does the 14th amendment give samesex couples. It is a nuance but it is a red flag to some of us. I didnt put too much weight on that. There are four other federal appeals courts that have decided that states cant prohibit marriage between persons of the samesex. And it gets involved in whether they are engaged in the marriage business by providing licenses and giving laws of benefit to people that are married. I wouldnt put too much effort to that. And most cases have an hour and they are given two hours. And 36 states and here in the District Of Columbia more than 76 live in states where this is legal. Two thirds of the states people live in states where the voters of the legislature has affirmed the National Definition of marriage. We are hopeful the court will side with the American People on that, the majority of voters who have been very clear in last two decades that marriage is a union of a man and woman and side with the American Voters and not with a handful of judges. Most people dont want lawyers and judges running the country. But sadly they do. In many cases. No offense. So lets look at Justice Anthony kennedy because everybody is watching him. Hes had a number of opinions and decisions that have been friendly to same sex relations and the children being raised in those homes. But he said a lot about states and their rights to define marriage. From his 2013 opinion striking down doma, the benefits to samesex marriage couples. He said this he said these actions were without a doubt a proper exercise of its Sovereign Authority within our federal system, all in the way the framers of the constitution intended. And then last year in a case that involved a measure passed by voters in michigan with respect to banning racial and gender preferences in public hiring and education. He wrote it is the right to speak and debate and learn and then as a matter of political will to have a lawful electoral process. And many insist that Public Policy must be taken from the reach of the voters and removed from the realm of public discussion and dialogue in an election campaign. Tony brings this up that in numerous states voters did go to the polls so why is this discussion and language from Justin Kennedy different in the question of samesex marriage. I would make one point with regard to what tony perkins said a moment ago. There are ten states where the legislature or the people have voted to authority samesex marriage. So that is a number in and of itself. But the Supreme Court has said again and again it is its responsibility to decide when the constitution trumps the will of the people. Justice kennedy held for the court, striking down a colorado measure a number of years ago that discriminated against gays and lesbians and he wrote the opinion for the court and striking laws in texas and throughout the United States that prohibited private same sex conduct and he wrote the opinion for the court in the decision striking down the legislatures overwhelming decision to enact the defensive marriage act. So ultimately, the reason we have a constitution, the reason we have separation of powers the reason we have the 14th amendment, is to provide the cores with the opportunity to override the will of the people when the will of the people leads to discrimination against a segment of our society. But the difference here is that this is not recognized as a fundamental right. This is not deeply rooted in our history. This is unprecedented. In less than two decades weve had state after state go to the polls and people express themselves. This is not how we reach broad social consensus over major issues like this. As evidenced by what will take place this week. The 42nd anniversary of rowe v wade. The court said it would decide this issue and they have not. It will not impose a one size fits all marriage on all of the people i want to Say Something about that. The United States Supreme Court 15 times over the last 120 years have said that marmg is a fundamental right. Marriage, but not samesex marriage. Never did it say it has to be between a man and woman. They say it was a matter of privacy and dignity and respect for the individuals. Let me ask you about the rowe v. Wade point because justice beginsberg said it went too far too fast meaning legalizing abortion unless allowing it to play out state by state. And many are saying the same argument with samesex marriage. This will not help you, it could hurt because it seems justice beginsberg is suggesting that prolife forces were motivated by rowe v wade. In 1967 the Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriages and striking down laws in 16 states. Today we dont understand that we could have prohibited marriage of people between different races. The president s mother and father couldnt have been married in virginia. They would have been guilty of a felony. Overwhelmingly people support the right of individuals to get married to the person they love. The American People are 5 to 60 in support of samesex marriage. People recognize this is an important right it hurts gay and lesbian people and it does no harm to allow those people to marry the person they love. And im sure youve talked to civil rights leaders who dont like the comparison. Some of them. No. Because there you had a man made barrier but here judges are attacking a Natural Bridge that brings the sexes together. And if we take down the states rights to define marriage for Public Policy purposes if two people who love each other can get married with each other, i guess ted is okay with the story that an 18yearold daughter marry her father. Are you all of a sudden you believe in what is being read in new york law. We are talking about something permitted in 36 states or 37 it was on fox news. In 36 states, no harm has been done as a result of heterosexual marriages. This is on a collision course with sexual license because of a handful of unelected judges and lawyers. The American People have a right to speak on this. They have. The court should respect the voice of the people. Well it will be five votes at least and well see which way they go. Gentlemen, good to have you here. Thank you so much. When we come back two former governors shake up the race for the president ial nomination. What will their candidacy mean for doannors and well have our panel back for that. And now the reaction for a potential romney three pete. I would like to hear your reaction that mitt romney is running for president again . On your last question i have no comment. Eve the best candidate is mitt romney. And im giving serious consideration to the future. But this i know, we can win in 2016 as a party. A lot of people thought they could have won in 2012. The first bite was jeb bush in 2012, calling mitt romney the best candidate in the feel. Mitt romney this week keeping the door wide open for a third president ial bid making a possibility of a head to head with two gop heavy weights. Were back with the panel to talk 2016. Juan, you are probably not going to vote for either of those individuals but what do you make once jeb bush got out there. It looks like it sped up everybody elses time line of whether they are in or out. No question about it. And the game begins. And it is not only gentlemen, start your engines, but now it is a point of where it is a primary campaign about money and donors. And that is the real conflict here. So you have to separate people out in the top tier and the ability to raise money on the republican side. Right now it is jeb bush and mitt romney. The question for donors and this week i talked to some donors on the republican side they dont feel any passion or reason for mitt romney to get back in the game. Friday night, san diego Republican National committee winter meeting, he made the case he has a new narrative and thinks with a strong Foreign Policy hand to say the Obama Administration is weak as we discussed in the first panel and more effort in terms of speaking to the middle class about upward mobility, that mitt romney can be the best candidate for 2016. Im not sure other republicans, especially the grassroots, agree. And neither do some of the competitors in 2016 here are a couple of them weighing in on a possible three pete. I think the same old same old has been tried. And if we try the same thing again, we might get the same result first we are going to be up against Hillary Clinton, we have to offer a new fresh approach and one that comes from the states. Kimberly we see senator rand paul and scott walker potentially throwing their hats in the ring as well. So they are not going to have open arms for mitt romney returning. So they are hitting on some of the themes you are hearing. Romney is out there and hes making his case for why he should do this again and there are compelling times hell say this is the third time at the rodeo, ill have donors behind me and maybe the voters have buyers remorse and they should have went for me. The problem with mitt romney is he lacked a compelling fairive or a compelling reason for why he was in the race. And a particular anchor on him was the question of incoming equality and inclass warfare and the democrats are gearing up to make that the number one issue in 2016 and that is what happen republicans worried when you listen to mitt romney it is not clear he has a way to navigate that question. He doesnt have any answers for that question and that is why you see so much pushback on him doing another run. George, you have another piece out and break down the mechanics, the electoral votes, where republicans are and questions about whether this is a good idea or not for mitt romney to try again . It is very hard to produce unanimity in american politics particularly among republicans but mitt romney did so this week. There is no one expressing the desire this pentup desire for another romney campaign. Is the field weak . He doesnt have that excuse. This is the strongest, most diverse field since 1856 when there was a republican field. Is the party weak . They control 31 governors seven of the ten largest states have republican governors and they control 23 states with 200 electoral votes so the Republican Party is greered up for a strong geared up for a strong showing in 2016 and they dont need to look backward. I have to confess i dont think Chris Christie would get in but he is doing important meeting. He gave his state of the state address this week in new jersey and talked about places outside of new jersey. He talked about how he talked with people and they have anxiety and worried about jobs. Here is more of what he said in the state of the state address. I saw it on the streets of chicago and felt it in the suburbs of maryland. I heard it from farmers in kansas and from teachers in colorado. I felt it from veterans in maine and from workers in arkansas. Senator, those places arent inside of new jersey. Youre an astute student of geography. Im not great at geography but i do know that much. It looks like governor cristy is going to run and he and scott walker and rubio, they are most affected by the challenge because they are the more establishment type candidate. And simultaneously you have the contest for the more movement candidate, that could be huckabee and santorum. And paul might be the last man standing standing. And the real question is shaping up as a close competitive president ial election with a slight advantage to the democrats because of the bias in the Electoral College and the improving economy and demographic changes. If the republicans dont blow it, however, by getting way too far to the right and having a nasty nominating process you are look at a 5149 type election. So can they go through a talented rambunctious field while still following the reagan commandment that you run about the future without running down the other republicans because one of them will be the ultimate there. And to quell a little bit of control, this week we see the nine specific debates that are going to be sanctioned by the rnc. And for Hillary Clinton. People are still split. It seems like she is sure if shes actually going to run. Reince priebus saying this week theyve got opposition teams staked out in little rock. Theyre working on it. Do you think she runs, and is she a lock as a nominee if she does . I think shes running. I dont see any indication shes not running. I think all of the contrary indications are people who are very enthusiastic about elizabeth warren, theyre raising money for elizabeth warren. Elizabeth warren even in this mornings paper said shes not running. She wants to be the outsider. But again we come back to this clear theme, republican or democrat, this is a populist campaign about appealing to workingclass folks. And the question about Hillary Clinton is was she the new york senator from wall street and if so, does that mean that she really cant be an effective candidate who would stir up the democratic base, in which were asking about who is the republican, rand paul, ted cruz that can stir up the Republican Base . I want to put up those ads so people will know what were talking about. Fullpage ads out of new hampshire. We really need you. You can see their quote, please run for president. Theres an interesting piece in the Washington Post talking about maybe shes truly not running, but she does want to keep the heat on clinton when it comes to issues like wall street and those kind of things. We know when people say theyre not running for president , theyre still debating running for president. And warren knows she has everything on her side at the moment. Shell sit back. This movement is building. Theyre running ads for her. Theres this pentup belief of the more Progressive Side of the party. They are ascendant side of the party. They need someone like warren to come in. And so theyll wait until at some point shell probably say look, i need it, i have to come and do this. So i would not count her out at all. Theres a real passion for someone like that in the party at the moment. Comment . Two things, janet. I think really what senator warren is trying to do is influence the dialogue and debate. She already has. She already has. The question for clinton is can she passion the question of the progressives but more importantly, can she do enough to avoid a ralph naderlike candidacy on the left . Were out of time. We only have two years to go. Less than two years now. Thanks. See you next week. Up next, on you power players of the week. The partisan divide. With congress under way, some say our government is more divided than ever. Two former members are working to address that problem. Joining us former congressman tom davis, a republican and martin frost, a democrat to discuss their new book the partisan divide congress in crisis. Gentlemen, welcome back to Fox News Sunday. Good to see you. Good to see you. Congressman frost, why did you decide to put this book together . There is gridlock on the hill like nobodys business. Is there any way to fix it . We have some suggestions to fix it but we really thought the public needs to understand how we got to this point. Also this will be a book for young people, College Students High School Students to learn about our government. Our Government Faces an enormous problem, a lack of confidence in our congress. We think there can be changes made so that congress can Work Together across party lines. Congressman davis obviously congress, unfortunately, is the lowest rated when you talk about approval across the board the hill, the white house, the Supreme Court, why is congress always now in the single digits, pretty much . Theyre not getting anything done. Its absolute gridlock. Devolved into a parliamentary system and the balance of power structure, it just hasnt worked. You think about the Minority Party. It used to have a different role. Sometimes people talk about obstructionism and thats how it works, but there used to be more of a role. The Minority Party used to be an actual minority partner albeit, with the Majority Party in trying to solve the problems of the country. What we have now is that the whole action and most congressional districts is in the primary. And people, while not too many people lose their primary, theyre always worried that they might lose to someone to the extreme in the primary so if they ever consider talking to the other side, then they cant do that because theyll get a primary challenge with a lot of money and a small turnout election. We suggest going to bipartisan commissions to draw congressional lines to minimize that. Well and everybody says or the old saying was that politics was local but i know that you all think that so much of it has been nationalized so that people who need to be in their district and doing things they are worried about what the National Party is stayaying and what line they need to take. We have a saying that politics is no longer local. And we use illustrations of this. But the real problem here issitting there and members are worried about the primary, 80 of the members is just a constitutional. Also, youve got the problem of money in politics. We think there ought to be full disclosure. You have the c4 dark o organizations that can spend millions, not to disclose their system. You cant change the system. The Supreme Court is not going to limit the amounmoney but you could require full scloesh er disclosure, and some think that could help the system. Are there people you see now on the hill in the senate or the house that you think would be good compromises or people that can work across the aisle . I think the leaders. Theyre institutional. Theyre on both sides. But their members wont follow. The members get pulled the other way. Primary Campaign Finance reform couples with Citizens United have moved the money away from the parties basically out to the wings. And its had tremendous influence, and both parties have moved right and left. And i can tell you in my own state of texas, there are a lot of, i think fairly Reasonable Republicans who would love to try and work across party lines, but they are scared that theyre going to get a primary challenger from the far right in a low turnout primary so theyre paralyzed and cant move. I think there are a lot of good people in congress that would like to do this. Somehow weve got to change the system so it makes it possible for people to talk to each other. Congress in some respect has abandoned its role in the balance of checks and balances of power. Voo absolutely. Just take a look at earmarks, for example. The first 150 years of the rerepublic congress would earmark or designate projects. Theyve completely abandoned that and given that over to the executive branch. By failing to get their budgets in on time and do continuing resolutions, that has transferred power to the administration to move money around. A good example is immigration reform. The republicans now are saying oh, this is terrible what the president did with the executive order. But they refuse to take up the issue. So they just kind of handed the issue to the president. This is like the situation with the person who kills his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court because hes now an orphan. That doesnt make any sense. Powers well, theyre just punting on that. Why do you think that is . Because theyre risk averse, number one. I think members like to get reelected. These are very difficult votes. Members dont like to take tough votes. They like to cut ribbons. Open schools. Exactly. And now with the primary being the main focus for both democrats and republicans, they focus on their primary voters who are an ideological slice of the electorate. The voters at large who tend to be more independent. The National Primary day which would increase turnout, the media would focus on whats going on. More turnout makes it possible for more moderate people to be elected. Congressmen david and frost, good to see you both. The book is in stores now, the partisan divide. Check it out, a very interesting, educational read. Thats it for today. Have a great week. We will see you next Fox News Sunday. This week on the journal, editorial report. Al qaeda claims responsibility for the paris terror attack as frances Prime Minister says theyre at war with radical islam. So why wont the obama ministration use that term . And does it matter . Plus, mitt romney hopes the third times the charm as he eyes another white house run. So will it be different this time around . And ahead of his state of the Union Address, the president previews his latest government giveaway. Well look at his plan for Free Community college and other goodies on the agenda for tuesday night. Welcome to the journal editorial report. Im paul gigot. The al qaeda