>> hurricane thomas has hit haiti, and none of that is in place. people are holding plastic over their head with the wind and rain pouring down upon them. we saw with cholera similarly, it's axiomatic going into a far more globalized, which is good news, humanitarian and peace keeping response in the world, that the humanitarian responders and peacekeepers themselves can become vehicles for microbial hitchhikers from all over the world. if you move u.k. soldiers and the red cross workers are the same and the msf are the same, you have the potential for every single one of them to be a disease carrier. we know that cholera was introduced from outside.

it didn't arise out of the water in haiti, and it doesn't matter, i don't want to blame anybody for that introduction, but i think that our inability to respond very effectively and rapidly when it emerged and keep is localized is disappointing. >> i think the initial response was to deal with people who were severely injured or facing major trama, and until -- that was the initial concern. the question of why we have not been able to rebuild haiti, get around to doing it, i don't think the bulldozers didn't get there until october. i know this is not health per se, but it is in a sense. >> it encompasses health health. it's about our neighbors doing

something about getting that country to be self-sustainable. if you look at some of the heros of the health areas in haiti, people like bill pop and paul who spent so many years there, it is clear that you can accomplish an extraordinary amount with actually relatively little investment. it isn't as if you put billions and billions of dollars in there. the shorter answer is we should be doing more. >> because they are in our hemisphere and for humanitarian reasons. >> i think humanitarian reasons also, and also because, you know, the whole issue with cholera, you know, if you look, again, very briefly, look at the cholera map, the belt of cholera, cholera occurs in regions so to think it's going to stay as laurie said in haiti, once you introduce it to a

region and people go back and forth to different countries, you're being naive to think that it's guaranteed it's going to die out there. it's likely will, and i hope it will, but it may not. >> in fact, just historically, the greatest cholera outbreaks in the united states were all related to the slave trade and the movements into the caribbean and back up again, and so we constantly had cholera reintroduced into our waters especially new york city, sometimes with devastating results. >> i appreciate your interest in haiti, and just to address the what are we doing right now with the storm, and the cholera outbreak? go to the usa's website you see there's 20 members of a disaster response team there now. there's significant aggressive amount of work going on in conjunction with the pan-america health organization and usa. just for the immediate update,

go to the website to give you a readout for today. >> thank you. >> next question. i'm sorry, over there. >> my question is on hiv in africa. i'm chuck from the tennessee world affairs counsel, and my question is what funding from the u.s. government and ngo's and other government is available for prevention right now in africa for hiv, and what -- how much funding would it take to have a sustainable preventable program for hiv in subis a hairian africa? >> when we put together the program, 20% of the total amount was in prevention, 55% in therapy, and the rest in care, between 20-30% in prevention. what would it take, and that's just a program, there are other components of it for prevention.

it really would require access to the mortalities of prevention we know work, and that's the point i made that is so frustrating. even under the best of circumstances, when you have health infrastructures that don't allow anymore than 20% of the population who would clearly benefit from a proven modality don't have access to it, that's a very serious problem right there. it's the whole issue of what all three or four of us talk about in building sustainable health systems because if you don't have a health system, you're not going to get anybody into the system to be able to council them or give them the care to prevent. that's the structural functional answer, but there's also another answer that when you're dealing with a sexually transmitted disease in cultures in which you

have egregious disenfranchisement of women in which they don't have the human rights to protect themselves in a society that really demeans women, that becomes very difficult, and we, as my friends in africa tell me all the time, you don't want a white guy like me going to africa telling them to treat your women better. what you have to have is the leadership in the african countries realizing they have to turn around centuries of cultural issues which have not allowed their population, particularly the women to be able to protect themselves. that's one of the really important stumbling blocks in prevention. >> and stigmaization and stability and hostility towards gays and certain communities

here of hiv. we haven't managed to get, you know, we haven't managed to get it under control and make prevention effective here. i think this administration is focused or zeroed on in those groups. we have time for two more questions, and then -- >> i want to shift to another topic. as i recall with the h1n1, we didn't have enough vaccines for even here and it got in the complex of vaccine production and what companies do it and how much lead time do you have in knowing exactly what virus you're dealing with, and then distribution, so i wondered if you would address that part of the problem. >> well, the problem with not having enough vaccine for inflew ensai is that the root cause of that and we as a nation and the world has not taken seasonal flu

seriously. we all have the flu or whatever, and when you think of a pandemic, you get nervous. it is a serious issue and kills on average 36,000 americans a year with 12,000 hospitalizations. we just take it in stride. the incentive to make a vaccine that in a way that you can quickly ramp it up and get it in a matter of a couple of months, and i'll take it one step further, the incentive to make a universal vaccine that you don't neat to change season to season and give once every several years to protect various strains, but strains that actually change dramatically. we haven't had that incentive on the part of industry or on the part of our leadership to encourage industry to do that. the good news about the threat of the h1n1 bird flu and the

reality as laurie said of the relatively mild h1n1 is it get everybody all exercised about, my goodness, are we dealing with antiquated ways to make vaccine, growing it in an egg, or we'll do it better, grow it in a cell. no, we have techniques we should be able to get the virus, see convince it, and make it instead of having months delayed. what is happening now is that the federal government, to their credit, is now sharing the risk with industry by doing things like helping with the advanced development production. the federal government is financed a plan of robotics in north carolina to go from egg-base to cell-base. we're making extraordinary investment in developing

molecular-base flu vaccines and ultimately a pandemic or universal flu vaccine that secialtly cover -- essentially covers everything. we are behind, but the jump start we're seeing now because we got frightened and everybody looked to 1918, so i think it's going to change, but unfortunately it took several decades of mediocre responses to the flu. >> thank you very much. >> yes. >> hi, i'm from connecticut. we have had rankings of countries over the last two days and the u.s. is not in the top. i wanted to say thank you for putting us at the top of the list for giving around the world. we did not have i think one category where we were number one in the last two days, so thank you for that. that's a good feeling. my question is, i think, part of

that is because, you know, we took a treat with unicef boxes and rallies and tell thons and raised money in the private sector and support our government in doing the same around the world. how do we get the emerging market countries that have huge savings to do the same, and, you know, they could, you know, they love to golf in asia, so can they do rallies? do they do that? i don't think you can with the government. it has to be a pop pew louse, you know, topic that makes the government give more money so i hope we maintain our number one status, but i'd like to see china number two. >> it's a great question. this goes to what i was talking about in the early part of the discussion, the shift from the ga to the g20 world, and how do we talk about the priorities of global health, and for that

matter, food and agriculture policy, climate issues, all of that in the shifting political landscape. actually interestingly what is slamming the successfully emerging market countries is this subserge in chronic diseases that are typically seen in the wealthy worlds. they are experiencing an obesity explosion, diabetes and the populations are living long enough to develop cancers, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and every one of them has a minister of finance that's sitting down and doing the demographics and the long forecast and saying, my goodness, if we don't do something, we're going to be bankrupt trying to deal with all this end stage disease burden down the road, so what we see now is an increased level of concern in china, in brazil, in

mexico, in south africa, and so on that is in part spurred by this sudden anxiety about the chronic disease in aging populations. it doesn't get to the practice that so many countries, south africa being a prime example, are experiencing both at the same time, a transition to the chronic disease burden while they still have enormous infectious disease burden akin to what we were going through 150 years ago in the united states. that is where we have a log jam is in a continuing commitment for the global donor population and the g20 countries generally to that remaining infectious burden. to put a data point on something the admiral said, since 2007 the amount of money put in to fight molecular-base --

moleria has increased. that means people in whole parts of the world that had nothing to do other than accept that disease as life or death as the case may be now have tools at hand to save their lives and prevent infection all together, but those same people as brenda said an hour ago here, they will then eventually die of cardiac arrest or cancer or lord knows what because they have no health service for that at all. the, i guess i would say the big momentum is to try to sustain and even increase the commitment to conquer the old disease burdens of infectious disease, while at the same time, revving up for this demographic explosion that's going to hit most of the countries of the world in the next 20 years. there's aging and chronic

disease, that's a perfect storm. >> one would hope with emerging economies, with growing economies, and growing middle class, that you would also have an active citizenry which would begin to demand better services, and this administration has said it's going to link its support even to the second tier or middle income countries and link assistance here from the u.s. to govern us, to democracy, and one hopes these efforts are supported by the current congress, but that will bring about some change, and that's why we have time. [applause] >> a very big thank you to our panel on this very critical topic in u.s. foreign policy. thank you very much. i hope we've achieved our goal or objective of engaging you,

our leadership, across the country on the critical issues on foreign policy with the critical players in foreign policy so you can cake this back to your local communities and decide what type of education you want to do in your communities with this. i'd like to thank our speakers over the past few days, donors, hutchen's family foundation, and most importantly, i want to thank you. you've taken the time out of your very busy schedules to come here and engage on these very critical issues facing our country. you spend your lives trying to build our democracy by ensuring that americans have the opportunity to learn more about global issues. thank you for what you do. thank you for coming, and we'll see you in the east room for the reception and dinner with larry summers on the global economy.

thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] starting monday, the national oil spill commission olds a public hearing on the bp

oil spill. the two day hearing looks at the preliminary findings regarding the macondo well blowout and the causes of the explosion. see it monday here at 9 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> next bill crystal leads an

in-depth discussion with this week's elections with reporters from the weekly standard and washington examiner. from the national press club in washington, d.c., this is an hour and 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i'm bill crystal, editor of the weekly standard, and it's a pleasure to welcome you here for this informal discussions of the elections of last tuesday. we'll cover what happened, and move on to implications for the next few weeks and months for congress and the obama administration and maybe the broader implications on this interesting election. i welcome you on bhaft of the weekly standard and washington standard and it's really a pleasure to collaborate with the

examiner on this event. if you wanted to learn more, well, you know everything you need to know about us. we are both excellent, top of the line publications. there's fact sheets in the pacts that you have. i looked over quickly the fact sheet, and most is true. that's good. [laughter] no, it's all absolutely true. let me introduce the fellow panel is who need no introduction. there's michael barrone and author of the editor of the almanac of american politics. it's important to understand our politics in the elections and i always say this, i'm going to get michael to do this, best book in my view on the history of america in the 20th century called our country that came out

in 1991 that i think it should be updated. people here should nag him to do a second edition after the panel. fred barns here. weave started the standard and fred was at baltimore sun before that, and obviously one of the leading political journalists of our day, author of a very important book on the bush presidency, a rebel and chief, and also is on fox news. he's indispensable reading and in his columns and blog entries. before that he was at the weekly standard in the late 90 until his stint at the gnarl review precluded him from writing for a competitor and now is liberated

that and back at the standard, and he has the platform he deserves. byoron is a leader in politics. to the left is the congressional correspondent, chief congressional correspondent for the washington examiner, reading to stay up on what's going on in congress. but that she was at cq and miami herald. it's really a first rate, careful penetrating congressional correspondent, and she's been a great asset to the examiner as well. that's the panel. we'll do this informally, and i'll throw some questions at them, and then we'll have a discussion and leave time for your questions and comment at the end of the hour or so. we've -- i assume everyone in the panel hads written about the elections

and everyone has analyzed the results and you can go on in great p lengths about the findings, but instead of summarizing what happened, i'll assume everyone knows. i'll ask each panelist what strikes them the most about what happened? is there anything not noticed as much as it should have? what do you, make byron, what strikes you the most about last tuesday? >> well, i spent the week before the election traveling to three states in illinois, wisconsin, and finally nevada. what struck me is that the atmosphere for republicans was so favorable, and we know that in 2006, independents broke for democrats 57-39, and those numbers were reversed this time. the atmosphere was so favorable if you were a republican who ran a really good campaign as ron johnson did in wisconsin, you were going to win even if you

could knock off a legendary figure like russ feingold in wisconsin. if you ran a pretty good campaign as mark kirk did in illinois, but you were troubled suffering from allegations he embellished his resumé in ways that didn't bring him benefit. he has a good resumé any way, you still win. you had a run a pretty undistinguished campaign as sharron angle did in nevada to lose so much that the number that struck me the most in the exit polls is that pollsters asked do you approve or disapprove of harry reed, and 55% of those who voted, those going to the polls, 55% of them disapproved of reed's job performance, 44% approved, and

yet he still won because his incredible organizational skills and strength out there and the clout of the casino industry. the thing that struck me overall was the victories were out there to be taken, and if you ran even a pretty good campaign as a republican, this was the year you could win. >> just curious, sitting in washington, most polls show the general view, and as i shared this i watched one debate and angle did pretty well. she was a problematic candidate, but you were there a day or two before the race, did you expect reed to win? >> i did. >> was the ground different -- >> as a matter of fact the stuff on the ground matched the polls. the six prior polls to the election had angle up by one, two, or three, and everywhere you went when you talked to people, they were split other than one or two extra for angle really against reed, so my

reporting experience out there seemed to perfectly line up with the polls which were wrong. >> and -- [laughter] a ground game? >> well, we should give credit to the reporter out there covering nevada politics the most who predicted before the race before the election that reed was going to win. the level of organization in early voting was incredible, and reed's campaign worked with the casinos to get their unionized workers on buss to early voting locations. i went to michelle obama's appearance for reed on the monday before election say, and it was essentially a phone bank. i mean, everyone was handed a number sheet of people to call and a script to call them, so reed did not miss in the opportunity to organize and get people to the polls, and that's what happened. >> fred, what struck you?

>> well, i would be surprised by a few of the outcomes. republicans hadn't targeted, and they were surprised when their candidates won. chip who turned out to be a regular candidate beat congressman overtar in minnesota, and that was a surprise to a lot of republicans here in washington. that's -- it was a surprise to me too. one of the house members, democrats that republicans have targeted over the years made a strenuous effort to beat is melissa bean in illinois who fashioned herself being a moderate democrat even if she wasn't, and republicans didn't try this time. joe walsh who didn't have much money won. it's not declared yet, but looks like he's ahead. the rase in north carolina with congressman etheridge who got in

trouble and put a guy in a head lock on capitol hill -- >> it was just a kid. it was a citizen trying to have ask a question which was is forbidden, you know. >> that's right, out on the street, of the filmed, and they didn't figure they were going to win that. i was struck that there's six actual conservative democrats in the house, and they are all -- five of them are now gone. maybe you can come up with another name of one, but i counted them this way, and it didn't seem to help them that they voted in most cases against cap and trade and obamacare and against the stimulus, and they still lost. a couple in idaho, mississippi, and alabama, and one from georgia, and the only one who survived was dan from oklahoma.

he's the president of the university of oklahoma right now, but in any case, republicans didn't target him. had they targeted, i don't think they targeted gene tailor, and they were wiped out. it was amazing to me. i didn't think republicans would actually practically expel the democratic party from the south, but, you know, just writing down how many house seats, three in virginia, one in georgia, four in florida, three in tennessee, two in arkansas, one in mississippi, one in louisiana. in most of those states they also won senate seats. the south is gone for the democratic party for the time being. >> what's striking about that, i'll go to michael in a second, but i was in a panel yesterday with a similar point. it was a southern sweep, and even if they didn't pick up a seat in the south, they would have won the house. as a per percentage devra davis

vaition was greater in the midwest. you're right, the damage of virginia and some of those states is considerable, but michael, what's struck you? you're from the midwest, michigan, and you're talking about this -- >> i grew up north of canada. [laughter] i was in detroit, michigan. the -- it was historic numbers. we've had two historic elections in a row. if you use the popular vote for representatives and one problem is the state of california takes five weeks to count the votes, and they 12% of the country. we don't have the official votes yet. it taking five weeks to count the votes in california. there is something wrong with that picture. in any case, but it looks like if you go back two years in 2008, democrats won by a 54-43

vote percentage popular vote in the house. there's a little wiggle about how do you tab the votes on people on a post and so forth, but that was an historic high, the best they had done since 1986, but then they were winning the south 60-40 in the house vote, and of course, they don't do that anymore. if you take the 36 nonsouthern states, democrats two years ago got 57% of the vote. i think that is the highest in history that never before achieved. that was a high water mark for the democratic party. this popular vote looks like it's going to be about 53-44 or 52-45 republican. that is is equal to republicans in 1994 or a little better. before that, you have to go back to 1946 when it was 54-44 or in

the 1920s with a figure higher than that. one should add in the 1920s the south cast very few popular votes because of poll taxes and primary votes and in fact the republicans, if you could somehow, you know, virtualize a southern vote for the preceding, in some respects this is the best or tied for the best republican performance in the house vote in history, so this is, it's an historic switch and unusual in american history. you don't find have many times when you see a party lose nine or ten points or gain nine or ten points on an election. you know, barak obama's election was a historic first and so forth. the performance of the democratic party in house elections during the first two years of his presidency maybe an

historic first as well. the republicans performed better going down the ballot. senate seats they lost a couple with problematic candidates in my view. they lost a heart breakingly close one in the state of washington. when you go down to the state legislatures, republicans seem to have gained about 150 seats in state senates, and more than 500 seats in state houses. there's more republican state legislatures according to the national conference than in any time since the 1920s. if you go -- you know, they gain control of redistricting. i'm going to be writing about this for the examiner, but in others it's been mentioned, but in states among the ten big states in texas, pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, and also among other states wisconsin, north

carolina, where the governor does not have a veto and republicans gained both houses, in state after state of those i'm mentioning, republicans outperformed what the insiders expected. in my home state of michigan, the republicans need 13 seats of 110 to take overment the political insiders were saying this year, that's impossible. they might even lose some. just before the election, bill inside of michigan report said, well, they have a chance now. they won 20. nobody foresaw that. this is deeply thing. two smaller points. one possible relevance to 2012 when it's possible it seems to me we could have a third-party presidential candidate or a third presidential can date raising the question could the presidential election going to the house of representatives?

this question was raised in 2000. well, if the presidential race goes to the house, it is voted on by state delegations. if you have a majority of members of a state delegation, your state vote goes to the -- your party's candidate. going into the election, democrats had a majority of state delegationsment i believe more than 26. now republicans have 33 state delegations, democrats 16. that may change before the next congress which will be the relevant one, but it probably won't change a lot. it gives republicans a backstop. finally, i saw the am ambassador from finland last night, and it occurred to me we saw a swing in finish americans. [laughter] michigan won the upper peninsula -- >> thank god somebody got around to that. >> stupak retired and in

wisconsin or northern wisconsin, chairman of the house appropriations retired, shawn duffey, republican won, and minnesota that fred referred to, jim overstock, and chairman of the transportation of infrastructure committee lost to republican, chip, a former northwest pilot describing himself as a stay-at-home dad, and lake superior now is bounded by republican congressional districts. >> steve smith the editor of the examiner is going to get 25 words to discuss the finnish swing votes. [laughter] >> when i saw on the campaign trail talking to voters was a word of warning to republicans, you swept up good, but it's not because voters were necessarily embracing the agenda. it was an antiincumbent vote and

antidemocrat vote because they were in charge of both houses. some i talked to were planning to vote against the democrat even when they didn't know the republican candidate or knew little about them. i feel like it's time for a change, we need difference in washington. it occurred to me that a lot of the expectations had been built up in 2008. they thought congress was going to function differently this time around and work together to get the economy going, and now by the time the election rolls around, the economy is in the dumps, and congress is as partisan as it's ever been. that's all it is these day, and i think voters were truly tired. i think one case that was really clearly, you know, an example of that is in west virginia where, of course, governor mansion did manage to win. he was really headed for a big loss against this unknown candidate, and, you know, he had

approval ratings, you know, in the high 60s, and people didn't want to send him to washington because they felt convinced he was going to follow the democratic agenda even though we love him, we just don't want him in washington because he's a democrat. he managed to save himself to fire a bullet through the marquee legislation. not only do i not like the democrats, i'm going to shoot bullets through their legislation. how better could you make a case? things turned around for them and he really got the message shortly after that. throughout the very states i traveled and people i talked to, there were folks who were democrats, independents, republicans, telling you why this is bombing out. they just wanted someone new in there. you can see through some fascinating polling that came out something where 65% of respondents said they would want to just toss everybody out in

congress and start over, so there's a really, you know, intense level of disgust right now, and i think, you know, republicans are keenly aware of that, and so there's going to be a lot of pressure on them to try to change the image of congress or the next time there's an election, they're going to be the bums that get thrown out, and i think they're aware of that. the question is whether or not they can steer the ship around enough to improve the image of the elected politicians. that's the impression i got that was really the most significant thing i saw on the campaign trail is just the real urge is to start new in congress. >> that's great, and we'll pivot now and talk about the challenge that john boehner faces and what's going to happen in the next few weeks and months. i actually sited the same in -- can you imagine republican

shooting a gun in an ad and what kind of example this is your fang -- young people. i got to say the examiner and the standard are shrewd about this. first, senator byrd died and mentioned the point of a caretaker as senator and then the wisdom was he's popular governor from west virginia and he'll have no problem. we both had stuff saying if it's a federalized election, you can be popular, but they may no want to send you to washington if you're in the wrong party and support legislation by the president of your party. therefore, the polls showed that it was a little ahead, i think, and that there were a lot of voters in west virginia having

joe as the governor, not just the democratic senator following leader barak obama and harry reed in washington. ben mansion is an intelligent guy and good politician, and pivoted and pivoted very sharply and decided to just if you can't be too subtle so if anyone was confused, he didn't just have differences with senator reed or be runner stamp with president obama, he shot the bill on air and basically denounced the entire democratic leadership, and the president, and then the conventional wiz dim in washington, i remember this, was just crazy for shooting a gun. that's desperate, and it won't work, but it turned out to be a good tactic and survived in a state like west virginia in a year like this. he's the senator from west virginia, and there's a piece about this on thursday, so we have democrats who have survived the on -- onslaught and several by

distancing themselves. should we talk about democrats with their challenges, and the republicans with theirs. >> there's more democratic senators up in 2012, something like 24 and only 9 republicans. there's a target rich environment for republicans giving them a good chance of wins the senate in 2012, and right now, the pressure is on a number of these, mansion just being one, and a dozen others, incumbent democratic senators up for reelection in 2012 either in fairly conservative states, or states that trended in a republican and conservative direction this year, and you can think of ben nelson in nebraska and bill nelson in florida, and what are the others on my list?

claire mccaskill in new jersey and roy blunt winning by 19 points, and robert with a strong candidate, and some things that didn't hurt candidates this year, a connection to the bush administration didn't hurt anybody. the most successful republican candidate in the country is rob portman in ohio and there was nobody with a bigger bush connection and he was special trade representative and he won by 20 points as well. i'm trying to think of the other states -- >> virginia. >> well, yeah, virginia -- >> montana. >> montana, and republicans have already started -- republican smarts have started talking to the democrats and in effect what's going to happen is

there will be republican senators plus some democratic senators on many issues will give republicans operational control of the senate. you can think of spending issues, many tax issues, and many other issues, even health care issues, on which you'll have, say 55 senators forming a majority, most republicans, and what, eight or nine being democrats, and that's certainly something i look to see, i expected to see, and will not make harry heed happy. >> i agree. i think there's this so-called mob squad in the senate to a faction that harry reed had to deal with and last year with the majority at 69 you with ben nelson running things in the senate and things came down to ben nelson because they needed that one vote, and with that

tight margin and now with the senate, forget it. it's 46-54, whatever they have. you're going to see the coalitions building between the republicans and these moderate democrats up for election. i mean, everybody wants -- i think that's going to be the warning for the various democrats that they need to, you know, moderate what they do, and you're right, it's going to become a very difficult for the senate not to swing right, and i think that's what's going to happen. >> i suppose if the house passes legislation other tax legislation or if it comes to the senate, and the house will define the parameters, there's a lot of pressure on the moderate senators to go a good chunk of the way towards the house republican legislation that puts the republicans in a house in a much better position and in a funny way the democrats control the senate because they get to pass legislation out of the house and it's dying in the senate and democratic control in the senate. if it's passing with democratic

votes, so it becomes sort of bipartisan legislation, at least, and puts the president in a tough position on taxing and spending. >> that's a good dynamic for republicans now because they can pass whatever they want in the house with a big 30-seat margin, and they can say, oh, those democrats didn't pass anything which is what the democrats did to them, and then they blame it on the president too. it is a good dynamic for them. i think in the senate it's going to be harder seeing harry reed taking up -- for instance, the house wants to take up a bill to repeal the health care bill. do you see harry wants to do that in no. >> it's harder for reed to block amendments or block parts of it. let's talk about the republicans on the one hand in the house with their own management problems and the obama administration. what do you say, byron?

>> i look for them to do what they said they were going to do. i think some people criticized the statement to the america, but the republicans will try to do it. the big features are cutting spending to prestimulus and prebailout levels with common sense exceptions for senior citizens, veteran, and troops, that can be large. cuts on discretionary spending, cutting congress' budget, and then repealing obamacare. those are thanks they campaigned on, and they mean. going back to wisconsin, ron johnson who is completely unknown, had not run for anything before went around the state, and every time he appeared, he said i got two things. i want to repeal the health care law, and i want to cut the deficit and decide the growth of government. that's all he said. they actually mean that.

from the republicans, excuse me, from the white house point of view, just go back to the fundraiser that the president attended in massachusetts not too long before the election in which he said that the country is afraid, and that when people are afraid, we're hard wired not to think clearly. he clearly believes that the country made a wrong-headed decision, and everything he has said both in his post-election news conference and in the 60 minutes interview indicates he will put the blame on a failed or insufficient communications effort on his own part for that of the democrats, that in spite of the fact he gave 50 plus speeches i think in the health care thing. i think you have a recipe for irreconcilable differences because a lot of the new lawmakers, i mean, they really, really believe what they are saying.

ron johnson said the health care bill was the greatest assault on freedom in my lifetime and no room for compromise on that, and i don't think the president can back down and say, you know, i guess you're right. i spent a year on the wrong thing. he can't do that, so i see irreconcilable conflict. >> michael, do you see that or the chance for unlikely as it seems now for some actual legislation getting passed? >> some things have to get passed. there has to be a budget that's a tax code; right? >> that's right. i think the initial question before the lame duck congress is what to do about the bush tax cuts as we refer to them, speaker pelosi did not have the votes to enact the democratic platform in the house of renewing all the tax cuts except for the people making more than $250,000. a wrote a comment in the examiner saying that was the end of her speakership when she

didn't have 218 votes, and cast a vote for herself. it's customary for the speaker not to vote. she cast a vote to adjourn the house, duck her tail and run. now they're on a weaker position on that issue, and now listening to mitch mcconnell yesterday and john boehner, they are insisting on we got to have all the tax cuts, and by the way, we're not going along with renewing the tax cut on the high earners for a year or others permanently or a longer period of time because then you set us up for a vote later. it will simply be a tax increase on january 3rd before the new congress comes in, so i think you're going to see that. there are some areas, and then the house does have this

leverage that they have, you know, they vote, the government needs appropriations. we need to have a tax law and we need to have the alternative minimum tax fix that affects democratic constituencies that the tax cut that the democrats needs every year and the republicans can make them pay for it in some way, shape, or form. i see those things happening. a couple things. you know, the republicans are more in line with the president's stated position of support for the free trade agreements with columbia, panama, and south korea. he's talked about bringing those before congress. support for free trade has diminished sharply among democrats in 1993 when the nafta treaty in mexico and canada was passed in the house with the support the clinton administration and coalition of

approximately 135 republicans and 100 democrats. you don't have 25 democrats for that kind of measure anymore, and you may have some new republicans against it, but that is a possibility of cooperation. the other thing in the exit poll fortified this, on the president's course in afghanistan, he has the support of what must republican voters and republican members of congress, he has opposition from most democratic voters and for many democratic members of congress, and i would guess speaker for the moment, speaker pelosi might be included in that number. i'm sure she's not an enthusiastic person. you know, looking ahead, will the president be challenged, is there a possibility of challenging the president in the primary? i fought the answer for a long time -- >> met me hold you off here. >> okay. >> let's build suspense. [laughter] on taxes, do people here think,

quickly, what will tax rates be in 2011-12. current tax rates? >> same as they are now. >> okay. two year extension? >> of all the cuts. >> republicans want a longer extension to four years which would serve obama better. the question is whether obama's ideology stands in the way what's best for him politically, and it may. obviously, he hates tax cuts. he likes handouts, but those are not cuts, let's see how hard republicans are and difficult to get on a two year extension of all the bush tax cuts because they are really aiming for four. >> i agree with fred. i think if you listen to what obama was saying the other day and mitch mcconal and harry reed said he was willing to look

at other possibilities. he was hinting at the temporary extension working and obama dropped hints about that the other day meaning 20 look -- to look at all the options. if you want to see a real standoff is whether to make this perm -- permanent. there's no middle ground. >> at the end of the day they'll accept something between two and four years. i imagine that might help the economy and the president's reelection chances despite himself. >> that's one reason why democrats lost, you know, speaker pelosi lost the support. a lot of democratic house members said raising taxes when the economy is a sluggish recovery is not a good idea an economists from mill ton friedman for that pop cigs, and i think, you know, the interesting thing to me is if speaker pelosi could have

probably gotten a democratic plan through in the spring, but they had health care in the spring, why? because it had been pushed forward in time because they had to deal with cap and trade which she pushed to a vote in the house in june. i think that was a mistake in tactics from the point of view of achieving maximizing the democratic achievements. >> from the point of view of republicans that too obvious issues if you're john boehner is the general issue of just reconciling the tea party-inspired new members with the new publishment guys. one-third of the caucus is going to be new, and as a pure management challenge. it's one thing with 10% new people that get integrated into the new structure. third could be a challenge for john boehner. those are the two immediate challenges would be a debt

ceiling on taxes, and then a debt ceiling vote which is due pretty soon; right? february or march, and then the republicans have a unvail a budget. paul ryan will lay down a republican budget around april 1 which the president lays down the official omb budget, and there's a huge amount of pressure on republicans both ways looking different enough from the president. it would be ridiculous if it was like the president and how obama is sending us into destitution. it's hard to bring the numbers down fast when you do the math, and all the spending cuts in big numbers are risky. i'm curious. what -- the tea parties guys didn't think they got elected to cast one of those first votes to raise the debt ceiling of the federal government. i'm curious how that plays out

and/or the vote on the republican budget? >> i think the debt ceiling is a big test for the republicans because the new tea party caucus could be in great numbers because you have 52 existing tea party caucus members and now you have more coming, and they could say we're not voting for a raise in the debt ceiling, just stop the spenting. it's going to require the democrats to raise the debt ceiling and the republicans to say no, and the democrats say, we're not going to vote for this if you're not. it would could be a real standoff and it big test on how the candidates operate as lawmakers. the john boehner will have to hand it all as the new speaker. what's he going to do? he talked to tea party candidates on the night of the election, and he said i will never let you down. well, he's going to be put to the test with the debt ceiling because he knows you got to raise it. or, if you don't, you have to

stop spending. nobody likes that either so -- >> what do you think? >> well, you can raise it for less than obama asked and for a shorter period of time. there's lots of wiggle room on this thing, and you can count on the democrats, john boehner can count on the democrats who have to vote for it because it's their president asking for it and enough republicans will vote for it and let the tea party off the hook. they can vote against it, and you can still have a majority. i think that will -- i don't think this is going to be that hard of a problem. the republicans have a harder problem i think, and that is that they -- the things that they believe in like extending the bush tax cuts and other tax cuts and spending cuts, if president obama goes along with these things, he'll be helping obama get reelected in 2012. remember, this was a problem in 1996 when republicans, trent lot

when he was a majority leader gave bill clinton, who vetoed two welfare reform bills, gave him a third shot at it, and clinton signed it, and bob dole, of course, the republican presidential candidate was using welfare reform issue against clinton, and it was taken away. .. it was taken a -- taken away. and i'm sure that bob dole and other republicans are still mad about that, that trent lott should not have sent bill clinton up for the third time, but they were in favor of it. they liked it. >> when you think about the dynamics of the next six to nine months, a player in this is the chairman of the house budget committee. it is the one document that could

>> not just vision bedetails of the size of score of the government. the republicans tripped up in 1995. they had to reduce medicare. that's what began to derail the republican revolution in 1995. i'm curious if you can balance the tea party and in this own party, can you sell the budget to the public as a port of reasonable alternative to obama? >> well, '95 was a defeat for newt gingrich and the house of republicans. they held more or less spending for a year. that plays a large part in sends the budget towards being balanced two years later. they lost some public support and the budget slow down in shuts down government. let's remember, they didn't lose

60 house seats in the next election. they held control of the house. so, you know, that was not a total disaster. they did not win the presidency. they did hold the house and held it for another ten years. so looking ahead, i think the republicans are a lucky now to have paul ryan in there. he's on the one hand intelligent and has a good personality. he has a real command of substance and policy, and he's capable of arguing his position and debating it civilly but strongly. we saw that at the so-called health care summit that president obama held. and, you know, he's also got the biggest, you know, long-term -- he's also addressed the republicans biggest problem. if they, you know, should achieve the kind of success in 2012 they would like. and that is how do you deal with

these entitlements. he's got his road map. which is a long-term proposal to try to bring the entitlement state into a situation of fiscal sanity. some democrats have taken to attacking it. they have not provided alternatives of their own. only a relatively small number of republicans have specifically endorsed it. and the inclination of incumbent republicans to get away for something that might provide fatter for attacks. it'll be interesting to see if the idea is em praised by 1/3 of the new republican conference. ryan will be front row center of any of the fights here. i think, you know, it's hard to imagine how the republicans could have somebody better positioned to do this.

>> it seems to me fred wrote a piece praising it, suggesting it was the way -- fresh look at the future for republicans. i actually had lunch by pure chance of paul ryan three or four days since the piece came out. i should be careful how i say this, off of the record. he said he was flattered by fred's piece. he said a lot of candidates seem to be reading it, suddenly around tuesday, his office got a bunch of calls from candidates saying the road map is great. our guys, we've been praising it for the last 48 hours. i think there are actually medicare cuts. i don't think it cuts; right? it's just reforms. could you explain this to me? paul had a send couple of staffers over to the congressional campaign -- you shouldn't use congressional

office to talk to candidates. where they could go brief or get other outside people to go brief them. they were so embraced by fred's article and getting attacked by the democratic opponent allay 1995. i guess if you thinking about tuesday, did republican challenge lose on the '95 attack on them for being scrooge medicare campaigns? >> i don't think so. not if they ran great campaigns. the republican leadership is going to have to produce actual cuts. the new members, look, they go to the historical tables in 2001 in which the testify sit had been falling for three years. the deficit in 2007 was is $160

billion. federal expenditures $2.7 trillion. 2010, they are $3.7 trillion. they had never gone up like that. all of the sudden, they are a trillion dollars more per year than in 2007. the new members are not going to understand how it has to be the new baseline. they are going to push hard for actual cuts. >> in domestic discretionary spending? >> especially. in domestic discretionary spending -- that's what the pledge basically says. it is going to -- they are going to exert a lot of pressure. especially agency by agency to go through and say how in the world are we spending a trillion more than we used to. we are spending this on unemployment insurance. we understand that. all of the other agency budgets have gone like crazy. we have to do something about that. >> do we expect at the end of 2011, you know, in october 1 when the new fiscal year beginning, do we expect the president to be signing some of

these -- some degree of cuts in domestic and many assets in domestic discretionary spending. or do we expect another government show down a la1995? >> well, if you are talking about a government shutdown -- >> do you think obama could do what clinton did at the showndown, at the end of the day, president clinton expected a certain restraint for at least a year. then got up in january of '96 and said the year of the government is over. he didn't mean it. but he's saying it was a big concession. president obama has not had the tone so far. >> that's a psychological issue as far as barack obama is concerned. how much can he accept this? to what degree does it say he was on the wrong course for the first two years, which he cannot go there. but, you know, he's come across -- come out in favor of freezes in some areas of domestic spending. i can certainly agree on some of

that. i can't see him signing a budget without a lot of fighting back and forth beforehand. >> now paul rand says the meaning in obligation, which is $100 billion is easy. he says he won't have any trouble finding that. he said if there are republicans who object to that, he would like to introduce him to the freshman congressman coming in, who would think cutting $100 billion out of a huge budget approaching $4 trillion is pretty easy. so that's not a problem. what republicans are going to do, i think the plan is, is to have every week pass a spending cut. one of them mentioned to me it might be a spending cut in the federal aid for national public radio, npr. which is some spending cut. >> juan williams felt. >> yeah. >> do you like that? >> they give the shows the hokey

names. >> revenge. >> and you pass one every week. and send it to the senate. and if harry reid doesn't like it, he cannot call it up. and then mitch mcconnell will use that obscure rule and it will be called up. anyway, but it'll be up there. and democrats will have to block it. you do that week after week. you can come up with enough popular spending cuts to do this for many, many weeks. it sounds to me like a pretty good strategy. >> anything else on sort of the 2011, what to watch for? before we gets to mike's presidential challenge against president obama? >> well, we have the deficit commission reporting in the alan simpson reporting in december. and, you know, my initial take is that if they come out with what is expected, some combination of spending cuts and entitlement changes, democrats

will be resisting the entitlement changes and republicans will be rejecting the tax cuts. >> tax hikes. >> the tax increases, rather. we are not going to see we are not going to see anything development out of this. it seems to me if you were trying to initiate change, one the directions you might want to go to the tax reform in the 1996 type. where you eliminate preferences and so-called tax expenditures and lower rates. that is, you know, the obvious way to get something that will have important things that both parties want. you know, i'm not -- i'm guessing the deficit commission is not going to give us that kind of a proposal. so i'm afraid i don't see very much happening on this front. >> susan anything else? >> i was going to say the debt commission certainly. i think the youcut proposal, the

republicans have put in place to help people decide what to cut. talking about spending and the fears about what that's going to do to the economy. maybe not cutting social security or raising the retirement age, there are other areas you may see people more willing to embrace cut. the fact that the president has a debt commission and has talked about cutting it. the atmosphere is there where you may see some success in reducing some spending this year. >> michael, you are itching to tell us the primary challenge to president obama in 2012, and fred and byron can tell us the republican nominees is going to be? >> i have thought there would not be a primary challenge. i thought it very unlikely the first african-american president will be challenged in his own party and with a primary electorate in which it's 20%

african-american. that's unlikely. it does seem to me it is possible that the -- there maybe basis for a challenge from the anti-war left. you have as possible candidates governor howard dean who i think was treated rather shabbily by the administration after a run of national chairman. i think that former senator russ feingold as he will soon be, who was a principalled opponent of the military actions, and, you know, to his credit, took those stands when they were not popular and made a big point of it, is a person that might conceivably be that way. so i think there's the possibility of that. i still think it's quite unlikely. >> and on the republican side? fred do you want to? >> no, i think republican haves an absolutely winning ticket that they would put together. >> let me write this down. >> and they'd win pretty easily.

that would be jeb bush is the presidential nominee and chris christie, the problem is neither one of those guys is running. christie said the other day, there's a zero challenge he'll get involved in presidential politics. i've talked to jeb bush a number of times, he sounds like someone who's not at all interested in running 2012. he's a great governor. i think he'll be a great candidate. you got to want it. and he's not. >> i do think the one thing that you do get talking to republicans, they basically put a lot of their 2012 concerns in the back of their mind until after the election. this election was so, so important to them. so they just try not to think about it. obviously a lot of work has been going on behind the scenes. but i do get a sense of the extreme hunger for somebody new to come in and save them. obviously, john mccain is long gone from the picture. but from the people they had,

mitt romney, the most and best known name other than sarah palin from the 2008 race, i think is never going to get people to love him. i think he's had a problem connecting with a certain part of the republican electorate. palin is a -- remains a devicive figure among republicans and not too long ago, i talked to the head of the paul meadow family council. which is the family research in south carolina, got the sense they were divided half and half. so he remains divided. there's the hope that someone like chris christie would run or paul ryan or somebody to come in and save them from a field that doesn't excite them very much right now. so far that hasn't happened. i don't think anybody with the name of bush will actually fill that role. >> i think you are going to see palin jump in and romney for sure. he's not ready to let it go.

i get the sense he's going to try one more time. regardless of who the star candidate might be, you are going to have to deal with the fact that sarah palin maybe a candidate. and what's that going to do to the field? and mitt romney as well. and mike huckabee. who knows, i can see a lot of people from the last election resurface and try again. it's going to be interesting to see how all of that plays into it, i think. >> it feels to me it's going to be more like a traditional democratic primary with a zillion people running and some of favorites and some are outsiders. sometimes the outsiders win. and sometimes it's the semifavorite like the john kerry. the races tend to the democratic side have had ups and downs. people go ahead like dean and falter. republicans have been ludicrously boring. it's like a joke. ford beats reagan in '76. the second place always gets the nomination.

reagan gets the nomination in '80. reagan beats bush. bush gets the nomination. bush wins. then the republican party did something wild and daring, nominated the son of a former president, who beats mccain who gets the nomination next 37 i think in the post obama in his defeat of clinton and the post tea party, it doesn't feel like the republicans want to keep nominating the next in line. it's also fair to say, this time there's no clear next in line. is sarah palin the next in line? she's the defeated vice presidential. what mike huckabee who is sort of neglected got more vote. >> the primary, mike huckabee won seven primaries. mitt romney only won one. >> bill, the weekly standard was one the first publications to spot sarah palin as the

potential national candidate. this is out of the fact that the weekly standard alaska cruise, as i recall, when i guys went there. >> i object to the word artifact. >> penetrating report is what we can that. >> since "the weekly standard" has led, what are our weekly standards colleagues views of the potential for that in 2012. >> we are doing a great lakes cruise. then we are going to stop with paul ryan. he's on the lake; right? >> somewhere in lake michigan. >> we'll take care of paul. fred? >> well, there's one thing. >> i was deaf. >> there's one thing that will invite sarah palin to run. that's early primaries. she'd do well in iowa, south carolina, i don't care whether the family research council is divided or not. you have iowa, then new

hampshire, he can skip new hampshire, then go to south carolina. and i don't know about the nevada caucuses. they come in there. but it was dominated. >> it was dominated by the church of latter day saints. >> if romney is running, he might do well there again. it was one the few places he did do well. you can see people who would like to be part of the palin presidential campaign arguing to her boy, that's just tailor-made in the beginning. you just have to win iowa and south carolina. it'll be easy from then on. i think there's a substantial chance she will run. i have no inside information. and i suspect she doesn't know whether he's going to run at this point. >> i saw her before fox news sunday. she was on in new york. we did the show. we're chatting before the show began. and it was a notable aspect of the conversation. she said she was describing in alaska where the cbs news

reporters had been seemingly they were on tapes of conspiring to cause trouble to rally and, palin, who is a strong supporter of miller. he was outraged by the supporters in the tape. she said, you know, the media has been hostile. yes, they are just corrupt bastards. and she short of paused a minute. can i say that on television? i say, hey, go ahead. you know, don't tell me stop you. 10 minutes later, there she was telling chris wallison on fox news sunday. i don't know if i'd suggest she's running or not. when she said something like i want a strong common sense constitutional conservative to run. if the special person runs, i'd be happy to help him or her and support him or her. if there isn't such a person, i would consider it myself. most people of took that as kind of she wants to run.

i think maybe she's being sincere. if she thinks there's someone who gets out there, who impresses her, and she likes and agrees with, she might not be so determined to run she might decide to support someone else. she's had good success. she's shown herself willing to support herself. on the other hand, it's also true as fred says. when you are a famous and popular and powerful of a force as she is, it's probably pretty hard to tell yourself why shouldn't i take a shot at it? i had a sense a lot of people are going to take a shot at it? why not? what do you lose? if you are a governor, haley barbour, senator like mike thune, i don't think it's going to hurt them much to get out there. i think the democratic primaries and 11 people on stage, 20 debates, things happen.

look at mike huckabee. came from nowhere. he was a compelling debater. also found in niche in the terms of consistencies. good for for "the weekly standa" it will be an exciting, i think, republican primary race. which they haven't all been. like i said, they tend to appoint the next person. how strong do you think ultimately president obama is or could be? all republicans are spooked by the memory of '95, '96, clinton came back so effectively. on the other hand, there's times when presidents haven't come back effectively. and they have lost. >> what do you think where president obama starts from? if he'd have been running this year, he'd have lost. he's got a lot of ground to make up. and he's not as depth, nimble, he doesn't come as president

clinton was. he doesn't come from a state and a political culture that is fairly conservative as clinton did in arkansas. you know, clinton knew how after losing in 1982. and also, bill clinton was never called ideological. and, of course, president obama isn't fairly ideological. and he comes from academia and liberal communities like hyde park in illinois. that's barack obama. it's harder for him to move to the center. he obviously doesn't have any natural inclination to do that. but he's going to need to do it. but he's going to have to do it on issues that he doesn't like, that he's on the wrong side of now, on taxes, spending cuts, maybe even on health care though whoever said that'd be hard for him to do that, that's probably

right. there are a lot of issues that he's going to have to move to the right on if he wants to be re-elected, and he's not inclined to do naturally. >> but he is terribly worried about his consistency on the left. if you say to them, this man that you wanted to be president has been president and -- by the way we're still in iraq. he escalated the war in afghanistan, guantanamo is still open, a lot of national security features you hated are still in place, and he extended the tax cut. that's a demoralizing effort for a certain part of the democratic base. >> i agree with a lot of that. i think there's some countervailing conversations. certainly this electorate issued a strong rebuke of the president on public policy. they were against his policies. it's not -- it may not be

exactly the same electorate in 2012. we had low participation by young voters. we did not have the record participation by black voters that we had in 2008. that maybe different next time. we don't know for sure. certainly that's a lively possibility. i think there's a feeling among many, perhaps most americans that it would be a bad thing for america to reject the first african-american president. i think that's an result of our history. it's a feeling that's widespread. i think more generally, americans have tended to sort of indulge their presumptions in favor of an incumbent president. look at public feeling towards bill clinton in 1995, or towards george w. bush in 2004, they were kind of giving the incumbents benefit of the doubt. maybe in this, you know, more turbulent issues environment, that won't be the case. but it could be the case.

i do not see the kind of hatred of barack obama that we saw many conservatives had for bill clinton, many liberals had from george bush. many people had certain characteristics that the other cultural side loathed. i don't think barack obama had those kind of characteristics. the toughest jokes that are told against him by conservatives are the teleprompter jokes. that's about the toughest stuff that he gets. it's not what you have heard about conservatives or liberals about bush. i think all of those things could be different. we could be in a, you know, different issue environment in terms of where the economy is, et cetera, et cetera. i do think that -- i do agree with fred that, you know, -- let's put it this way, all

politicians have a certain range of issues that they -- issue position they could adopt. some have a very narrow range and a great broad one. bill clinton had a broad one. obama seems to be narrower. i think he probably won't change. i think the issue positions will be continue to be unpopular. they are -- you know, the obama democrats came to office with the assumptions that economic distress would make americans more supportive of big policy. that assumptions turns out to be wrong. and i think that's the fundamental lesson of this election. but there are other factors in which i could foresee the reelection of the president and some significant recovery by democrats from the position that they are in in this election. >> word on obama? >> i think you are right.

what this is really going to come down to in 2012, first of all, what's the republican? obama is charismatic figure. he's an excellent campaigner. any of us who followed him around in 2008, he's a real rock star. he attracted thousands of people. they love him. he really knows how to campaign. that's one thing he does really, really well. you cannot discount what's going to generate. one the reasons why the democrats faired so poorly this year, they didn't -- so many democrats didn't turn out to vote. they lost. it was the enthusiasm gap really that helped the republicans. they are going to have to combat that. so is obama. he can't stir up the base if he's not moving in the direction of a liberal agenda. but on the other hand, if you look at the poll and look at the results on tuesday, the independents switched this year. instead of voting for, you know, the democrats they really went

heavily in favor of republicans. 2012 is going to boil down to the independent vote. who are they going to vote for? he has to be mindful of independent voters and they are speaking loud and clear right now that they really are not in favor of what he's been doing. so i think the obama administration has a real challenge right now to try to figure out how to get him elected. and i think a second term could be in jeopardy by looking at the results on tuesday. >> one the things the republicans didn't like, they didn't move in direction, in terms of what they called in the election polls. they voted republican much more. one the main things they disliked was obamacare, which the white house never succeeded in convincing a majority of the constituents of obamacare. his health care passed. clinton fell apart in '94. by january '96, president

clinton was -- politically at least winning the showdown in gingrich. he was able to say he talked republicans a little bit. he was able to play the era of big government was over. that was signaled. there was a signal that basically i'm not bringing the health care up again. you don't have to worry that the monster of hillary is going to reappear in the window of 1997. the problem obama -- the obama administration has is i think it's the law of the land. and whether it's repealed or substantially reformed is a big issue. and if you want to repeal obamacare obvious -- or substantially change it, you need to defeat. you need to set up the situation. we've been talking about that. that's partly a matter of his own choice and his own psychology. but it's also just a matter of a funny way you kept it.

because either, you know, he's going to be defending it and republicans are going to be attacking it through 2011, 2012. it's a funny situation. he set up the situation until he can convince the majority americans to be okay, the only way is to get rid of it by defeating the president in 2012. he didn't have that because he failed in the first years where obama succeeded. we have 10 minutes left. we at the "weekly standard" do close on saturday. we should pretend to work on it. let's take a few questions. i think we have a microphone here. someone would raise -- i can't see with the lights. you find someone there. good. >> hi, my name is debra. i'm from the cato institute.

there's a lot of optimism with the new control. the voters weren't going enough, doing enough for the economy and giving them job. republicans are talking about spending cuts but won't privatize security and repeal obamacare and medicare and medicare. do you want to speak to that? >> how serious are the republicans about cutting government? >> i'll jump in. in my opinion, this is the most serious in ten years. whether or not they get it done is another question. they have the special monitoring service that's watching them. are we to quote -- one of my quotes from the tea party sources that from the tea party in patriots.

the big tea party groups. the republicans have the tea party support. they are on probation as far as they are concerned. they are going to have to prove themselves. if they don't listen to the american people, they will find themselves in a very tough election spot in two years. right now they want them to make cuts. that's at the top of their list. beside repealing health care. which is the big marquee thing for the republican party. the vibe that i get from the gop leadership, they are ready to take action. they are not going to back down. they have to cut the deficit and the debt. >> interesting to watch what's happening in the uk where they are cutting the budget in some departments by 25% and going to lay off 490,000 public sector workers. we may see some similar things like this in the some of the states. we've got three states that elected democratic governors and have very serious financial

problems. california, new york, and illinois. i think one thing that could come up in the course of the next two years is -- and it did almost with governor schwartz anythinger at one point. was thinking about coming to washington to pay for cash and not script for some things. if and when the private credit markets cut the state governments out, there's going to be an issue. i think the republican house is going to be in no mood to subsidize the republican employee remembers of california, new york, and illinois. >> that'll be interesting if there's an congressional fight. >> i was going to ask if this is the cuts and the reforms that people in the tea party think are near, do you think there's going to be a third party candidacy for the presidency. what's going to happen for the american people?

if they don't like the republicans they've elected, there's always the democrats once they all charge it. >> one the striking things -- i'll say the word. this year, i thought it was underappreciated success after accepting and welcoming the tea party. they got defeated. but basically what the american system is, you can run against and do get the republican nomination. they avoided, what people forget 18 months ago looked like the possibility of many third party tea party candidates. they avoided until the sense of profile. you could have nine states where tea party was running as independents and hurting republicans. part of it is because they knocked off some republicans and the tea party activist felt they had a place in it even when they didn't win. i think you raise a good point. that's one thing to handle it in

a bunch of senate and congressional races when you are in a power. it's another thing to have a governor for a year and a half and then be, you know, hold that coalition together. >> well, but the factor would be who's at the head of the ticket? who would be the presidential candidate in all of this? whether the people who voted tea party in this most recent election whether they could sign on to this new person. so, you are right. on the district by district basis. if someone is elected with substantial tea party support and just completely disappointments then, they could be deeply in trouble, in terms of republican party as a whole, we are likely to have someone who has not been a candidate before. we know we have one who hasn't been on the national ticket before. i think tea party -- i don't see the tea parties abandoning that. >> i don't think either.

they will get cuts. or they will shortly -- they will pass the house and senate. because at the moment, the culture of spending in congress has changed. and now there's a culture of cutting spending more than raising spending. the problem is it doesn't last long. we have one in '95. after '96, it went away. went back to the position of congress and the house. that's to spend more. for now in the short run, i think the tea party people will be satisfied with what the republicans do. not for long. >> i think republicans do have a bigger majority in the house than they enjoyed between '94 and '06. they got down to as low as 221 with 218 being the majority. and the glue that you hold together your conference when you are very few votes to spare it's called money. the appropriations committee, the transportation

infrastructure committee, now they are going to have 240 or more members. you can let 20 people walk the plank and you have possibility of exerting more pressure on the appropriators culture. it may be a longer need which pork is no longer kosher. >> i saw nancy pelosi said she will be running for minority leader. i'd like to hear your comments? >> susan, get back to work. two hours ago i came in and said she's not going to run. >> first we all wrote it out. she's going to lose 30 seats. why stick around. if she loses five seats, she can be eyeing the next election as a chance tour speaker again. it's much less likely they will be able to gain it back in 2012.

it's a longer stint. does she want to go back to that? apparently she does. he's 70 years old. she's full of energy. this is a women who reporters have to jog to keep up in her stilettos running down the hall. the idea that she was going to get in her rocking chair and start knitting for the grandchildren didn't make sense. she's a real fighter. it's a tough lady. it's not surprising she'd want to stick around and be the minority. the minority can do some things. she's also a great fundraiser. so she's a real source of money and potential for democrats to try to pick up more seats. maybe she feels a sense of obligation to try to get some of the seats back. most importantly, the reason why she's going to run, the caucus has changed. these elections wiped out the moderate faction. the people who would have made her impossible to take over as a

top democrat. they are gone. what you are left with is a majority progressive. they love her. she passed health care reform for them. she got behind the cap-and-trade. she got behind all of the liberal causes that were really important for them. she was in a way their campon. -- champion. it's not surprising she has support and it's also not surprising she'd want to stick around and do it. >> correct me i'm wrong. i think most of the in thes -- most of the democrats who came out during the campaign against her, bobby bright and others, most of them did lose. >> i'll tell you the conversation that i had with the speakers office before the election, they made a point. she won't have the support to stay around. the point that was made the people that don't like her aren't going to be in congress. if they won by a majority and the democrats are still? control, it would have been impossible for her to maintain the speakership.

there would have been just enough moderates that would have voted against her or someone would have assumed a candidacy for speaker. she wouldn't have had the 218 on the floor. steny hoyer would have been it in that case. he'll have to wait to get to become the top democrat. >> steny hoyer must really be have a bad day. >> what susan described was the scenario that prompted newt gingrich in 1999. when he was under 218, he was out. as susan pointed out, nancy pelosi just needs a majority of the democratic caucus. california minus jane harmon get you there. >> who was the single biggest democrat villain of all? i think you could argue easily it's nancy pelosi.

the republicans wouldn't be unhappy to see that. >> we didn't see any steny hoyer ads. >> the republican party will continue to be able to run against reid and pelosi. we thought reid would lose his own race or democrats would lose the house and pelosi would step down, and as haster did when he lost the house. the team will be the same. >> they are back. but there was a lot of collateral damage. >> on that note. let me thank the panelist for an interesting discussion. let me thank you all for coming. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> starting monday, the national oil spill commission holds a public hearing on the bp oil spill. the two day hearing looks at the preliminary findings regards the

macondo well blowout, starting here at 9 a.m. on c-span2. >> jonah goldberg discusses the election results, the con servetive movement, and the next wave of leaders on the right. join our three hour conversation with our calls, e-mails, and tweets, sunday at noon eastern on c-span2 booktv. >> this weekend on c-span3 american history it have, we'll show the art created by japanese americans during their time in world war ii intermment camps and the 50th an anniversary. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend on c-span3.

saturdays, landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> the school district calls the voluntary bible reading. there's nothing voluntary about the bible reading. >> this week in part two, involving prayer in public schools and freedom of religion, mr. schempp felt students should not be required to read from the bible before class on saturday at 6 p.m. eastern. nationwide on xm channel 132, and online at c-spanradio.org. >> president obama left today on a 10-day trip to asia for meetings.

>> c-span2, one of c-span's public affairs offerings. weekdays, live coverage of the u.s. senate, and weekends booktv. 48 hours of the latest nonfiction authors and books. connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube, and sign us with schedule alert e-mails at c-span.org. >> now "cq" roll call review the election results and what it might mean for congress and the policy going forward. from the ronald reagan building in washington, d.c., this is an

hour and 10 minutes. >> let me briefly introduce myself. i'm the newly minted managing editor of "cq weekly" having moved from politico and before that the washington "washingtony have to go back and see how the news media covered the elections. i went all the way back into the 80s or the 70s to do that. including some the stories that i participated in. i was like to say it was a humbling experience to see what

we said after each election. it was a humiliating experience. almost without fail, almost without fail, one article that i wrote, we were not only wrong, we were dead wrong. we had a tendency to -- what we were talking about in the green room declare things dead that were alive and alive that were dead. revolutions that never materialized, realignments that never materialized. missing those that did. this is because to some extent, we reporters are in the short -- the business of short-term observation, expect for a precious few. that's why we call people like our panelist today norm and tom, who doesn't get called, but writes his own column but has been writing on television.

these are people who have been around and know what it's like. and have the old fashioned quality that used to be known as perspective. so they've seen it before, and they understand where it may lead and why it might not lead. and they understand what is possible and what isn't. i would commend you in particular volume that norm and tom worked on, i forgetten the year 1994. called permanent campaign, which is a brilliant description of what had happened to elective government in the united states which i think still holds true and to this day and i don't want to -- you can actually get it flee if you -- free if you google properly.

[inaudible comment] >> we have a book that's for sale. let me tout that. we're going to start with mort, i don't think the guys need an introduction. it's in your program. we're going to start with mort. the question is what's the agenda? i'll start by holding up the column that mort wrote this morning in "roll call" voters want to two parties to work together. starts out with some analysis of the polls. he says will the politicians listen? despite the dire problems facing the country, protracted high unemployment, the long-term debt bond, energy dependence, second rate education, chances are they won't or can't and will spend the next few years. with that,ly turn it over to mort. >> that's what i fear. inspite of the grave problems, and they are grave, the debt

bomb, i think, is the most serious long-term. it's very, very shortly we will be spending $700 billion a year, paying interest on the national debt. $700 billion is more than we spend on the defense budget. we are boring $700 billion from china in order to build weapons that we may have to use some day against china. it makes no sense. further more, if we -- if we -- not that we are going to fight a war with china. you know, it's balance of power, and the pacific, and all of that stuff. in any event, so, you know, these are problems that the system has got to address. and sort of everybody knows that they got to address them. and yet when it comes to actually doing it the kind of steps that need to be taken never get taken.

i don't -- i fear they are not going to be taken. we have a chance, i doubt we will come up with 16 recommending put it into automatic attention. but there will be a lot of ideas. if the congress is really willing to tackle the problem, if the president can work it out, maybe something can be done. i fear that -- however, because the president will be pooled by his left and worrying about offending his base, i don't think he's bill clinton, i think his mindset is that of a liberal democrat. there are just certain thing that is are out of bounce for him to consider. and because the right wing has been empowered and emboldened

within the republican party. there will be shrieking every time the party tries to make a deal, rush limbaugh, sarah palin, do not compromise. we were elected, we were put here. this is the making of gridlock. now i just -- and in a hopeful note, there are other things that can be done and will also be -- everybody knows needs to be done that they could begin working on. one of them is education reform. no child left behind needs to be reauthorized. arne duncan and barack obama are doing things. this is a nixon go to china exercise where they are really taking on the teachers union.

s. that's something that can be done almost immediately right after they agree on extenting the bush tax cuts if they can. so there are things that can be done. i've got a whole list of them. i'm pessimistic. >> all right. on that uplefting note, norm. what a pleasure to come back. norm and i started this "c q" election conferences in 1980. this is 30 years later. we began with that extraordinary 1980 election. think of '94, 2000, 2006, everything seems to change.

we try to read the tea leaves and figure out what's going on. often times the immediate take and struggle by the two parties and in their leaders to claim a mandate and the meaning of the election, or for others to pull out the ideological frame that they apply every day to their jobs and their life. we figured it's useful on occasion to sit back and see if we can't imagine what stream of kind of political activity and developments, what structures as in some way might help us get through this. before launching into that, i'm always reminded of some story of

what happened in the election. this one, of course, is perfect. most of us, i believe, watch the obama press conference. was he contrite enough more? that's really the question. was he sufficiently object? did he give the reports what they wanted in terms of indicating he's heard the message of the people and he's perfectly prepared to change his agenda to alter his positions to reject his health reform bill and a belief that stimulus is important in a life of economic downturn, no. they were not happy. obama was even less happy than the others. i kempt thinking and -- i kept thinking and imagining what he was thinking while the words were coming out of his mouth.

of course, i was reminded of the famous story that some you have have heard before about moe udall and the presidential democratic nomination contest of 1976. when he was up against jimmy carter and various other candidates, but carter kept coming in just ahead of him in new hampshire and down south into the midwest. it was very frustrating. moe was the perennial second fisher in all of these races. but they finally came to the progressive state of wisconsin. this was there he was going to make his stand and sure enough on election night, the returns were coming in. it was udall number one. god, he was a happy man. but, you know, in those days, it took hours for the returns to come in. now it takes weeks. [laughter] >> for all of them to come in. he decided he had to get a little sleep. he took a nap.

staffer woke him up at 6 a.m. he said mr. congressman, i'm really sorry. the late returns were from the rural areas in jimmy carter actually got the votes to move ahead. he's won, you've lost. udall said, well, that's it. call a press conference. which his staff did. he began by saying the people have spoken. the bastards. and i'm sure that's -- that's how many democrats are feeling today. from a historical perspective, what we had in six and a half swing toward the republican party. which we've had that kind of swing in the last decade while we've been doing the seminar. we know republicans have 60

guarantees. they would well move up to 65. it was a significant victory. didn't produce the variant in the senate. but big pick ups. but what i was struck by in reading the papers this morning from george will and kathleen parker and "the post". but we'll the same thing. it's a rejection of liberalism. :

today is it's not rocket science to see what happening. we've, but the worst economic crisis since the 1930's and the recovery is painfully, painfully slow as we expected it would be a tacit he can with the financial crisis. if you can just consider the democrats were in power. they have a lot of seats at risk. it was a midterm election in which the economy was in dreadful shape object delete and subject to really. and the whole nature of the electorate change from a presidential to emit term election with the relative representation of young people and old