ultimately no moral victories. the end of the year it doesn't feel like 8-4 and three we should have won. laughter could either says 8-4 or 11-7. you can argue but i would put -- you have jindal has gotten into the but maligned after his response to the press in 2009 it wasn't particularly good but i would point back to lots of people that have given poor response is. the only people who watch that are people like us. regular people, my parents consider now, my parents barely watched the speed of the union. i don't think they watch the other party's response. we have a tendency to overlook those sorts of things like the think that there is a lot of interesting talent coming up particularly on the republican

side and the governors and some very able people. sign going to stop because i would rather take your questions and continue to meander. but if you have questions on anything i will take them. >> i will ask the first one, chris. you are a very wide savvy guy and leveraging the aspects of the digital and social media. to talk about the web campaign and the youtube fata. which candidate do you think really leverage digital and social media well and to their advantage, the past go around, always going clever stuff? >> but question. i think some of it is difficult because everyone was trying to do -- i think the social media became the internet of the 2010 campaign. and 06 and 08 or in 04 we've got to get on the internet. we've got to do internet fund raising and so i think everybody was trying to do lots and lots of that. so no one frankly stood out.

the one that stood out and i don't know if this for good or bad at the gubernatorial level, charlie did a lot of good things through davis with some viral with stuff and i don't know whether there was good, bad or indifferent. i mean, demon sheep -- if you ask random people who follow politics a little bit, that's probably the thing they remember most about the campaign. i mean, it was like a phenomenon again, i don't know for good or bad. i guess i would say rather than a specific thing the thing i learned as i used to be a recovery dismissive of wed videos, like, you know, it is a press release basically that they put in video and they would always say you know, people pitch me stuff to read about and say we've got this web video coming out and i like, they cost you like $100 to produce it and it's not the same thing. it's not the false equivalent to a tv ad in which you're putting thousands and thousands of dollars behind in focus group etc. i would say that clearly during

this campaign, there is the possibility for those with the videos to have a genuine influence on the debate that the way in which information now moves through twitter and facebook and every other, you know, thing out there socially, they do have power. you can't ignore them in the way that i once did. so that's kind of a lesson i learned. i'm trying to think there's anybody -- look, whitman -- it wouldn't surprise you the people better self funded did the best/most on media, they did the best/most of the singles. when you spent 200 million or -- the last time i checked she was at 142 million of her own. i assume it's going to go we more than that but it's all said and done. when you spend $140 million of your own money on a two year campaign, you do everything well. and from a kind of tactical perspective. linda mcmahon, same thing.

use and $50 million on the senate race you're going to do it pretty well. i thought rick scott did a lot of good things, again, because he spent $60 million of his own money. so i'm not sure that any -- i'm not sure that tells us anything all that valuable other than if you have a lot of money you can do almost anything and hire smart pr. that doesn't tell about smart media. every candidate now has a twitter handle. every candidate has a facebook page. does that matter any meaningful way? i'm not there yet. i think it matters to a small number of people. it seems to me like everybody announces everything viet water now. nancy pelosi announced she was running for the minority leader over twittered. steny hoyer announced he was running for cover he's running for, minority whip, michele bachman dropped out of the conference chair grace via twitter. so i think it's something as a reporter you have to stay tuned in on but i'm not sure that it is a persuasion technique just yet. i know its name but i still

think the best thing you can do for your candidate is -- is this on television? will this be broadcast, by the way? okay then i won't swear. so, you raise a lot of money and do everything they can to put it on television. i mean, i know that's still, leading ultimately -- why did rick scott in the florida governor's race? because he spent a lot of money on television. a lot of money, as did the rga, as did the vga and alex sink. that's why he won. he was able to find thousands and thousands of dollars in television ads in a state in which television ads are a massive persuasion tool. so in some ways i feel like it is a the more things change the more they stay the same kind of deal. it's cute and interesting and helpful at the margins to be a social media. i did you have to play in that the world, but it's just like i would say for my journalism, ultimately if what i did is right semi pithy things on it would hurt it might not mchugh a successful journalist, it might

make you successful on a twitter person but there has to be something they're ultimately. >> a number of key senate and gubernatorial races this year became a three-way race is, colorado, florida -- do you think this is kind of a onetime phenomenon or is this a trend we are going to see going forward? >> yeah, it's a really good question. because if you look at -- you know, if you ask people which party do you identify with, the fastest growing by far is unaffiliated, which, i mean it's not a party, but you get my point. you know, only one independent, only one house, senate or governor's race and that's lincoln chaffee. i don't know he would have won rhode island had they not got in a huge fight with the current president of the united states a week before the election. it's never a good thing in this

did the president won 62% of the votes to get in a fight when the swing vote in the state between you and your opponent is a book. so, only one. eliot in may and came close, finished second. he almost won. the hard thing for me is i think what -- you know, we've seen success in the past, angus king got elected as dependent and whatever party, u.s. reform party of lincoln minnesota. we've seen kind of this happen here and there. the thing for me i think is that it would have to happen at the presidential level think before we saw a real extended trickle-down. i think there are certain states, minnesota is one, mean is another where there's a history of kind of an independent candidate being taken seriously. but i think until you see the presidential level i don't know that it will be any more than kind of drops in -- you know, kind of random occurrences, as opposed to there's a real party.

because i think people like the idea of a third party because they are sick of democrats and republicans, but of course if there was an actual third party that had a set of core beliefs and the platform they were running on other come to other parties that are bad, it would aim at the people called the conundrum, it's like you have this party but by having the parcel kirsanow there are some people who don't agree with that and they go somewhere else. so i think there is a desire for it. i think you need some of the presidential level to do it and form a party and i don't know who that would be. and obviously i think the most likely thing is for it to be an extremely wealthy person because that's the way that you run the fast advantages that the parties have in terms of organization and just like basis of getting your name on the ballot and all these things that matter and that take time and energy and money.

so if you need a wealthy person to go out there and say i'm starting this party with iran when president or not i'm going to fund this for the extended future and no one really does that because it's usually a personality, the ross perot, and i think that's part of the problem. there are people who could do it financially. michael bloomberg. i don't know if running is the defender of the business community is a platform that works in an environment like this. but i would say to need someone who wants to invest not only in their own candidacy but if they come up short to invest in a broad attempt to build it. i've just seen lots and lots of these things kind of go by the wayside. i think we will continue to see -- it's most likely we will continue to see occasional appearances in which an independent candidate is able to break through a three-way race and win with 39% of the vote of the state, particularly states that are more open to that sort

of thing where there is a history of it, you know, where the two-party structure is not as strong. i always thought it was funny that people thought dagget in new jersey could win last year. new jersey is the most, you know, the two parties in the party infrastructure is like they are very powerful, it's a very organization based state. the idea that someone could run that is hard to believe and in minnesota or mean or even rhode island for an example. so i guess i'm skeptical because i feel we've been down this road before if you look at the number of unaffiliated and think why don't we have a party? the affiliate's don't fit in one party. >> thank you for coming. i am an ohio constituent and i also work for the senator

voinovich, and obama came to ohio 12 times this past election as well as clinton and joe biden. how do the work on their 2012 to improve that? >> i'm sure that nei thing and still debated who won on -- because they naturally both could make a little bit of a case. i think myself and many other people including many republicans expected them to be over 40. they are at 29 and probably stay at 29 in terms of seats they control. but on the other hand and this goes to the ohio question this isn't a majority thing. you know it's not like the house and the senate. it's not all governors races are created equal. some just a matter more. i'm from connecticut so i will put connecticut in there. connecticut doesn't matter as much as texas or pennsylvania or illinois or certainly a high your florida. it just doesn't. big states matter more, especially big swing states that is slated to either gain or lose

seats in redistricting. ohio fits all of those things. it's clinton lose two seats probably in redistricting to the governor's office matters there. and it's a huge swing state at the presidential level. look, i always say this, the president doesn't randomly go places. people are like it's kind of quality went to go in for tom. he's going there because they think they can win. they went into all how you as much as they did because they understand how important it is. it was a state that went for him obviously in 2008 and bush in 2004 and remember we were fighting for them i still remember john kerry people we can still win and you're down by 100,000 votes. he's not going to just pop around. [laughter] that was my favorite thing. two times in the post election a bag of uncounted votes were on found. that is the word that was used, bag. how she is that?

in connecticut in the governor's race that turned in a whole bag of votes they found a whole bag of votes. that's a total sidebar. i think that, you know, the problem for the president, and i don't think 2010 is necessarily -- in 2010i can't get reelected. to me, they are separate things. that doesn't mean there are not concentric circles and i would say the two biggest problems the president is themselves if i was the president's team, one is the struggle among independent of the party. use all democrats won independent by 18 points in 2006. president obama won them by eight and they lost by 18 nationwide. it was a vast loss, and there are places. portman running easily in the senate race he won independent by 49 points. that's stunning. lee fisher didn't from a good campaign. there's a lot of -- 39 points is a lot in a swing christianson that's one independent and the second i would say is the

industrial midwest is a problem for them ohio, west virginia, pennsylvania, parts of new york, illinois, iowa isn't really the belt but it's not a great. pete did the kind of manufacturing belt is a big problem in a high of at the heart of it. i think they lost southern ohio badly. charlie wilson lost in southern ohio, who a month before it was a month ago i would be like you might want to keep an eye on charlie wilson but i don't think he lost 12 house seats to zero. they lost every competitive house seat with the exception of one and was a wealthy guy who had some kind of a republican running come out about a month before the campaign and he lost. but had that not happen i think he may have won about six seats.

so, you know, if you're the white house and look what happened in ohio you have to be very concerned. it doesn't mean the president is not going to win ohio. we know what the presidential turnout means. african-american turnout will be much tighter than it was this time. that would obviously help but they can't lose independent in a kind of reagan democrats the way they lost them this time. i would say the same thing for florida it's a different constituency but they can't lose florida -- they can't lose the kind of voters they lost in florida this time again. remember the president got elected with three ander 65 electoral votes. this wasn't a 272 electoral vote victory we have seen a out of a lot. he got elected out of a vast margin. so he still has room to give away a few of the north carolina, virginia, indiana kind of states and still win, but when you start losing big constituencies in big states like ohio and florida i think you've got to worry about it.

>> i would say by the way john d. serves a lot of credit. there was a really good race actually. i think that was -- you can debate whether ohio or flora was the most important governor's race. i think ohio was. either one of them was a sports. just because you wind up losing it doesn't mean necessarily did anything wrong, the other day i just did more good. >> were there any surprises in terms of turnout among the various groups of females, hispanics, and was the president's strategy to increase turnout in the end, was that

successful? >> you could argue both ways. i would say the answer to that is probably no. youth vote turnout dropped drastically which again isn't terribly surprising. if you have kids, you know. somebody once compared this -- i thought this was a good way to think about it -- he said the presidential election is like the super bowl, right? people who -- you may not care about football, but you watch the super bowl, right? a midterm election is like a midseason game between the lions and the packers. it's like if you like the alliance for the packers to probably watch it, right? if you really like football, you watch it, but if you are a casual fan there's no chance that you watch it. that's kind of a midterm election. just turnout drops. it just does. it dropped in pleases the were very difficult for democrats to win. use all older voters make up the larger percentage. those are people who are most skeptical about the health care

bill. those are people who -- white older voters have always been barack obama's most difficult constituency, particularly in places like ohio, indiana, illinois, west virginia, pennsylvania, southern illinois. that's where he struggled the most. so those numbers went through the roof, the younger voters dropped. so as a result -- then you had the independent going domestically for the republican. so you combine those three things. i think republicans are going to wind up winning the overall votes cast for the house, by 546 points total. that's a significant victory. it's about the democrats one bogden 06. as a composition in the electorate clearly favored the republican party and favored the republican party and those people who were republicans who wanted to go out and vote it was a hell or high water kind of thing. they were going to vote no matter what. there was interesting things here and there.

black turnout in carolina was very high. you saw joe wilson being a somewhat serious race in a district that's quite good. again, you saw nicky hailey when by not nearly the margin people fought and a lot of the was turnout. i don't know why to be totally frank i'm not sure why it was high. it is pretty standard across the board otherwise but i would say the attempt to recreate the baala coalition i think the white house and the dnc that they were never going to get all the way there because it's the super bowl versus the winans versus the packers. they didn't get close enough to mitigate some of their losses. >> we have time for another question. last question. >> i will ask it. so along that same line, chris. was there in the states of the gubernatorial level that you saw

where the tea party really made a difference in the general election? obviously we know it made a difference a number of primaries, and that affected the general and maybe maine, but for their states besides maine where the tea party vote really helped drive the election one way or another? >> i think it helped drive and a couple of places based on the primary. colorado, you know, i'm not convinced that scott was going to win that race anyway. but when he was in the nominee, dan maes was, then you have tom tancredo who is a tea party-like candidate running as the american constitution party. i think he took some of the vote. i would say it seems to me less obvious in the governors' races than it does in the senate races. i think part of that is just because what 80 doherty is based on is reduce federal spending, shrink the size of the federal

government. it is less relevant in the governor's race than when you're in electing someone for the senate or the house. i think that said, republican candidates benefited broadly from the energy and enthusiasm in the tea party movement on election day than the most important thing this is so clich i remember watching tv the last week before the election and they say it's going to come down to the turnout. of course it is. laughter could that is the most obvious thing in the world. so, the person who gets the more votes is going to be the person who wins. okay, deep analysis. but, you know, i think it has to do with how the composition of the electorate and basically you had republican candidates benefiting from the fact that the tea party was very energized and willing to come out and vote for whatever candidate -- or voting against and a lot of ways, the democratic candidate. i'm not sure they were voting for the republicans, but republicans benefited in the fact it is a by a very -- by

mary choice. if you don't like a contador voting for b. you may not like b and the polling would suggest people didn't like b or at times they are historically low levels but when the choice you decide you're not voting for when you're voting for the other by nature so i think the tea party helped to but i don't think they cost the republican party seats in a way that on the gubernatorial level i think you can point to certainly in delaware. you can see everywhere else whether, like sharron angle wasn't a particularly good candidate so i'm not sure they had agreed option. i'm not sure if chey norton, lisa murkowski is going to win in alaska even though joe miller be heard in delaware clearly it cost them a seat. mike castle was going to win, christine o'donnell was not

going to win. there's nothing at the gubernatorial level i look at that says that cost them a race. colorado is the closest thing but scott wasn't to a candidate. on the level more on the candidate picking a level of the gubernatorial side. >> thanks chris. >> thanks, guys. [applause] spec all right, gang. it said. hopefully you find this helpful and interesting. don't forget to check out his blog. i making the plug as hard as i khanna. gough to youtube. we will see next week on the rga in san diego and of course the dga at christmas, which is the

key d.c. event that is what, december 1st? yes, december 1st. thank you very much for coming and see you all soon. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> in california, attorney general jerry brown defeated meg whitman. this of course is not mr. brown's first term as governor. he served in the capacity from 1975 to 1983 and he later went on to run unsuccessfully for the democratic nomination for president three times. in 1976, 1980 and eight to 92. in kansas, another familiar face of a chief executive. sam brownback is currently serving his third team representing kansas in the u.s. senate. he replaced bob dole in 1997.

mr. brownback also ran for the republican nomination for president in 2008. back on capitol hill, congress returns monday when members come back, work as expected on the bush era tax cuts as well as federal spending for the next budget year >> there is nothing in the united states constitution concerning birth, contraception or abortion.

>> on wednesday, president obama's 2008 campaign manager, david plouffe, told a knotty and at the university of delaware that the 2012 election will be much different than the 2008 election that brought president obama into office. he predicted that voters would be more moderate, but he still believes president obama will win and second turns even after democratic losses in last weeks midterm election. this event is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> welcome back to the university of delaware's o national agenda program.i am rah i'm ralph begleiter, director of the center for public edition.al last week's election, all ournts predictions that have been made for many months about the american people.ate fey hate congress and theythe think the federal government general is broken. so american voters picked up their remote controls and changed the channel. after voting overwhelmingly for a change just two years ago the

american people voted for change again last week. all across the country republicans picked up dozens of seats in the house of representatives and a half a dozen in the senate. the house majority leader will be a republican in january and the change will mean a clear shift of power in washington. president obama himself called it a shellacking. george bush called his own midterm setback in congress thumpin four years ago. tonight with president traveling in asia, his advisers are trying to figure out what's next. how will the president governor over the next few years? what can be accomplished if anything? and how can it be done? joining us to try to shed light on this one of mr. obama's closest of pfizer's, david plouffe. david was a bomb's campaign manager in 2008. if you were a democrat in 2008, you might have received regular e-mails from david or text messages on your phone.

after the 2008 election, david took time off to be with his wife and his young family and to write his book, the audacity to win the inside story and lessons of barack obama's historic victory. by the way, david's book will become it is on sale after the program tonight and he has agreed to sign copies if you wish. but taking time off didn't last long. david was summoned back to active duty over the summer, and he's been advising the obama team in the run-up to this fall's e election. and if washington's wishes are to be believed, david is expected to return next spring to help plan the president's reelection campaign, which begins in formally right after new year's day. there might be some of you tonight who don't know that david plouffe is an alumni come along with vice president biden, the kaine campaign manager steve schmidt and chris christie all of whom went to u.d..

the group forms the designation as the epicenter of politics. i bet some of you thought i wouldn't get into tonight. [laughter] you don't know me very well. david has been extremely generous with his time and expertise for the students and for the center for political communication. please welcome the visit plouffe back to the university of delaware. [applause] >> thank you fun comin ba but you have to be willing to show up no matter the outcome tore the circumstance. it has been a pleasure working with ralph and all the faculty on the center for political communication and there is some wonderful students out there leading the way i think in both parties in the future coming out of delaware. now if you turn on the tv or your computer or the newspaper for those few of you that still do that, you

know, it is filled with people already predicting what is going to happen in 2012 based on what happened last week. i learn adlong time ago not to, you know, partake in the predictions business. so i'm not going to tell you what i think is going to happen. i'm just going to offer some observations because honestly none of us know what is going to happen. this time in 2006, right after the 2006 elections, there were very, very few people, including myself, that thought barack obama would run for president, much less succeed and in 2004 it was widely believed that the democrats simply faced an impossible situation in the electoral college. that they simply couldn't break through. four years later obviously barack obama wins a landslide in the electoral college. in 2002 after the republicans had some gains and after redistricting, the conventional wisdom was the democratic party will never

win the house of representatives back in that decade. and obviously in 2006 and 2008 we had huge wins and built up a huge majority. so many of the things that are talked about today as if they're going to be facts won't come to pass. there are things we know now and many things we don't. so i will just offer some observations. first of all, the republicans obviously across the board nationally had a very good night on november the 2nd. now, to plea, this was not a surprise and it was something right after our election, it was clear to us that because we had won so many races in 08, on top of what we won in '06 that we would have really hostile turf to defend electorally, even in a neutral political environment. and it was pretty clear with the economy the way it was and how it was likely to transpire over two years that we were going to face really tough headwinds so none of that was surprising. i will say this that i think

the republican party who had a very good night, could have had a much better night. first of all obviously this is nothing new. franklin roosevelt in 1938, franklin roosevelt, of all people had the worse house election in the history of our country. harry truman, device eisenhower, lyndon baines johnson, ronald reagan, bill clinton, off years are tough elections particularly when you've got a tough economy or some other event that has the country anxious. usually in those elections one party wins everything. now the republicans won a lot. i ran a senate race in 1949 here in delaware -- 1994. like every other democrat against every republican incumbent across the country we lost. democrats didn't win anything anywhere. losing what may end up 63, 64 house races is not a lot of fun. or even the senate races

they won. but they did not win back the senate. they lost races particularly out west in a race like this in so-called wave like they would. many governors races they lost narrowly. so there were some, i think, they should be pleased about their out come, however when you face an electoral situation like that, you've got to make the best of it. and i think there is some reasons why they didn't do as well as perhaps they could have. and again, i want to stress they did well. first of all, they did nothing to repair their image to the american people. so the way i view it on november the 2nd, independent voters, swing voters, the republican party rented them for a night. that's all it is. this was not a vote for the republican party. and, it was basically, we'd like to change things up a little bit. we're unhappy with the a variety of things. we're anxious, we don't like

you, but we're going to give you another chance. think if the republicans had approached things a little bit differently around said, okay we heard the message of the last two elections what we got our clocks cleaned. this is kind of the new republican party. these are new ideas. we'll be more constructive. had they done that, had the republican brand and therefore republican candidates been viewed more postively we would have been in real, real trouble last tuesday. but our opponents did not strengthen themselves. you also saw, real weakness still, with latino voters. one of the reasons that we won the colorado senate race, nevada senate race, the colorado senate race, california, the republican party was still losing about 2/3 of the latino vote. it is hard to be successful national party, particularly in presidential elections without doing better than that. so, they could have done better. they did very well. i think, going forward what

matters, first of all let's not talk about politics, let's talk about the country. what the american people were shouting out in 2010, as they did in 2008, as they did in 2006, of course the economy, very important. you know some people care about education. they care about energy policy, they care about foreign policy tying it all together was just a cry for our leaders in washington, will you just get along? will you try and sofl problems? will you stop yelling at each other? will you start acting like adults? by the way that is not a message only aimed at washington and or only aimed at politicians but aimed at business leaders and academic leaders, the media, people are wanting more leadership and stability. so that will be a test because i think both parties right now are on probation. they are. and, i think the american people are waiting to see, okay, where you guys can

find common ground, will you even seek to find it, much less achieve it? now, i am not a expert in the republican party. they do not seek nor should they take my advice. but, if i were interested in maintaining some of what i gained last tuesday, and showing a different face, i would look to, for those opportunities and say there are some areas we're not going to agree on but where we can we will seek to find them. that is a big fest test. what you have in the republican party, you have a speaker john boehner, they won back the house. you have mitch mcconnell who is still the senate minority leader. before too long you're going to have republicans running for president. so you're going to have three different power centers, from an elected leader standpoint. then of course you've got the fourth which is the activists in the republican party who here in delaware showed their power and influence in nominating christine o'donnell.

thank goodness. so, it was, how all that plays out will be fascinating. in some cases i assume there will be commonalty and viewpoint and interest but in other cases there won't be. so that's an observation about that factor. how those different power centers and influences react will be important. obviously the president is going to continue to reach out and try to find common ground where he will. he tried that in 9, in 10, in some cases with success and some cases not. he gets criticism from some people in our party for continuing to try to reach out to the republicans to find common ground. he will always do that because he believes rebuilding public trust is so important and there is no monopoly on ideas. sometimes you're just not going to find common ground or agree on a problem. but if you can you should seek it. so he will do all he can to achieve that and hopefully he will find some partners not just in the republican party but in democrats.

of course compromise not someone coming 100% ever the way to your position. that is not compromise. it is trying to find those zones of common ground. and there is any number of issues, continued work on the economy, obviously being first and foremost. debt and deficit where you think there could be shared values and interest. immigration reform. further work to create a new energy economy. education reform. particularly in k-12. also in student loan reform. so there is a lot that can be done here. and we'll see. i think the american people are going to closely watch, not just the content of the debate and issues and policies, but, are you people going to work together? and act like adults and try to move this country in the right direction at a time it so desperately needs to? so that is, i think, going to be, bear close watching. and i don't think that any of us know how it will play out. i think as americans we ought to hope that where

these folks can get together, and i think it would inspire great confidence in the american people, as well as doing the right things from a policy perspective would be very good for the country. extraordinarily good. how that shakes out politically, none of us know. the other observation i would make is that, there's a lot of attention paid to the 2010 electorate. and of course, the 2012 electorate will be fundamentally different than the 2010 electorate in many, many ways. it will be much larger. maybe 55, 60 million more people vote in 2012 than 2010. it will be younger. 18% of the elector rate in 2008 was under 30. 11% last week. it will be more diverse. more latino voters and african-american voters in the electorate.

independent voters that vote will be more moderate as a group than last tuesday when they skewed very conservative. so our challenge will be obviously to try and, we won't ever recreate exactly but have the same dynamic in 2008. we did fundamentally change the american presidential electorate. remember, amongst the people who voted in the bush-kerry, and bush-gore races, barack obama-john mccain roughly tied. that is the race we've all been used to watching. we're up very late on election night even into the next morning, maybe into next month in 2000. but, the reason that the election was by modern standards, a landslide, was, all the new voters that came out. 20 million new voters. 60% of the them under 30. barack obama won them 73-27. so, the electorate will be much different in 2012. we'll have to work very hard to insure that but also just the electorate itself will be more diverse, more

moderate, younger. and i think that, if you look at how those elections that happened last tuesday would have transpired in that kind of electorate, it still would not have been a good night for my party but we would have done a heck of a lot better. that is the landscape you will have in 2012. also that electorate will be less tolerant of some of the intolerance i see in the republican party. in some of the extreme i. now, christine o'donnell, ken buck in colorado, sharron angle in nevada, these are all three very prominent people on the very conservative supported by a lot of so-called tea party movement. they all lost. think about that. the republicans can won those races, if mike castle, jane norton in colorado, any of the other republicans in nevada, potentially, the senate would be tied. but i think rather than a course correction they say wow, that didn't work out so

well. we've got to go back to the mike castle era, that is not going to happen. you're going to see littered across the american political landscape in 2012 in my view, cap dates for congress, senate, governor, maybe even for president, do very, very well, christine o'donnell, rand paul, share wrong angle, ken buck voters. -- sharron angle. that is it where some of the financial energy is. with you saw with the tip of the iceberg. again i think you have expanded electorate, also the republicans aren't just a party, they're going to be held more responsible now. much more responsible for what they do. and i think you put all that together and i think this is going to be a rougher ride in terms of the image, particularly with younger voters and with those more moderate independent voters. again if we don't do our job, if people don't have confidence, then of course we'll not be able to take advantage of all that. but if we do that, i think that there is going to be

real, that is going to be a big factor, that type of electorate that we have. i think the republican nominating process is going to be fascinating. because, the iowa caucus, the south carolina primary, maybe even more than new hampshire primary this time where sarah palin, candidate won the primary, these are very, very conservative voters. the delaware republican primary. and i think that it is highly unlikely that a republican presidential candidate will emerge who doesn't do exceedingly well with not just the christine o'donnell and rand paul voters but the activists. that is where the energy is. and so therefore i think, and by the way, they're probably going to be out there agitating and saying hey these republicans from

washington, it is a sin to even think about cooperating with president obama and democrats, much less doing it. a very dangerous dynamic. i think it will profoundly affect our politics over the next two years. much less who comes out of that gate. i think the likely republican presidential nominee will be someone again, who has done exceedingly well, if not the prefered choice of that element of the republican party. as you swing into a general election with many latino voters and more moderate independent voters and younger voters, first-time voters, that is going to be a much harder sale. than even john mccain was able to make in 2008. so, how the economy is viewed. of course this is always less about statistics than how people feel. do i feel more confident? do i think we're on the right trajectory. obviously talk to 10 economists and get 10 different views about what's going to happen. hopefully leaving the politics aside we want to

see economic progress because the country desperately needs it. there are positive signs out there. we had the biggest private sector job month last month we've seen in a very, very long time in this country. so how people view the economy is going to be critical obviously. and if they feel that we are headed in the right direction, that is obviously going to have electoral implications for the president and others who are running for office. if they still feel that we're stuck, then obviously that is going to affect the political wind as well. we don't know any of that. so my point is that, i would encourage you all, humbly, to take a deep breath and let all this unfold. and, follow it and comment on it and, you know, really get involved in it, but not leap to conclusions, wow the democrats had a tough night in 2010 in pennsylvania. so they're not going to win it in 20 12. that's crazy. or, doesn't necessarily mean

boy the republicans had a tough time out west so that means they can't compete in 2012 out west? you know, that is premature too. in politics, two years is like 200 years. particularly in this day and age where things are moving so quickly. so i think all we can do as interested citizens hope our leaders can come together and take on some really tough issues. and they are tough issues. that's why they haven't been dealt with. some of you support what the president is doing. others of you don't but at its core is a belief, whether it be health care, whether it be energy, whether it be immigration, whether k-12 education, whether the debt and deficit, we ultimately can not keep kicking these problems down the field. we have to deal with them so all you kids here who in very short order will be leading this country, are left as good an america as we canoe your good hands.

and so, that, as americans we've got to hope that we stay on something like immigration, we can really make progress. on the debt and deficit, what you think given the campaign just run on the other side there would be real interest in working on this but we'll see. listen, some of these folks who ran and won in the house an even in the senate in the republican party who are going to storm the gates, they're boeing to get to washington. they will look around a at their big office and all their staff, say, this is pretty nice. i kind of like it here. i'd like to stay here. now what is interesting about that, a lot of the activists in the republican party, people in the tea party, they didn't think this was some game. actually believe a lot of what they said and what these candidates said. so that's the other dynamic here. is if some of these republicans aren't delivering, there is not a lot of patience out there amongst the republican activist community either. so if they feel that these guys all of a sudden are

trimming their sails, ducking tough issues, not saying what they would do, see it in earmark reform. rand paul, remember him from kentucky. i will be opposed to earmarks. hasn't even served in the senate, already reversed himself. grassroots republicans don't like earmarks. when mitch mcconnell says we're going to protect earmarks that is a dangerous thing, i would argue for the country. it is a fundamental reform we need to make but also not healthy for that dynamic. so there will be a lot of things here. macro in earls of it you know, the economy, how people view health care overtime. afghanistan, the debt and deficit effort. you will have obviously huge issues within the republican party, you have in the democratic party too. we're in minority in the house. smaller majority in the senate. how all that gets negotiated. but i think at the most important dynamic really will be, do people feel like we're headed in the right direction? and, you know, as i said, i think both parties are on

probation. so, i don't know. maybe one party will elevate. you know what? i have a little bit more faith and trust in them. that party will probably do better in 2012 than the other party. whether a guff like the last three elections like the other party performance i don't know. it could be better. could be you're unhappy with both of them. and then you will have a really turbulent election. probably a close election in a number of places. we don't know what is going to happen. all i think as americans we hope our leaders rise up here not just in government and private sector and academic institutions everywhere and rise to the challenge and really make sure that the next century, is an american century as well. and i think it will be and can be but it will take a lot of hard work. we have a lot of economic competitors out there. the president has been in india this week, as you know, a country doing very well economically. it was reported i believe last week for the first time in this industry, ever, the fastest computer is now in china, not in america.

that is an industry we invented and owned. they're obviously from an a infrastructure standpoint, from an energy standpoint, from academic standpoint, a little easier i guess when you're not a democracy but they are deadly serious about where they're going and all you guys here studying at delaware are not so much competing anymore with kids at upenn and berkeley and penn state but people going to school in beijing and bangalor. and our companies and our country is. we can do that in a cooperative way but make no mistake, we have to be deadly serious about having a new energy economy that is the best in the world. we are in education, particularly in sciences, you know, falling further and further behind from a statistic standpoint. we've got to fix that. we do have to make sure we get a handle on debt and deficit. health care was part of that. but we've got a lot more work to do. we've got to continue to make sure our foreign policy improves so we can solve challenges globally and

cooperatively. there is big stakes here. that is really, the american people understand we're not at kind of a sedate time. it is not just understand, they particularly if you, your spouse, your parents, your siblings, your neighbor, having economic distress. you will feel that extraordinarily acutely. even if you don't have it in your circle and most people do, you're not as solid as you like to be because you worry about your employer, or your business, or, you know, you haven't had a raise in three years. so it is the present and acute economic situation. but the unrest is much deeper than that. because people understand that we have a lot of problems and opportunities and tough choices to make. and we really, really have to make progress, or we're not going to be as strong a country from economic standpoint as we have been or need to be. and so that's where a lot of the, and they're saying, boy,

our leaders don't seem as capable or as willing, as able to deal with this at least in cooperative fashion. you know, this is a place where, you know, people do see the president in a different viewpoint than they do congress, where they will say, even if they don't agree, he is trying to work on long-term problems. may not agree with the solution, i may agree with it, they ascribe value to that. they think largely that is not shared by as many people in government as should be. so, that is where the american electorate is, there is anxiety, there is unrest. both grounded in short and long-term concerns. there is still enormous optimism out there and belief we can see ourselves through this but, there is concern out there. and i think that, we really do need to have the right policy prescriptions and show courage and do things -- by the way i already talked about, immigration reform, dealing with spending and the debt and deficit, just, you know, these are not politically easy issues.

which is the reason they get ducked all the time. because the short-term politics are really hard. the media coverage is all about how bad the politics are and how tough it is. so people say wow, not now, not this session, not this year, let's wait until the next election. that is really, the american people say listen, in our lives, in my family and in my business, i don't have that luxury. i can't just say, this festering problem. cang problem, i'm not going to do with it right now. i'll take it to mccain for four years, 10 years, 25 years, 100 years. you've got to do with it. i think that's what they're really saying down there. and we have more often than not one party does quite a bit better than the other. not all. 2000 was a pretty close issue. but in 06, 08 and 10, there was

of democrats did much, much better than republicans in '08 and 06. republicans did much, much better than we did in 10. until people feel solidify there you will see volatility in the ex-are tomorrow standpoint. people say we finally have a set of leaders working in the right way. i have more confidence about the future of the country, my own situation and maybe things will settle in and we have less of that volatility but that kind of unease coupled with the fact less and less people identify with either party that is growing by the year, you're probably are going to have elections with a lot more volatility where, you know, in some cases you have 20 to 30% of electorate in a state or district up for grabs every two years. you are going to have a lot of volatility i think. so, i end by saying that i think if the american people will is realized and expressed, and our leaders match the dedication and commitment and desires of

the american people, we are going to really make a lot of progress here. from a legislative standpoint, from a leadership standpoint, from a private sector and governmental partnership standpoint, around the world, here at home, and we can really have that wonderful, wonderful, future that all of our young people so desperately deserve and need. but it will take a lot of work, and it is going to take a little bit longer horizon in my view than just caring about the next poll, the next month, the next pundit, the next election. and if you don't do that, you're never going to be willing, ever going to be willing, to do tough things. because you see in washington, you know, some of the things that the president did over the last two years. when you turn on the tv or the internet, the substance of them is rarely ever discussed, as you know. what is the latest poll on it? what does it mean politically? you even see in the aftermath of the election, should we have done x, y, or

z. not because right thing to do, good for the country in the long term. simply, was it helpful in the election? and i think that is another maybe unstated, message out of it, which is, the american people and voters really are saying we would like you to start caring a lot more about our job than yours. and your central responsibility as a member of the senate, or the house, or the governor, or as a mayor, is not to insure your own re-election, but to lead and do the right things. and, if that changes a little bit, if people will take that approach, then i do have a lot of confidence in the future. but i'm sure we're going to have a question and answer session and more than that you might have some good ideas and thoughts, criticisms. so i'm anxious to hear all that. you've been kind to listen to me but i think we'll get onto the more entertaining part of the program now. [applause] >> you made a point of

talking about moderates in 2012. what makes you think moderates, they played an important role in this election obviously. what makes you think they will be more, less conservative or tilting more moderate in the 2012? as you said they will be more moderate. >> there will be a lot more, turnout nationally is going to increase by at least a third. so you will have 50, 55, 65 million people come out who didn't vote in 2010. and so, you know, there's a lot more democrats than republicans in that. the independents that come out will tend to be of a more moderate nature than those that voted in 2010, who might have been independents in terms of either their voter registration or their self-profession but they're really republicans. so it is just going to be a more moderate voting universe, as it was in 2008. you know, the independents in 2008 compared to 2010,

were, much more moderate. and you really hard to compare, not an apples-to-apples comparison. which is often made. but i think those independent voters are also those that will be really casting around. as i said, i really think what happened is, okay, republicans x, y, or z, we'll give you our vote for tonight. then we're going to step back and we're going to evaluate, evaluate all of you, democrats and republicans we will see who we think is doing what is in the best interest of the country. >> is the president going to have to attract his base or maintain his base as well just as you described a minute ago? the republicans having to cater to the base and particularly you focused on the candidates on the republican side who will be nominated as being essentially from the conservative wing of the party. isn't the president going to have to deal with that on the democratic side too? he will have to deliver for his base as well? >> he is focused on

delivering for the country. there will be a time for our campaign and you know it will not begin in earnest for some time. obviously yeah, in a campaign you figure out how i get 50% of the vote, where i need to get there. and obviously it is a combination of persuading enough of the people truly undecided voters as well as getting strong turnout from your party. and so you can never assume that. but i think the president, is going to try to make decisions on the economy, on foreign policy, on some other press be issues, education, immigration and what is right for the country. i think that is what is missing in washington for a very long time. i do have confidence, because his support among democrats is very high. i think we will be committed to running the kind of grassroots campaign the last time. it will be hard. takes a lot of work. you can't just manufacture it. but i do think when the choice is between president obama, the direction he has tried to take the country and continue to take the

direction and direction sarah palin and glenn beck and sarah palin and rush limbaugh want to take the country i think that will be highly motivational dynamic. make no police take, i don't want to be flip. the leaders of republican party are not john mccain or mitch mcconnell, john boehner, they are beck, limbaugh, palin. that is where activism is. i don't think that is recipe for great electoral success in election year but there is lot we don't know. >> you talked a lot about at that aspect of the candidates and you singled out a few tea party candidates who ran. . . o'donnell is sort of prototype republican candidate in your view for? >> there's like a 100 of them around the country. but we'll get that lesson. [laughter] let's leave aside, you know, the witchcraft and all that. i think that, you know, the

position she took, very similar to sarah palin and these other republican candidates. again, i don't think there will be a wide audience for that in 2012 outside the republican party, particularly the electorate gets larger and more moderate, but also i think there's going to be more -- critical aspect of our republicans are saying and doing. i think there are republicans in congress, let's say, who do want to say okay, let's try and find common ground. you know, let's not just appeal to the people who believe everything they see on the glenn beck show. but you've got to understand that it's difficult because all the energies for the people who are watching glenn beck show. so the question is, can i override that for the good of the country? we're going to try and seek common ground and try and find

ways to move the country forward. so we'll see. i think if you look at how republican nominations are likely to be decided, you know, for the presidential level all the way down locally. i think you're going to see more candidates next time holding the views of the palin, o'donnell said he did this time. i really do believe that. >> that's going to make it easier for president obama selection. >> it could. we don't know. where the economy is, you know, how people view his leadership. but my point is i don't think it's helpful to the republican effort politically. but there's no stopping them. that's where we are headed and they're going to nominate very conservative candidates. and listen, i'm not saying that necessarily means they're confined to electoral failure. a lot goes into that. but i think it doesn't make it any easier for them in the long term because i think, you know,

that's not where i think the middle of the american electorate is. i think it's going to be a motivational terror. >> he focused a little bit on the economy and pointed out in 2012 on the state of the u.s. economy. does the party -- does the president think they should've done more rather than what they did on the economy. but that it made a difference? >> alessi said, obviously a responsibility to try and get the economy working again for many americans. and we have made progress obviously. and we could've gone off the cliff to a great depression. now we're growing, but we're growing too slowly. so it's uncommon and leaders across the country to do all they can to grow the economy. i too think the steps he took will be seen, you know, as

pivotal moments. i bet some people say you shouldn't have done the recovery act. well, without the recovery act they think the unemployment rate would be anywhere from 14% to 18%. we would've never had a quarter of positive growth. you know, would be if not integrated, close to. that would've been terrible for the country. also really, you think would've done better in the election with that circumstance? so, you know, from the auto principle -- >> first of all, republicans would've done none. these people brought you to create recession. if they'd had their way, would be in a great depression and they're only trying to do the same idea. now, they had a good election. now they have some responsibility. and so it is incumbent on them to lead and try and work with the president announced that it

just right spitballs from the corner, even though the problem is the central actor they're creating. they have some responsibility now. so the recovery act, all the energy jobs created in new sectors created, it was held for the auto industry which would save the auto industry millions and millions. we see health care now in terms of the economy. there is a lot of good things that have happened. and i think that largely we have to do that on our own. in some cases on financial reform, we had to help republicans in the senate, which is very, very important. of course you always need to do more, could do more. if you look at what we've done and really the stiff opposition to any of that, there really was a remarkable thing. i mean, the republican party whose policies were a chief contributor to the economic collapse basically stood on the sidelines and said, you know, this is your problem.

and now they can't just throw spitballs and pontificate. and i do think there's areas were now, let's obviously the job growth, the economic growth is going to largely come from the private or because the government has to do those things that can't do in partnership to spur that, to spur innovation, new industry. you know, there's been lots of discussions about various ideas that maybe can be done as it relates to payroll tax and other things. we'll see what becomes of all that. all leaders need to say look at the whole venue of things we need to do and where an urgent situation and there's too many people out there who can't wait anymore for security and jobs. and so everybody has an obligation to look under every rock for a good idea to see if they can help. and i think a lot of the stuff

that was done on small businesses in the fall eventually will pay real dividends in terms of job growth, but there's so much more that can be done. >> one of the other areas that have been discussed a lot in the last few months, the election year with the problem of the debt and the deficit and you mentioned it yourself. is there a possibility that deficit hawks and the republican party and extreme liberals in the democratic party who favor cutting things like the defense budget could find an alliance in the coming two years and worked together to cut the deficit and the debt and a very strange way i would think politically with the two ends? >> well, what's interesting is facing a lot of tea party at this talk a lot about cutting the defense plans so it will become something that is in fashion in the republican party as well. listen, i think that to really be the kind of country we need to be in the long-term, we have to really get serious about the

debt and deficits. and despite what you see when you turn on the tv, where out of the easy answers. so you know, there's obviously defense spending. this entitlement and revenue reform. and to really make the progress you need to make, those are the areas that have to be explored. semi hope is that enough democrats and republicans will come together at the federal level because i've been in a lot of states have balanced budget requirements and they're doing it tough work that needs to be done. but at the federal level, this is not fun. this political risk involved, but for the good of the country for future we have to do this. i listened to you look back in 1993 when president clinton and that she probably covered this, ralph, past the deficit reduction act. i was politically tough. what a tough election in 1994

was not the only reason, but the reason that decade was so good economically for so many people in america. so i hope so. and it would be a shame if the republicans who of course, when president clinton left office, there was a record surplus. when president obama took office there was a record deficit. so, they were chief contributors to the fiscal situation. they became chief critics for the last two years and i was really their mantra. we need to get spending under control. so it is time for them to walk the walk. and if they don't, it's not good for the country. i'm telling you, they're going to pay for that was deep unrest in their own parties. because as we've seen come a lot of people who got involved in republican operatives there were as motivated by what happened to republicans as when the

democrats. they were up with the republicans quote, unquote losing their way, spending too much money or expanding entitlement. and so, it'll be interesting. to really make progress on this issue, it's going to be a really tough thing to do. and you're going to have to be willing to put the country first. and i hope enough of them do it. >> will get to your questions and alternate as usual between students and nonstudents. yes, sir. >> i was just wondering, in this election, the democratic party party -- [inaudible] their successes, hopes, dreams. it appears they were controlled by the polls, but whatever everybody else said. how do you change that in the next two years? and do you think -- do you think president obama is so wounded now that he will be a one-year

president? >> the answer to your second question is an enthusiastic know. >> everybody here the question? [applause] >> this'll be an eight-year period in american history. i think eight years that will be looked at because it's very important and meaningful. i would say that first evolved the most important event in any election is not what you see on national news. it's what happening in the state or district. that's what voters are seen, particularly those who are really undecided, who got traffic a lot in politics. and some cases, there was great commonality and others there wasn't. i think if you look at what the president was thinking when he was campaigning and of course he wasn't on the ballot, but i think is a good narrative about the choices we had to make about

who were fighting for, who they were fighting for, that we have to not just focus on the short term, which is absolutely essential, but also focus on doing smart things for the next generation. some candidates, you know, reducing the narrative other sport. others are more tactical. all i know is in 2012 will be our campaign. we will be on the ballot. we'll be running the campaign. we will have one upon it. that's much more dynamic than going out and making the case broadly when you're not, you know, not on the ballot, charging campaign strategy. now, i think that it's always easier to be successful when you're rolling a voter downhill, right? serve the economy were better people felt more confident, they would do things like health care, student reform. that's great and not so important and i'm feeling good now. but when people are feeling

anxious, those things can seem remote and academic. i think we ran a good campaign but you know, we say john mccain has that economic ideas come establish ideas coming out of touch, we were probably a boulder uphill. that kind of fit into what people already believe. and sometimes you got to understand which way the winds are blowing can affect your ability to be successful. i do think that, you know, in a way, you win the mythology sentence. i remember the day after the election, "the new york times" has obama, history made. and then his analysis is flawless delivers campaigns white house. is that i don't know what campaign you're watching, but this one was flawless, i can assure you. so, even an outwait there were many ways we could have been a better campaign, communicated better. so we have to make big improvements. we do.

but some of this is just the republicans had a very easy job has turned. you know, they kind of surf the wave of discontent. and that's always easier to do in politics. and so, i think for the president when it gets to be election time in world long way from that now, will be their confidently consistently and effectively say, here's what i've done. here's why i did it. more importantly, here's where were going. and by the way, there's a choice here and my opponent, you know, maybe there's some places where there is commonality. and i'm sure there'll be places where there's differences. and so, allow people to pick sides. just like in 2000 ezio people are people are going to have more reasonable and adult. they can be in presidential years. oscars tend to be more rapid and they are more partisan. presidentially because you get so many people in and they pay so much attention to it. you can have a little bit more elevated dialogue.

but again, i think on things like -- some people do say well, if you just message the accomplishments better. well, you could always must sound better. when people are saying time before, my sisters out of work. i'm very worried ages five to health care. and some of the things that they say gap, sure, but financial reform passed. there's parts of health care like. but it doesn't affect what i'm going through right now, then they're not going to be as interested and i understand that. but i would say this. if president obama and the democrats and republicans continues to lead, than i do think as time transpires here, because he come with some hope to the democrats obviously staved up the great depression,

latencies for recovery and hopefully will be a powerful one. i do think over time as wicked and later this decade, most people say hey that health care thing was better than i thought it was going to be. student loan reform, financial reform. the party wound down one war in iraq. eventually that will happen in afghanistan as people culpable and say okay, you know, that's some pretty important things. and people do admire that. even though, as i said, that don't agree with it, that he is willing to take on tough things. and i think it would be great for the country if some of the tough things that mentioned earlier could be taken on together because i think that would send a powerful dignity of the american people, that their leaders are coming together. but i think, you know, if the economy had been in a different place, you would see the

republican efforts not be as affect it. some individual rate was not up there. and you know, we were able to obviously win some key races out there, which we still have a really, really tough night. but we hold onto the senate with a little bit of a margin. we want some governors races out there. had we not when the messaging battle well enough. i was talking to senator reed today. he was famous and, ground effort in nevada, so many people were part got involved, that made the difference. and you know, all the polls that it was headed to a four or five-point win. he easily won that race because he had a great effort on the ground. the kind of grass-roots effort was part of what we did in 08. >> let's take a question from a student. >> do you believe in the next

few years -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> question is do you think and the next two years, if there's little compromise a little progress made on the issues he talked about at the democrats would take the blame blame because they so that the leadership and the senate and the president's? >> first of all, i hope that's not the case for the good of the country. i don't think we know the answer. if unfortunately there's not any or enough, then i think people will make their own evaluation about why that was. and you know, if they view one party took been more unreasonable than the other or playing politics, but not party will pay more than the other party. if it looked them both in contempt, again i think you'll see a really, really interesting

election. i do think given what just happened, most voters now up at the honors the republican. they have their election. they're promising all these reforms, there could do things differently. they hold the house and gave them the senate. i said to be just as voters, who would you hold more responsible right now if there was a congressional nonprofit, they would say the republicans because they have the senate moments in people view them as the ascendant power. but we'll see how it all plays out. i hope are not asking that question two years from now. but if we are, i think we don't know the answer to it because we don't know how it's all going to

some of them i guess philosophically don't agree with that. i think a lot of them thought we are going to win a lot of them. we don't want to put the brakes on. so we will see. i think there needs to be more legislative efforts to eventually could have i guess the court rules specifically on disclosure, perhaps down the line and hopefully they would. what happened in this election was there were tens of millions of dollars spent.

in some cases in senate and house races that campaigns themselves were secondaryraces n actors.econdary act or the money that was being sent by these outside groups. by a factor of eight or 10 to one republicans benefited. what happened in 2010 will be b just ust a precursor to 2012, we could see hundreds of millions of dollars. again, most on the other side, some on our side. i think this is a terrible thing for democracy. it's going to have been is, you know, some of these groups will go to congress. and whether this delivered directly or indirectly. josé listen, we went in and spent $10 million but we knocked off sander x, y and z. we'll spend 30 million against you if you don't do what we want you to do. this is going to take us back to

the day way before watergate, where politicians are controlled by a few individuals en route. so if the money was disclosed, there still would be spending and that i'd be wrong too, but at least it would be a lot less of it. carl rove started a group for the republican party. i'm going to raise $60 million. it's a terrible thing for democracy. at the campaign-finance level we just need to encourage. some states to decide this by law. but to get more and more average people involved. the president was the first presidential candidate, a nominee who never took money from a lobbyist or political action. the national party committees still did not. you know, these are very, very important things.

but i fear that without reform, particularly on disclosure, american politics more and more will be the central actors of these very wealthy interesting individuals the campaigns themselves and candidates themselves become big players in the drama. and you know that the terrible thing for our country, whether it's happening to benefit the republican party or the democratic party. i think, you know, hopefully there will be some disclosures. i think these groups will be with us for a while anyway. and so hopefully it will be disclosed. at least if it disclosed, people will say i know it was fun in that group. and i mix a difference to people. we should have a little bit more sunlight. >> in 2012, the atomic campaign will decide in the phone to disclose all contributions? >> well, we do disclose on contributions. bye-bye you have to disclose your contributor.

we actually took the outside groups in supporting the president to do that. >> demand they do that? >> we think that disclosure to bear minimum is required and obviously would not control these groups. but i think our record position is pretty well known. one thing we did is we posted online, everybody raised money for us. so if you had a fundraiser for barack obama and raise $50,000, we said here you are and how much money you raise. having the more transparency there is this part of rebuilding trust. this is much more nefarious. you people saying we're going to try and by the united states senate held by the u.s. house. that's not a good thing to do. what's interesting is this a big shared shared across all party lines. you know, i think 75% of republicans believe that there should be disclosure and citizens united.

you know, independents and democrats, too. this is a place for this commonality that common sense dictates this is not a good thing for a country. tonight i'll take a question from a nonstudent. >> the republican party want to portray the election as a referendum on health care and obamacare was a frequently used at the fat used by sarah palin. and it's really distressing to me as someone who is a savor of the health care reform act, though not perfect, was a step forward. and i think that was terrific. so stressing when john boehner said -- do not what is the question? >> the question is, do you see traction when seniors talk about making repeal of health care reform a cool. it's not the next two years, in

the 2012? >> the question is what is your reaction to the republican repeal of the health care act? >> first of all, it if you look across the country, you know, there were not many republican candidates who had them at the center of their campaign. they might've had in the government out of control and too much spending. why is that? well, the individual components are quite popular. of course right now it is more -- it's not reality. and all the health care reform will kick in until 2014, two years after the president's reelection. so at some point, base 1618, what people like me see mtv is not going to matter. for all health care consumers whether i like it, whether change or not. even in the next few years it is going to be this kind of piñata that the republicans try and

design test panel for nefarious things too. it's going to make a positive impact to you and your family in the country. first of all, they can't repeal it. by the way, i think a lot of republican activists don't understand that. so they're going to have to explain what they said they were going to repeal and they did. is that not monaco almost certainty they can't repeal health care. so are they going to spend the next two years we litigating that in fighting it and trying to refund it? will see. from a policy standpoint i think it's terrible because the health care reform is going to be really, really important to a strong economic important to help your country in deficit control is something we try to do in this country for 10 decades. most importantly maybe make sure no american has ever denied coverage again because of a preexisting condition.

and we need to make sure people understand that's what they're going after. that's what they want to get rid of. they want to allow insurance companies to deny coverage to women who have been diagnosed with rest cancer based on some preexisting condition. they want to be opposed lifetime caps. they don't want to give tax to 4 million small business and millions of americans for health care. they don't want to do any of that. so i think from a policy standpoint, that's dangerous. but beyond that, the american people aren't really interested in a two-year battle over something that we just had a big title over. i'm telling you. so if they want to spend the next two years, you know, you might've heard this guy from california say i'm going to hire all these investigators investigate the president. trust me, american people were

not interested. they're not interested in the litigating old battles. what they want us to focus on me, on my problem. and so, i think this is something that would be political perilous in addition to being bad for the country. i don't hope they can help themselves. because they're really out of their skis as the expression goes on that. and we'll see. and i think that this is a place where there is disagreement, but again, you've got to think that even if some congressional republicans a-ok, were not going to do as much of that as they might've said were going to be a little bit more moderate, do you think the people who are out of you were running for president are going to take that task? no, they're going to be out there running against president obama, but republicans and democrats in congress. so it's a very, very dangerous

dynamic, i think. and so, we'll see. but that is not what the american people want. even on the question of straight repeal, in most places does not support it. most people do was let it happen. and if there has to be adjustments, maybe we'll make adjustments. but i think people are interested in spending another two years in the economist and they all have big problems fighting that battle. but i don't know. they seem quite enamored. and with them, my view is people are hopeful as they always are after the election and okay, maybe this time when she sees so far perhaps in the election as some of the republicans said they think some pretty encouraging construct things. actually, marco rubio from florida did. you know, boehner has said some constructive things and not a constructive things. mitch mcconnell has said no constructive things. last night when asked what the most important thing of the next

two years he didn't say strengthen the economy, creating jobs, cutting spending. it was to defeat president obama. i can tell you that goes over like a lead limit the american people. that's not the answer they want nor expect. >> will take a question from a student. yes, sir. >> you said you plan on running a grassroots campaign in 2012 like he did in 08. with obama running as the comments, how about change how you run the campaign? >> what kind of campaign? >> grassroots campaign. how about change? >> listen, let's see what they now say with any certainty i know about the campaign because the president will insist on that. so, you know, we're just going to have to encourage as many people as possible to take entries, give themselves can take ownership of the campaign. our grassroots volunteers were our campaign in 2008. the one of the primary.

they won us the nomination. and it's obviously going to be harder. you know, we were on the verge of history. history has been made. your governing, which means you're doing something people really like and some people don't like so much. but i think if our faithful to that, if we can inspire people for a campaign against the people we can run that kind of campaign again. and you know, it wasn't easy to do and their way. i talk about all the young voters that came out. that was the hardest thing we did. it didn't just happen. it was really, really hard to do and it will be just as hard if not harder this time. but that is the one thing i know. because when you listen in 20 -- 2030, asking president obama about his eight years -- last night and he said take us back to 2008. he'll talk about that campaign.

well, he's not going to say well, i was kind of interesting when john mccain picked sarah palin or a beat john mccain in all three debates and that doesn't happen very often or when indiana. he won't say any of that. he's going back about the people. that was the campaign and it will be again. so that's all i know. but it will take every ounce of commitment on behalf of our supporters on all of us to try and build it. but the thing about grassroots campaigns is first of all very few people try and do it. and it's not the most important part of most campaigns. it's still tv ads and soundbites from about. into the president is always going to be nourished and there's no doubt that it's harder when you're in the white house to maintain that closeness of connection. but if you look at our campaign, we had in 2010 and again it

wasn't for barack obama on the ballot. they were working for people they didn't know very well. they felt that it was important. we have 5 million people volunteer, which was a lot of people. and so, we have people who built a great relationships in their communities some of the presidential campaign does start and i won't be for sometime. the republican campaign will start right away, i think they'll be ready to go. but it's going to take a lot of work. we want without it. that's my view. >> you talk about a lot of republican candidates last night. you have attention to. i would like to ask you about two of them. you think chris christie is a potential presidential candidate in 2012 i'd like to ask you what you think my castle had to write content following the murkowski case. >> well, governor christie has said every way he's not going to run. so i take him at his word.

it's obviously something has got great repeal of the republican party run the country. and so i'm sure if he's not a candidate, you know, he'll have to say. and you know, i think is actually done a lot of things. i don't necessarily agree with all of this remedies, obviously, but, you know, he has done some tough things. i think some republicans in congress would be wise to look at that and say okay, things like spending it on debt and deficit, some of these commonsense issues, we have to try and find common ground. i'm sure he's thinking about that everyday. given what happened in alaska. so i can't entertain why he didn't wear how close he got or any of that. i can give to sort a clinical observation, which is set in delaware, you know, i think chris kunz had a pretty good debate. it wasn't like alaska where

republican nominee dropped down into the mid twenties. i think chris kunz was going to get in before it. and so, the question is for my castle to what he'd have to get 44, 45 at least an o'donnell would have to go all the way down to like 12, 14 or 15. offenses that would've happened because she had a strong enough base of people. so my back of the envelope says it probably would've been, you know, chris kunz, 42, you know, and the other 3028. so i think he would've won pretty comfortably hardcastle decided to do a write in. either way, it's a great thing about politics because two years ago at this time we were all talking about the great joe biden my castle senate race. -- >> both chambers are preparing

for the changes brought about by last week's midterm elections. a number of new faces coming in for the 112 congress in january. among the democrat richard blumenthal, the connecticut democrat, the republican was in a good linda mcmahon in the race to replace retiring senator chris dodd. mr. blumenthal was elected to both the connecticut state house and senate before serving five terms as the attorney general. meanwhile, indiana season old face return with republican dan coats who previously served as indiana senator from 1988 to 1999 before becoming the u.s. ambassador to germany.

>> the bipartisan policy center national security preparedness group sponsored a conference recently on domestic intelligence and u.s. terrorism threats. the discussion focused on the challenges of integrating

domestic and intelligence services to the fbi and other agencies. also key points were raised about finding a balance between american civil liberties and domestic intelligence gathering. this next portion is an hour and 20 minutes. >> john tanner, president of bae systems and intelligence services. i should also note that the aei has been a sponsor of this conference today, something we very much support. john has a long and distinguished career in the intelligence community. he was deputy director of intelligence cia, and also chairman of the national health council in addition to numerous other intelligence community positions. and most importantly, he's a member of congressman hamilton and tom came to national security preparedness group. without further ado, like to introduce john tanner. >> thanks very much. appreciated, michael. our panel i think in comparison with the last one, which i thought was very well done,

rich. terrific panel. very substantive, and a natural segue to ours. we look at your panel as we focus more on operational issues. and ours is more on reform which should push us further into not only what problems we face but what we should do about it. couldn't have a more distinguished panel to my right, michael leiter. i always like to look at bios to learn things about people i didn't know. michael is an ea6 navy pilot. and also then moved onto assistant u.s. attorney in virginia, was a graduate by the way of columbia university and then harvard law school. he became very well-known in town for the great job he did as deputy general counsel and assistant director for the wmd commission. he was then went to the dni's office as a deputy staff director was getting very broad

experience across the agency of the intelligence community. and then went to the nctc and in 2008 was appointed director where i think we all recognize his tremendous energy, intellectual and leadership to the very important organization. next to him, mike chertoff, also known to all of us. again, began his career as a federal prosecutor in new york and new jersey, assistant attorney general for the criminal division. and actually oversaw the investigation of 9/11. he was a federal judge, court of appeals for the third district, 2003-2005, and became the -- went to the cabinet as the director of department of homeland security. he is also from harvard, both undergraduate ba and his j.d. degree. next is phil mudd.

he came from villanova and the university of virginia to cia back in 1985, and he became very well known as a successful analyst of near east and south asia, particularly middle east expert. he ultimately became, took charge of the iraq of the iraq analytic group at cia. he also worked in a national intelligence council and became a deputy national intelligence office for south east asia. he worked in national security council on middle east issues. he served in the counterterrorism center in cia where he also goes to the number two position, deputy there. and then went on to fbi where he assisted fbi to develop an analytic capability and became the deputy of the national security division of there. pat neary, a west point

graduate, about 30 years in the intelligence business first in the arm and a long career in the cia where he was known really for his forceful advocacy of collaboration across the intelligence community. he became the principal deputy director and chief strategist for the odni back in 2005, and he held that job until this past year when he went to the department of homeland security as the associate deputy undersecretary for research in information and analysis director there. what we've heard from the other speakers this point, beginning with the dni and nothing to the last panel, is the real challenge that is represented in domestic intelligence. while our government is universally perceived to have no greater responsibility than to protect people at home, we also are deeply committed as a people in a democracy to civil liberties, to privacy, and to

limited government. and in addition to that, we have a really unified national effort indeed really by the fiercely defended federal versus state constitutional prerogatives and legal authorities. but this is all against the background of challenges that are for the coveted by the shrinking fast moving world of globalization that blurs any enduring distinction between foreign and domestic intelligence. i.t.-driven globalization makes everything move faster a cross our borders, including people, operations related information, destructive know-how, finance and both cultural and ideological points to facilitate radicalization and recruitment of terrorists. our adversaries that find our borders not as great a challenge, as was once the case, includes weapons proliferate, international terrorist, organized criminals, cyberwarriors, human

traffickers, in countries working alone or in combination against u.s. interests. so needless to say, we need a powerful collaborative network of intelligence security agencies to counter this global threat to our homeland. so, in this context how do we define domestic intelligence? how do we clarify that nation? how do we assign roles and responsibilities to the multiple agencies that have responsibility in this arena? foreign and domestic requirements for integration of effort. so going to turn right to the panel with the question of kind of a 30,000-foot question, from your personal experience, what do you see as the challenges that we face today in establishing an effective domestic intelligence capability? this is part, look for and they get into more of the details of how we proceed. do you want to kick off?

>> thanks for that kind introduction and thank you to congressman hamilton and governor kaine and the entire nspg for running this i think excellent event. i'd offer three quick observations. first, as you note, i think that we have not yet fully defined what we mean by domestic intelligence. and i think that continues to some extent to hamper reform and investment. what do i mean but we haven't yet defined it? we understand basically what we are trying to defend, terrorist attacks are weapons of mass destruction, or the like, from entering the question, being in the country and used against us. but i think there remains a significant and in some cases healthy skepticism of domestic intelligence and our youth the more pejorative term, domestic spying. and i think until we fully tackle kind of as a whole of government, the congress,

american people, the executive branch, fully defined the steps which we think are acceptable to take in providing securities within the homeland, with those that are not. i think it will remain very difficult come and we will have an unhealthy tension between the people frankly, like me and sean joyce, from the fbi he was up there before they were trying to stop things are happening. and those who very legitimate are also trying to ensure that civil liberties are properly protected. the second observation i would make is that this is a moving target. the threat and i think jim clapper spoke to this, the challenges have change significant. on 9/11, we largely face an enemy that was overseas, but coming into the united states. and today, we still face that enemy, but simultaneously we face an enemy that is here within our shores. and those are u.s. persons who

are here, who are a lying themselves with al qaeda's ideology, and pursuing terrorist attacks. and those two challenges, the overseas threat coming to the united states, and the threat that is coming from within the united states, require a very different set of tools. and again i think highlight the need to have an intelligent conversation about the types of human intelligence, electronic surveillance, information sharing analysis that needs to be used to combat the threat. finally, i would just say we have to continue having, we have to get past step one in information sharing. i would say step one was we have to get away from the need to know and that you need to share. i think a phrase that the 9/11 commission appropriately noted on its report, but we really have to get past that now. because the challenges of information sharing are again, think what we were on 9/11.

largely more complicated, and implicates civil liberties and existing statutory frameworks in a way that the media information sharing challenges of 9/11 did not. >> very good. michael? >> again, i want to thank the governor and congressman for having us show the very viable conference to have. i agree with what mike said so i don't want to repeat the same ground that he covered, but i would add two additional points. we've always had a bit of an issue with homegrown terrorism, even going back to 2001-2002 we were disrupting the people that were training here, who were plotting here. but it think it's probably become a little more of a threat now than it was four or five years ago. and as part of the evolution of the threat over the last, you know, seven or eight years. >> we've been quite successful in making it difficult for non-us citizens to get into the united states.

because of the way we collect information, whether we do it using sophisticated means for just collecting collecting commercial data as we do without incoming airline passengers, and then analyzing that data for purposes of identifying people who are potential threats. and i should add -- as a footnote. i note right now the european parliament would like to revisit some of the agreements we've made on collecting this information. and i think that would be a terrible mistake to water that down. but the problem that we have domestically is that the ability to collect overseas, and the kind of techniques we use are not really going to work here at home, because we have a very distributed threat. and as you do with people who are not communicating necessarily overseas or maybe they're getting on the internet, but then again directly with people in other parts of the world, and as you have small groups or even lone wolves like

that office on at fort hood, the ability to capture what i would call a low signature type of threat that comes favorite difficult, usually through traditional means. that means we have to enlist literally state and local and community people. to be part of the eyes and ears about what is bring. it's going to be in this kind of environment, the beat policemen who see somebody -- something funny or unusual as likely to be able to detect one of the threats of a pocket we've seen repeatedly in the u.s. that sometimes, like it's a photograph development clerk who picks up a fort dix scheme and reports to the fbi and that results in and out of a potential plot. so it's going to put a pin onto things. educating people about what to look for, and finding a way to aggregate information that they collect so that it is usable and

can be looked at by a lot of different people. second element is, in the domestically context, people make a big deal about the stench between collected information on advocacy of ideas on the one hand, and which is protected, and collecting against people who have actually gotten to the point where there's a predicate for saying you're about to commit a criminal act or an act of violence. is what the problem is. and a lot of people believed that in the process of radicalization, between the time to become radicalized and the time you put a bomb on, weeks, months and years go by. and you have a lot time to spot the radicals who are going to become bombers that i don't think that is too. i think that what we've seen is that this is between radicalization and putting a bomb on a sometimes days and weeks. some of the people that have been picked up in london, one minute they were apparently regular ordinary citizens of great britain, and then within a very sharp at a time became

enamored -- some other radical website. and within a few weeks later they were ready to start mixing chemicals to set a bomb while. so what that means if we don't have the luxury of drawing that line between incitement and advocacy on the one hand, and predication in terms of specific criminal or terrorist act on the other. and we need to think about how we collect, need to move to the left in terms of our ability to collect. >> bill? >> just a couple points. the first is that there's no such thing as domestic intelligence and i don't think there ever will be in this country no do i think there should be. i have work at the cia and the fbi, cia chief of station is a foreign intelligence office responsible in a country like pakistan for collecting strategic information about al qaeda. you've not response when a bomb goes off in karachi. he's not security officer. not responsible for geographic security of that. that is securing space in a

foreign country. he owns tactics to collect intelligence. he does not own a true. pakistanis do. a special agent in charge of a scientist is responsible when a bomb goes off in watts. but that officer, that domestic security officer is naturally an intelligence officer. that individual doesn't on the tactics. you can't go up a problem is that i will put up intercept capability. i bet you insource next to this person. i was difficult for them, take their hard drive. that special agent in charge of ashley the assistant director in los angeles on the true. they don't on the tactics. so my first one and a stop in a moment is, we have to drive in order to put understand domestic security officers were not for intelligence officers. we don't do it because we can't in a country of civil liberties. and we do security. second quick point. and that is how do we look

forward, when i trained as an as we trained i had to break down upon, how do you train what you know, what you don't know, what you think that one thing about how we improve and go down the road is digital exhaust a human being it leaves around the world when it did on e-mail, when they travel across the ocean is increasingly broad. the amount of data we had in 1985 when i started, i was reading mail by paper when i started in 85, versus the amount of data today. you can believe it have never served any counterterrorism position how much information is coming it. so training people who specialize in tracking and understanding human beings. counterterrorism and in newspapers is about plots. in practice is about people. increasing our sophistication and training about how we understand tracking of people, and to close, how we understand the distention of tracking that person overseas and tracking that person domestically. and to close on that front, and again, to drive home the point

of the distinction between domestic security and foreign intelligence, if our expectation of the security officer in los angeles is that they stop stop, three kids in the basement, get over. it and going to happen. i'm astonished at about the amount of ignorance splashed on pages about kids who are plotting to pipe bombs in basements. the worst things i saw in the fbi were gangs, drugs and child. who are responsible for far more violent and far more threats to my nieces and nephews and kids in this country than three kids in the basement who bought a pipe bomb. they are not a national security threat to this country. gangs, drugs and child are. so i think when we discuss national security we also need a perspective about where nine years into this counterterrorism fits into the broader security problems this country has. >> i gather you're not retired, is that right's? [laughter] >> is that a request to leave the panel?

[laughter] >> pat, you are not retired. >> absolutely not. first of all, i would like to also extend my thanks to the bipartisan policy center and the nspg for this topic, specifically. i think it's long overdue. i used to make you when i was at the odni working on strategy that domestic intelligence was a phrase we do not speak aloud. and, in fact, of the first and second national intelligence strategies don't include the phrase domestic intelligence. we have gone to great length to find other ways to crafted to get to that point without saying a. so i tk we have this discussion and filters kicked off a good way. i did we can go further down that route. but back to your original opening discussion point. the key challenge i would say for domestic intelligence is the maturation of the approach we've taken. and that may sound fairly pedestrian, but it is not. we have consciously chose a certain approach to the task of domestic intelligence.

a network approach as opposed recentralize mi5 approach. and we are now nine years into it, but we are just nine years into the. and something dramatically foreign and distinct from what we have done in the past but will require the old foreign intelligence committee to adapt fairly quickly. it required our law enforcement agencies to adapt fairly quickly. and it required new organizations like my departed, dhs come to stand up and develop capability fairly quickly. and so that maturation has occurred and all that has occurred during active operations. . .

some describe it as a discussion between centralization and decentralization and the way we doing intelligence for the domestic side. i think that's actually not the best way to characterize it because when you talk about decentralized, you're talking about the assets. the decentralized approach, what is that? in this case we've chosen to build a network and there is a number of things associated with that. and i think it was a very wise choice, whether happened organically or consciously, i think we can debate historians will weigh in on that. if you think about it, as mike says, the threat we face is changing. what better system to have two face a constantly changing threat than a network. networks are not to be adaptable. it pointed out that it's

absolutely critical to understand in our domestic sense with certain private civil liberties that are paramount. it simply won't allow us to build a large federal structure that is simply a target and perhaps a problem in future issues of civil liberties and privacy. the network was a very wise choice. it's a very difficult one to stay the course with him to mature because it goes on beyond just the federal structure. it was not chosen to partner for the first time in our history with our state and local counterparts and national security and bring them fully into the intelligence community as partners. and so, there's an enormous amount of capability out there you have to harness and bring to bear. there's also an enormous amount of challenges associated with that. again, continuing to build professionalism and a network in partnership without overreacting is an enormous challenge. >> we have three agencies here that have direct responsibility

for analysis on the domestic side. and ctc being integrated of the foreign and domestic and fbi, dhs, with fairly significant responsibility for integrating information and intelligence for the analysis of the domestic threat. yet, the public is almost nothing about assessments of the domestic threat. we have regular, either leaks or declassified information related to national intelligence estimates related to the foreign threat. and they are regular and almost predictable, but do we actually have an ability to do a comprehensive, sustained assessment of the domestic threat? and if there is, why don't we know about it? mike. >> because we don't think this badly on this topic. i take your question is a compliment. i have to say the amount of

analysis of national assessments on the domestic threat, both done by nctc, fbi, dhs, also some by the national intelligence council and part of the dod and i are quite expensive on domestic radicalization, different aspects of that. use of the internet, tag takes, techniques, procedures. there is a constant flow and a senior policy makers daily rebook of intelligence that is on these very topics. frankly, and i think jim potter mention this this morning, the fact this is not in the public realm is because it is supposed to be classified. i think it's actually quite good that it is not. to the extent that it does leak into the public realm, frankly, it makes my job in most cases much, much more difficult. >> we did a fair amount of this at dhs during the four years i was secretary. and i think he was not generally for publication although we

circulated within the community. there were a couple of occasions when he flaked out and actually i got into a rather acrimonious situations of congress because we object to the idea that we would analyze domestic radicalization and view that as spying. even though there were other members of congress and i happen to think this was a good idea actually wanted to have hearings on domestic radicalization. but there was a real pushback on the part of some people to even talk about domestic radicalization, particularly because we're dealing with matters that had a touch of religion. it was just totally given hands-off. and the problem is that you don't ask questions and look at the problem, you have no idea what the dimension of the problem is that you don't want to find that your problem when a bomb goes off and you're looking respectively to see what you're catching. so i think we have to be candid about the fact that if were going to work at domestic

terrorism, which is largely motivated in this case by an ideology. and the ideology does purport to the view of songs that may be coming out this in sensitive areas in terms of what to look at. even if you go to the open source are public events. it is open public meetings. you're so going to have to check to looking at the issue. >> analysis is constrained by >> you can't analyze what you don't correct. >> just a couple thoughts. i was a bit surprised. i thought there was a lot of analysis going on about potentially violent domestic groups, a lot of it done by nctc, which is one of the biggest success -- maybe the biggest success story by reform. i saw a lot inside i didn't get

outside. to pick up on the secretary, radicalization is not a crime. again it's a distinction between security. they say where might a european can find its way into the stream up to the tribal areas. he now come with ecological radicalization in this country that leads people to potentially go blow up a fire station or suv facility. you can be radical in this country. we don't do the nintendo analysis nor should we because you're free to think what you want. the distinctions between much you might see in terms of a foreign intelligence, namely cia the connect committee oversees and what fbi or dhs or nctc might do domestically is a pretty significant distinction. we look at people who have or are considering turning crime. and we have to think about those who are further back in the stream. how do you look at people that might become involved in clusters in new york city?

we are extremely cautious. we're not an intelligence entity. >> there certainly is a new role for some type of larger strategic context for the republic consumption in terms of the threats both foreign and domestic. but i agree with both the dni's comments and mike leiter, that the amount of analysis we do stays within the community. intelligence was at best a foreign policy that drives up operations and that cannot be done publicly in many cases. we go to great lengths within dhs to drive the production of intelligence down to a level that can be disseminated at the state and local level. and we partner with the fbi and nctc to do that type of dissemination. it's a very difficult process to do. but if they simply flows willy-nilly out to the public at large, what you do an effective stress caused alert fatigue

because the average person out there in the street, how are they supposed to react to a constant stream of intelligence leaks about domestic threat? what are they supposed to do with? that's why we have government and policy officials who are supposed to book for what it is will do and how respond to it. so there is a larger role for context perhaps in terms of strategic documents. but i don't think we are under serving the public are maintaining the intelligence of the classified venues. >> john, there's an issue filled race which is an important issue here and that is the question of at what point is it appropriate to collect intelligence and analyze intelligence before someone is at the point of thinking of committing a crime. and it is true to traditional model is you don't have a basis to even forget what happened and require support commission. you don't even have a basis at home to collect open information

unless you have a reason to believe you're going to commit a crime. the problem is that doesn't work in a world in which the distance between someone who starts to entertain radical ideas and mixing the bomb formula in the basement can be a matter of a few weeks. you don't have the luxury of waiting. i'm not sure that's necessary. i always found people in government highly risk-averse to in terms of their interpretation of the law and what the law permits in the most cautious way possible. and in fact, if i support a peel is really criticized at the department of justice several years ago for not even challenging a very restrictive interpretation of the fisa law, which the court or review said was wrong. it was too constraining. so i would say they are three separate checks and period when we take action against somebody? domestically it is a high standard. we just pitot up willy-nilly because they haven't radical

thoughts. people are allowed to be radicals. the second question is when to use intrusive techniques against people, searches, wiretaps. we have a very detailed and well-settled set of legal rules about when you can do that. the third area which is still on that old is when can you take publicly available information, stuff that occurs in the street, the blind sheik 20 years ago preaching extremism where people are publishing things that are inciting violence. when can you start to collect that without use intrusive techniques and start to analyze whether that is a right threat. and i think that is what is presenting a real challenge. >> i could not agree with mike moore on this topic. i think this highlights to me the lack of consensus on what we

the national security, community showed or should not be doing. i'll give you two quick and does to illustrate that further. in the months before fort hood i was testifying on behalf of the intelligence community, advocating for the extension of certain aspects of the patriot act. for very good reasons, people had some concerns. and i got a lot of what, why should we allow you to continue to spy on americans? several weeks later in the wake of fort hood i was back up on the hill. and i'll tell you that a whole lot fewer people were complaining about the spying on americans and a whole lot people were complaining i wasn't spying on us. that's a tough line to walk. similarly, in the four years i've been in this job, i have received many, many letters from many, many people read how we watch list to many people. today after 1225, believe me

come the letters were saying something a little bit different about watch listing. but these are the sorts of tensions that we have an entrée to inform people of the best i can muster what i think the best balances to strike and then we'll follow those rules. but being between these extremes can be extremely problematic, it very difficult to maintain security or protection of civil liberties. >> if i could just pick up on mike's moment for a second that is sitting at the beer and operational table at the agency. if we collect a couple wrong numbers in yemen, nobody cares. if they collected it as we did two was over collection and the united states bureau, that is front-page news for some time. the important thing to note their was a fear of investigation was established in 19 away. we've got 102 years of rules. every time one of those mistakes is made there's a new set of

rules of architecture. it's not just a popular attitudes are now. it's a mistake was doing 10 years ago and what roles have been added and then. the collection of information goes to the style that's typical, but also creates a mindset that says we have to be cautious because every time i'm make a mistake, our on the line. there's nick seymour rules to follow. >> if i take what mike chertoff and mike leiter had said, the domestic analysis has constrained our inability to collect information. and the extent of that argument that will inhibit your ability other better analysis. we are inhibited from doing the kind of net assessment domestic you could do in the forward

area. back in 2000 -- the early two thousands, the president told our first responders that they were the first line of defense against historicism and would develop capabilities to give them the capability to do a good job for the country, to protect the homeland. in the homeland security act of 2002, as i recall, the department -- the department of homeland security was given responsibility for collecting information from all the agencies that have integrated into it like 22, but certainly customs border control, i.c.e., tsa, all with valuable information to contribute to an analysis. fbi would do the classic intelligence work. why has it taken so long to develop a model that does collect that information within dhs and the way they can be integrated with intelligence? my assumption is we are not there yet at all. so why are we not there and what

do we have to do to get their? and i guess pat, you'd be the one the hot seat there. >> john, i agree were not there yet. but in fact it's a network of networks that include all of the state local fusion members and the like. when has the network ever complete it? is not. networks are optimized for giving to the circumstances. but we optimize? no. were certainly providing more information to the state locals than we ever have in the past. and based on the outreach we do, i'm still speaking to groups like the cheese and the senator right nurse, dave wouldn't have a major increase the amount of information they're receiving useful intelligence information and we regularly sample them to see whether using statistical techniques, whether what were given them a scratch in the edge of what they need. and the results are encouraging and we still have a ways to go. part is the maturation i talked

about, which is working with the customer site in partnership to say, what do you need? if you talk to the top as the secretary chertoff mentioned, i was above two of the classic statement that the terrorists are in a bus and they're coming at 2:50 this afternoon. the challenge of the reforms if you want users to synchronize, stumbling across that information is fine and rare. what will have this information on types and type makes him different indicators we can pass along the state and local. and if the men are encouraging them come here so we can provide in terms of preparing them to be the eyes and ears. her members always, as i think bill pointed out, the fundamental law enforcement officers here. they're learning a new role. they've always done something like this is part of their job. now were asking them to do a little bit more in it little bit differently. were trying to increase the amount of information back from

them. as we reach out across these state and local fusion centers to the 18,000 law enforcement organizations, we are reaching out to a non-hierarchal goal is somewhere to encourage broad information, but we can set some standards. it's impossible to reach down and enforce it in a uniform fashion. your places where they've come a long way, places like new york city with a purpose so obvious and other areas where is far less developed. in state and local fusion centers, one must remember as opposed to the j. tts are fundamentally vocal organizations. they are local organizations. so if we don't direct them on what to do or tell them, you know, how they're going to do it. so were trying to beef up the capabilities so they can only collect local information and improve the quality of that suspicious activity reporting, for example, from one-person

organizations but also they can pass that back up to us. we spent a lot of time with nctc talking about the dhs operational components to be able to provide the information access to nctc and leading that effort to be able to access that kind of data is the threat changes and becomes more important. so we've come a long way, have a long way to go. none of that is too surprising, even setting aside the obvious physical difficulties of the electronic infrastructure were talking about, which is an aspect of this problem has been well purported and well understood and should simply very difficult. >> patch and maybe fill, since you were just out in the trenches, what is, looking ahead, what do we want to define as a real constructive role for dhs and fbi and domestic election arena?

>> one of the things i think to be specific on this, we could and should do better and both organizations, is when i went to the bureau 2005 as a career for an intelligence officer, i looked at the people involved in intelligence reform in washington and virtually all of them are many, most, probably 80% or more were specialized in overseas foreign intelligence. and then i looked at the domestic network in your 17,000, 18,000 police departments. i thought expectations would develop an architecture in the united states. to collect according to a planned cover important standards, it would never work. it can't work in this country. so to be specific, what i suggest we think about and what the bureau and teach us to do better than you got 50 plus major city chiefs in this country. start thinking that you deployed analysts and reports officers doing the reporting to the field

when you have a problem like somalia. we've probably got six, eight, 10 major cities that have this amalia problem and probably still do going back to 06, 07, a way. we should have said let's deploy teams to talk about the squad to work in this community. as might be drug squads. you look at minneapolis, that's an inner-city environment. there's a game environment there is low. instead of expecting that one can classify, go out and start teaching people hey, what are you hearing about people talking about to bob. deploy that to the filled who are trained to deploy and understand and can never be observed across 17 or 18,000 police departments. >> yeah, i agree with phil and that i don't think it's reasonable to try to cause the law enforcement community like that. the major bean difference of the two organizations of the bureau for dhs. obviously our vehicle goes way beyond the sea to function in terms of the particular area and

homeland security and intelligence as we refer to it as our ability to protect borders to work on natural disaster cyberactivities. so we have to reach out and use the fusion centers, which are primary venue for the two-way information flow to really provoke -- they list the response in terms of the reporting and also provide the intelligence now and translated. we've had a real effort lately to beef up the capability. and this goes to which he mentioned was the best practice that gets the analyst down, our own analyst down not to state and local fusion center so they can work there and become in effect a distributed model, which has been used in the past, most notably in the department of defense to be able to have people on the ground closer to the action, closer to operational activities and use that as a means to improving intelligence report. >> could i ask you and then ask michael chertoff to comment on regional directions for dhs.

>> dhs worksite to fusion centers, but you suggest those are state? dhs does not have a reasonable organization that does not need one to achieve the goals come as that which are talking about? >> i'm not sure i follow you. >> designate regional organization as well as a national organization to dhs? >> i don't foresee any to that. the network structure with dhs operating with the operational components directly underneath it and the fusion centers which in effect was 72 have a regional breakdown there and we don't control necessarily to be the most rational break down. but certainly you could do a bake off and competition overtime to see see which ones were best and which ones don't. >> let me ask michael. this has been an ongoing question. >> the last thing i'd like to see is another layer and the organization. i think pats rate. this is a network approach. the one thing i would add is --

we talked about this i guess three or four years ago, los angeles became suspicious that a rudy report would when bill brandon was rendering the department. and the idea we had was i don't know if it's been executed on, but we started to talk about making servers available on which all of these fusion centers could populate it with information. obviously you have to have some standards to format it in a way that can be worked with. but the idea was not to have dhs or the fbi or federal government engaged and not have all the information, to the feds and then the feds decide who takes action, but rather to have it open to anybody. so anybody from the participating agency could look at the material, analyze in terms of what they're seeing in their own community. the fed would have to have the disability to say you could analyze and get the benefit of it. but you don't necessarily want to tell, you know, if boston see

something coming out of l.a. that matches something occurring in boston, you don't necessarily want to say stop and you can't do anything or pursue it until the federal government makes a decision. you want to let them go. this comes back to the civil liberties point. there's a lot of people who don't like that because that doesn't put more information in the hands of people at the local level and that creates a lot of nervousness. so that the issue that has michael leiter points out we have to resolve. the europeans are totally under the boat. they're all tightly held, department. they want to keep stovepipes. and i guess they made a decision or the leaders have made decisions that it means we miss some things are bombs go off, so be it. i thought in this country, after 9/11, certainly ratified by the 9/11 commission was want to go

the other way. but that's a debate we have to maybe take another look at. >> john, if i could add on. that is the way it's been implemented to the secretary. as he mentioned the quantity of one other comment made earlier i wanted to for stop on and that is you mention the challenge of the trade of liberties which must be protected and the domestic intelligence commissioners the speed of radicalization which i think we could talk about here, but i can certainly see it's become an issue as of late. i think the other complicating factor they are is the increasing capability of violent capabilities of individuals which the community has forecast correctly going back, john, to the work you did on the 2010 bustamante forecasting individuals increased me how destructive capability in the states normally deserve in the past. when you have the ability to pick dramatic and i'm not seeing a pipe bomb at the local police

officers mailbox. attack about releasing, logical or biological weapons. and you can't wait until the moment that the theoretical plan dropped the van off in one of times square before you decide it's going to be an actual security issue. >> before i get to q&a, let me get to question. the mi5 model, a centralized domestic intelligence has been proposed is still out there to some degree. it's your review of that proposal? >> i think in our tradition that's a nonstarter. practically a good idea. i think mi5 is a wonderful service. if you look at other countries and even in the u.k., one of the challenges they constantly face, the effective sharing of information between their domestic intelligence services

and the domestic law enforcement. some countries are better than others, but we actually do have an advantage right now in some ways that within the fbi you have both sets of authorities combined. it doesn't mean it goes noted that she'll have any transition to become a better intelligence organization and in some ways you never will be like the cia. i personally think the mi5 model is undoable and not a good idea. >> thank you very much. >> i thought it was like déjà vu all over again. our member having this discussion eight years ago. i thought it was a bad idea. i think it's a bad idea now. one thing i would like to take issue with, which was embedded in that argument and that is the fbi cannot do a good job in terms of analysis of intelligence. so i go way back to the days where we launched the traditional organized crime and we prosecuted five families and leadership of hamas for mafia.

those were built by agents collect the intelligence, literally thousands and thousands of surveillance reports coming out, lawful wiretaps, informing to get a whole picture of the organization. and that led us to penetrate to an organization is highly secretive and had resisted penetration. but they are capable of doing this job and they get motivated and center guys. i would actually argue the training you get taken a case from the intelligent stage through to completion, were you actually have to back it up is a great lesson in how to kick the tires under sources. because you can't kid yourself when you're in a courtroom about whether people -- people tell you is true or not true because you're going to find that pretty quickly. i actually think it's been helpful that the viewer has to arrange back to good use. >> thank you. >> it's a horrible idea except i have to write it.

[laughter] just one quick thought. this has always been a lot of what i want to say has been mentioned already. but they are looking at hezbollah targets in a u.s. city. if you have established a mi5, meanwhile there's another entity developing intelligence. both of those in contrast to britain, 17 dozen here, both entities presumably are coordinating with state locals. but those entities have to have a formal requirement right now we can do this at one table in the borough. the former requirements a winner going to pull your intel source of the case that we can get a one person a source in who can testify in court? i could go on and on about the operational complexities in a country that is so much decentralized law-enforcement and about two simultaneous operations going on in major cities, liaising with foreign service is in an age of globalization and police departments. and finally in washington d.c.,

i'm talking to friends and foreign services who will tell you the same thing. that's at least a 10 year bureaucratic hail before a modest amount of fighting stops. guaranteed 10 years before people start running across the street and look what those guys did. they just were the case. guaranteed 10 years. >> gentlemen, i'm afraid i'm not going to give you much diversity of opinion on this one. as i mentioned earlier i think the mi5 is great for the united kingdom. i would just add one additional view and that is just on the nature of the centralized route as opposed to a network approach. when you move him essentialist out it's incredibly difficult to backtrack that approach. the reset upon a course to target change from our approach, which is far more networked what does create frictions in who does let in terms of strategic analysis on domestic side and work to fbi and dhs in cases

against one another is still capable to change things fairly easily and fairly smoothly because it is the network cannot good reason to keep it. >> great, thank you. over to you folks. question. >> thank you. john, in your opening remarks come you mention organized crime. a secretary come you talked about the mafia. at the time of the 9/11 commission, organized crime wasn't even on the intelligence community to work. it is now big time. it's one of the fastest growing economies world. how does that fact affect intelligence reform and specifically domestic intelligence reform? money is fungible. you've got the money, you can set up groups wherever you want. how do we deal with? especially the world without borders. >> i think it's a very astute

point. you know, we live in these legal boxes where everything is the category. it's crime or foreign intelligence and the bad guys do not observe those rules. so going back to the thought which morphed from a revolutionary terrorist organization into also been an interrupted organization, the national security threat from transnational organized criminal groups has become -- it's not quite what terrorism is, that becoming a very serious priority. and these are global organizations now. so we look at hezbollah, which uses illegal out to be used to fund its activities overseas, what's going on in the northern part of mexico we have a transnational organized criminal groups. i think we've got to use all the tools in this case is. what we can't do is say it's preposterous to say we can't use the foreign intelligence tools

against a transnational criminal organizations until one day a leader of the organization gets up and says i'm a political leader. now we can switch on the foreign intelligence. so we've got to really review the architecture of the way we handle foreign intelligence collection. >> a couple points on this. it's not only organized crime. it's human trafficking from southeast asia. the globalization is so dramatic. child from eastern europe. these of a few implications we haven't understood. the first is you have to have law-enforcement capability that's global. i have cia friends in the process of the beer is moving in on the turf. they're moving in because in a place like indonesia because you have to be will to work with the locals, picking up information to put somebody behind bars. in 1908 was established because somebody had a card and could

run into the next state at a bank robbery and the sheriff couldn't deal with it. now you have virtual, human trafficking, iconic set of latin america being directed out of the prisons of california. every single problem we face is globalized. the first is global ability to chase them down. second is network analysis and training network analysis for analysts i think is the wave of the future. everyone of these organizations have commonalities you can map electronically. that's e-mail, phone, financial activity, travel. i mentioned human beings and visual trail before ability to understand network of people as we can take them out more rapidly. third and final one has to do with how we apply traditional intelligence methods as the secretary said in environments where people will search the blurred lines between countries. i mean, to me, identity is becoming globalized. we can't say because an electron passes through new jersey and the communications are between poland and romania do we have to

go through the go process to collect in my opinion. i ain't no lawyer, but that makes no sense to me. and i were the speed of globalization rate of intelligence collection methods against amorphous international networks to match the way the world is moving. >> okay, the point hadn't been brought home earlier, certainly 9/11 and difficulties with terrorism have made it absolutely clear that these problems are globalized in transnational criminal organizations are a direct threat to the national security of the united states. you recognize that. we recognize that. we work in that issue. >> thanks, paul, for the question. next question. yes, i'm sorry. >> kimberly dozier with the ap.

not ever panelist on this panel and previously today has mentioned the tension between intelligence collection and analysis and civil liberties. but would be your first priority if you go to capitol hill and say fix this now. would it be an all source intelligence network to analyze the data trail that could fill mudd mentioned, the kind of analysis that windows leading to successful targeting in afghanistan, pakistan and yemen? do you need that here? >> two points. first, i actually -- pardon me. i was the good part of my answer. last night i actually reject the basic premise that there is not a medic tension between collection and civil liberties. i think actually much of what we do with good technology can improve intelligence at the same time improve capability that increases people's trust in the

intelligence communities, domestic security apparatus to properly use information. the second point i would make us although it makes a good talking point, there is no one thing. it turns out that these are very complicated issues that touch on many different aspects that we face. a few quick examples. recently in the intelligence authorization bill there was the congress modified soya protection that will in fact hope the national counterterrorism center to have access to data that otherwise might not have access to. very helpful. at the same time, as the secretary has noted, european restrictions on pnr, enormous issue. fisa, complicated statute with changing technological landscape, difficult there. refugee data. the list goes on and on and on. and that is caused by the fact that -- as the secretary noted, it's not as though it is

identified as terrorism information. it is looking out lots and lots of information from different sources and figuring out whether or not it is terrorism information. because you go into a lot of different departments and agencies who have this information with sources and types of information, you have a plethora of protections. legal and policy that you have to address piece by piece by piece. so it is not -- there is not one answer here. there are a series of very complicated issues. >> any others want to comment? >> eighty-six and to say sometimes the shorthand will talk about tension between collection and privacy. it really is only a shorthand and not actually an appropriate way to phrase it. i agree with mike that the privacy and civil liberties issues are paramount. it's not a matter of what we're learning and how to do it under what circumstances, bill mentioned 100 years of experience of trying to figure out each time you make a

mistake. that's actually the way we figure this out. the cases are always far more difficult when you look at the details then they are even in the public discussions thereof. and so, we used a shorthand phrases of trade-offs or tension between privacies and liberties of collection. i think were probably doing a disservice they are. the fact is that the difficult issue and requires tradecraft from professionals on how we pursue it. >> it gives me great pain to agree with mike, tremendous, especially on the record. [laughter] i have to agree. you know, we live free or die. that's it. law enforcement is and should be domestic issues in the business of sacrifice in the primary goal of this country, live free or die for security. the list for your dry trumps security in my judgment. at the real question is how far down the tale of someone heading towards violence do you want to

go? of the person is talking about violence, done deal. but going after him. if you're with a group that has activity in iraq or afghanistan, that's fine. as the secretary said, the problem in today's culture is the speed of globalization is the same for a company as it is for kids. in a couple months a cable going to a cluster of people in new york city and all the sudden somebody says look at this video and watch these poor children in gaza. he says i'm good to go. we should be looking at a cluster of people. so i think there's a lot of tension. the thing i would ask for is a serious conversation about how far down the tale of radicalization you want to go because every time we have the fort hood, people like me spend four months cleaning up after when some guy wants to e-mail some idiot in yemen. well, i'm not sure that's a productive conversation. >> other questions? yes.

>> yes, hi. diana west, "washtington examiner." we are weighing the balance between civil liberties and security is. i want to ask you to switch gears a little bit and weigh the balance between security and islamic activity. we've been talking a bit about fort hood in relation to perhaps extending the tolerance for domestic spying or things like that. but major hasan had been giving public priests to his fellow officers that purposely trapped the jihad doctrine and was not considered disturbing amount for him to the flag and certainly statute where he fort hood. i would be a situation where i would call it a preponderance concern for islamic sensitivity. do you think we have to make straight? do think we went islamic sensitivities over security matters in such a case? >> i can tell you that in the

work that we do, there is no pcs. if somebody looks like they're being radicalized through islamic ideology. the miracle is that, to any other ideology, we have no problem whatsoever trying to collect information about them, analyze them and make sure they are disrupted. speaking directly to the fort hood example, i think it is quite clear that the review that the department of defense did and the fbi did that information was not shared as effectively as it should. i think it is worthwhile, though, frankly that we do remember the sensitivities that are important to understand and appreciate the lack of appreciation for legitimate sensitivities will in fact drive

part of the radicalization process. so that is not at all at all an argument in a case like fort hood people shouldn't have reported that were discussed it or held an investigation. again that's become quite a while and the public record. i do think we have to remember that this whole conversation from the national counter terrorism center, fbi and dhs, half of the goal has to be not to create more people who want to blow themselves up in this country. and we do that by effective engagement with communities of the communities don't feel there's an adversarial relationship between the government and those communities at risk. >> i would add one thing. i think increasingly if we're worried about homegrown terrorism and we want to get an early warning, we're going to have to actually engage the communities for the recruiting takes place to counteract recruiting or if they're willing to share information with the aristocrat. we don't have enough police and

fbi agents to be in every single community. so when we have places, for example, we had an issue of somalia and young somali men being recruited to go overseas and fight somalia and that creates a risk back here at home, you need to get the community to raise its hand and say there's a problem. that means they need to understand that the first bit times of this kind of recruitment are going to be the children of parents in that community itself. it's not just a question of sensitivity. it's a question of actually working with the communities on this issue. now this is a controversial issue because there's a feeling sometimes that there is a mixed message. they want to engage and make people feel welcome and on the other hand you're asking people to inform and a sense when somebody's been an extremist. at the end of the day from a community standpoint, both of those actions make sense.

the community should want to be engaged and integrate for the wider society. but at the same time, they've got to recognize that when a young person from community himself up, that community has lost someone as well as innocent people being killed. so it's not some thing we can do only as a government function. it's got to be a community-based function. >> a quick operational subject. if you're going down a path of violence, what i thought the table as i don't care where you're from, you're going to get honked. to me one of the grill questions here is if you look at the amount of violence when people look at a point target like fort hood and see something happen, they blow the fort hood and say why can't you find people like this? if you look at the amount of people who are contemplated or might contemplate. i don't want to use that phrase advisedly. violent, white supremacist, gangs, drugs, islamic radicals. the amount of wheat out there to

sort through, the volume we have to deal with operationally is huge. the sun is just when you're dealing with the number of people in the tens or hundreds of thousands in this country who have committed or might commit or indicate they might commit an act of violence and you had onto a pile people who are looking for a geisha and ideology that might be to take that step, you're talking about hundreds of thousands of people. hundreds of thousands. and so operationally, it's not only a civil liberties question. it's a civil liberties question of whether your training someone to do hamas and some of the kinetic jihad is website in texas. i'd say have fun raising the crime and i can't afford to go up to 100,000 people looking at websites. i'm making it a little too simple, but you have to understand the volume and the triage that goes on. >> i won't speak to the specifics of the for a case that i want to get to the analysis in

an apartment, we follow where the intelligence leads. and that is the nature of our mission that's how we conduct it. and in doing so, we're looking to develop real indicators for the future incident to try to prevent them and to debunk apparent indicators and that's absolutely critical because after the fact, you can look at an individual incidents, they will clearly hear indicators of this incident and here's why you need to look at this group for this activity or the thought process. and they may apply only to that one case where is good intelligence tradecraft relax for a number of cases, a number of classified sources and think, is this a real indicator or not in use that to pass along for operational purposes. we have both civil rights and civil liberties and a very robust capability into our process and they work with the analysts early on in the process. this is not done at the end of sort of a list of the document and see if we meet pc

requirements. it is built in what analysts are working with counterparts in asking hard questions. is that a real indicator? have you think so? how did you get there? doing that to the process as we develop our analysis. as part of dhs that has our outreach efforts to some communities we feel comfortable with a good mix there. >> any one last question for the audience? over here. and could we in response -- i promised the panel members a final statement if you wish to make it. so last question and final statements. >> roderigo. this is for the secretary and principle. when i saw the state of domestic intelligence reform i resorted taking the question that i didn't know we had something to reform from an intelligence perspective. could you give us an inside on the difference between threat information and intelligence for the audience paid for that understand the difference between the two and why some

things are easier to conduct than others? >> all right. i don't want to dominate this, but the question was, what is the difference between threat information and intelligence? intelligence is a broad category. and it's used to support about if operational and policy decision-making, both strategic and tactical. so intelligence can lead to changing the way we do things at the border. whether they're working well or not working what we can raise policy issues in the way we do things at home or overseas. they can result in organizational changes. a subset of that is threat information. during the years i was doing that, every day there were tons of drugs coming across. two issues of variables that weren't virtuous for specificity were specificity and credibility. the worst kind of threat is the highly credible highly specific threat. but in a way it's the easiest because it's specific.

you can take action against it. the toughest is a low specificity high credible threat because it opens up the whole world of possibilities and the results from a lot of pressure on figuring out which lets you operationally. the chief for my standby to threat information with this. every day i was on the job were six or seven days a week. after i got the intelligence threat briefing in the morning, i sat down with some of the principal people and the department. and we say but are we going to do with this information today? i would see the point of getting an intelligence, not as getting details about interesting stuff around the world, but it's something that called for action. and that meant at the end of that session we had to have two outcomes. either there was an operational change or action would have to take in response to the threats or to sufficient information to have to be a task to collect

more information. so that was always been a great lesson for me on this as a person who ran an operational agency. it only makes sense if you haven't done it. and so that which i think -- that's a in my experience keeps the process going. that also keeps the analysis moving. it creates new mandates for collection. and that is what circulates the flow of information. >> thank you. >> any others? mike, any final information? >> just quickly i would know first of all, thanks again. it's an incredibly value question to ask before an attack occurs. our ability to engage in a thoughtful debate about collection, analysis, you know, bipartisan way is critical to enabling people who work at an ctc, fbi, cia, dhs, all those

organizations. we need that to keep people safe. if i had asked congressman hamilton or governor came what they were doing the 9/11 commission, how many more americans would be killed in the united states by al qaeda inspired terrorists. i will venture a guess to answer in the following eight, nine years the answer would not have been 14. now 14 are 14 too many. thirteen and fort hood. juan-carlos planas so shooting an army recruit in arkansas last year. i think phil did raise an excellent point that we have to put that in the context of other challenges our country faces. it's in part a statement against interest and for the national counterterrorism center. we do have to put the threat in dave. understand that we need to focus on the low probability, hype impact event whether that's

weapons of mass destruction. we have to do our very best to prevent that and do our very best to prevent the low impact high probability events like the fort hood's of the world. we have to work very hard against all of them. but i'm not going to hit 10 for 10 on those low impact high probability events. it is a big country. it is a big world with a lot of people. we have to work very hard. i think we have improved 1225. we've learned from all of these. but we're not going to have a perfect batting average and it's important that americans understand that. it is important that we approach this with a sense of national brazilian but in fact shows that this country is not going to be defeated by udall has fun or faisal should side there were a

tough country and the people today are working in times square and they're working on fort hood and traveling and airplanes. and these sorts of attacks that will occur, but which do everything we can to stop them. they are not cutting at the very fabric of our society. >> thank you, mike. >> i guess three quick points. one is i think implicit oversight of intelligence is not prophecy. there's no absolute perfect to predict what's going to happen. we have to bear that in mind that you're never going to get to perfection when you aspire to be 100% in our success. second, have to add though what michael leiter said. any terrorist across is very bad, but there's a difference between a bad terrorist attack and an existential threat that would occur if we had a biological attack or a series of devastating radiological attacks

are something of that sort. and we have limited resources, particularly federal he has to focus on those areas with the highest impact with the u.s. government has unique capabilities. that's one of the reasons i think a state and local authority into the business of collecting and analyzing in a network way is a very good way to distribute the responsibility. the last thing i would say is we do have a lot of uncertainty about the rules. i think sometimes there's less uncertainty than we think because a lot of times the growers had urban legend about what the law is as opposed to looking at the law. the results of this consequence, the people responsible for carrying that intelligence activity become very risk-averse. time and again they said they're told not to go out and be aggressive and when the immediate threat is passed. what we owe the people who carry out activities overseas or even those here is a clarity of the

rules. if we decide we don't want to do certain things or we don't want to collect certain kinds of information, we should say that with clarity and those who make the rules or stand behind that decision and accept responsibility for terms that we missed something. alternatively if we do say we want to collect certain information, then we have to stand behind people who do the collecting by giving them a clarity of support in terms of what the rules are. and that is what is missing. we haven't sat down and in a systematic way look at the overall architecture of overdoing and come to a consensus to pass laws that give law set the direction and""" protection they rñ"equire to haú when they put themselves out to protect. >> thank you. no. >> i guess all sort of go on with the secretary. i'm a bit surprised nine years into this we still struggle to have mature conversations in this country, especially in the

wake of events, whether it's december 25th or fort hood. in some ways a security professional will take part in that. i'm kind of proud. i know it seems ironic that there are ugly debates, the 90's and we ought to be a bit mature in these situations to say, do you want to collect against people who are looking at jihads on the internet. and if not, there's implications. if so, i would want to be a part of it, but the secretary says in the wake of every incitement, i know this is sort of tilting at windmills in this town, don't go looking at what solectron didn't go on the right place at the right time for whose head out to be on a platter. as the question how could we do better in future? we made a mistake in the past and how do we move on? this is one of the biggest national security threats we face in my administration. that's why these words are good is it still quite limited, especially to my threat to the overseas deal with.

they laughed at us and it's painful to be in a situation i understand we can't have mature situations about how to do better at national security. >> i will tell that windmill. i'll tell to a different one. i will say for my times and held for intelligence communication we've been given and omissions about where we try to de-conflict everything that's usually detrimental to do that since were talking about the state of domestic intelligence reform, i want to put down a marker that we need to avoid making the same mistake on this domestic side that we did in the old foreign intelligence community by becoming obsessed with the rules as we go down the network path which we have chosen. there's going to be overlap. we need to embrace that and deal with it. again, calling for maturity in another realm and may be a problem together we can hope for it. i'll of say on behalf of my own organization, it has a unique nexus at the center of both federal and state and local and long enforcement and

intelligence. it can play a vital role in that regard in being a two-way conduit of information. that doesn't mean, for example, we need to be the only conduit. there's other ways information gets passed at the state and locals and for information to come up from them. but we are the unique advocate for that role. it's the most fundamental change in my opinion that came out of the entire intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act. the domestic side was its inclusion of the state and the class x of our local government is part of members of the intelligence community is someone has to be an advocate for that. that's the key job of my organization. >> i want to thank michael leiter, michael chertoff, and pat neary this morning. i also want to acknowledge kerry wagner who is the undersecretary for intelligence analysis at the department of homeland security. what she got called on something

the secretary asked this afternoon. teller were mr. and you can also let her know you are a very able substitute. thanks very much. [inaudible [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> all right, we have lunch outside. if everyone can get their food and bring it back to their seats i think we can get started. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ..

>> now we bring you white house senior adviser, david axelrod and former white house chief of staff, joshua bolten. they will talk about why politics has become so divisive

and how civility and cooperation in return to government. this is about an hour and 45 minutes. >> i'm the dean of the national cathedral and it is my pleasure to welcome all of you to our 2010 observance of the nancy and paul ignatius gathering. tonight our topic is governing across the divide, restoring civility and a public discourse. around a large undertaking for one's work that we are going to give it our best shot this evening. we wouldn't be here without the generosity and thoughtfulness of the ignatius family, came together to celebrate their parents, nancy and paul ignatius with this program offered yearly, and we are so glad that amy ignatius is going to be part of helping to host this evening. nancy ignatius has called the cathedral a learning center for the soul, a beautiful phrase that captures something of what the cathedral seeks to be and

trying to do for 100 years now, to offer thoughtful reflection from a faith perspective about the public issues of the day. tonight's event is a kickoff of the year of reflection on this matter of stability and ultimately reconciliation, something that everyone seems to a re-is at the heart of what we need is a country and certainly for our world. we will be continuing this reflection in different ways going forward. tonight, we have a distinguished group of guests to help us think about this matter, people who have had significant experience in either living in and acting as a part of public conversation and political discourse or observing it closely. we are very grateful today to david axelrod who is coming to be with us, senior adviser to president obama, who agreed to step into the breach when his friend and colleague, rahm emanuel, absconded to chicago.

[laughter] some wondered if this could even happen if he were here. we do miss him and he wish-- we wish he could be with us but we are grateful to david axelrod for joining us. we are very fortunate to have joshua bolten, former chief of staff of president george w. bush who has been a leader in our country in many ways, certainly in the last white house and we are grateful for his coming down from princeton to be with us as well. we know that both david axelrod and josh bolten will provide a lively discussion and it will be monitored and led by our civility manager for the evening, none other than dog schieffer of cbs news. if any of you watch the presidential debates in 2004 in 2008, you know that he can moderate just about anything. and we are delighted to have the reference dr. barry black chaplain of the u.s. senate who will open this panel discussion

with us on reflection, having watched so much of our political life happen in the u.s. senate. and we are very grateful to the honorable susan m. collins, the u.s. senator from maine who will offer some concluding reflections, joined by the presidential historian, michael beschloss who will put all of this into context that somehow will give us hope. i hope. [laughter] in the spirit of the cathedral of are participants and i do not intend to widen the gulf that seems to be fixed between the parties. one cynic i talked to this evening said, i am betting they are all going to be nicer tonight than they really are. [laughter] we will see how it all goes. thank you all for being with us. it will be quite an exploration this evening and i look forward to being part of it with you. [applause]

>> thank you dean lloyd. let me express on behalf of my sister and brothers, my parents, man and paul ignatius and all of their friends who made this program possible our grades thanks to all of you. to have so many people joining us tonight is gratifying to have this beautiful, powerful place and have discussions that are serious, contemplative, thoughtful and challenging. i have heard that there are over 800 people here tonight, which is just so exciting, and that is what we hope the ignatius program would be, a time to explore issues of government and faith that affect all of us at the most profound level. not necessarily the answer questions but to ask them. tonight's program resonates with me in a very personal way.

i spent nearly 30 years in and around state government and it has been exhilarating but i think if i were a college student today, i would probably stay away from my government career. not to avoid the challenges of a troubled world, but to avoid the bickering and the misinformation that seems increasingly to dominate public policy debate. it would be such a shame if we lose a generation of thoughtful men and women and leave the halls of government to those who have no interest in reflection, or nuanced solutions, but instead want to drive each debate to a polarized extreme. that is a pretty big challenge to take on tonight, isn't it? so let's get started with our program. we will set the stage with the reflections of senate chaplain barry black. reverend black sees the dynamics on capitol hill when the cameras

are on and more importantly, when they are off. he is a doctor of psychology as well as ministry which no doubt comes in handy. he has bravely seek served as chief of the u.s. navy chaplains and is highly distinguished in both military and civilian life and his reflections will be a wonderful way to begin the evening. reverend black. [applause] >> friends, in the mid-1800's, a young candidate for congress was told by members of his staff, we have a problem that may threaten your ability to be elected. rumors, ugly rumors, are

circulating about you. it is rumored that you are contemptuous of religion. it is rumored that you rarely actually attend church. it is rumored that you are not a proper christian. this young candidate issued a statement saying simply, i have never been disrespectful to any religion. this young candidate for congress was abraham lincoln. so, the idea of stability as something that always happened in american history and now it is not taking place is not accurate when you read our history. after all, and the seven years

that i have had the privilege of pastoring senators, there has not been a single gaining in the senate, the entire time that i have been there. [laughter] so, a careful study of history reveals that there have been some rather turbulent times. so i think it is most apropos that we take a fresh look at restoring stability in public discourse. i think we need to do so first of all, because there may be more stability in the political arena than we realize. each week that the senate is in session, i have the opportunity of being involved in a prayer breakfast, where 20 to 25 senators from both sides of the aisle come together.

they pray, they sing, and they listen to one of their compatriots talk about his or her faith pilgrimage. there may be more civility on capitol hill than some realize. each week, when the senate is in session there is a bible study that i teach and nine to 10 senators, again from both sides of the aisle, come together to study the word of god. a few weeks ago, i flew to alaska for the funeral of former senator ted stevens, and on that plane were senators from both sides of the aisle. and, for those who participated in the funeral were from both sides of the aisle. and win senator robert byrd's casket was lying in honor in the

chamber in the senate, again, his colleagues from both sides of the aisle filed respectfully by. i contend that there is a level of civility in the senate that you may not see that often on c-span, but it is fair. paul said in philippians four, that there are saints in caesar's household. he was probably talking about the emperor, and the row. if the row had saints in his household, it is not improbable that there will be spiritually fit lawmakers on capitol hill. we need to take secondly a fresh look at civility in public discourse, because the faith of our forebears requires it.

this nation was founded on the judeo-christian tradition, and when you look at our lawmakers, most of them professed to belong to either judaism or christianity. well, islam, judaism and christianity, all of these have the statement of the golden rult to be treated. in judaism, we have the torah, deuteronomy 15:15, challenges the inner light to be civil by remembering that you were once slaves in egypt. and in christianity, we have a fusion's 4:32, the kind one to another, tenderhearted and forgiving one another even as god or christ has forgiven you. so the faith of our forebears

requires it. but finally, we need i believe to take a fresh look at civility in public discourse, because the american public has a role to play incivility in public discourse. the etymology of of the word civility comes from the latin word civet toss which means pertaining to citizenship. it was expected that there be a knowledgeable public that could engage in reason, debate about the issues and shape what is going on in the political arena. i have found that my time on capitol hill that very often lawmakers reflect what is going on off the hill, and when there is discourtesy, but to printed frederick outside of

capitol hill, sometimes it gets license to the lawmakers to have the same kind of attitude and polarization. in 1862, before it was certain as to how the civil war would play out, this congressional candidate who was now president of the united states said something that was in my opinion an amazingly civil. he said, in this present civil war, it is possible to that god's purpose is different than the purpose of either party. now i think that was an amazingly simple thing to say, given the historical context.

this was a man who had been the recipient of so much incivility he was caricatured. he was made a cartoon, and yet he had enough civility to bring many of his enemies into his cabinet. he knew that we as a nation need civility if we will continue to ensure that this government of the people, for the people and by the people will not perish. god love you. [applause] 's pay what an extraordinary

beginning for our evening. we moved out of our moderated discussion, and they know in your programs have information about the three participants but let me just briefly give you a few of the highlights. joshua bolten is currently a visiting professor at princeton university's woodrow wilson school of public and international affairs. after serving president george w. bush as chief of staff. he works tirelessly but quietly. his goal was never to become a distraction from the business of the presidency. he served under both president bush and he understands first-hand the pressures that are brought to bear on an administration. david axelrod served as senior adviser to president barack obama, following his role as senior strategist for mr. obama's presidential campaign. he is on the faculty at northwestern university and spent 10 years in chicago as a political reporter. he experiences day-to-day the

discord that has taken hold in washington and that has dominated much of the obama presidency. and moderating the discussions will be bob schieffer of cbs news. if you are a news junkie, and you probably wouldn't be here if you are not, you know his skill in getting past the talking points and drawing out more thoughtful responses from his guests. he has received just about every award given to news broadcasters and we are so pleased that he is here to help us tonight. so let me ask the three of you to come forward, take your seats and handed over to bob for a lively panel debate. [applause] >> thank you all very much for coming, and the national cathedral holds a special place for me. both of my daughters graduated

from the national cathedral school. two of my granddaughters are graduates, so this is not the first time i have been in the cathedral. and i am always awed to be here. both of these men are men i know and have worked with. they are both straight shooters. they are both easy to deal with. one is a republican, one is a democrat, and proudly so in both cases. i think it is fair to say, if everyone in government, if everybody in the united states was like these two, we would have civility, but as someone once said, if men were angels they would be no need for government. so, that is where we are. i would also say that i agree with everything that chaplain black said, but i would also observe-- i mean i think probably some of the harshest rhetoric in american politics was as the country was being founded in the writing of the

constitution. attacks in those days were much more personal than they are today, if that is possible. but i would also say this. i have been in washington now for 41 years, and i presently believe that we have a meanness that has settled over our politics today that is worse and runs deeper than i can recall in my time here in washington. perhaps there are other times i can't speak to and i don't know about, but that is just my opinion underlined as such. so i just want to start with a very basic question. i will start with you, with josh. do you think civility is even possible in today's politics? >> first, thanks for the introductory stuff to reverend bob, to the ignatius family who

individually and collectively do so much for our community, to the cathedral for hosting us, and rob, can i begin with an apology too much of the audience that we discussed early on, is that i suspect, as strong a draw is the ignatius is, that david axelrod and josh bolton might not draw as big a crowd is here, because they fear that have that you were expecting a smack-down between rahm emanuel-- [laughter] and firebrand former ambassador john bolton. [laughter] and, to those of you who were expecting that i regret to inform you that it is axelrod and me and you are going to have a civil discussion about civility. whether you like it or not. [laughter]

is civility possible? it is, but only if the incentive in our political discourse change. the discourse has become course as you say subor team, the administration that i came in with president bush, he governed in texas as a genuine uniter. his closest ally, political ally was probably the democratic lieutenant governor of texas, who was a wonderful man named bob pollack. they formed a strong alliance and friendship, and president bush came to washington with aspirations for a similar kind of tenure here in washington. which he did not achieve, despite i believe his best efforts. and the environment has become

such, it has become so course that civility is very difficult to achieve, alongside political success. so, in my judgment, bob, the answer is yes, civility is possible in washington. it should be possible. it has been possible in our history. it has to be possible in our future, but it will only become possible when the incentives in the political system change, and my own instinct is that programs like this are part of changing the culture so that the incentives for politicians change. >> let me ask you david, do you think that either side really wants civility or is it better from a political standpoint to have the kind of discourse we are having right now? >> you know, let me-- that is a really interesting question. i also want to thank the

ignatius family for hosting this event. never in my wildest dreams, two weeks ago did i imagine i would be sitting in the washington cathedral and filling in for rahm emanuel at a forum on civility in politics. [laughter] >> i think the whole idea of rahm emanuel is probable and a forum on civility. >> but i'm pleased to be here and i do want to take a moment, while we are here, given the topic, to say in josh's presents that one of the things that impressed me so much was when we came to washington after the election. the graciousness and courtesy that the bush administration extended to us. all of our counterparts reached out to us and couldn't have been more helpful. president bush himself could not have been more helpful and i thought that was a great demonstration of patriotism and i got a chance to tell the president that, and i want to tell you that as well. said that gives me some hope.

but, the question you ask is an interesting one which is, is it better politically to issue civility and that goes to the question of what is your objective in being here? if your objection-- if you are ejected and perpetuation of your party and the candidates of your party in power, and that in and of itself is the goal, then i think that given today's moderate world of politics, you know, there is a sense to be strident, in part because of the way our parties work now. we have got to read-- a redistricted congress where most of the primary action takes place within party primaries and so people are playing not to the broader electorate but to their parties. we have got media that is now

dividing up into ideological camps, and more and more people are watching the media that affirms their own point of view rather than media that expands thinking to others, other points of view. so, everyone who has mentioned this, instability is part of the american political tradition. i always, when i talk about the lyrical media, talk about a pamphlet that was distributed in the presidential campaign of 1824 and it was called, a catalog of the youthful indiscretions of general andrew jackson from ages 13 to 57. [laughter] so, this is not new but what is new is the shrillness of the media and the prism through which everything is examined. and, you say is it politically more beneficial, and that is unfortunately how so much of this is covered these days and how much, are you doing

something to promote your own political interests, not are you doing something to promote the country's interest. what we need is to think more about what we are doing here and is it a perpetuation of a party, a perpetuation of yourself an office? the president came here with the hope we could overcome some of this. it has been a difficult couple of years, and i think if we can somehow get over the hump, and view this as an exercise in moving the country forward particularly in challenging times, we are going to do better but we are going to be fighting a media environment and the technological environment that really were wards sure illness-- shrillness and not thoughtfulness. >> i do agree with you. i think that is a very big part of it. you said george bush came here with a hope of doing something, getting something done.

you said you came here. so what happened? what happened, josh, in your case? why did this idea-- because i'm familiar with george bush and i grew up in texas, and he did in texas covering pretty much from the center. i think most political analysts would say that. but i also remember in the campaign, you got to the new hampshire primary. you thought you were going to win and win big. the campaign that pretty much been a centrist candidate based on the politics that he ran in texas, and he got eat. a lost and it surprised everybody in the campaign, and from that moment forward, the campaign adopted a new strategy. it was no longer a campaign run down the middle but a campaign that ran from the right. and, it proved successful. do you think that had anything to do with the attitude of your administration?

you weren't the chief of staff at that point but the attitude of the administration and how it approached governing came about because it became a much different kind of campaign run that point. >> no. but i say that with all civility. no, bob you are talking about the primary and we were locked in mortal combat with john mccain who is a great character. the campaign shifted somewhat, but i don't think that was a moment of either shifting philosophy on the part of george w. bush or a shift in the politics of campaigning. i think the shift for president lish came with the moment of the election itself, when so many people in this country felt that

he had won the presidency illegitimately. .. >> i don't think you can blame individual events like maybe a shift to the right after new hampshire or even as something as dramatic as an election where almost half the country thinks that you didn't actually win. >> but the point i was making, i

guess, is at that point going into new hampshire, bush was going to the independents, and from that time on, they decided if we're going to win this nomination, we have to get our base, and we shifted to the right. i think you make a good point about florida. i think it would have been a different presidency if that election had been clearly or continued counting the votes down there. my opinion is he probably would have won, but it would have brought a different atmosphere. to me, david, where it changed for you all is once in office and you took on health care, and it seems to me you're still feeling the fallout from the battle over health care. i wonder on reflection, do you think it would have been belter to break health care -- better to break health care into two parts and put all your focus on jobs and getting that done and then get the health care?

i think there are a certain number of people in the country you passed health care with a parliamentary trick. i wondered can you ever have civil discourse if you have a large part of the population feeling that, and i think they do. >> well, whether or not people want health care, i think people want health care reform of some sort. there's a lot of effort spent in depicting it in certain ways that were inconsistent with what it was, but first of all, i would challenge the premise. let me set health care aside. i do want to comment on it. >> okay. >> not surprisingly i'm not going to in a place like this suggest that ending a 100 year quest that people who need health care can get it was not worth the fight.

i'm not going to do that, but what i remember is we came to office in a time of you think believable economic challenge, and josh knows this because he lived through the end of it. we came at the beginning of it. our administration faced it, and what we were told is we didn't act decisively and quickly, we faced the prospect of a second great depression. the economists were united in the sense that we had to make sure that the financial system stood up in making the t.a.r.p. program thate3=

>> that was long before health care. senator mcconnell has said sense in an interview, the feeling was that they were not going to cooperate with the president on major initiatives. simply as a political strategy, they didn't think that was the thing to do. i want to single out senator collins who stood by us. i'm note sure i'm helping her political career, but she deserves credit. [laughter] at the time of maximum peril, she stood with us, and that's the reason we were able to get this done.

[applause] hey, we haven't -- we could just keep that between the 800 of us here so it's better for senator collins. >> in terms of health care, we spent much of the time and senator collins knows this as well talking to not just democratic senators, but republican senators, and we were cite sized in our -- criticized in our own party because we were forging a bipartisan sense. we might be another generation before someone would try, so the preponderate was determined -- president was determined to get it. we wanted to do it in a bipartisan fashion. we had senators sit on the couch with the president and run through the program with the president. it was not on a democratic prototype, but on a plan that

senators had advocated, kind of a middle of the road approach to this. we had republican senators sit on the couch and say, well, i agree with you on this, and president said, can you vote with me? no. why not? if i can't get ten other republicans to vote with me, i can't deal with you on this. it's been a difficult environment. i'm not suggesting we're blameless, that we can't do anything better, but it has been -- it's been like a sheer rock from the very beginning. >> did you have anything to add to that? >> yeah. it was not that different in the bush administration. i'm, we faced a very similar kind of situation, and the t.a.r.p. that david talked about, the infamous bailout without which i think not just the u.s. economy, but the global economy would have been in desperate straights had to be

proposed by a republican president to whom a bailout was an and supported by democrats whom rescuing a bunch of big banks was an after my ma. there was examples in the midst of crisis of the executive and the legislature coming together and dealing with the crisis, but it is very, very difficult to do in the current environment. >> and senator mcconnell was the floor manager of that bill and stood up on that day, and senator collins may remember, and it was called one the finest days in the united states senate, but i haven't heard him say it lately. >> that brings up an interesting point, your complements to senator collins. you know, when i came to washington 41 years ago, we used to have republicans over to dinner. we'd have democrats over.

we'd have them at the same party, and i'm finding now that republicans and democrats really don't like to be around each other very much anymore. [laughter] and they don't like it known if a democrat complements a republican. look what happened to governor chris down in florida. barak obama goes down there and puts his arm around him, and the next thing you know, he's had to leave the republican party, and run for the senate as an i want dependent. i'll give you a personal example of how the situation is now, and this happened this year. we were having one of the republican leaders, and i won't tell you who was who, and one of the democratic leaders to be on face the in this case, and one called one of our folks and said, would it be all right, could you have a private waiting room for the boss. he doesn't like to sit in the same room with his counterpart.

i said, you know, he's just going to have to suck it up. [laughter] i said -- [applause] i said, you know -- [applause] we can't pinch a chin out in the parking lot. >> we just don't have that much room, but the idea that we have come to the point in this country where republicans and democrats don't like to sit in the same room where a republican can't be complemented by someone in the other party or a democrat as far as that goes, i think is a new and different place for the politics in this country. >> that is stunning to me to see people like senator bennett from utah solidly conservative senator lose his arena on the nation because he voted for that t.a.r.p. bill. there's examples on both sides, i'm sure, but, yes, we have a

very, very polarized situation and one hopes -- there's two things that can happen in november. i think it's clear that the dynamics are going to be somewhat different whether, you know, i believe that democrats will retain control of both chambers, but there's going to be a lot more republicans, and everybody will acknowledge that, and there's the one interpretation that is with equal, relatively equal numbers, the responsibilities will be shared. that's the one we're going to work for. the other interpretation was and maybe it was on your show and senator demint said my goal is gridlock. i don't think that's a promising prospect. i hope the voices of civility and senator collins is one of those resist that, and we'll work for that as well. i think you'll see after the election, we'll make every

effort to work with the group that is there because there is so many things that are challenging this country right now, and i think we can overcome them, but only if ce with set some of this aside. >> josh, you have to speak for the republicans herement do you think the goal of the republicans is gridlock at this point? >> no, and i don't think there's anything wrong with obstructionism in a lot of circumstances where there's real disagreement on the substance. the health care debate was poisonous in the extreme, but the gridlock that which is the bad term for it, the obstruction that republicans were trying to impose was actually the product of a deep-seeded disagreement about the direction in which the country should go, and that's what our founding fathers intended the senate to do was to be the cooling saucer to prevent the determined majority from

sending the country off in the wrong direction, so the health care debate does not make me dispair in particularly. a lot of the tone did and a lot of the tone is completely unacceptable, but there's a deep disagreement between the parties is actually how our system is supposed to work. it's when there's actually agreement between the parties when the leadership of both parties knows basically what the right thing to do is, and yet, they don't come together and do it because they are viewing a 0-sum game in which if that side gains, i must be losing, then that's a bad place to be, and the example i put on the table is social security reform which president bush championed. he against all political advice tried to push the issue of social security reform shortly after his reelection in 2004, got no support from democrats,

even democrats who basically agreed with the direction in which he wanted to go, and very little support from republicans who were afraid of being demagogued by democrats. i think president obama faces a similar situation because we're going to have to come back to social security reform, and i bet if president obama and president bush quietly got in a room and talked about social security, they would agree roughly on what needs to be done. they disagree on some important details, but the two of them could work out what to do with social security, but the only way we will get social security reform is if the leadership of both parties holds hands and says this is very dangerous with our population, it is extremely difficult to demagogue, and the only way we make progress on goals we agree on is if we agree we're not going to undermind each other in the course of a political debate because it's a

zero-sum game. >> give me some examples where you think the two sides in your view could work together? i mean, i raised one of them with john boehner on "face the nation" a couple sundays ago and i asked if he was still smoking. he said yes. i said why don't you and president obama just to set an example for the nation say we're going to stop smoking. now, i got a lot of heat because they said you never ask president obama that. i'll ask you david, why don't -- wouldn't that be a good bipartisan to do if the two of them -- [laughter] could get together, same place and say, you know, we smoke, we're going to try to stop. >> well, -- [laughter] no, i mean, i don't want to put mr. boehner in and awkward position, and the president has had a good year in this so he has a head start on it.

>> okay. >> i agree with you, josh, that difficult problems require the parties to hold hands and we haven't seen enough of that, and there are places where we -- look, the president just a few weeks ago proposed -- >> would you ask the president about that? >> i will. this is a big issue here i can tell. >> i'm a cancer survivor. it's personal. >> look, i think it's a worthy question. >> all right. >> you know, we proposed some weeks ago some things that republicans have traditionally supported, accelerated, you know, expensing, deappreciation to get businesses to invest and personal research and expirmentation and tax credits to promote innovation. there are things we should agree on, but this is the environment, josh, you're not dealing with it day-to-day anymore and i know you're watching, but we have a situation now where we have an

historic number of vacancies on the supreme court and dozens of judges confirmed by committees unanimously who can't get a vote on the floor of the united states senate. the aforementioned senator demint is we we are today. a senator introduced a resolution when the black hawks won the national hockey league and senator demint sent it to committee, so you know, let's start with the stanley cup, and we can work up to the social security. [laughter] >> what would you think would be the best target of something that could be a good bipartisanship effort? >> i think social security is great one, but it's going to be hard. i predict that the president obama will head that way because i know he cares deeply about securing the long-term fiscal

future. he talks about it allot, and i predict he'll head that way, and i hope he is able and republican leadership comes together with him and agrees on something like that. immigration reform, that is a place where it's hard to get bipartisanship agreement, but you can, but there is a place in the middle where it ought to be possible for the country to arrive. we came very close to it toward the end in the -- i can't what year it was, 2006 or 2007 in the bush administration. we came out very close to working out a deal on immigration reform that came within, i don't know, senator collins, a couple votes of passing in the senate. it's a deal we should have been able to reach, and i'm hopeful that the current administration can arrive there as well because it's a question that urgently

needs to be addressed. >> do you think there's any chance of that, david? >> we're very eager, and the president has said that. we in not this summer but last summer, he brought together republicans and democrats at the white house in large meetings to talk about immigration reform, and what he said was we can't do this on a partisan basis, but if you guys can provide this much support which was ten votes in the senate, you know, we will work to provide the rest. when the issue came up, we could not get one vote on the republican side. there was 11 who voted for it the year you guys pushed it. when you talk about president bush in texas, one of the things that i admired about him and continue to is he was willing to take that issue on and even resisted some of the darker impulses that were striding the

country at that time, and he deserves great credit for pushing on this issue as president. we would like to finish that, but it's going to take bipartisanship cooperation, and i, you know, the results have been disappointing so far. i have to say the tone of the election is not encouraging. i don't know whether people on the republican side are going to feel free to move forward on that. >> and, bob, i agree with david on this. i think one of the worse developments we've seen over the years is just the fact of cooperation is now puts -- can now put candidates at risk, and that's just wrong. >> give me your thoughts on the communications landscape where we all operate now, and it's changing at warp speed every day that brings new developments. we now, you know, i grew up when

i used to be a newspaper reporter like you, david, and when most people got their news from print, and then that weekend in dallas after the kennedy assassination, from that point on, television became the place where people got their news. now we're in the age of the internet, and frankly, we don't know for sure where most people are getting their news, but we're dealing now with an internet which is, after all, the first vehicle we've ever had to deliver news that has no edit. the worse newspaper has an editor who knows at least where the stuff came from. things appear on the internet you don't know if they are true, false, they have totally changed what i do for a living because the main role now it seems to me as the mainstream media is to knock down and check out these rumors that pop up on the internet. i mean, that's basically what we do.

how has it affected politics, and i'm bringing it up in this discussion because it seems to me that the internet is changing the political dialogue and it is made it much, much meaner it seems to me. >> well, i think you put your finger on wop issue which there is no filter. i think there's something very positive about the internet in the sense that, you know, it's a way for people to get involved, you know, in a grassroots level. sometimes their information is legitimate and valuable that would not have surfaced any other way, but you're absolutely right. you say your job is to check out and knock down these things. one of my concerns is i find the mainstream media dig mying things that should not be dignified. we have to report on the affect on the political climate. >> we don't report it unless we think it's true which is the difference on what we do and

what pops up on the internet where things appear with no foundation. you made -- you may disagree with our policies, but generally speaking, the mainstream media doesn't put something in the paper or broadcast it unless it's true, and i think that's the difference in what we're doing. >> stories get published, surface on the internet, they create a fewer and that becomes part of the political environment, and then newspapers and networks and broadcast news cover it as a political event, not as a, you know, even accepting well, it may or may not be true, but it's affecting the political climate, and we've seen a lot of instances of that. the incident that we were culpable in as well with shirley

sherrod that started out with the blogger. >> yeah, i don't know, but yeah. >> andrew brighthart went online with a piece of tape that gave a completelier roan yows im-- erroneous impression. our administration acted frankly too quickly to it, and we acknowledged that, but it created a whole media tempous, and you're right, in the past that would have been looked at and checked out. there's another phenomena here where you have one media outlet on fox that has a -- that has given a lot of room for that, and, you know, you have folks on the left as well, but fox is basically become an

outlet for one party and a point of view, and a lot of these things that you check out as an editor and wouldn't run become stories there and from there, they mushroom. >> but this whole thing has changed politics, even since you were there, i think. >> yeah, i think it's changed since i've been there. >> one thing is true that we certainly inside the white house felt that fox was relatively fair and balanced, and that almost the entire rest of the media were biased again us. here's the real problem, and that is that the accent of not so much the internet, but the cable networks are fighting for viewers, and i don't actually believe that this country is greatly more divided than it ever has been in its history. we are closely divided, but i don't think we're really all

that deeply divided. before i went to work for president bush, i lived for five years in the u.k., and go to europe and see what really divided is in politics. we actually operate in a pretty narrow band of disagreement in this country, but one of the factors that's taken hold in the last decade is with the add vent of cable television, it's in their interest to advocate differences and disagreements to get more viewers. all the conservatives are on fox and liberals are on msnbc, and cnn is somewhere in the middle. the demise of the mainstream kind of news outlets, the kind, bob, you grew up in has been one the contributing poisens. now, that doesn't mean there's not a solution to that. >> that's the point i have

making before, you know, we've returned to a place where we were maybe at the beginning of the 19 -- 20th century when you had newspapers that basically had a political point of view, and the news coverage reflected that and the editorial policy reflected that, and people read the paper that reflected their point of view, and i think what happens is that people look at websites and they watch the cable channel of their choice that affirm that point of view, and it heightens the sense of divide. although, i will say, you know, we can have disagreements on issues, but we shouldn't have disagreements over birth certificates, disagreements over these sort of wacky, personal allegations that have no place.

those are not -- and what happens there, that's a good example, bob, because that becomes a story. the story is written about as a phenomena. you don't affirm there's anything to it, but you have to cover it because it's part of the political discourse. >> bob, can i go back to one thing that is very important that david mentioned at the outset? he mentioned distributing because -- districting -- >> what? >> redistricting, the way we set up our congressional districts because something else happened in our politics that david identified. the vast majority of members of congress, this year being a bit of an exception, have absolutely nothing to fear in the general election. the, david, you know better than i, what percentage of seats are considered safe? >> i think solidly you're talking upwards of 70-80% out of

435. >> even in a volatile year there's 70 to 80%. part of this comes about because the districts is gerrymandered to ensure safe seats for one party or another, and then all that party of congress has to worry about in the general election is an assault from the fringe of the party. you have to worry about being assaulted from a tea party member if you're a republican, and what you lose is that most people aren't out on the fringe. most americans are left or right of center, but they lose their

representation in a system where the incentives are so badly misaligned. >> and because most politicians in order to raise the e enormous sums of money it takes to get elected, and it takes an enormous sum of money for any election now, have to sign off with so many interest groups back home before they get to washington that once they get here, coming from these gerrymandered districts, they have lost the ability to compromise. >> bob, we have this -- this is slightly overtopic, but related. look, there's a new development this year and it occurred in part because of a supreme court decision earlier this year that opened the door for special interests to spend up limited amounts of money in these campaigns, and to do it through vehicles that are undisclosed. they are called social welfare committees, so you have

something called the committee for truth in politics. ironically they won't tell you who funds them. [laughter] it's based in north carolina, and you look at their charter, and they say they are sworn to pursue the social welfare of the state of north carolina. they spend a million dollars to defeat russ feingold in wisconsin, and where's the million dollars coming from? no one will say. it's not going to improve the environment in washington and break the special interests. it's one more thing we'll have to grapple with. >> i think we have to come to the end of our time. i want to thank both of you for a very civil discussion, and i must say i think things like this is helpful. tonight, we've outlined the causes of where we are today. i'm not sure we've come up with any solutions yet, but i think the saving grace in this is when the united states government,

the executive, and the legislative branch, when they come down to it, when they have to do something, they find a way to do it, and i always think of that day after 9/11 when the senate came together and voted a $40 billion emergency appropriation. they vetted it unanimously, and when trent loss the republican leader and tom daschle walked up and they had their armed on each other's shoulders, and it was a moment in this awful time we could see the two parties come together, to see the entire country come together. it didn't last long, but they came together and did what we have to do in a difficult time. somehow, we always find a way to do that, and let's hope we always will. thank you very much.

[applause] [applause] >> thank you, gentleman. you can stay there or move, whatever you're comfortable with. we now have a special opportunity to hear from someone in the thick of the battle day after day. the hon -- honorable senator collins served in the senate since scene of this 1996 and serves on appropriations and armed services and spent years in federal government before seeking the office and has been a consistent voice in maine and many washington for doing what is right. the program that you have notes that "oh" magazine identified her as one of six women to run for president. there's more than six, but i'm

glad they recognized her as one the six, and we're glad she's here tonight. senator? [applause] >> thanks very much, amy. it's a great honor to participate in this forum. now, when i was first invited to be a part of this forum, i was aware of the families and many contributions to seeking new approaches to the challenges in the fields of politics, religion, and society, so i, of course, went online, and i typed in the name egg --

egg knishes to see what i might find. the first reference was not to this fine family. instead the first reference was to the third christian bishop of antioch. i read he was unremitting and tireless in his efforts to inspire hope. i thought, that sounds pretty good, so thinking that perhaps his writing could provide guidance for my remarks tonight, i read on only to learn that his reward for preaching hope and peace was to be torn apart by

lions in the roman coal coliseum. [laughter] while i would not compare life as a compromised-seeking sen tryst in the senate to being torn limb from limb by lions, it is nevertheless true that being a moderate in the senate is a difficult place to be at this time in our history. i'm uncertain who first described politics as the art of compromise, but that is to which i have always subscribed seems woefully out of fashion today. sitting down with those on the opposite side of an issue

negotiating in good faith and attempting to reach solutions are actions -- our actions vilified by the hardliners on both sides of the aisle. achieving solutions is not the goal for many today, rather it is to draw sharp distinctions and score partisan, political points even if that means that the problems confronting our country go unresolved, and perhaps that is why the american people are so angry with incumbents of all political persuasions by particularly those who are in charge. there have been times when those

of us who have worked to avert the implosion of the legislative process were more welcome. a well-known example was when 14 senators who quickly became known as the gang of 14 came together in 2005 to negotiate an agreement for considering judicial nominees to avoid what was colorfully known as the nuclear option which referred to a change in the senate rules which would have brought about a meltdown of the senate. now, as some of you may recall, the democrats had used the filibuster to prevent the confirmations of some of president george w. bush's appellate court nominees.

with the rallying cry that democrats deserves, an up or down vote, republican senate leaders threatened to change the senate rules in a way that would have prevented filibusters from being used to block judicial con confirmations. the democrats in the senator countered that the rights of the minority had always been protected in the senate, and warned that if the rules were changed, the democrats would block action on everything. while the leaders on both sides hardened their positions and heightened their rhetoric, 14 of us, seven from each party, came together to discuss the issue rationally and to forge a solution. we established a new standard

for filibustering judicial no , nominees stating that we would only support filibusters in extraordinary circumstances. applying that standard, our solution resulted in the democratic senators in our gang supporting closure for five of the seven filibustered nominees resulting in their confirmation. in turn, we seven republicans agreed to oppose the change in the senate rules to prohibit judicial filibusters, the so-called nuclear option, thus thwarting the plans of the republican leaders. at a deeper level, our agreement restored trust and helped to preserve the unique culture of

the senate at that time. it showed that the two parts could -- parties could come together, negotiate, and reach an agreement in an atmosphere of mutual respect and good faith, but oh, have times have changed. when i left the effort in 2009 to try to forge a more fiscally responsible stimulus bill, i was roundly vilified by partisans on both sides. on the left, i was attacked by columnists for cutting $100 billion in spending from the bill, and mocked as swine flu sue by bloggers for my

contention that spending for a pandemic flu did not belong in a stimulus bill, but should be handled in the regular appropriations process. that's the money for pandemic preparedness was approved precisely that way the very next month seemed not to matter at all. on the right, i was denounced as a traitor and as a rhino, rights of terms supposedly denoting a republican in name only. one of my own republican colleagues targeted me for a campaign that generated tens of thousands of out-of-state e-mails that denounced me in no uncertain terms.

my point is not whether my judgment was right in trying to fashion a more targeted and less expensive stimulus bill to deal with the most serious economic crisis facing our country since the great depression. my point is that the debate was not civil in the least and quickly became extremely personal and painfully nasty. what changed? now, i'm sure that the great historian, michael beschloss, who is speaking after me tonight, will tell you that the degree of civility in congress has ebbed and blobbed over -- flowed over the years, and the

chaplain has pointed out to us that at least we don't have a member taming another until unconsciousness as happened in 1856 when a representative of south carolina flogged a senator from massachusetts on the senate floor, but in modern times, i must agree with bob schieffer. i have not seen the degree of bitter, deviciveness and excessive partisanship now found in the senate. the weapon of choice today is not a metal-topped cane, but poisonous words. i would suggest to you that divided government, and a more evenly split senate is much more

conducive to bipartisanship than our supermajority that one party controls of both the executive and legislature that are part of our current political landscape. when one party has all of the power, the temptation is to roll over the minority which in turn, leads to resentment and resistance because the minority has so few options. during the past two years, the minority party has been increasingly shut out of the discussion even in the senate which used to pride itself on being the best of free and open debate, procedural tactics are routinely used to prevent republican amendments.

that, in turn, causes republicans to overuse the filibuster because our only option is to stop a bill to which we cannot offer amendments. we saw this unfortunate phenomena in the recent consideration of the defense authorization bill. let me give you just a little bit of background. i have personally supported ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and was the sole republican on the armed services committee who voted for repeal. my view is this -- [applause] thank you. thank you.

if individuals are willing to put on the uniform of our country, be deployed in war zones like iraq and afghanistan, to risk their lives for the benefit of their fellow citizens, i think we should be expressing our gratitude to them, not trying to exclude them from serving or expelling them from the military, but i recognize that many of my colleagues disagreed with me, and they should have had the right to express their views and offer their amendments on this controversial issue as well as on many others in the bill, and thus, after the two leaders could not agree, i found myself

in the very awkward position of voting against preceding to a bill that i supported and that contained a change in policy that i had advocated in order to preserve the rights of my colleagues who had a different view. there was the 116th time in this congress that the majority leader or another member of the majority had filed closure rather than proceeding to the bill under an agreement allowing amendments to be debated, and what concerns me even more is the practice of filling up the amendment tree as we call it, to prevent republican amendments. that was the 40th time that that had been done. now, by contrast, when the

executive is controlled by one party, and at least one chamber is in the hands of the other, the president has no choice but to reach out and negotiate, and i would argue that it would have been a lot easier for president obama to resist the hard left of his party if he could say that he has to pursue legislation acceptable to a republican house or senate or better yet, from my perspective, both. the emergence of a 24/7 news cycle and cable networks that cater to individuals who are one side of the political spectrum or the other also hardens the

political lines as has been discussed by our panel, and it makes compromise much more difficult. here's why. members of congress with many extreme political views now have an outlet for their rants, and arguably make for far more interesting interviews than those of us in the colorless center. there is another negative develop that contributed to the decline in civility. when i was a freshman senator in 1997, senator joan casey -- john casey from rhode island, as

fine of gentleman that ever was in the congress, reminds me never to campaign where those of whom i served. the senate is too small a place to campaign against your colleagues, he counseled me. campaign were your republican colleagues, but do not campaign against your democratic colleagues. it will poisen your relationships with them. now, back then, most senators followed the casey rule, but that soon changed. now many senators enthusiastically campaign against their colleagues across the aisle. i was shocked when two years ago in 2008, two of my democratic colleagues came into maine, and

in my judgment, unfairly criticized my work during my highly competitive race for reelection. my dismay was heightened by the fact that there was no one running that year with more bipartisan legislative initiatives and accomplishments than i had. my willingness to croz the aisle -- cross the aisle to work on problems had been well-established during the past decade. in fact, the primary theme of my campaign was my ability to work across party lines to get things done. this year's elections have shown just however the destruction -- how far the destruction of that collegial attitude has progressed. with some members campaigning

against incumbent senators in their own caucus by endorsing their primary opponents, and these personal attacks in campaigns from one's colleagues have debtmental -- detrimental impacts that go far beyond election day. it is very difficult to consider someone a colleague in a potential legislative partner who has traveled to one's home state to criticize one's work, and the seemingly constant campaign cycle aided and abetted by cable and radio shows whose ratings may depend on reaching a small, but highly partisan members of the electorat

coursens the debate. of course, i don't mean to suggest this evening that it requires us to accept the unacceptable. good manners, graciousness, and avoiding undue offense, must not prevent the untelling of unpleasant truths. if they do, then we are left with nothing more than plight and meaningless discourse, void of passion and principle. when maine senator went 60 years ago to deliver her famous deck -- declaration, she didn't do to do denounce senator mccarthy, but

do denows his actions. she gave him great offense, but she spoke of his tactics crushing free speech and smearing his opponents. telling the truth about senator mccarthy's conduct in strong, tough language was far more important than worrying about offending him. similarly, president reagan undoubtedly offended soviets when he described the soviet union as an evil empire and called to tear down this wall. at home, president reagan was roundly criticized by those who accused him of being uncivil, insensitive, and aggressive. as with senator smith's

legendary speech against mccarthy, however, president reagan's willingness to speak truth and to challenge the soviets was much more important than sustaining a plight, but ultimately meaningless and inconsequential discourse. now, in contrast, consider the house member from my party who interrupted president obama's speech to a joint session of the congress last year by yelling, you lie, or the house democratic member whose contribution to the health care debate consistented of asserting that republicans had a two-word plan, die quickly. those were decidedly uncivil

acts designed not to review truth, but simply to give offense. in thinking about president reagan, it's worth remembering that it was his fundamental commitment to civility that allowed him to work so well can speaker tip o'neill and forge a jen new win -- genuine frip. it led to his form mewlation of the 11th command. thou shall not speak ill of another republican, something of which is not being followed i'm finding. there were times when it was not the premier value, so where does this leave us?

those of you sitting on the edge of your seats awaiting my sure-fire remedy for this problem can relax for unfortunately, i have no miracle cure. finding a cure requires us to first identify the disease, students of american culture might ask whether incivility is a washington phenomena or a reflection of the changing behavior in our society at large. imposing that question, i'm reminded the response that former senator gave to an unhappy constituent when the constituent denounced the senator and its colleagues saying you're all a bunch of liers, -- lairs, thieves, and womanizers.

he calmly replied, well, it is after all, a representative form of government. [laughter] i will not try to place them to place opinions on this, but as a people we are becoming less civil. i cite as evidence the popularity of attack jumpism on cable television. the growing incidence of bullying in schools, the use of the interpret to ano , ma'am mousily -- smear those who they don't like, and television programs in which people are either fired or voted off the island. a better social historian than i

might conclude these are simply contemporary manifestations of an ongoing facet of our culture, but at a minimum, they demonstrate that we are not becoming measurably nicer to one another. i am more confident in offering the observation that even if washington leads the nation in incivility, it is not likely to change until those outside washington demand it. i believe in the maximum that want gets rewarded, gets done, and for those of us in congress, reelection is the ultimate reward. voting out of office or not lekking in the -- electing in the first place, those who put partisanship over

progress, stride over conflict would produce a very different legislative climate, one in which the objective is to solve the problem, not to win the debate. .. >> it may not be easy to feel passionately about civility and

compromise. but it is easy to feel passionate about a vibrant, just, and prosperous america. to achieve that end, however, on route to that goal, we need to get passionate about electing legislators who not only work hard, but work together. not long ago, i happened upon an amazing document by one of our founders. it is george washington's rules of civility. a transcription of various guides to etiquette written when george washington was but 16 years old. there are 110 points. i'm not going to read all 110.

first of all, be respectful. two, if you itch, be careful where you scratch. three, don't scare your friends. four, in the presence of others, avoid humming or drumming your fingers. i cannot tell you how wonder it would be if humming and drumming were the greatest threats to civility in the senate today. it is not until number 110 that young george got to the heart of the matter. labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of

celestial fire called conscience. that little spark lights our way much more lightly than bomb throwing, scorched earth, incendiary political rhetoric of ever will. when i was invited to participate in this forum, he said that there's something about this magnificent cathedral that seems to facilitate thoughtful, civil discussions. that prompted me to suggest to him that conducting senate debates on his use of note in this peaceful setting might be the most effective way to elevate the level of discourse and to restore civility. but mindful of the adage that god helps those who help

themselves. waiting for define intervention is probably not had the wisest strategy. unfortunately, helping ourselves out of this problem is going to take what it always takes. namely, hard work on the part of those who are committed to the future of this country. and we need people like you who cared enough to come to this forum, to be among the leaders of that effort, if we are to have any chance of success. thank you. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> thank you, senator for very thought provoking comments. our final is historian and author michael beschloss. he has profiled president kennedy and johnson, and recently authored "presidential courage: brave leaders and how they changed america." i read recently that in 1800, a lawyer wrote to a connecticut newspaper warning that in thomas jefferson became president, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly thought and practice. the air will be rent with the cries of distress.

the soil will be soaked with blood. the nation black with crimes. we wonder is the over heated rhetoric of the blogsphere perhaps part of our traditional national history. mr. beschloss will give us a little context. thank you. [applause] >> yes. sometimes things do get a little bit over heated, amy. i couldn't help but member when you are saying that the story about the nervous immigrant to america who came to ellis island, and the american official said to her, do you believe in the over throw of the u.s. government by force or violence. and she said violence. [laughter] >> i am delighted to speak here in the honor of ignatius.

i'll be as brief as i can. one way to think about how things used to be is to go back to 1964. and that was the year that margaret chase smith ran for president. first major campaign by a woman. lyndon johnson was also trying to get a civil rights bill through congress. and he was in pretty good shape in the house, had problems in the senate. as some of you will remember, and others will remember from reading and studying, in 1964, he could depend on democrats to pass this bill. white southern democrats were not for it. johnson needed republicans. it was a very difficult time. because johnson knew the senate leader of the republicans extremely well, who was a senator from my home state and david axelrod's home stay by evan dirkson. they knew each other extremely

well. very good friends. disagreed about all sorts of issues, but liked each other a lot. johnson trying to get the civil rights bill passed and essentially said, ev, i know you are doubts about the bill. it might be dangerous for you politically, you specially in southern illinois. look at it this way, ev, if you vote for this other republicans will support it. if the bill passes the senate, it's going to change history. if it changes history, ev, 100 years from now, essentially american school children will know only two names, abraham lincoln and evan dirkson. as it happened, dirkson liked what he heard. voted for the bill. did get passed. did change history. i'm not sure that every school child in america, despite the excellent teachers at st. allen and ncs now the name of mr.

dirkson. they should. he's an example of the way things used to be and should be more often these days. i think if we don't like the partisanship, especially in congress, probably the best person to complain to is james madison. madison's idea is we had a danger in starletting -- starting the united states. the danger is we will evolve into a monarchy or dictatorship, like those of europe. that would happen if there was not enough conflict within the american government. we would not have to worry these days about the amount of conflict, dictatorship. i think he'd be applauded by the degree to which things have gotten so nasty, as senator collins has described, and our panelist described so well earlier. i think sometimes in history, congress has not been partisanship enough. in vietnam.

1964 when the senate should have debated the pit falls and also the opportunity in giving the president a resolution that would allow him to go to war in southeast asia. instead that resolution passed by the senate, all by two senators voted for it. things should have been more partisan. as some of you said tonight, and as senator collins said, there has been an ebb and flow through history. nasty periods of partisanship through the time of andrew jackson, leading into the civil war and reconstruction. those things are different than nowadays. the question is if james madison were to come back, i wish he would for all sorts of reasons, what would he find different from this period than any other period in american history. i'd suggest a few things. most of which have been touched on tonight. one is for the first time in history in the senate and house, you no longer really have the

umbrella parties that have prevailed for most of american history. you have two parties that are amazingingly home homogeneous. another thing, we are living in a society in which people are encouraged to say things that are add homonomy, and not kind about people that disagree. one thing that's been mentioned is technological developments that madison could not have imagined. cable tv, the internet. john kennedy complained in 1957, comparative of the time of george washington, a senator had to have a great -- had to suffer very great retribution. he noted in the time of washington, washington supported a very untravel treaty called jay's travel. when the americans found out

about it, the letters very unpleasant. they took a couple of weeks to get there. washington was heartbroken to the fact that the response was negative. nowadays, he had it easy. you cast a vote that might cause you problems in your state or with your party or other groups that have supported you, you will hear about it not in three weeks, but probably about five seconds thereafter. they will hear about the vote instantly on the internet, and they will make their views known. makes it much tougher to be civil in public life. i think above all, one thing that james madison would notice is money and politics. there was not a case where to run for governor of the state you might raise $100 million, $200 million. never entered his mind in which the presidential campaign when you consider all of the candidates running might cost $2 billion or more. that has a very big influence.

as people have said tonight, you are trying to raise money. doesn't work too well if you send letters saying harry reid and we disagree. he loves the country as much as he do. or mitch mcconnell and we disagree, but we think he's a patriot. instead, the way you raise money, mitch mcconnell is satan and wants to destroy the country. harry reid wants to end america as we have known it. that's the way you raise money. money is so important in politics, it commands the kind of behavior that most of us have he meanted tonight. i think if we wanted to reduce the amount of money in politics, there's a lot of ways to do it. but i want to be belief, i'll only mention two. number one, do whatever we can to reduce the influence of money in politics. which is going to be even harder as david mentioned with a citizens united ruling of the supreme court that leads to come of the things such as he

mentioned. it's going to be tougher. but i think we have to do something to at least turn back the clock and cause the influence of money to be less important. but above all, i think, it all comes to all of us because in the end, we got to choose leaders who understand that through history, the great leaders have been not those who were character assassinations. the great leaders who were people that were able to talk to the other side with people with whom they disagreed. and i guess the best example of this, i'll close with this to keep this brief, would be harry truman. when truman left office in 1953, we remember him now as a great president, who must have been very popular. he left office in 1953 with an approval rating of 23%. and 23% in 1953 was like about 8% nowadays. because in those days, people were shy about telling a

pollster they didn't like a president. which is not a problem that americans have had in the last ten years or more. [laughter] >> but they did. and you look at the internal numbers. why was truman so unpopular? well, for a lot of reasons. one of them was that people said that truman was too partisan. and talked -- and talked too angry of a way about his opponents. it is true in 1952, truman was asked by a reporter who he thought of richard nixon. his reply was, i think he's full of manure. not civil. truman aides went to mrs. truman, can't you get him to speak more civilly. you have no idea how long it took for me to get him to use manure, she said. that's what she was dealing with. although truman spoke like that, when the crunch came in 1947, he worked with republicans, joe martin and arthur vandenberg to

do the kinds of things that began our response to soviet union and in europe, it allowed us to win the cold war. that's why we honor harry truman. we also honor the fact that he was able to deal with the other side on the manner of absolute national importance. all i would say is we all have to vote for four weeks. david comes from chicago. some of us with encouraged to vote more than once on election day. we chicagoans have a special responsibility. even though of you who are not from chicago and who are voting in four weeks, i would say simply if you don't like incivility, if you like people who can govern across the divide, think about this very carefully as you vote. thank you all very much. [applause] [applause] >> well, have we arrived at

civility yet? i don't think so. but thanks to our marvelous speakers this evening, we've had an inspiring and sometimes sobering tour of the issues, the impediments, the difficulties, the opportunities, and the rewards that will await us if we in our body politic can find our way there. i'd like to thank our marvelous panel of speakers, bob schieffer for leading the panel, josh bolten, and david axelrod, chaplain black for inspiring words, amy inn ignatius for being our host. please thank everyone for the marvelous night. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

>> well, enough work for one night. please join us at the cathedral as we continue to explore this. please work for civility wherever you go. good night. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> new york congressman charlie rangel easily won reelection to his 21st term. before he's sworn into the 112th congress, he has an ethics trial to go through. that's scheduled to begin monday at 9 a.m. eastern and could last several days. live coverage starts monday on our companion network c-span3. >> saturday landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> there's nothing in the united states constitution concerning

birth, contraception, or abortion. >> argued in 1971, and ruled on in 1973, roe v. wade is still considered one the courts most controversial decisions. for the next two saturdays, listen to the argument at 6 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. in washington, d.c. at 90.1, nationwide on xm radio an 132. and onlike at c-spanradio.org. >> the student cam documentary is in full swing. upload your video before january 20th for your chance to win the grand prize of 12,000. for all of the rules, go online to studentcam.org. >> next architect and professor elizabeth diller. he recently took part of the

discussion looking at what architecture communications to other nations. her remarks were part of a day-long forum in washington, d.c. hosted by the aspen institute. this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> i want to thank dana and the aspen institute for working with us, bringing the wonderful program to us, and being such wonderful partners in exploring the role of art as a tool of cultural diplomacy. i have to say i was particularly thrilled to have this opportunity to work with dana and the aspen institute because this project aligns perfectly with several of our major strategic goals as an institution. in the 1920s, duncan phillips opened his home in 1921. the first american museum of modern art. he had very specific and lofty,

i think very idealistic philosophical ideas behind the project. when asked what is it you are trying to do, he said, it's an spin mat museum. if we can fulfill on what he inspired in the 1920s, i think we can lead the institution in the 21st century. the notion that he aspired to as creating a very open place for dialogue with artists, the audience and the art work was really his primary goal. if you ever look at labels in our institution, he was purchasing his collection within months of their production. our archives are filled with

evidence of the very intimate dialogue that he had with artists. it was about that, the dialogue with the art and artists of his time, and that's what we are embracing today. and he also wrote extensively about the role of art as it's sell lube yows role in society. helping people and individuals to over come disadvantages, and he also saw it as a very active tool in society, in american society, but also internationally. he was a pacifist, he was somebody who really embraced very idealistic notions for his institution. so duncan phillips would be thrilled that we are hosting all of you today. and i want to pass the microphone over to dana gioia.

>> good morning. welcome to the 2010 aspen, you know, cultural diplomacy forum. we are delighted to be able to do this not simply at the phillips collection, but for the first time in united states. we have done this gathering twice before, in paris, france, last year in spain. we have brought it in the united states, in a very special and appropriate location. which is a private museum of modern art in a federal city where most of the institutions are governmental and historical. and that really reflects, i think, what the aspen institute is, which is a nonpartisan think tank which doesn't issue statements on legislation, doesn't lobby, but is dedicated to a rather different sense of what we might do, you know, in terms of changing thought.

now somebody asked me what the aspen institute does. i can give them the official answer, we convene. that tends to stop the conversation. but it's a vision that, you know, what you can do is to bring people together that are leaders and future leaders across fields that don't normally meet, you know, in their professional lives. have focused conversations on topics of importance, and out of those meetings, out of those conversations, you know, comes the possibility of a better world. we are delighted to bring the aspen institute more seriously in the discussions about culture. and specifically in this case, since we are doing it in the united states for the first time, to focus on what america can do better to use the arts and cultures as ways of communicating with the rest of

the world as well as understanding the rest of the world. and not to do that in a narrow sort of governmental sense. what can the government do in the next nine months? a broader sense, which is involving the arts community, the media, the federal government, private institutions, you know, in this kind of complicated american society we have. where all of these things are together. today we are fortunate to have major figures from the world of arts, government, philanthropy, and even our moderators, if we were interviewing them or having them interview themselves, they are good as a roster of most of the conferences that i attend. we have a rare collection of talents, everything that we do, we tend to do best in partnership, the partnership with the phillips is wonderful. here we are in one the great art

museums, you know, of the city full of great museums. also to have the john bradmouse center at nyu as a partner. we are so fortunate to have john, himself, here who is a person of historical importance in terms of shaping the cultural life of of the united states of america. the nea, neh, would not exist certainly in their current form if it were not actually for john's personal advocacy as a member ofson. we thank them for their partnership. in the old days, when you have a convening, you had an invocation, today, i have asked, as it were my name sake, because i'm the director of

harman-eisner program of the arts, one the cultural leaders of washington, and any of you who have attended the performance at the harman theater knows this. sidney harman, who will make a few remarks to get this event off. one more thing, we are being filmed for web cast. c-span will be coming in the afternoon to film us for broadcast, we have been recorded for the radio, and we have invited bloggers that are there. you know, so -- you know, please pardon the lights. make sure you have your cell phones off so we don't have both the electronic interference and the noise. please join me in welcoming dr.

sidney harman. [applause] >> let me tell you how pleased i am to be in george greydenberg's modest impore yum. i'm honored any time i find myself in the presence of the chairman, john. :