>> doesn't do some things to give them some of them what they want and do it pretty quickly, that anger is only going to intensify and it's going to spill over in the 2012 primary elections and we as republicans are going to end up with a nominee who has absolutely no chance of winning in november. >> just to understand where you're coming from, when you say give them something of what they want, do you mean like -- in the early moves to organize to congress? are you talking about substantive things down the line? , for example, would it would be safe for them to say okay. michele bachmann you're going to get that position than jeb harris? >> i don't think there's any -- or there are very members of the tea party waking up mad as hell as what committee assignment michele bachmann gets. [laughter] >> but they are mad as hell at

spending and especially for younger tea party members, i agree with kate. they don't necessarily know what it is that they just voted for, but i do think that there's -- that we have a moment, a possibility now for some real bipartisanship in an environment where you never would have expected it. because republican leadership -- unless we want, you know, this doberman to come after us in two years, we've got to do something -- something substantive to reduce the amount of tension. >> i'm going to come back to that in a minute. steve mcmahon, let me ask you from a democrat perspective. the pursuit of bipartisanship and the health of the democratic party nancy pelosi wants to remain the democratic leader. is that a good thing or a bad thing? >> a great thing. [laughter] >> fantastic. >> it's a complicated thing. [laughter] >> it is.

[laughter] >> the fact is -- the fact is that the speaker has been, i think, the most effective speaker in maybe 100 years. she basically got every single thing the president wanted passed, passed and she did it sometimes in an ugly way because she understood what it took to get members of congress to take very, very difficult votes. now, obviously in the recent elections democrats didn't do so well and so there are a lot of people who are going to blame nancy pelosi. she was demonized by the republican party, i think, unfairly. and so there are -- and her numbers reflect that. does she deserve to be the leader? absolutely. should she be the leader? i think it's a little bit -- i think that question is a little more nuanced because her numbers are such that the symbolism of leaving her there creates some problems for democrats. on the other hand -- >> when you heard she was running again, were you disappointed. >> i was not surprised because she's a very, very tough cookie. and she did a great job.

and people who do a great job getting the work of the house of representatives done deserve to be able to go out on their own terms. and i think she's going to get re-elected because she's strong. i think that she's going to do an effective job of drawing distinctions between the democrats and the republicans because that's what she does well. i understand why the republicans sit here and say it would be great when nancy pelosi, who has numbers that frankly are not that attractive in terms of her favorable/unfavorable ratio -- i'm just being honest here, creates a target for republicans but i think she deserves to be re-elected and i'm perfectly happy as nancy pelosi as the leader of the house. >> let me ask you a leadership question about your party. one of the issues that was somewhat discussed over the past 10 or 15 years ago with the republicans was that the party and its spokespeople and its leading figures were too weighted toward the is out. -- south. which is the most conservative part of the country.

the fact that you now have a speaker from the state of ohio, is that a good thing in and of itself for republicans? >> can i say something about nancy pelosi first? [laughter] >> ah. yes, it's good thing. the upper midwest in particular was an enormous boost for returns this last election. and having a speaker from the midwest, from the heartland is a very good thing. no longer can people fairly paint the republican party as a regional or a sectional party. it is quite clearly now a national party and this was a national victory for republicans. >> stan, you have been around when a president got whacked in an subsection, you talked about 1994. you talked about what you expect or what should happen as to whether or not president obama needs to fundamentally change

something either stimulus planively or in terms of communications in the white house, you know, maybe the best thing for obama is just to kind of sit tight for a while and let republicans make the first move? >> well, first of all, the -- i mean, having been there, i mean, i know we haven't -- this has many acts that have not played out. the first reaction is a very pained reaction. we all remember the meeting in the cabinet room. james was there. in which the president, you know, talked about all the people that were lost in the election. he felt great pain and guilt for what happened, you know, but he took actions over four, five, six months, a year, three years. that, you know, changed his presidency. and i have no doubt that president obama will learn from this and make, you know, important moves. you know, the most important what he already signaled was the focus on his economy and his every reaction, you know, has been on that, you know, since

that and i think that will be -- and it's a very important change. i mean, the piece we expected most from him which was kind of a narrative around what he was doing is not what happened in the process of governance. he clearly has to have a narrative in which he shows people where we're going, you know, this is a long process. but he has two new things here. and the -- his instinct was to transcend the partisan polarization of washington. i think that was genuine. i think that's why he ran. you know, september 15th in the election he focused -- you know, he focused like a laser on the economy but that wasn't his focus before that. he was much more focused, you know, on a different style of politics in washington. i think he will view these poll results -- he'll view this new moment of opportunity and bipartisanship -- he will do -- i don't know which areas he'll move on. and i think he should move. i don't think he should sit back. i think he should show he's ready to move in areas that people will find surprising.

>> should party movement involve the people who work for him? you know, one of the complaints that's emerged and i don't know whether you think it's valid or not is too insular, small group of people electing him. in 1994, you had dick morris, you had leon panetta. >> i left in the spring of 1995. >> right. is that something that is important either symbolically or either actuallily? >> i don't want to speak to it but i'm sure -- i mean, every president, you know, has a change at this point with this kind of election, there are changes. i don't know, you know, what they will be, a new chief of staff possibilities, there's whole range of things. >> matthew is itching to say something. >> i think the president is in a very, very different spot than bill clinton was in 1994. and a much more problematic spot which is the -- his ability to control his destiny. bill clinton's ability to control his destiny was much in his hands.

much, much in his own hands because what brought him the failures that happened in the '94 re-election was not the disastrous economy because the economy going in the '94 election was actually rising and done very well but he lost because the public thought he had gone off in the wrong track and he had mismanaged so he corrected a bunch of communication problems, brought in people -- you know, the health care thing he had done. people thought he messed up and when he corrected those commit was on the rise and he got rewarded for that. i think barack obama could make a whole bunch of personnel changes and could make -- like 72 different speeches and saying he's doing all this kind of stuff but if the economy doesn't change, he's not going to get rewarded for a management adjustment and a management change and that's a much -- >> but alternatively if the economy does get better does that mean all the critique about his policy agenda fades -- >> well, that's an interesting thing. there would have been no tea party if the economy was done well.

he could have passed health care reform and everybody -- he would have won the midterm elections. the economy is doing well. it's totally his destiny which is interestingly is much more ronald reagan but one of the huge differences between ronald reagan and barack obama is the ability for the government it off improve the economy. we no longer have 70% marginal track rates and so his ability to change that dynamic of the economy is -- i mean, it's almost like he has to pray that the economy does better because if he doesn't, he's lost. >> if we're japan -- if this is japan, you know, everything we say is off. there's a whole new set of rules of the game. >> i wonder if you agree with what matthew said. one of your colleagues in the republican polling fraternity told me a couple months ago. you know, if the economy was in slightly better shape and if

some of the momentum had continued from the spring which fated when we thought we were getting job growth, we wouldn't be talking about role of government, government takeover and all that stuff, the context of the election is completely set by what matthew just said. do you agree with that? >> i think the bad economy explains a 30-seat loss in the house. it can't explain a 60-plus seat loss in the house. and the additional explanatory power comes from the actions taken by the democratic leadership in washington. it was a stimulus that people think did not work. it was a $1.3 trillion deficit. it was a auto bailout and finally -- >> a 30-seat loss is baked into every first prison term, right? -- midterm, right? >> no, it's an average. >> it's a pretty consistent pattern. >> you could explain half of the democrat loss with the economy. you can't explain a wipeout like that. >> i think it's important for people when they look back at

the selection to understand that this election was about big things. you know, a lot of elections are about very small things. this election was about really, really big ideas, big decisions, you know, and whit can tell you when we did polling in florida, you know, the swingyiest of all the swing states and we asked people what they thought this election was about and in our focus groups. they really felt like this vote was about fundamentally changing the direction of our entire nation. and so if that's what is fueling -- >> but isn't that another say to say what matthew just said? >> yeah. >> the big thing is are my kids going to be better off than i am? >> yeah, i agree with matthew. and so if you're looking for specific course corrections to make, you know, we all remember after 94, you know, suddenly we were talking about school uniforms and things like that,

like that is not -- or staffing changes at the white house. that's all window dressing for -- in terms of what the election was about and, therefore, what the results moving forward are going to be. >> so i just have to defend the president here for a second because these guys will sit here and talk like these were all choices that the president made and rather than things that were thrust upon him when he took office. i mean, i watched barack obama pretty closely in the 2008 campaign. i never once heard him say, when i'm president i'm going to take over the united states auto industry. when i'm president i want to bail out wall street and the big banks. he didn't do any of those things because he wanted to. i'm going to pass a $800 billion stimulus package because our economy is falling to the floor and the world financial system is about to collapse. he didn't say any of those things because those aren't things that he chose to do. those are things he had to do. excuse me for one second.

[applause] >> and now i understand that there are people whose lives are -- they're struggling. they don't have jobs. and i understand that there are a lot of people out there who felt like the stimulus package wasn't as effective as it should have been. i think president obama would say that. and there are a lot of people who feel like the government is too involved in the private sector and is spending too much money. i think a lot of democrats would say that. but these are not choices he made. the one choice he made -- i'm sorry, matthew, and i'll be done in just a second. the one choice he made was health care reform which was something he promised during the campaign and he did. now, i would argue that they maybe spent a little too much time on it and i would argue they would do it optically a little differently and they got it. -- they got it done. and it's a choice he made. >> the other thing that president obama -- [laughter] >> the other thing that he never said once during the 2008 election is if you elect me i'm

going to turn over control of all of my signature issues to nancy pelosi and harry reid and let them write them and guck them them ulup a with every single thing they have been doing for the last eight years. i'm baffled. i've always been baffled that why it is the white house ceded control to these issues that people didn't understand the reasons why the president got elected in the first place. >> that's because congress -- >> but then i want to step back and ask the big question. i think, in fact, that's not what happened. and i think -- when you talk to people at the white house where they passed a stimulus bill, is that the stimulus bill that you wanted? like 95%, yeah, they threw some stuff in. that is our bill. we want that bill. it hasn't helped them. but they got their bill. and on health care, i think what they did say, i want to achieve health care reform and i think

the best strategy for doing it is to -- is to set out a certain set of principles and let them get it done. and i would say that on the evidence of being the only person who's gotten it done in 70 years was a successful strategy. but i want to back up a little bit and refer to a group i had in my house, republican and democrat. they worked for members of the house and senate before the election. and everybody knew at that point it's going to be a big election for republicans. and i asked them what they thought was possible to get done in the next two years? and the answer was, please, nothing. we're going to fight for two years. we'll pass -- you know, we'll do appropriation bills. and it's just going to be basically an extension of the 2010 campaign run into 2012. and there's just no other way around it. and i want to start with steve

and whit and see if you agree that is in fact what's in progress? >> i think it's going to be interesting because i think the republicans now have an obligation and a responsibility to try to get something done. don't you, matthew? >> what? [laughter] >> no, i actually agree. i have had more criticisms of the republicans than i have had of democrats. >> the tea party folks came there with a very specific agenda to say no. mitch mcconnell has been rewarded for saying a no for two years. and when the tea party facts are asked to raise the debt ceiling for the united states government so it can continue to function, i think they would say no and i don't know why they would compromise and say yes. and the notion that they will come to town and we'll schedule a whole bunch of votes to release the pressure and they are going to get to take a stand on things, i think it's just wishful thinking on our part. >> so you agree with the proposition that next to nothing will get done in the next two years? >> i absolutely agree. >> do you agree?

>> it's a matter of the odds. i think that's probably the most likely outcome. but i also think that these independent that is we were talking about in the last panel expect something to happen. they expect some kind of action to address the problems facing this country particularly on the economy and taxes and deficits. now, the -- you'll see in our survey that the republican voters are more adamant than the democrats that they ought to stick to their core principles but the good news is what ed mentioned that they are closer to independent voters than core voters. i think the independents are going to demand that something happen and they are the ones who -- >> i also -- >> i want to ask kate -- >> the problem that we have which i think why this meeting is so important and meetings like this is so important is because if you turned it over to the 120 million americans and said what you want? they would say we need to get stuff done because that would be

in the best interest of the country. the question i think you have from both the administrative standpoint and the democratic leadership and the republican leadership standpoint are they going to pay attention to a very small minority ideological set, some of whom represent tea party people but don't necessarily represent frustrated voters out there in entirety -- are they going to pay attention to those and do nothing on both sides say we're not going to do nothing or are they basically going to say, no, the mass of the country which then would help our own re-election of our country, in 2012, both president obama and the republican leadership in long it would help if they appealed to a majority of voters, do they have the capability of listening to many voices unheard on the capable channels and unheard in the hauls of congress and that, i think, is the problem. whit is right. the vast majority of independents want something done but they don't have the mega phone to talk in the ear of boehner and the folks in congress all the time. it's going to be the loudest most minor voices in the republican party. >> kate, i want to get you talking about this.

in in fact -- and i accept there's a tension in obama's platform between the substantive agenda he outlined in the campaign which he pursued and the notion that he was going to change the way washington worked. he definitely -- as ed said in the previous panel he sidetracked the latter to achieve the former 'cause he thought it was more important, i think. is there an equivalent tension within the tea party between get stuff done, work together, stop fighting and stand up for what you believe in, cut the hell out of the government? >> absolutely. >> how does that get resolved? >> i think it tracks largely with the divide that i was talking about. the more ideological divide and voters who came in this with incredible frustration. remember the tea party is not a party. it's a state of mind at this point. and a lot of -- and so it's hard to define. there's no particular agenda that they were elected to act on. >> but as you said, it's only not a party it's within the republican party? >> absolutely.

i think it's true that tea party candidates came in with having said we're going to say no. i don't think tea party voters think there will be no gridlock and most of them tend to be ideological or they are just so fed up with washington and -- >> in other words, rand paul and sharron angle got a lot of votes -- when rand paul said i'm not voting to extend the debt limit you think a lot of people have voted for him, they want them to move forward? >> i think people voted for candidates -- remember sharron angle didn't win but i think people voted for candidates like rand paul because again they remember enormously frustrated with washington and wanted something to change but also kentucky is a republican state. that was not a change for kentucky. but i don't think tea party voters are necessarily saying we want you to go to washington and how to be gridlock. there are regional differences with the tea party. when i went to kentucky with rand paul, you know, audiences were cheering at rand paul, gridlock, gridlock.

they were excited about this idea and you don't hear the same thing in suburban philadelphia where the tea party also had some victories. there you hear people who say you know we're -- we don't like the process of health care. we don't like the special deals of health care. so they want -- and they want again to reform washington. you know, it was interesting. aide piece last week where i had -- quoted two people who were interviewed on exactly -- almost the exactly same spot and, of course, harry reid's hometown and one of them said i want gridlock. i don't want any more laws. this was his idea and another guy who was there, you know -- and he brought up base realignment. why can't they do things. that was democrats and republicans coming together doing something for the good of the country. you know, why can't we have more of that? so here we were in the exact same spot. no regional defenses. they were two nevadans. so i think, you know, within the tea party there are a lot of differences and i don't think necessarily that people -- that the tea party voters want gridlock. >> this could be incredibly

difficult to do as indicated by this poll, you know, we have a 2-1 the country wants republicans to work with the president to try to get stuff done. but two-thirds of republicans -- and i think it's over half stronger that two-thirds of republicans say president obama is trying to do irrevokal harm to the country and they should not work with them. and the tea party are a stronger element within the republicans and the intensity of their views so that it's going to be incredibly difficult to work with. on the other hand, i think that they -- i think the president will force them to address these issues 'cause i think he will see this opportunity. something like energy, it may in fact not be good policy in terms of whether you really do anything on climate change but nonetheless there's a set of policies on energy that virtually everybody supports. there are going to be moments where republicans and democrats need to pass something to show

they can act for the country's interest. i think energy is the most likely. they will probably figure out something on this tax thing and they got to figure something going forward. it could object trade. some of these things have tensions within tea party, you know, but the president has opportunities. but also circumstances are going to force this particularly on the debt limit, you know, i think that's something that we have to deal with. it's not something, you know, we can -- >> the republicans -- these tea party folks get a pass on basically they can cast these votes and there are going to be adults in the room and they are going to say no, the debt limit is going to pass. we're not going to shut the government down unless the republicans want to commit suicide. it will pass. rand paul will get a vote on it and they will get a vote to repeal health care and it won't get past the senate. they will pass it in the house so all of these things will be able to cast all these votes and say this is what we did. but there's enough adults in washington that are going to prevent some of this stuff from happening and so they get a free pass on this. >> is that the right way to think of it?

that you have the mainstream republican leaders -- and tell me if they think of themselves as the adults and they're managing these unruly children and they're kind of scared that the kids might riot like wreck their car if they do the wrong thing. but that's really the dynamic we're doing? [laughter] >> i've got a lot more respect for voters than a lot of people do. i think that the tea party movement -- and we've done a lot of focus groups with it are fundamentally economically pressed middle class people who feel scared and frustrated. it's painful doing these focus groups. i've had people break down in tears i just lost my job in a company that i've been with for 35 years. my husband thinks he's going to lose his job. we're in our 50s. we don't know what we're going

to do. and they truly believe that their people in washington, republican and democrat, are just not listening to them. [applause] >> that they're giving their money -- that they're giving their money to bail out wall street and they really don't care about them. and so this is a cry of frustration. they are not children. they are not blind to the choices being faced but they're saying we don't want the country to keep spending like they're spending and mortgaging our kids' future. they got to stop that and figure out how to help the middle class feels that economically pressed and that's the mess of the tea party. >> well, in that frustration, would those voters and, therefore, would the politicians who represent them have an incentive to welcome a government shutdown, a defeat of a debt limit as a sign, gosh,

something is going to be different about it? >> no. they don't. they want government to work effective to address the problems that they feel are pressing on them. you know, they're not into symbolic shutdowns of the government. >> a real quick point on that. if you look at -- you know, there's been so much written about marco rubio, rising star in the republican party and it's important to listen what he said marco rubio. he said it would be a huge mistake for anyone to interpret the results of this election as an embrace of the republican party. it is not. it is at best a second chance for the republican party to do the things that we said we would do originally. i think there are leaders like

him, i'm biased obviously, but there are people like marco who can put foot in each camp because he has absolute credibility on the tea party side. and he has credibility on the leadership side. and he's will to say, you know, the republican party, we deserved to get thrown out of office and we're not being put back into power because suddenly people are in love with us. >> speaking of that, foot in both camps, a week before the election i interviewed jeb bush in miami. and he sort of struck a similar profile. and he said basically that, a, center-right country they don't like the way obama is going and they want to change the direction on policy, and, b they want people stop fighting and get stuff done. and so basically the way to think about it you figure out a set of things you can do together, do them, save your big fights for later. and if they're not able to do that, he said i think you could be looking at the dismemberment of these two parties. do you agree with that?

do you think that's actually a possibility? is it the kind of thing that we talk about all the time and never happens? >> i think that there is -- at least on the republican side there is enough anger with the grassroots of our party that i don't think it would be something that would happen in the next two years, but it could marginalize the republican party and basically slowly suffocate it because people will stop turning out and voting, which is to the point that i was making earlier. i think it's actually in our leadership's -- the republican party's best interest to get some things done in a bipartisan fashion even if it means giving the president a win and we get a win because we got to do something to take some of the air -- >> matthew, do you think party crack-up is an actual clear and present prospect? >> first of all, it's remarkable how low the esteem of both parties and they are both at the same place.

we asked about third-party and begin to explore that question. i think it's a little indeterminant. i think -- i think the country -- i think a third-party ross perot-type candidate would run very well. >> like bloomberg possible? >> he's not the profile, you know, of the candidate i would pick, you know, that would make the most out of this kind of frustration. it ought to be more of a -- perot was more out of the republican party in terms of at the outset but there's a lot of space for third-party voting. >> you know, the best thing possible i think for our system would be the emergence of a new -- a new party. and, you know, the history of our country is though we've had two political parties, one party -- we've gone through not exactly similar things but one party changes and adapts. the democratic party today is not what the democratic party in the -- the democrat and republican party were not what they were 60 years ago, 70 years

ago or 80 years ago. very different parties. that i think -- i think that could easily happen. i think our structure of our system to allow a third-party to compete with the two parties is probably less likely but the ability of one party to try to sort of remake itself where they are now sort of reflective of where the majority of the country is definitely a possibility. i think we would benefit from that. i think it's contingent on what happens in 2012. if barack obama's number continue to deteriorate and they have a share angle type presidency and it makes that window -- and i'm not saying any former alaska governor's particular name -- [laughter] >> but if that happens, then not a bloomberg -- i actually think if bloomberg wanted -- in my view, wanted to have a third-party, he should take $500 million, put a platform in place, create an institution and have somebody else nominate it other than him because i don't think he fits -- i can't see

bloomberg winning missouri and he has so many things he's done in alaska -- i mean, alaska. oh, sorry. [laughter] >> so many things he's done in new york that just don't fit a majority of the country. >> as we sit today, do you think it's more likely or not that obama will have a victory? >> you know, that's very interesting -- i mean, there's so many factors in that. i think it's going to be -- i said this earlier. if the economy creates 150,000 jobs a month in the next two years he loses. and there's a question -- and i think somebody alluded to this. are we in a fundamentally different place in the world and economically that it is not going to allow him to win re-election because our economy is now going to have to readjust itself in a -- a fundamentally different place than it has. >> or deleveraging? >> and think this goes to a broader problem.

i trust 300 americans more than than i would trust 300 people in washington to make decisions in their best interest but the 300 people in washington don't often follow what the voters want. many times don't follow the what the majority of the voters want but we have simultaneously lost a -- republicans lost faith in trust in every major institution in this country at the same time. the federal government, the financial institutions, the media, the two political parties, many places they've lost faith and trust in their churches, they lost faith in their sporting institutions, a all simultaneously at once so they sit there -- >> cowboys? [laughter] >> and that, i think, is a problem and that creates not only economically great anxiety how are we going to bind ourselves together and until somebody, i think, addresses that problem -- we had two presidents in a row that have gotten elected on the same exact message, which is we're going to bring people together that can share the common interest and basically both presidents said you're not going to have to go through pain. you're not going to go through pain. you can do it all and nobody has to pay the bill.

both president bush and president obama basically got elected on the same platform and did -- diverted from that in almost the exact same way ideologically differently but the same exact way. >> real quick to your question, i think it was a mistake to have a third-party specifically to the realm of running for president because what you could see 50 laboratories, you know, if you want to fund intellectual exercise think about what could have happened -- if meg whitman in california had run actually as an independent and hadn't had to go through the republican primary process where she then became a republican and had to, you know, right of the steve poisener and meg is not a perfect candidate but once she did that, it was very hard for her to ever get back. i think if someone like whitman -- especially in these blue states, the republican

brand, you know, on the west coast is tarnished. you know, it was the one place that this red tide that it never hit out there. >> obama is over 50%. >> but someone like -- someone like a meg whitman out west especially running for governor, i think that there could be real possibility. >> we should not drop -- we shouldn't leave there. matt's posit that he couldn't say the probability of obama being re-elected because he couldn't answer that question. if the growth were a more vibrant country at 4% -- if you're talking about 4% in a slow drop of unemployment -- and i would think the president does have a better than even chance

of getting re-elected and the affects would be dramatically but this is premmid where do you think america's future is. the last election with big issues. these are big issues. >> i want to invite all of you guys who work in politics to take shots at me and kate and i'll let katie defend us. [laughter] >> if necessary. >> oh, no i can't imagine it would be. >> yeah. the question is, as you look at the array of forces that you saw play out in the election and then what we have in washington when we come around to january, do you see the -- those of us in the media, newspapers, television, radio as an independent obstacle to achieving results for the american people, you know, pragmatic solutions to the country's problems or are we

simply just describing the aspects of the problem that exist in the political system? steve? >> well, it seems to me that the internet has changed so much and one of the things it's changed most profoundly is the way people get their information. i mean, it wasn't that long ago that there were four or five major newspapers in the country. and they were all newspapers that treated everything right down the middle. and people got up in the morning and they read those papers and they read -- >> "new york times" still does that by the way. >> no, i understand that but you can see what's happening to "new york times" online and what you have -- and you had three networks, abc, cbs, and nbc and people watched the evening news. and the evening news was balanced. and now -- >> nbc still does that. [laughter] >> so does abc. >> but the viewership -- but the viewership is a third of what it was 25 years ago. and people now increasingly are getting news from places and sources that they agree with and

that align with their point of view. and so if you're a republican, you get a lot of your news from the fox newschannel. if you're a democrat you get a lot of your news from msnbc. if you're a young person you think jon stewart is an evening newscast. [laughter] >> and i'm serious. we actually have done focus groups with kids who are 23, 24, 25 years old and we ask them where they get their news. they don't read newspapers. they read everything online and they go to sites that sort of align with their point of view. so it's not that you're doing a bad job but it's just that the mainstream middle of the road cover both sides, don't have a point of view is becoming less and less relevant. >> whit? >> without passing judgment on whether the "new york times" and the major networks are play things right down the middle, which i would quibble with.

marco rubio ran without a single ad. it was a stunning example of of the proliferation of information sources and the ability to communicate to large numbers of voters without doing the traditional things that we think move numbers. and it goes to steve's point that you had all these republicans and activists and marco created this national movement really all without running a single tv ad. >> steve, are we an independent problem? >> no, it's important to the internal dynamics of the republican party. >> are we an independent obstacle to bipartisan progress? and if so, a big one or a small one? >> the media -- cable-driven aligned media which is for sure. but i'm not -- i'm not making a judgment about the major -- about the major newspapers and

major, you know, network news and cnn. but the cable -- the cable process is -- i don't know if it's an obstacle. it is a fact. it's how people are getting their information and that's how you have to operate. but i wouldn't rule out, you know, the fact that, you know, major stories that are in print journalism impact the way issues and stories, you know, play out. you know, you can't have afghanistan, i don't think, without -- they are major issues in which the media play a big part on how the, you know -- both how the public looks at it and how the partisan-aligned media. >> i've seen you cable tv, how do you plead. >> how do i plead, fair and balanced. >> i was thinking guilty or not guilty. >> what i worry about honestly is that what you're saying is correct. that there is -- that people are so hungry for something that's on either side. i've just written this book that very consciously tried to come up through the middle and look

at the -- we made a very conscious decision that there was a lot of polemic out there. i'm not a columnist so i wouldn't write a polemic about the tea party. what i could do be a reporter. there's a lot of people out there who didn't understand what was tea party was and there's merit and conservatives think i'm not objective, liberals think i'm too objective, rather you can't win on that score but we were really going to try and i think we produced a pretty good balanced effect. i worry that people are not interested in that. >> setting the book aside, do you think the tea party is aside? -- do you think the tea party is bad? >> do i think it's bad? >> i'm just trying to catch you. >> but, no, so i worry that -- look, i think stan's point of afghanistan goes to this. there's a certain amount of content that comes from organizations like the "new york times" but people want to go to their perspective corners. >> what i think is equally

worrisome to me just, you know, taking aside -- taking off my republican hat and my political consultant hat but just putting my american hat on, the total decimation of state press corps in state capitals across the country is very alarming for the country because -- [applause] >> people on both sides are just not getting vetted the way that they used to be. stories that used to be no-brainers that would be written 10 years ago are not being written anymore. and that is not good for our democracy. >> we're going to go to q & a in a second but i just want to put one question to the panel before we do that, that strikes me as not totally ridiculous and implausible and it's a -- it's a description of what might be a path to achieving some of the things that we've talked about that would be good for president obama and for the tea party and would actually achieve some progress.

assume that the big systemic legislative programs -- they're not happening in the next two years. but it seems to me possible that that is not what obama was going to make the next two years about anyway. it might not be in its interest to do that. and that instead if you take -- obama had long talked about a turn toward deficit reduction after you get out of the first two years. so he -- he's got this deficit commission. they're not going to have a big systemic deal in the long-term deficit either. but why couldn't you have a president who makes some legislative compromise with the president on energy, not cap-and-trade but some energy stuff, some trade, trade agreements moving forward? you then have the president and republicans go about spending

cuts and governmental reform that might have the capacity to raise confidence in the american people where they are confident where their dollars are going and being smarter about it? why is that not a recipe for calm-down politics and some actual headway that make feel better? >> i think it is a possible scenario, and i think most of the folks who are identified as independence would like that. >> forget the countries -- how important it is for the country. it is in the political interest, i believe, for the president to move on this, to do. to take the heat, the partisan heat out of it. this ideological intense -- you know, hot house is not good for his politics. i think he needs to let the steam out. >> i completely agree as the point i was making before.

i think it's in the republican -- the establishment republican party's best interest to let some of that tension out of the tea party movement or else in two years it's not going to be good. >> kate? does that seem reasonable -- basically, the next 12 months would be about modest spending reductions that nevertheless make like people hear it and see it and feel better about it. >> i think that's what people want. what interests me is what stan was talking about in the previous panel which is are the republicans going to make in some ways the same mistake on health care that obama did? are they just going to keep hammering and keep putting this up and down vote repeal and replace? where do you stand on health care and make that their issue? >> i don't think any -- i don't think he will benefit from any legislative victories at all, the president. as i said earlier and we'veluted

-- alluded to it and he needs to restore faith and confidence in our economic system and what's the path forward in that system and how to do that bipartisan wise. it's not going to be oh, we're going to cut $10 billion here and cut $12 billion here. it's a much bigger deal and you will have to deal if you really want to send a signal but he, i think, from his own political standpoint in the future of the country, the best thing that could happen is he calls up speaker-elect boehner and says we're going to have to put all our stuff aside, our economy is in shambles and we're going to have to tell people where the promise land is. and then we're going to have to tell people how to get there which may involve some pain. boehner may say good luck with that. have a fun time. but his political interest is tied directly to whether or not people have any more confidence in our economic system and business have the ability to invest in that system. if they don't feel that confidence, he can do all sorts of little legislative things, he's dead. >> so little green energy

progress, a little trade progress, a little symbolic spending cuts, that doesn't really do it? >> i think he's got to go to 10,000 feet and basically convince the american public that he is a person that believes in our economic system and that they have confidence in so businesses will invest and small businesses have hand in washington and not an enemy. >> steve, do you agree with that it's rhetorical and sort of communicating a vision rather than doing little things with congress? >> totally with matthew. one of the things that was so attractive about barack obama, the candidate for president, that he was positive, hopeful and aspirational about america's future and what we can do and what we can be. and what we can become again. and i think there are a lot of people out there, i believe it the people who are scared and the people who are feeling the economic pressure who want somebody to stand up and say, we can do this. and here's how we're going to do it. and i think if he could stand with some republicans and do it together, that would be even better.

i think there's some symbolism in the -- in making some spending cuts and doing things to restore people's confidence that he heard them in this last election. but in the main, what he needs to do is go up here and say, here's where we can go together. yes, we can and here's how we're going to do it. he hasn't been able to do that for a while. >> don't let the kum-ba-ya get out of hand. >> oh, come on. >> this is fine. but in the end there are big issues, real issues, okay? one, the question of growth, okay? growth is not just narrative and rhetoric and business feeling more confident. democrats have a point of view. they want to do investment. they want to do infrastructure. they want to do things in order to create jobs. there's a real -- there's a real -- ultimately 'cause he won't be able to pass any of that stuff. when you come to the election that issue is going to be there and you'll get to the traffic tab increases. -- tax increases. do wealthy people pay for deficit reduction? are they part of the deal?

are they part of the pain? that is going to be a choice, a big choice, in the election. so this is all fine. in terms of getting there in the right way just in, you know, '96 is bill clinton. you had a big battle over the welfare state and education spending and there was ultimately a big battle over big choice. >> but the policy -- i'm sorry. >> but the policies of this president so far in my opinion have not been wrapped in the positive aspirational narrative that he was so good in the campaign. and what he needs, i think, is to get his mojo back and to be able to do that again and to say all these policies that the democrats are promoting and all these place where is we can meet republicans in the middle are a path to get us to a better place and here's what it's going to mean for you if you're in ohio or michigan or in one of those swing states that i need to get re-elected. the larger narrative has been missing >> he quicked transitioned from

what people saw to the leader of the country to a leader of a party. and people elected a leader of the country and not a leader to that political party and when that transitioned got made and he got bogged down and people with the decisions he was making whether they were the right or wrong ones through the prism he was doing it through the political party, he lost that. >> he never really asked, you know that. >> if you have a question, we have a little bit of time and we have a microphone. [laughter] >> and if you have a speech, we would be delighted to hear it. >> actually, the american public did repudiate some of the tea party especially some of the notable ones. the sharron angles, the joe millers, the comic relief on the east coast, tancredo and california. although some did get in. now, you've got these cats that are a running around and it will be up to the republican leadership to herd them.

but isn't it in the best political interest of the republican party to maintain this gridlock with the bigger prize being to defeat obama? >> whit? >> well, i mean, again, the point that i was making before while the tea party -- the tea party is fueled by failure in washington. and so the more -- the greater the perception of failure in washington, the more gas you put in the tea party tank. the danger -- and so, you know, on the surface if you're a republican you think well, that's great. the danger, however, is having that tea party wave actually then come crashing down on every establishment republican -- people like orrin hatch is now looking at a primary challenge in utah. i mean, just a few years ago, that notion would have been absurd.

and so -- and lindsey graham in south carolina. and so there are going to be -- there are always going to be that element on the right that are just angry but what really fueled the tea party movement and gave it energy was all of the people who -- who were just -- they're not the ideologues and the partisans and they were just angry and those people need to be spoken to and their issues need to be addressed and they will be angrier. >> we'll have one wise response and we'll move it around. >> but i guess if you look at specifically at social security or government shutdowns do you think there's a disconnect between these generalities that people are talking about i'm for gridlock or i'm for social security reform versus what the specifics of that mean. like obama with health care, you

know, i want health care reform is there a disconnect yeah i want health care reform and it means increased -- it could mean increased spending? >> matthew? >> well, yeah, there's disconnect but part of what happened with president obama and the health care reform is if 80% of people in this country who were voting and wanted health care reform had health insurance. and so what they wanted, the public statement of what they wanted was, lower health care premiums, lower costs and some expanded access. what they got was higher premiums, increased cost and there's still a question about what access available -- it's probably been expanded but for the vast majority of the country they wanted health care reform and they were delivered something different than what they wanted. people know we need social security. if you gave truth serum to all the democrats and the republicans at this conference, they would come up with a solution fairly quickly of what we need to do with social security and medicare if you gave them truth serum because everybody knows we have a problem with that.

but and the country knows we have a problem. they know it's bankrupt -- most people -- there's people -- kids from tulane here. anybody under 30 years old doesn't think they will get social security. my kids, 25, 24, 21 they don't they will have social security. they think identity broke and all we're doing now is paying for a system that's never going to benefit them. so there is a disconnect. but the disconnect exists because leaders of both political parties many times aren't willing to communicate the hard truth about what the situation is and how we solve it, and that is fundamentally the problem. the public is pretty smart if they are given the right fact set and told the truth but on social security form, they have not been told the truth by either political party. >> amen. >> next question. [applause] >> a couple of quick questions actually. for todd in regards to pelosi staying, how do you respond to the argument that though she's unpopular what she did was the right thing to do?

>> well, i mean, from a political -- >> that's not his department. from a political consultant standpoint democrats can make that argument for the next two years and i know a lot of direct mail vendors that thrilled they can take the exact same mail pieces that they mailed out and change the 10 to 12 and mail out the exact same one again. >> fair enough. as a political matter, yes, but what about her point on the sort of justice of the thing. put yourself in the position if there were a republican leader who had done what his party wanted to do and achieved it but was demonized and like how do you respond to the justice argument? >> they are two separate questions and, you know, the political reality of it is very different from whether she deserves to be, you know, made minority leader. >> but address that part, that deserves part. >> you brought it up earlier if she stayed as minority leader. >> a look. it's not my -- yeah.

>> and how did christine o'donnell get 40% in delaware? how did that happen? >> well, i think, you know -- people were always saying it's just astroturf. it's made up and it's not grassroots and it's made up by these interest groups. and christine o'donnell was the ultimate proof it was a grassroots movement at heart. the groups in washington didn't want christine o'donnell because they knew she would lose the general election and it was people in delaware hope against hope that they could win the two southern counties and that was enough for christine o'donnell to-in with the primary and she did and i think, you know, i think she's going to get -- there's a certain number of republican voters who are always going to vote republican. but the reality is mike castle would have just, you know -- the numbers absolutely switched. >> conspicuous by his absence in the discussion leading up to and since the election has been the christian right. and their agenda. so i guess my question is, did these folks get to sort of rolled over by the tea party? did they willingly sign up?

and considering the very different priorities that these two groups bring in terms of social issues versus economic issues is there a potential for some -- for a sort of subplot playing itself out as these groups struggle for control within the republican party? >> whit, we haven't heard much from the christian coalition for a long time. >> the religious right is alive and well. what happened this election cycle is the economy washed out everything else. so the concern about jobs and economic growth and the related governmental budget deficits and taxes and spending drove every other issue underground. >> go ahead. >> my question about marco rubio and specifically and the future of the republican party he's thought of of the obama of the republicans thrown about being a minority and he's english-only and immigration controls and

stuff like that. if he doesn't run on one of the big concerns of the latino community is that just all for show that he happens to be latino or is there really a breakthrough with the latinos because he's latino? >> marco rubio showed how you can run as a conservative republican latino and win a majority of the latino vote in florida. i think he's a classic example of how a conservative can win on latino votes. >> marco does not support english-only. he does support making english the official language but ombudsman fought support english-only policies. you know, we got as whit mentioned i think on the previous panel 56% of the latino vote in florida. we did very well not only with the cuban vote but the non-cuban

hispanic vote that is so critical in the i-4 corridor. and if you look at data in florida, the issues that were most important to latino voters this cycle were the exact same issues that were most important to white voters and african-american voters and every other voter segment and marco was able to tap into that. >> okay, sadly we only have time for one more question and that's yours. >> it's sort of two questions. one is very, very quick. the first is just -- is it proper etiquette at a panel discussion like this to clap after a panelist says something that you agree with? i've been noticing that happening a lot. >> yes. >> it is. >> if it's steve. and the second most serious question, it's been mentioned that there's been like tea party-like groups in the past and i just want to know historically how do they end? and is that end result likely for the tea party and for their leaders is well? >> well, i think --

>> sorry. >> cut in. yes, there have been absolutely other groups. i compare mostly to the goldwater movement and what you saw there was sort of libertarian movements of goldwater and christian conservatives and it became the christian coalition. >> people forget that the movement that got ultimately put barack obama in office was a minority antiwar movement that started off with a -- with people with voices that thought they were way out who then became swept bush and the republicans out of office. the tea party -- because it's been branded tea party as kate said is not a party. it's a movement of frustrated voters that tea party people seem to speak for. in similar ways that barack obama got put into office because of all the antibush and anti-iraq, this is a very similar group of people that don't always speak for the majority out there but represent