the u.s. government about this or other foreign policy issues? yes, there is a. of course, the united states is the kind of society and governmental system in which any debate about foreign policy often serves in public that you would expect that are such as important as this to always have unanimous agreement in advance of any discussion. but the united states is in favor of the process of reintegration and reconciliation. >> but is the u.s. in favor of the same approach of this government, which seems to be we should be working on reconciliation now? as opposed to a few which seems to be quite strong held by some in the u.s., that you need to change the balance before you go down that road. >> well, sometimes this is an academic argument, of course. because it's not possible to commend the timing of a political settlement. that will be important for the military effort to continue and

to intensify, i believe to make that settlement possible. nevertheless, i would say, to answer your question, there is a disagreement here between the leadership of the u.s. and u.k. governments. the prime minister and the president discussed such issues regularly, and they are in strong a cord about it. and we do discuss it, intend to discuss it privately rather than through giving speeches directed at each other, which i think is the right way for close allies to deal with it. but we are not engaged in an argument about this at the moment. >> would you agree that the u.s. needs to be directly involved in discussions with the taliban, in order to get a solution to this situation? >> this has got to be an afghan led process. there is no doubt about that. an afghan led process will bring reconciliation in afghanistan.

we facilitate that process. we think it is appropriate. >> you mean the u.k.? >> i mean the u.k., but unisys also has agreed to the policy and is in the same position. but it has to be, it has to be an afghan-led process. >> are they facilitating as well just we? >> they agree with our policy. >> that was not my question. >> he has said -- president karzai contact and provide practical assistance, and that in clue to the u.s. as well as other isaf members that. >> i that we're going to get a better answer than that. [inaudible] >> no, i guess you it's the same policy as we have. >> but insurance of contacts and what's being done to try to contact element within the insurgency of the taliban, is it the case that the u.s. is actively engaged in that process at this time?

>> i think, i know we will have a private session later, mr. chairman -- [inaudible] >> i don't think it is right to go into public about any operational details of these matters. >> foreign secretary, i would like to ask you about the hearts and minds of the afghan people. there's like 10% support. [inaudible] the society has stated it is one of a series things of afghanistan in many respects, the united kingdom and its allies are losing the war -- is

about to? spent i think we are to be able to do better. in the coming months and years, and communication, and the strategic communication of what our objectives are, how we are achieving them, how the nation's of isaf and, indeed, the afghan government are working together. i think it has been one of the weak areas in recent years, and i think it needs further attention. we are giving attention to that end the national security council, from the uk's point of view. i recently raised it with the nato secretary-general, something that requires better international coordination as well. so yes, it is a weak area, and conflict indications is a vital consideration. both of our own countries, and of the country where that

conflict is taking place. so i think there is room for improvement. now, that's not to say that quite a bit has been achieved. as in so many of these fields there remains enormous challenges, but some progress has been made. particularly in the creation of a more vibrant media in afghanistan and the axis of in afghanistan to news outlets in a variety of sources of information, that they have at their disposal. all of those things have improved, but yes, i think more attention is needed in this area. you're quite right to raise this question. the first part, i think, go back to the first part -- >> you said support for the taliban in afghanistan was 10%. i was interested at all if you thought that it was increasing, decreasing, or stable, 10%? >> i don't know whether we have any figures on that. polling is not an exact time in

--'s. we don't have a poll which shows is whether it has gone up or down in certain areas. and in some areas it is high than 10% and a some areas -- [inaudible] >> how can you say it's 10%? is increasing? are we losing the war on hearts and minds? as a good example, afghans think about we are going -- [inaudible] >> there wasn't a poll. there has been very service, but let's think of other ways of, if you look at how many, of course, the area which were privately concerned with, where british troops are concerned, in --

hundreds of people make their ways to the district center every day up from a trickle previously. in other areas, over 800 locals, a few months earlier, that would've been impossible. so these are not polls, but their indications of how life on the ground can change come and winning over people. still again, an enormous challenge in helmand. but considering that we have 135,000 children enrolled in schools across the province, which is a 250% increase on last year, it indicators like that is some indication of how normal life has changed for the people on the ground. and that may then give some indication of whether they have confidence in what is happening. >> it seems to me that this is

international attention. through diplomatic means, the diplomats in afghanistan, short-term, for any bit period of smalltime, they are oddly very shielded from whatever the afghan people, how can it be expected to win the hearts and minds from the taliban and local villages of that country speak as we work a lot of several different levels, diplomats in kabul are engaged in making sure that media throughout the country understand what we are doing. but, of course, i think it would be wrong to say that diplomats and others, the people who work for instance, in provincial reconstruction team, are working based in flash car, are working

daily at local and -- lashkar gah, daily and local problem. deal with locals and other elders about every issue concerning local society and the services provided. and that is a fundamental part of winning over those hearts and minds. karen, do you want to add the details of that work. >> certainly some of our diplomats and colleagues in the stabilization unit go out and facilitate local shura helping to find transfer, help in getting people together, if ask him helping people to run a meeting. and they are out there everyday in places like lashkar gah. one of the areas that we find if you like the local authority really has to compete with the taliban is in the area of local justice. the taliban have these motorcycle course that they provide justice very quickly. so a lot of our records and those of others goes into helping the local community stand up, which might think up of as traditional justice so

that people can get decisions quickly. people suffer from intimidation from the taliban. when asked people what their main concern is, security comes out as one of, the major concern. so that's what we're engaged in. is trying to provide security for local areas so that they can go about their normal business. for example, in kandahar major general nick carter, his team were involved in building houses and offices for the district governor so that they could do their business, protected from intimidation. and the foreign secretary was saying, we can increase in the number of people coming to the district governor, the provinciaprovincial government rather than the local warlords to help. >> we often hear from diplomats, who are only there for a short period of time, didn't even know the language.

[inaudible] >> many of the diplomatic corps don't know the language. >> well, it an ideal world everyone would speak the local language, but that would require being able to repair hundreds of diplomats long in advance. of course, these are difficult postings where people serve usually for a year in kabul, with the option of another year, or six months in lashkar gah with an option of another six months. they are difficult hardship posting so it is difficult to turn over the personnel pretty regulate. so they have a disadvantage with new people that have to learn local culture and get to know the local leaders. i think you can see that is the only practical way in which we could do it spent excuse me, we do have a couple of speakers in each place in lashkar gah and in

kabul, and we have some very good locals who are bilingual. >> thank you. >> general caldwell in his presentation, commanding the training, points out that he's already quoted 250 times short, we'll be five on a traders sure that within a year we will be 900 trainers sure. the united states is looking for more support and training. at the same time,. [inaudible] can we not be looking adequate opportunity here to shift more and more towards training? >> we have done so, of course, already, the defense secretary mentioned order, the defense defense secretary sent well over 320 more u.k. personal with the devoted entirely to training. and it doesn't matter, this will require a lot more resources by

the improvements made over the last year. i think it's an important topic for a nato summit that is coming up at the end of this week. of course, the prime minister, defense secretary and i will attend. so yes, needs more attention. doesn't mean that over time or other british troops may be engaged in training quite well, there is a serious possibility of that, but we have to do that working with our allies, coordinating with our allies. and so all that we can announce for the moment is that figure. >> foreign secretary, the public in this country rather think we have taken on more than we can chew in afghanistan. do you think we have been overambitious? do you think our ambition should have been more modest? >> i think our ambition is our right one, provided we understand our ambition is our own national security. and that our objective is to achieve a situation in afghanistan where afghans can

conduct their own affairs without presenting a danger to the rest of the world. that does not mean we necessarily arrive at a situation when every valley in afghanistan is entirely peaceful. where there are no difficulty in the governance of afghanistan, where it has reached a point where it's not 190th on the corruption league, but 10th or 20th. those aren't very, very long-term objectives and so as long as our objective is realistic, then i think it is right to be what we've done since 2001. and this was a response to the event of 9/11, when it began. and then from 2006, never to stabilize the situation in other areas of the country. so provided we have a clear measure of objective, it is not overly. >> do think there are lessons to be learned for future situations

where conflicts need to be resolved? what lessons speedy's i'm sure there will be many lessons to be learned, and some of them will require the wisdom of being able to look back on all of this in the future. to start with the lessons of the highest level, this country needs to put as much resources as possible into conflict prevention around the world. so as we can see how expensive it is, how it costs us dear and human life as well as in financial terms, and in financial terms to engage in long-term substantial conflict. and i'm sure you would have heard what the prime minister has attempted up in more of international development, world conflict prevention. we are working very hard at the moment in the foreign office on the situation in yemen and sudan. that's why i am there, tomorrow i will cheer the u.s. security council on sudan about conflict

prevention is what we are concentrate on. so that is one of the first lessons. they won the doubt the other lessons about how a military intervention should be handled, if it has to take place. there will be lessons from iraq. the chilcot inquiry is looking at at the moment. i'm sure there'll be lessons about how many as well, about the initial deployment, and about many, many decisions taken since then. but it is, i think, really we have to concentrate in the government in finding our way to success in this situation, and that's got to be our prime concern. >> we do have a union in the foreign office that -- this will look at the results of the ira iraqi. >> i want to step back because i think that's one of the lessons that can be drawn from iraq as well. how people speak local

languages. the last foreign affairs committee said the ability engage with afghans in key local language is crucial in afghanistan. we are concerned nearly eight years after intervening in afghanistan they still have no pashtun speakers. what is the situation in 2010? >> this is a vital importance for the foreign office, and it's a wider subjected than the situation in afghanistan. we are a country noted for our language skills among our diplomats, when compared to many other nations of the world. but i was very concerned by the closure of the foreign office language, school. i've been looking in recent weeks at the language arrangements in the foreign office that is quite, back together again and we have all the budgetary constraints on government that we have now.

but i'm casting a critical eye over the current arrangements to see how they can be improved. then coming to the level of the specialism in this area, you're quite right, the committee has highlighted before the small number of speakers of the relevant languages. karen pointed out on this one are depression that we do have some people who speak local languages, and we make a great use of interpreters. can't give any more up-to-date figures than that, but i would point out, with a huge number of our diplomats who need to be deployed to a situation like this, and the inevitable human need to overtake them quite quickly, it's unlikely we will arrive at a situation where a large proportion of those diplomats will become in the local images of afghanistan. i think that is realistic. karen, can you add to that?

. . >> and so it's very evident to me n my visits to iraq and i imagine the same would be true in afghanistan. >> i do see the point about that, although i was impressed we have some incredibly hard working people in afghanistan, and i am always enormously impressed, as i hope you were on your visit, by the utter

dedication under very, very difficult circumstances. certainly, i think the committee is right to raise the point about the length of deployment. this has often struck me in the past looking at the length of service of the american military commanders in these situations who can go on for a very long time, although with substantial breaks back home. they organize it in a different way. but i am not averse to looking at how we can improve this in the future. >> if i could get back to that, mr. chairman, just on the language speakers. because of the program the foreign secretary's mentioned in his fresh look at this, more people will be trained in afghan languages over the coming years, though it's obviously not something we can put right instantly. but the proportion of speakers in the embassy, we would call it a hard language, it's roughly equivalent to hard language speakers in our other postings.

admittedly, afghanistan is more important, but it's certainly not disadvantaged because it's a conflict zone. >> are you able to give us a breakdown -- >> i can certainly do that, but i'm afraid i don't have it in my head. the additional advantage in using afghan interpreters in an attempt to be assuring to the local communities, the ministry has found it tends to build interest and confidence, so we do rely on our staff quite considerably. on your point of not letting lessons be lost through continuity of posings, absolutely. we are trying to see if we can somehow link postings so that someone would do a rotation in afghanistan, come back to london and work on the issue, and conceivably even share a posting in afghanistan. what they came to realize are not just on young people who have no family attachments, but we do want to try to get more experienced diplomats there.

more experienced diplomats tend to have families, so we need to try to get that balanced right as well. >> just a quick order -- >> [inaudible conversations] >> coming back to the 2014-'15 deadline when you say it's without question we will end, we will withdraw combat troops, we went into afghanistan because it was a fail state, and we thought that the terror attacks would come on to our own country if we didn't take action. what will happen in a situation where that happens again? do you rule out or does the coalition rule out putting troops on the ground if situation -- what went as bad as it was previously? >> we're clearly aiming here to create a completely different scene in afghanistan from anything that prevailed in the recent past. i've given figures earlier for the anticipated strength of the afghan national security forces just by 2011, let alone by 2014. i've indicated how they're already beginning to be able to

conduct the majority of the operations such as in the operations that karen was talking about earlier. and so our objective is, and it's an internationally-agreed objective, to create by 2014 a situation where afghan forces can lead and sustain their own operations throughout afghanistan. and it's consistent with that, therefore, for us to say what we've said about 2015 and to believe that if we achieve those objectives with regard to the afghan national security forces, we won't be placed again in the situation of 9/11. >> but the 2014-'15 deadline is set regardless of the situation that you find whether afghan army and police are ready to take over, whether they're able to take over. so it's possible, didn't say it's likely, but it's possible that the situation may deteriorate. at that point would you rule out coalition troops being used

again? this. >> this is a clear deadline. no one should be in any doubts about this whatsoever. let everyone's mind concentrate on this. the afghan government, our allies if necessary, this is absolutely clear what we've said about 2015. the prime minister was here, he would put it in equally trenchant terms. >> how would you stop terrorist attacks coming to the u.k. if we have a failed state again? >> well, i commented about the situation in 2025 or 2035. we're trying to create the conditions here in which we don't have a failed state, in which we have a state with one of the largest armies in the world able to conduct its own affairs. at least to the extent of not being a danger to the rest of the world in be line with the -- many be line with the national security objective, the realistic objective that i set out earlier. i think that is a realist

oibtive e -- realistic objective. >> thank you. >> can i just return to the issue of hearts and minds and the situation of civilian casualties, reports we've gotten many this committee e are casualties are going up, and this, in many ways, makes it easy for the taliban to make us look like an occupying government, etc., etc. history would suggest, you know, those countries, regimes that have militarily engaged with the west in the past, the old system has survived. communism has survived, cuba, north vietnam, north korea, perhaps even china. it fosters a sort of feeling of mistrust which plays into the taliban's hands. is there anything we can do to break into this cycle? >> well, so much of what our military effort is directed at doing working with the provincial reconstruction teams is to break into this circle. as you know, the military

strategy adopted at the highest level was redefined to be counterinsurgency involving the protection of the local population. isaf forces go to great lengths to protect local populations. they often take losses to protect local populations. the majority of civilian casualties are caused by the other side and they are caused by the ieds of the taliban and others. so i think it's very important to remember that, that we are the forces safeguarding the civilian population wherever possible. and i think karen may have the figures here, but i think it is around 70% of the civilian casualties that are caused by taliban acttivities and ieds. >> that's right. 70% of the casualties caused by the taliban, and the figure has gone up this year, but that's largely due toen increase in -- to an increase in the taliban

attacks. i think it's helpful to point out that, of course, any casualty that is caused by isaf is accidental. it is regrettable, and we've said so in the security council. as the foreign secretary said, we take all steps possible to minimize the risk that there will be accidental casualties, that the taliban, by contrast, actually go out and target civilians. >> we spent the last 55 minutes looking at afghanistan. for the last ten minutes before we go into the private session can we have a look at pakistan? mike. >> we've already asked you in the september your reaction to the prime minister's statement in india in which he referred to pakistan looking both ways and alleged that they were exporting terror to india, afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, or certainly it could be interpreted that way by the pakistanis. was he wise to make that remark

in india? >> yes. a good foreign secretary will affirm the prime minister's always wise. [laughter] to make remarks. [laughter] and then i think they were remarks which were wide ri supported and respected around the world, and it was said at the time by some commentators that that had damage relations with pakistan. i have to say in recent months relations between the u.k. and pakistan have been excellent. cooperation between our two goths has been excellent -- governments has been excellent. so if there was disquiet in the pakistani government about that, it has been more than overcome by the work that we have been doing together since then. >> we've had evidence from a number of sources that say that pakistan doesn't fully cooperate with the u.k. on counterterrorism issues. what's your reaction to that? >> well, there is a new demand

for cooperation on counterterrorism operations, very much on an operational basis. and, again, i don't think -- i can't go into the details of that in public, but certainly i would say that the cooperation on counterterrorism with pakistan has substantially improved in recent times. >> would you say, however, that it's not yet as unconditional and full as it might be? >> well, those things can be quite difficult to assess. it's often hard to be sure whether a country's giving all the information and cooperation that it could give. but nevertheless, i do stress, again, that we have, we have no current reason for complaint about that, and the cooperation has improved. >> it was put to us in pakistan that the pakistanis would like some sophisticated equipment so

that they're able to do the job themselves much more effectively. do we have concerns that we don't want to give certain equipment to pakistan because we're not quite sure where it might end up? >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> president zardari was complaining, he was saying he'd like to have access to the drone technologies. >> right. well, of course, the technology from this country is very carefully controlled, and we will look from it from a friendly country and all requests, but i'm sure you understand how carefully we control those things. >> but the point was made to us, look, you're asking us to do a job out here on the northwest frontier, but you're not giving us the technology we need. is there a case of we could be doing more to help them on the military front? >> well, i think we will always be careful in selling advanced technology and to many nations around the world. and, of course, we will have to

be careful in this case. >> can i just answer that we are getting by the e.u. export regime and some of the other regimes as the foreign secretary was saying. president czar da by has been worried about the keg ration of equipment among the pakistani armed forces. some of that relates to very sophisticated technology, some of it is more basic. the ministry of defense got a review on what help they can give to pakistan across the board, a i number of areas not just provision of equipment. >> the pakistani state or some of its agencies were involved in setting up the taliban in afghanistan. they did so at that time with western support. because they were used against the soviet union. how confident are we now that elements within the pakistani state, in particular the isi,

are willing and able to tackle those insurgents given their close historical links with them? >> well, i think we have seen a sharply increased willingness in pakistan to tackle insurgency in many different forms. and you're familiar, of course, with many of the military campaigns that they have undertaken and, indeed, the huge losses on the pakistani military have sustained. and i think it's very important, always, to recognize that. and so pakistan, i think, has a state, the government of pakistan including its intelligence services can now see very clearly after some of the terrible terrorist incidents they have themselves experienced the importance of tackling insur yen si and instability. >> and they've lost lots of people against the pakistani taliban. the question is are they prepared to act against the afghan taliban which might be a kind of proxy for an

organization of which they could still have some influence in the future? this. >> well, again i would say that the cooperation between our countries has improved in this area. but i would stress of course in a political settlement of afghanistan which we have been discussing earlier, the support and the active support of pakistan because of links that were established over a long time will be very important. >> >> is it a case of willingness or capability to take on the afghan taliban? the pakistani military have been pretty heavily involved though not totally successful in north waziristan, and yet we've still got baluchistan which is the main base of the afghan taliban. do you think it's a willingness and lack of capacity or do you think that it's -- [inaudible] >> well, the military capacity to deal decisively with every

threat in that kind of terrain is, of course, quite difficult to come by. so i think that always has to be understood. this is one of the most difficult areas in the world, again, as you know very well know as a former defense secretary. one of the most difficult areas in the world to control by military means. nevertheless, we have seen a greater increased willingness on the part of pakistan to confront insurgencies on their own territories to take action against terrorist groups. so i think i would like to emphasize that rather than be critical today that we have seen very important steps forward in tackling terrorism by the government of pakistan and, of course, we want those to continue. >> -- [inaudible]

but they point out to how many people they've lost in action and taken against the insurgency. they complain about the borders and the lack of border control, and they highlight how many border control people they've got on the border between pakistan and afghanistan, and they highlight the difference between our forces and their own. is there anything we can do to make the border more secure than it is now by putting more emphasis on the need to keep it tighter boundary than we've got at the moment? >> well, there may be over time. and, of course, there have been discussions about this between afghanistan and pakistan. which we very much encourage. again, it is following up a point i made to mr. ainsworth, this is one of the most difficult borders in the world to police. in some cases there would be argument about exactly where it was. but certainly there have been

international initiatives to improve cooperation on the borders, and we encourage those. karen, do you want to add to that? >> just to amplify that point, foreign secretary. the initiative that the canadians started about improving cooperation on the border between afghanistan pakistan, the international monitoring can help, and we're hoping the french will continue that under their g8 presidency, and there is something called the dubai process which also looks at the same issue on a slightly larger basis. so these things will continue, we hope. >> while we were in islam brad, the pack -- islam brad, the pakistanis were pretty clear they wanted to be involved. do you think we can trust them to be in on this broker? [laughter] >> well, i hope that in the region, i hope all nations in the region including pakistan will be able to play a supportive role in a political settlement. in afghanistan. but i think we should be careful about defining who is a broker

in bringing about such a settlement. this has to be an afghan-led process of reconciliation. >> exactly. and do you think the comment on u.s./pakistan relations here. they seem to be at loggerheads. we picked up hostility to the united states despite the fact that a substantial amount of aid is given by the united states to pakistan. we've got a role here, at least i believe we've got a role here. do you agree that we could be encouraging afghanistan -- pakistan and the united states to communicate better with each other so they can then work jointly towards a settlement? >> yes. i think the governments of pakistan and the united states do communicate effectively with each other. it is very important for the united states and the united kingdom to explain to the people of pakistan what we are doing.

and i strongly welcome the visits of fellow parliamentarians to pakistan. we have had, as i think was set out in memorandum sent to the committee, a large number of ministerial visits to pakistan under the new government, and on many of those visits we have gone out of our way to spend our time on the media in pakistan. i think i did an exceptional number of interviews on my visit to pakistan to explain to the people of pakistan about the role of the u.k., about the the extent of the assistance we are giving with education in pakistan. since then, of course, britain is one of the countries that has led the way in responding to the disastrous floods in pakistan, and so i think the u.k. and the u.s. and our allies have to communicate that as effectively as possible. and alongside a close relationship with india, to build a long-term strategic partnership with pakistan. those things go indices pence my together.

>> president zardari said he wanted to address this committee, and we will facilitate th tuwane universitys

an hour and 15 minutes. >> they're going to talk about the -- i'm going to introduce the moderator to say that he is the father of lee howard, an incoming freshman here this fall. it's a delight to have john harwood here and when you talk about people in journalism, john has got everything that you would think. he was started with the washington star, graduated magna consume lad di, and i graduated thank the lordy. [laughter] he's been on nsnbc and meet the press and everything you think

of when you think of being established. you are a given a really, really warm welcome from the people, john harwood and the father of an incoming freshman. [applause] and, giving you a waive on your tuition for being here. [laughter] >> exactly. i'm going to get micked up and thank james for that introduction and say if all the things he said aren't enough to make you dislike me, i'll add one more thing. i'm a duke guy and duke basketball fan and i know that's pretty popular most places, so bring it on.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> can you hear me now? okay. okay, guys, we have a fantastic panel. everybody's in the room. i'm going to introduce each one. i'm going to have a question for each one just to start us off, and it's going to be relatively short answers before we get into the broad subject of the panel which is is there any prospect for bipartisan prospects on the country's problems in the next

two years. first, matthew dowd works for a contributor and joined as a cull upist and strategic adviser and known to you as a lead strategist for president bush in his two campaigns in 2000 and 2004. he told carl rove what to do. [laughter] that was highly successful. [laughter] and he's also worked for arnold schwarzenegger for his campaign for governor and worked with business leaders connecting with the american community. steve mcmahon is a democratic strategist, and a cofounder of purple strategies in communications and public affairs firm. steve started in politics

working for senator ted ken dpi and -- kennedy and worked for several campaigns across the country including the campaigns of howard deen and barak obama. he emerged from a spectacular successful campaign working for marco rubio as ayers mentioned. todd has worked against matthew in the 2000 campaign in two different it rations. he worked for john mccain in the primaries and before that he worked for john casic early in the cycle, and it didn't last too long, but he's now the incoming governor in the state of ohio. whit there and kate zernike who

worked at the paper for ten years, the author of boiling mad, inside tea party america. she knows more about the tea party than anyone else on the platform. she was a member of the team that shared the pulitzer prize in explanatory reporting for stories about al-qaeda and the 9/11 attacks and covered scandals and the hurricane katrina. welcome all of you. let me start with the first question for matthew and it's reluctant cant to the -- relevant to the broader subject of the panel. math threw, -- matthew, i thought your key insight to president bush was the number of swing voters was small and the electorat had been polarized dramatically on both sides, and the reason the numbers didn't move up to the year was it was just a tiny

number of people who were capable of being purr sueded. -- persuaded. now, since that election, we've seen three different change elections where the independents have moved quite a bit, and i just wanted to get your updated take on the existence of the middle and how big it is in the current context. >> yeah, sure. thanks, john, it's great being here. actually, if anybody's acquainted with this thing, i'll give a quick history on it because it's been slightly misinterpreted. i think there is a big middle, but people are put in a position to have to make a choice between the two political parties, and when they do that, they line up and down the ballot. when they are in contention for a race, they make that decision up and down and vote all the way down to state rep, and why republicans did very well on

state rep races picking up nearly 700 seats because there was a republican wave and then people didn't like washington and voted republican up and down the ballot, but in 2004, i think that still takes place. this does not mean there is not a group of folks in the middle which is the majority of this country who are not pure ideological on either side, and that -- i remember this because i gave the memo that actually helped obviously move the stray ji for the campaign in 2004. there was two pages. the first page was there's a loss of the middle overtime and in 2004, there was a president who was polarizing to added to that and democrats hated him and republicans loved him and few people were in the middle of that. i put this together after 2000. because somebody says they are a republican, does not mean they

are socially conservative, for smaller government, and always want lower taxes. if you look at people who say that, that represents 25% of the country. people who say i'm a socially conservative, if you govern that way or the opposite way of that which is bigger government, higher taxes, socially liberal, you represent a minority share of the public. i think that going back to reflect on president bush, while it was successful in the campaign, he in the end got positioned in the place where he only represented a minority of the country in how he governed, and so we are still a country that people -- this could be a different panel whether or not we need another party in this system, that people have to make a choice, and in most national elections, most elections are nationalized, and when they are nationalized,

people have a tendency to vote not necessarily straight ticket, but they pretty much vote straight ticket in practice going down the ballot saying i don't like president obama and i vote for republicans. let's say practice with the major swings in the country and affect from top to the bottom. >> hey, i want to get you talking about the tea party and a lot of the argument over the interpretation of the election has been about what the tea party really is and what it represents, and i heard ed on the previous panel, and i agree with him, say that in the main, the tea party was a substantial asset for republicans in the campaign even though people focused on the tea party as a problem, but on the plane down here, i was reading a piece that a liberal historian wrote about the tea party, and he took some of the rhetoric and some of the strains of arguments that

prominent tea party figures have been using saying these are the heirs to the 50s and 60s, and the smart conservatives during that period of time recognized that the more exposure that group of conservatives got, the worse it would be for republicans and conservatives trying to keep them down, and the conclusion of the piece was the guardrails are off on that, and i guess what i want to know is do you think that the tea party is fundamentally and ideological force, and that's where the zeal comes from, or is it a group of people of whom are in the middle as matthew said who are upset, and moving in the same direction, but not motivated by the same things? >> i'd say in terms of being in the middle, that's a different question. poll after poll after poll in

what shows tea party tends to be republicans. there's talk early on that they were independents who voted for obama and they were upset now and that's not the case. they decided themselves as conservative and that's true. within the tea party i think there is a split that is going to be problematic moving forward because it starts out with people who were very ideological, most libertarian ron paul supporters or of that strain, but as the tea party swelled and the great proportion of it now are people who came to it with frustration and no ideology. the first segment, the ideological vent is they do believe in things like, you know, saving accounts and investment acts and not social

security. a lot of the older voters in particular who have come to the tea party don't share those goals. i think it's a question going forward and particularly talking about spending cuts, i don't know many of the people said that they were tea party supporters. i don't know that they would go along with the cuts that some of the more ideological tea partyers talked about. >> you mentioned you were on both sides of the wave on the campaign and working for senator hutchenson against rick perry, and she was rolled over by that tea party wave in the general, and you worked for marco rubio in the general. what is your assessment of the tea party, and how susceptible they will be towards working with president obama and democrats, the cut of people who would follow rather than punish republican leaders who made compromises and deals?

>> well, there's no question in texas, you know, the exact same wave that marco rubio road successfully -- rode successfully to the senate was the same one that crushed hutchenson in texas fueled largely out of anger over spending, earmarks, the bailout. i have a slightly counterintuitive take on the tea party and bipartisanship just to define counterintuitive in the world of critical panels, people who make something up. [laughter] i think that the establishment in washington views the tea party movement as almost like a doaberman pinchers, one you're glad to have around, but scared of. it would behoove the leadership

in washington to let some of that tension out of the tea party balloon, let some of that anger, let it vent out a little bit in the way that you do that is to give them some of what they want, and so that actually, that suggests some amount of bipartisanship in washington whether it's on spending or even some of the giant issues, you know, entitlement reform, marco rubio won in florida by 19 points, and he was one the only candidates anywhere in the country who said if you elect me, i'm going to support changing social security, and we need to talk about raising the retirement age, and we need to talk about means testing for benefits. all these things you're never supposed to mention, marco rubio talked about, and that's in florida of all places, and so in terms of what the tea party

means going forward for the republican party, i think that if our leadership, the republican leadership, doesn't do some things to give them some of 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 election, and we as republicans are going to end up with a nominee who has just absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning in november. >> just to understand where you're comeing from, when you say give them some of what they want, do you mean like in the early moves to organize the congress? are you talking about things down the line? for example, would it be smart to say, okay, you get the job in the leadership. >> no, no, i'm talking about real -- [laughter] you know, i don't think -- there's very few members of the tea party waking up every

morning mad as hell about what committee assignment michele bachmann gets, but they are mad as hell about spending and especially younger tea party members, they don't necessarily know what it is they just voted for, but i do think 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, the dobberman to come after us in two years, we have to do something substantive to reduce the amount of tension. >> i'll come back to that, but steve, from a democratic perspective. the pursuit of bipartisanship and the health of the democratic party, inn sigh pelosi wants to remain a democratic leader. is that a good or bad thing?

>> that's a great thing. >> [laughter] >> fantastic. [laughter] it's a complicated thing. [laughter] it is, it is. [laughter] i think the fact is that the speaker has been, i think, the most effective speaker in maybe 100 years. she basically got everything the president wanted passed, passed, and she did it sometimes in an ugly way because she understood what it took to get members of the congress to take very, very difficult votes. now, obviously, in the recent elections, democratics didn't do so well, and there's a lot of people who will blame nancy pelosi. she was demonized by the republican party i think unfairly, and her numbers reflect that. does she deserve to be the leader? absolutely. should she be the leader? i think that question is a little more nuanced because her numbers are such that the singlism of leaving her there leaves problems for democrats. on the other hand --

>> when you heard she was running again, were you disappointed? >> i was not surprised frankly because she's a very, very tough cooky, and she did a great job, and people who do a great job getting the work of the house of representatives done, deserves to be able to go out on their own terms, and i think that she's going to get reelected because she's strong. i think she's going to do an effective job of drawing distinctions between the democrats and republicans because that's what she does well. i understand why the republicans can say it's great when nancy pelosi has numbers that are not attractive, i'm just being honest here, creates a target for republicans, but i think she deserves to be reelected, and i'm happy with her as the leader in the house. >> let me ask you a leadership question about your party. one of the things of the issues discussed over the last 10 or 15 years about republicans was that they were -- the party and its spokes people

and leading figures were too weighted to the south which is the most conservative part of the country, so 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] yes, it's a good thing. the upper midwest in particular was an enormous boost for republicans 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 sectional party. it is quite clearly now a national party, and there this was a national victory for republicans. >> stan, you have been around when the president got whacked in the midterm. you talked about 1994. tell me about what you expect and what you think should happen

as to whether or not president obama needs to fundamentally change something either substantively or in terms of communications in the white house or as james told me talking before this panel, you know, maybe the best thing for obama is to sit tight for awhile and let republicans make the first move. >> uh-huh. well, first of all, having been there, you know, i know this has many acts that have not played out. the first reaction is a pain reaction. we know the meeting in the cabinet and the change there in which the president talked about all the people lost in the election and felt great pain and guilt for what happened. you know, but, you know, he took action for months that changed his presidency, and i have no doubt that president obama will, you know, learn from this and make, you know, important

moves. you know, the most important one is he signaled on the focus on the economy, and his every reaction has been on that since that. that's a very important change. the piece we expected most from him which was a narrative around what he was doing is not what happened in the process of governing. he clearly has to have a knavetive in showing -- narrative in showing people where we are going. that's a long process. he has two new things here, and the -- his instipght was to -- instinct was that transcend washington and when he ran he focused on the economy, but that wasn't his focus before that. he was focused on a different style of politics in washington. i think he will view this new moment of opportunity and bipartisanship. he will do --

i don't know what areas he'll move on. i think he should move and not sit back. he should show he's ready to move in areas people will find surprising. >> will he involve people who work for him? one of the complaints that emerged and i don't know if it is valid or not, there's two people advising him. after 1994, you had dick morris, mike mccurry -- >> right. >> is that something that's important symbolically or factually? >> i don't want to speak to it, but you know, i'm sure, i mean, every president has a change at this point with this kind of election, there's changes. i don't know what, you know, what they will be, new chief of staff possibly, a whole range of thing. >> matthew is itching to say something. >> i think the president is in a different spot than bill clinton

was in 1994 and a problematic spot. bill clinton's ability to control his disney was -- destiny was in his hands because what brought him the failures wasn't a disastrous economy because the economy going into the reelection was rising and beginning to do very well, but he lost because the public thought he was off on the wrong track and mismanaged and he corrected miscommunications problems, brought in people, the health care thing he had done, and when he corrected them, the economy was on the rise, and he was rewarded for that. i think barak obama could make personnel choices and 72 speoses and say he's -- speeches and say he's doing all this stuff, but if the economy doesn't change, he won't get rewarded for a management change, and that's a much different place. >> alternatively if the economy does get better, does that mean all the critique about his

policy agenda saves -- >> well, that's the interesting thing. there wouldn't have been any tea party this year if the economy was doing well. >> he could have passed health care reform and he would have won midterm elections. it's totally his destiny which is interestingly like ronald reagan, but the huge differences between ronald reagan and barak obama is the ability for the president to improve the economy. his ability to change that dynamic of the economy is, i mean, it's like he's going to pray that the economy does better because if it doesn't, he's lost. >> right. >> if it doesn't, it doesn't matter. >> everything we say -- there's a now set of rules in the game. >> do you agree with what matthew said?

you know, if the economy is in slightly better shape or the unemployment rate went down and the momentum from the spring hadn't faded, the context is set by what matthew said. do you agree with that in >> i think it explains a 30 seat loss in the house. it can't explain a 60-plus seat loss in the house, and the additional 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 an auto bailout. >> a 30 seat loss is baked into every first midterm. >> not every one. it was not in 2002. >> right, but it's consistent? >> you could explain half of the

democratic 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 direction 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, whit can tell you when we did polling in florida, the swingiest of all the swing states, and we asked people what they thought this election was about and asked focus groups, and they really felt this vote was about fundamentally changing the direction of our entire nation, and so if that's what is fueling -- >> isn't that another way to say what matthew just said? >> yeah, yeah, i agree with matthew. >> whether my kids are better off than i am. >> exactly. i agree with matthew. if you're looking for specific

course corrections to make, you know, we all remember after 1994, suddenly you talked about school uniforms and things like that 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. >> i just have to dissend the president here. these guys talk about these were choices the president made rather than things thrust upon him. 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 bailout wall street and the banks. he didn't do any of that because he wanted to. i'm going to pass this stimulus package because the world financial system is about to collapse. he didn't say those things

because they were not things he chose to do, but he had to do. >> excuse me were one second -- [applause] >> i understand that there are people whose lives, that they are struggling, they don't have jobs, and i understand there's people out there who felt the stimulus package was not eivelgive as it -- effective as it should have been, and i think president obama would say that and i know people feel the government is too involved and spending too much money. these are choices he made. the one choice he made was health care reform that he promised during the campaign and did. i would argue he spent too much time on it and could have done it differently and would have been better off, but they got it done. the only choice that he made, everything else was something that your party left on his desk. >> the other thing -- [applause]

the other thing that president obama never said once during the 2008 election is if you elect med, i'm going to turn over control of all of my signature issues to nancy pelosi and harry reed and let them write and get them up with democratic spending plan that they wanted to get done. i'm baffled. i've always been baffled why it is that the spouse seated control of the signature issues to people who didn't understand the reasons why the president got elected in the first place. >> i'm going -- >> 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 when they passed the stimulus bill, is that the stimulus bill you wanted? they said yes, we want that

bill. it didn't help them, but they got a bill. on health care, i think what they did is say i wanted a cheap health care reform, and i think the best strategy for doing it is to set out a certain set of principles and let them get them done, and i say on the evidence of being the only person who got it done in 70 years, it was a successful strategy, but i want to back up a little bit and refer to a group i had at my house, republican and democratic, they worked for members of the house and senate before the election, and everybody knew at that point it was going to be a big election for republicans. 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 appropriations bills, and it's just going to be basically an

extension of the 2010 campaign run in to 2012, and there's no other way around it. i want to start with steve and whit and see if you agree that's in fact what's in prospect. >> 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. >> matthew? >> what? [laughter] i have had more criticism over the last five years. >> i do think it's going to be interesting because if the tea party folks have a decision to say no and mitch mcconnell has been rewarded for saying no for two years, and when the tea party is asked to raise the debt ceiling, i think they're all going to say no, and i don't see a reason why they would compromise and say yes. this notion they're coming to town and scheduling votes to release the pressure and they can take a stand on things i

think is just wishful thinking on our part. >> you agree with the proposition next to nothing gets done in two years? >> i absolutely agree. >> do you agree? >> it's a matter of the odds, that's the most likely outcome, but i also think these independents we talked 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, taxes, and deficits. now, you'll see in our survey that the republican voters are more adamant than the democrats to stick to core principles, but the good news ed mentioned is they are closer to core republican voters than democrat voter 6789 i think the independents are going to demand something happen, and they are the ones -- >> here's -- i want to ask kate -- >> the problem we have which is why i think this meeting and meets like this are or not is

because if you turned it over to the 120 million americans and say what do you want? they say we need to get stuff done because it's in the interest of the country. the question you have from the administrative standpoint and democratic leadership and republican leadership's stand point is are they going to pay attention to a small minority ideological who represent tea party people, but not frustrated voters, are they going to pay attention to those and do nothing on both sides, or are they basically going to say no, the mass of the country helps our own reelection in 2012, both president obama and the republican leadership in congress would help them if they appeal to the voters, do they have the capability of listening to many voices unheard in the cable channels and in the halls of congress. that, i think, is the problem. the vast majority of independents want something done, but they don't have the phone to talk in the ear of a

boehner and the folks in congress have all the time. it's the loudest most minor voices in the republican party. >> kate, i want you to talk about this. if, in fact, and i accept there's attention in obama's platform between the substantive agenda in the campaign that he pursued, and the motion he was going to change the way washington works. as ed said, he sidetracked the latter to achieved former because he thought it was more important, i think. is there an equivalent tension with the tea party of getting stuff done, work together, stop fighting, and stand up for what you believe in, cut the hell of the government, and -- >> absolutely. >> how does that get resolved? >> it's an ideological divide and people who came in with incredible frustration. the tea party is not a party, it's a state of mind at this point. it's hard to define of the there's no particular agenda

they were elected to act on. >> as you said, it's not only not a party, it's within the republican party. >> absolutely, but aims, i think -- but also, it's true that tea party candidates came in with, you know, having said we're going to say no, but i don't think that's what tea party voters are saying. i don't think they want gridlock. some do, and again, some tend to be ideological or so fed up with washington that nothing can happen. >> rand paul and sharon angle got votes from people who don't actually agree with what they would do. when rand paul is not extending the debt limit, do you think people voted for him who don't want that to happen just move forward? >> i think people voted for candidates like rand paul because they were frustrated with washington and wanted something to change, but 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 have gridlock. i think there's regional differences of the tea party. when i went to kentucky with rand paul, audiences were cheering gridlock, gridlock. they were excited about that idea. you don't hear the same thing in philadelphia where the tea party also had victories. they are people who say, you know, we're tired. we don't like the process of health care, the special deals of health care. they want -- again, they want to reform washington. you know, it's interesting. i wrote a piece last week of people interviewed in the same spot in nevada, and one said i want gridlock. another guy brought up a commissioner from years ago and said why can't democrats and republicans come together, doing something for the good of the country. why can't we have more of that? we're in the exact same spot with no regional differences.

i think within the tea party there's difference, and i don't think the tea party voters want gridlock. >> this is incredibly difficult to do indicated by this poll. by two to one the republicans and work of the president want to get stuff done, but two-thirds of republicans say president obama is trying to do ire revoke harm to the country and another is in the intensity of their views. it's going to be difficult to work with. on the other hand, i think that they, i think the president will force them to address these issues because i think he will see this opportunity. i think -- i wouldn't rule out on something like energy. it may in fact be good policy, but nonetheless, there's a set of policies on energy that

virtually everybody supports. there will be moments with republicans and democrats need to pass something to show they can act for the country's interest. i think energy is one that is the most likely to figure out something on the tax thing and there's a deal with it going forward. .. >> probably going to pass in the house. all of these things are going to be able to cast the votes to say this is what we did.

there's enough adults that are going to prevent some of it from happening. they get a free pass. >> 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 are managing the unruly children and the kind of hair that the might riot and wreck the car. that's the dynamic we are dealing with. [laughter] >> it's a parental thing there. >> i've got a lot more respect for voters than a lot of people do. i think the tea party movement, we've done a lot of focus groups with them, 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 loss my job with the company i've been in 35 years, my husband thinks he'll lose his job. we're in our 50s. truly the people in washington, republican and democrat are just not listening to them. that they are giving their money -- [applause] >> that they are giving their money to bailout wall street and they don't care about them. this is a cry of frustration. they are not children. they are not blind to the choices being faced. but they are saying we don't want the country to keep spending like we are spending and mortgages our kids' future. they have to stop that and figure out how to help the middle class that feels economically depressed. that's the message of the tea party. [applause] >> well, in that frustration,

would the voters and the politicians that represent them have an incentive to welcome a government shutdown, a defeat of the debt limit as a sign that god dammit, something is going to be different. >> no, they don't. they want government to work effectively to address the problems that they feel are pressing them. they are not into symbolic shutdowns of the government. >> real quick point on that. if you look at -- you know, there's so much written out about marco rubio. but it's important to listen to what marco says. in his victory night speech, he said, i'm paraphrasing here, it would be a mistake to embrace as 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 were going to do originally. and so, you know, i think that there are leaders like him, i'm bias obviously, there are people like marco who can put a foot in each camp. he has absolute credibility on the tea party side, and he has creditability on the leadership side. he's willing to say, the republican party, we deserved to get thrown out of office. we are 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. he sort of struck a similar profile. he said base clay that a, center of my country. they don't like the way that obama is going. they want to change the direction. b, they want people to stop fighting and get stuff done. he said the way to think about it you figure out a set of

things to do together. do them. save your big fights for later. if they are not able to do that, i think you could be looking at the dismemberment of the two parties. do you agree with that? do you think it's actually a possibility? it's the kind of things we think about all the time, and it never happens. >> at least on the republican side, there's enough anger with the grassroots of our party, i don't think it would be something that would happen in the next two years. but it could marginalize the republican party and slowly suffocate it. people will just stop turning out and voting. which was the point i was making earlier, it's in our leadership, the republican party's leadership 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. we got to do something that take some of the air out of it. >> matthew, do you think party

crack up is a clear and present prospect? >> well, it's remarkable how low the esteem is in both parties. we asked the third party. beginning to explore that question. it's a little indetermined. i think the country -- i think the third party ross perot-type candidate would run very well. >> like bloomberg? >> possible. bloomberg is not the profile of the candidate that i would pick to make the most out of the frustration. it ought to be more of a -- bob perot is more of a republican party in terms of asset. there's a lot of space for third party voting. >> you know, the best thing possible for our system would be the emergence of a new party. the history of our country, we've had two political parties. one party, we've gone through similar, not exactly similar things. one party changes and adapts.

the democratic party today is not what the democratic party py --ed democrat and republican parties were not with the democrat and republican parties were 60 or 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 con pete with the two parties is probably less likely. the ability of one party to remake itself where they are now sort of reflective of where the majority of country is is definitely a possibly. i think we would benefit from that. i think it contingent on what happens in 2012. if barack obama's numbers continue to deteriorate, and the republicans nominate a sharon angle, it makes the window -- i'm not saying any former alaska governor's names -- if that happens. not a bloomberg. i think if bloomberg wanted to, in my view, have a third party,

take $500 million, create a platform and institution and have somebody else nominate him. i don't think he fits. i can't see him winning missouri, he has so many things he's done in alaska. alaska. sorry. [laughter] >> so many things he's done in new york that don't fit a majority of the country. >> matthew, do you think it's more likely than not that obama gets reelected? >> that's a very interested -- there's so many factors in that. i think it's going to be -- i said this earlier in front of a group of people. in barack obama -- if the economy creates 150,000 in the next two years, he loses. i think stan or somebody alluded to this, are we are in a fundamentally different place that this is not going to allow him to readjust himself in a

fundamentally different place than it has. >> we are deleveraging. i agree with whit. i trust 300 million americans much more than i trust 300 million people in washington to make decisions in their best interest. the 300 million people in washington don't really follow what the majority of voters want. we have lost -- the public has lost faith in trust and every major institution at the same time. the federal government, the financial institutions, the media, the two political parties, churches, sports institutions. all at once. >> cowboys. [laughter] >> and that i think is a problem. that creates not only economically, great anxiety. how are we going to bind ourself together? we have had two presidents this a row that got elected on the same message.

we are going to bring people together to share the common interest. both presidents said you are not going to have to go through pain. we are not going to go through pain. nobody has to pay the bill. president bush and president obama got elected on the same platform and did diverted from that in almost the exact same way, ideology differently, but the same way. >> real quick to your question. i think it would be a mistake to narrow discussion about a possible third party as specifically to the realm of running for president. because i think what you could see is, you know, 50 individual little laboratories and just, 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 hasn't had to go through the republican primary process where she was -- she then became a republican and had to move to the right of steve foysner. meg is not a perfect candidate.

once she did that, it was hard for her to get back. if someone like whitman, especially in the blue states, the republican brands, you know, on the west coast is tarnished. it was the one place that this red tie that, you know, it never hit out there. >> over 50% in california. >> someone like a meg whitman out west running for governor, i think there could be real possibilities. >> we should not drop matt's point. matt's -- he couldn't say the probability of obama being re-elected. if we are a more vibrant country than that. i think we are. but if you think our gross is 4%, which is not great postrecession, 4%, right now we are creating 150,000 at 2%.

if you are talking about 34% and a slow drop of unemployment, i would think the president does have a better and even chance of getting re-elected. and the mood dramatically. but we are close to an argument that this is premised on what do you think america's future is? this last election was the 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 kate defend us. if necessary. the question -- >> no, i can't imagine it would be. >> the question is if 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, pragmatic solutions to the countries problems, or are we simply just describing the aspects of the problem that exists in the political system. steve? >> it seems to me that the internet has changed so much. one the things that has changed most profoundly is the way people get their information. 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. people got up and read the papers and local papers. >> still does that by the way. >> i know. i understand that. but you can see what's happening online. and you had three networks, abc, cbs, and nbc. you watch the evening news was balanced. >> abc still does that.

>> so does nbc. [laughter] >> the viewership is 1/3 of. people are getting news from places and sources that they agree with and that align with their point of view. so if you are a republican, you get a lot of your news from the fox news. if you are a dramatic, nbc. if you are a young person, you think jon stewart is an evening newscast. i'm serious. we have done focus groups with kids and we ask them where they get their news. they don't read newspapers. they do to sites that sort of align with their point of view. so it's not that you are doing a bad job. 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 play things right down the middle, which i

quibble with, i basically agree with steve. marco rubio built up a 2-1 lead over a popular incumbent governor in his own party in florida without running a single paid television ad. without running a single ad. it was a stunning example of the proliferation of information sources and the ability to communication 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 of the republicans and activist and marco created the national movement, certainly national fund raising, all without running a single tv ad. >> stan, rean independent problem? >> no, it's important to the internal republican party. i'm sorry. >> are we an independent obstacle to bipartisan progress. if so, big one or small one?

>> media. cable driven aligned is for sure. i'm not making a judgment about the major newspapers. and major, you know, network news and cnn, but the cable process is i don't want to say obstacle. it's a fact. that's how people with getting the information. that's how you have to operate. i wouldn't rule out the fact that major stories that are in print journalist impact the way issues and stories, you know, play out. you know, you can't have afghanistan, i don't think, without -- there are major issues in which the media play a big part on how the public looks at it and also how the partisan aligned media. >> i've seen you on cable tv. how do you plead? >> plead? balanced? >> i was thinking guilty or not guilty. >> what i worry about is what you are saying is correct. that people are so hungry for

something that's not either side. i written the book that very consciously tried to come up through the middle and look at the tea -- the publish cast and i made a conscious decision there was a lot of polemic out there. i'm a columnist. i couldn't write a polemic. so there was merit in saying we're going to take an objective as possible look. certainly conservatives think i'm not objective, liberals think i'm too objective. you can't win on that score. i think we produced a pretty good balanced effect. i worry that people aren't that interested in it. they want something -- >> setting the tea party aside. do you think it's bad? >> do i think it's bad? no. reveal your real under line. >> no, so i worry. you know, i think, look, the fact is -- i think stan's points about afghanistan goes to this this.

there's a certain amount of content. people want to go to the respective corners. >> what is equally worrisome to me, taking aside -- taking off my republican hat and my political consultant hat and putting my american hat on. the total's estimation of state press corpses in state capitols across the country is very alarming for the country. because -- [applause] >> -- people on both sides are not getting vetted the way they used to be. stories that used to be no brainers that would be written ten years ago are not being written anymore. that's not good for our democracy. >> we're going to go to q and a in a second. one question before the panel. that strikes me as not totally ridiculous and implausible. 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 what actually achieved progress. assume that the big systemic legislative programs are -- they are 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 his interest. instead, if you take -- obama had long talked about a turn towards deficit reduction after you get out of the first two years. he's got the deficit commission. they are not going to have a big systemic deal on the long-term deficit either. why couldn't you have a president who makes legislative compromise with the president on energy, not cap-and-trade, but some energy stuff. some trade, move some trade agreements forward. you then have the president and

republicans go about spending cuts and governmental perform in ways that are not big dollar wise but are symbolic and might have the capacity to raise confidence in the american people that they are looking at where their dollars are going. and being smarter about it. why is that not a recipe for calm down politics for the next say 12 months or so, and some actual headway that make people feel better. is it? >> i think it's a possible scenario. i think most the folks who are identified as independents there would welcome that outcome. i don't think it's likely. but i think it's possible. >> i think it's in a political interest of the press -- to free up the country's -- california isn't the country. it is in the political interest, i believe of the president, to move on this. to do it. to take the heat, the partisan heat out of it. this ideological, intense, you

know, this hot house is not good for his politics. i think he needs to let the steam out. >> i completely agree. that's the point that i was making before. i think it's in the republican and establishment of the republican parties 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? >> well, i think what stan said. >> 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's interest me is what stan was talking about in the previous panel. are the republicans going to make the same mistakes on health care that obama did. are they going to keep putting the up or down vote, repeal and replace. where do you stand on health care? make that their issue. >> i don't think any -- i don't

think he will benefit from any legislative victories at all as a president. i think the thing that he needs to do is figure out the best way to restore faith and confidence in our economic system and what's the path forward in that system and how to do that bipartisanwise? >> spending cuts the way to do that? >> spending cuts. not like $10 billion here, $12 billion here. it's a much bigger deal. if you want to send the signal. he, i think, from the political stand point and the future of the country, the best thing that could happen, he called up speaker-elect boehner, we are going to put all of the stuff aside. the economy is in shambles. we're going to have to tell people why the promise land is and tell people how to get there. boehner may say have good luck with that. have a good time. his political interest is whether people have confidence in our economic system and

business as it is to invest in that system. if they don't feel that confident, we can do all sorts of legislative things. he's dead. >> right. so trade progress. symbolic cuts. that won't do it. >> he has to go to 10,000 feet and convince the american public that he is is a person that believes in our economic system, and that we can have some confidence in it. so businesses start to invest and small businesses feel like they have a hand and partner in washington, not an enemy. >> steve, do you agree with matt? >> it's rhetorical and sort of communicating a vision rather than doing little things with congress. >> totally with matthew. one the things that was so attractive about barack obama the candidate, what we can do and be and become again. i think there are a lot of people out there, particularly the people who are scared and

feeling the economic pressure that want somebody to stand up and say we can do this. here's how we are going to do it. i think if you can stand with some republicans and do it together, that'd be better. i think there's some symbolism in making some spending cuts and doing some things to kind of restore people's confidence that he heard them in the last election. but in the main, what he needs to do is do up here and say here's where we can go together. yes, we can. here's how we're going to do it. he hasn't been able to do that. >> don't let the kumbya get out of hand. there's two issues. one the question of growth. growth is not just narrative and rhetoric. democrats have a point of view. they want to do investments, infrastructure, they want to do things. there was a real -- there's a real -- ultimately, because he won't be able to pass any of that stuff. when they come to the election,

that issue is going to be there. they are also going to get to the tax increases, there's a big question which will be put off to the election. do wealthy people pay for the deficit reduction? are they part of the pain. that's going to be a big choice in the election. this is all fine in terms of getting there in the right way. just as in, you know, 96 with bill clinton. you have a big battle over the welfare, spending, there was ultimately a big battle over the big choice. going to get to a big battle. >> the policy of the president, so far, in my opinion has not been wrapped in the aspirational narrative that he was so good as in the campaign. what you need is to get his mojo back. to be able to get that back and say all of the policies that the democratics are promoting, and all of the places that we can meet republicans in the middle are a path to get us to a better place. here's what that's going to mean

for you in ohio, michigan, and one the swing states i need to get re-elected. the largest narrative is missing. >> he saw what people saw as a leader of the country to a leader of the party. people elected a leader of the country. when head transition was made, and people perceived his decisions -- his decisions they were making. whether they were the right ones or wrong ones, he lost that. >> republicans said he won't get one vote. >> he never really asked. you know that. >> if you have a question, we have a little bit of time. and with have a microphone. [laughter] >> wow. >> and if you have a speech, we'd be delighted to hear. >> actually the american public did repudiate some of the tea party. sharon angle, joe miller, comic relief on the east coast and

california, although some did give in. now you've got the cats that are running around. it's going to be up to the republican leadership to heard them. isn't it in the best interest of the republican party to maintain the gridlock with the biggest prize being to defeat obama? >> let's not do that. [laughter] >> i mean again that was the point that i was making before was 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 that you put in the tea party tank, the danger and so, you know, on the surface, if you are a republican, that's great. the danger, however, is having that tea party wave actually then come crashing down on every

establishment republican. orrin hatch in europe. just a few years ago, the notion would have been absurd. lindsey graham in south carolina. there are going to be -- they are always going to be the element. the better 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 were just -- they are not the idealogues, not the partisans. they were just angry. those people need to be spoken to and their issues and concerns need to be addressed or they are going to be angrier in two years. >> okay. guying, we have only a few minutes. i'm going to try to limit to one wise respondent. we will move it around. >> you touched on this a little bit. social security and government shutdown, do you think there's a

disconnect that i'm for gridlock or social security reform or what the specifics of that moon. obama with health care, i want health care reform. is there a disconnect between i want health care reform and health care reform means increased -- you know, could mean increased spending? something like that? >> yeah, there's a disconnect. part of what happened with president obama and health care if 80% of the people who were voting and wanted health care reform had health insurance. what they wanted, the public state, they wanted lower health care premiums, lower cost, and expanded access. they got higher premiums, increased cost, and there's still a question about what access is able. it's probably been expanded. they wanted health care reform. people know we need social security reform. if you gave truth serum to all of the republicans and democrats

at the conference, they could come up with a solution fairly quickly of what we need to do if you gave them truth serum. because everybody knows we have a problem with that. but -- and the country knows. it's bankrupt. there's people here from tulane. they don't think they will get social security. my kids, 25, 24, 21, they don't think we will have it. we are paying for a system that's never going to benefit them. there is a disconnect. but it 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's -- that is fundamentally the problem. the public is pretty smart. if they are given the right facts that and they are told the truth. but on social security reform, they have not been told the truth by either political party. >> amen. next question. >> couple of quick questions. for todd in records to pelosi

saying, how do you respond to the argument though she's unpopular, what she did was the right thing to do? >> well, from a political polit? >> that's not his department. >> from a political consultant, they can make that argument for the next two years. i know a lot of direct mail vendors that are thrilled to take the exact same mail pieces that they mailed out, change the 10 to the 12 and mail out the same one again. >> fair enough. as a political matter, yes. what about her point on the justice of the thing. put yourself in the position of if it 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. you know, the political rather of it is very different from whether she deserves to be made minority leader. >> but address that party. the deserves party.

>> earlier, if she says as minority leader. >> honestly, like, i don't care. it's not my cocktail. >> yes. >> and kate, how did kristin o'donnell get 40% in delaware. how did that happen? >> well, i think people are always saying the tea party is astroturf. it's not grassroots, made up in washington. she was the ultimate it was a grassroots movement. the groups in washington didn't want kristen o'donnell to win. it was people in delaware who believed, hope against hope, they could win the two southern counties. that was enough for her to win the primary. she did. there's certain republican votes who are always going to be vote republican. but the reality is my cast -- the numbers absolutely switched. so. >> sir. >> conspicuous with his absence has the christian right and

their agenda. i guess my question is did these folks get rolled over by the tea party? did they willingly sign up? and considering the very different priorities that these two groups bring in social issues and economic issues, there's a potential for the subplot playing itself out over the next couple of years as these two groups begin to 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 under ground. >> my questions about marco rubio and the republican party, he's thought of the obama the

republican thought about being a minority candidate. he is an english only. he is pro immigration controls and stuff like that. if he doesn't run on one the big concerns, like the latino community, is that all for show that he happens to be latino or is there a breakthrough because he's latino. >> marco rubio shows how you can run as a conservative republican and how they can win latino votes. >> for the record, marco does not support glib -- glib -- english only. he does support making it the official language, but not english only policies.

on the previous panel, 56% of the latino vote in florida. we did very well not only with the cuban vote, but the noncuban, hispanic vote. if you look at data in florida, the issue that is were most important to latino voters were the exact same issues that were most important to white voters and every other voter segment. he was able to tap into that. >> sadly, we only have time for one more questions. that's youred. >> sort of two questions. one is weak. the first 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 happen a lot. >> yeah, sure. >> it is. all right. >> yeah. >> and the second question is, like, it's been mentioned there's been tea-party like

groups in the past. how do they end? is that end result likely for the tea party and their leaders leadership? >> i think -- >> go ahead. i'm sorry. >> i'll cut in. yes, absolutely there has been other groups. i compare to the goldwater movement. you saw the libertarian of goldwater and the christian supporters. and the reagan revolution. they tend to support other sources. >> the movement that put barack obama in office was a minority anti-war movement that started off with a -- people with voices that they say they thought were way out. they respected a large part of the population. they swept bush. the tea party because it's been branded tea party. nos -- it's not a party. it's a movement that people

speak for. in similar ways because of all of the anti-bush and anti-iraq, they don't always speak for the minority, but represent the frustrations and anger. >> all right. in response to your question, it is appropriate at this time to clap. [applause] [applause] >> thank you all again for coming. this concludes or morning sessions. we are going to take a brief break for lunch. a limited number of box lunches out to the ballroom.

irector of the congress project here and your moderator today. those of you who are new, let me tell you about what we do. the wilson center was created by an act of congress. to this day, he remains the only

president to hold a phd. he was a president of the american science association in 1909, 1910, while he was president of harvard and ran for governor of new jersey and president in 1912 and served two terms. wilson thought that scholar and politician thought both would benefit from coming together and exchanging ideas on important issues of the day. it's in that spirit that congress created a living memorial, rather than another marble statue down in the mall. in that spirit, we have about 800 meetings a year in these walls. we are just one smart part of that as is the congress project, which i head up. we bring in a member of the congress, a scholar that writes about congress, and politics and the hill. we mix it up on the policy issue

or subject matter and how that's working out behind the scenes. trying to enlighten the public on how the process works. that's what the congress project is about. we are indebted or grateful to chevron corporation for a grant that has helped with this series. we are now in the midst of a two-year series on the theme of public policy, the media, and public opinion. and so we are grateful to them for that. before we proceed, let me ask that if you do have any electric devices can be please turn them off. we are broadcasts on c-span and web cast. they tend to interfere. we appreciate if you would turn those off. a couple of introductory notes from the audience. first of all, the head of the american political science foundation congressional program, jeff biggs. he's in the back there. he's brought with him about 39

or so fellows for this year. please raise your hands if you are part of that class. well, you are helping to fill the room. thank you. [laughter] >> it might point out these are not just political scientists that study congress. these are from all over the world, some are practitioners, some are teaching medicine, and we have people from a variety of sector that is are part of that program, including a few people from the executive branch, as i understand it. all of them, after this orientation period, this is, i think, about the third week of their orientation. they started the day after midterms. they will then be placed this congressional offices and be working with members of congress. jeff, do you want to add anything on that? >> i want to say we are very much in your debt. it is always a pleasure coming here. and we always leave better informed than when we arrived.

you have become a part of the orientation of the fellowship. >> thank you very much. we appreciate that. we are always glad to have you here. as you know, today's program is on the topic of the role of minority parties in congress. at the time that this was original planned several months ago, we didn't know what the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. we heard rumors one or both houses might flip. the house has just changed control after the democrats were back in control for four years. we have a new minority, which was an old minority. the democrats are back in the minority. the senate the republicans did pick up some seats. but they continue to be the minority in that body. so i think that we have a new dynamic, working with the democratic president. we'll see how that will unfold. but as you may recall doing the last half of the 20th century, the democrats controlled the house from 40 don don -- 40

consecutive years. they took control and returned for the next 12 years. the democrats returned to power with the 2006 election. political scientists and repun didn'ts and reporters tend to focus on the parties for the same reason that willie robbed the banks. it's where the money was. i'm not saying congress is where the money is. although there's a lot of money they contribute. for students of congress, it's where the power is. the minority is where the power is. the minority is given short shrift in a lot of these studies. yet we over look minority parties for they are often weather vain for shifting opinion. sometimes they have a winner of new majority. plus importantly additional check that wasn't contemplated on the checks and balances.

finally, they are an incubator on new ideas. the majorities that we are studying as well. my mentor at the university of iowa when i was in grad school over saw my thesis approached me after i'd been on the hill for ten years. don, i want to do some more -- some studying of the minority party. because we really have over looked that. at the time, i worked for the republican chairman, john anderson. i think they were beginning to get the idea there's something there that was worth exploring. matthew green today is another example of that. we'll talk about that in a little bit. the legislative political parties really began to appear even before the constitution was ratified. if you thinking the federalist and anti-federalist, it was two parties in incubation. even though george washington ran for two terms without any opposition, the

jeffersonian-republicans soon emerged. one the things i like to point out within jefferson was the vice president to john adams from 1797 to 1800. he realized there would be a lot of problems arising, and there hadn't been when adams of the vice president of the senate and not been sufficient keeping of precedents, any consistent rulings. what he did was to compile a manual of legislative practice, or parliamentary practice for the use of the u.s. senate. he expressed the hope the house would use it too. it was later incorporated in the house rules and part of the senate rules and precedents. so he did have a lot of precedent on that. maybe if i'm urged to later on, i would recite a poem. i will spare you that for now. his introduction to the manual of the parliamentary practice. jefferson observed it's always within a power of the majority by their numbers to keep or stop

any improper measures by the proponents. but the only weapons by which the majority can defend themselves are the forms and rules of proceeding which are adopted to become the law of the house. he continued only by adherence to the rules. can the weaker party be protected? which the one in power is too often to suggest to large and successful majorities. so we begin to understand right from the beginning that the role of the rules is not only to allow the majorities to work their rule, but also to protect majorities and their right to participant in the process. and perhaps as i mentioned earlier, not coincidentally, jefferson found himself as a nominee in the minority party in 1800, which had asserted his rights in the congress leading up to that over such things as the neutrality proclamation, the jay treaty, and the alien acts. we already saw the parties at

odds over issues early on. if you fast forward about a century from when the first congress met in 1789, you go to 1889, 1890, we saw a new type of party governance emerging. that was with the speakership of thomas bracket reed who began with an election contest. he decided to use that as a way to set some new rules and precedent for the house. we began to over rule some the motions to obstruct the way things were being done. as chairman of the rules committee, reed went and asked his committee to put these in the standing rules and have the host adopt those. these rules allowed the house to come into the modern time as we know it, the modern speakership, the modern party system, as a way to expedite the majority's legislative agenda. but all through this, there

remained in the rules, up until this day, very important safeguards for the minority. we're going to hear a little bit about that as we hear from our expert panelist as we proceed. i think that's been engrained from the beginning as party of the american way. yes, but with minority rights. we're going to hear, i think, a the bit more about the importance of minority rights, the roles of minorities, the various roles of minorities, as they try to struggle for majority power. we also have with us today, i wanted to mention, because i was just going to quote robert mensies. we have a couple of senators from the australian parliament. raise your hands. okay. not here yet. i think robert was about 16 years in the minority in australia. he said being in the minority is not wondering in the wilderness,

look at what you did wrong when you were in the majority and chart a way for the party as to serve as opposition to the governing party. he saw it as an opportunity, not just an impediment. we are very fortunate to have the two members who did distinguish themselves in the house of representatives and with their representative parties. both in the majority and the minority. i think we are very fortunate to have that perspective. i'm sure they will agree with the off quoted phrase of anybody who's been in the majority and minority, being in the minority was okay. it's a lot more fun being in the majority. bob walker who is now the executive chairman of the wexter -walker, from 1977 to 1997 as the 16th congressional district of pennsylvania. 18 of those 20 years were in the minority. he is credited as forming the

republican majority that emerged by the leadership of the conservative opportunities society. a group of back ventures who began to challenge the house majority in a variety of ways. c-span came along about the same time. that had a lot to do with their strategy. he'll probably talk a little bit about that. when he was -- in the he was in the minority. he was deputy whip, who was the minority whip. then when the republicans game into the majority, he chaired the leadership committee under speaker gingrich. he also managed at the same time to chair the house science committee in all of his party activities. after congressman walker, we'll here from victor fazio, who's a senior advisor. he's likewise, a 20-year veteran of the house 1979 to 1999, as a democratic representative of the third congressional district of california. while in majority, he served on

the campaign committee for two terms. he served in the minority a democratic caucus and on the legislative branch appropriations. third we're going to hear from the guest scholar, matthew green at the matthew university and an associate fellow of the institute of politics, is it political research and catholic studies. >> policy research. okay. i have a typo. he's the author "the speaker of the house" published by the press this year, i believe. >> uh-huh. >> she's currently working on a massive project. -- he's currently working on a massive project, that's why i invited him here. he's well suited for today's topic. last week many of you recognize jaquline calmes. prior to that, worked 18 years with the wall street journal,

covering the budget and tax, as well as conventional, she was able to swap here, we are grateful for doing that. she started out, i think her journalism in texas and worked her way up to austin. then she came to d.c. i believe her first job here was with "congressional quarterly." we are pleased to that her here. we'll hear from them in this order. then we'll open the floor to questions from you. all are invited to a reception immediately following this program. congressman walker, speak from the podium. i think it would be easier for our web cast and c-span audience. >> very good. thank you, don, very much. good afternoon. when i was asked to speak on the

role of minority parties, i came up with a title for that speech. that is more than potted plans -- more than potted planted, but not by much. [laughter] >> because, in all honesty, the chief job of the minority party in the congress is to become the majority. and if you are not working towards that end, you are probably not doing that which is necessary to really fulfill your roll in the minority. now having said that, the main roll then, of the minority party in the whole business of governance is to critique the majority. and that involves a strategy both in committees and on the floor. and it often involves finding the weaknesses in the legislation or in the process that the majority is bringing

forward and then using those weaknesses as a part of your way of differentiating yourself from what the majority is doing. as dawn mentioned a minute ago, some of us back in the mid '80s began the process of trying to move the republican party toward majority status after a long time in the minority. and one the places that we found some help was in the whole c-span program. and that came about a little bit because i had spent some time on the house floor and in some of the early meetings of what we then called the conservative society which was a small group of back ventures. i made the point that every time i go on c-span, i'd hear from people and i'd get letters from folks. maybe there were people out there watching this stuff. we decided to use that as a way not only of defining an agenda that we thought was the right agenda for the future, but also

to use it as a way of critiquing what the majority was doing at that point. now if you were a smart majority, you actually give ample opportunity to the minority to do exactly that. and that's sometimes the hard thing for majorities to do. because it usually involves things like a very transparent committee process, and it involves the use of open rules on the floor. because if, in fact, you want to find out what's wrong with your bills? or what's wrong with your process? put it open to debate. allow the minority to come out and make their points. because they will define it in a much better way than nearly anybody else. the reason for that is because of what we tend to do when we were in the minority was we would start down through legislation.

we weren't going to take on the whole bill. it was impossible. i mean it was put out there in glowing terms. if you could find one little flaw in the bill and press the point home and just hammer away, in particularly in committee, you could often bring the whole process to a halt just by taking on a particular aspect of the bill that didn't appear at first to be a serious issue, but could be made into one. and that, it seems to me, is one the things that the majorities in both the republican and democratic caucuses have found or have lost in the last few years. by shutting down the process, they have not allowed the congress to work it's will, and they have therefore ended up with situations where they did not know what was in bills and what could become bill political points until after the bill had actually cleared the congress. yes, there were points being made out in the public where it

was being -- seems to me that open rules are really the necessary part of allowing the minority to actually help in the governance process. now i will tell you that being in the minority is actually kind of exhilarating at times. first of all, it is a time when you get to think a little bit. you don't have the responsibility for day to day coming up with the agenda, doing the schedule and doing all of that. you actually get a time to think about policies. and as a process of doing your critiques, you actually try to come up with some alternatives along the way. but it's also kind of fun. because every day you can fight great ideological battles. you can charge up the hill with your flag flies and get all bloodied and so on. you come down off of the hill at the end of the day, you lose.

but you feel really good about it. [laughter] >> in the majority, the problem is that you win every day. but often you don't feel particularly good about it. by the time you cut all of the compromises to be the majority, you just haven't really done what you'd like to do. and, you know, so as a resort, you get the aftermath of campaigns. now the democrats are saying if we'd only stuck to our real gone -- guns and done this the right way. that's the job of governance where compromise becomes an end part of the result. it's also interesting to note there's a huge difference between the time when we were out of power when i was in the congress for 40 years and a four-year period out of power. because what we ran into -- after a time when we had been out of power for four years, was we had a lot of republicans. particularly in the leadership.

: basically being in lockstep with the democrats simply because they had pieces of the bill. and so the problem developed than that we simply were not making our case well enough to ever become the majority and the majority became used to the fact that is where the formula we were legislating on the science and technology committee where i serve. we had one chairman who used to do the the chairman's mark a

couple of nights before the bill would come to the floor and his idea of bipartisanship on that was to invite a couple of members of the minority staff. no minority members but the republican members were divided that the minority staff was invited into the room. and what he would say was now, you know, we are going to do the bill this way. they weren't allowed to speak, so the minority staff simply sat in and listen to what the chairman planned to do and the next day or a couple of days later he would come to the committee and talk about his bipartisan bill. well, that didn't strike some of us as being the kind of bipartisanship that was going to get us very far. and what it meant was that then you lost the component of focused criticism because you didn't have the people in the room that ultimately were going to make the decisions about where the debate was going to go. so, the criticism piece is in my

mind, fairly large and all of this, and it is a case where noe criticism is likely to at least take on the character of knowing what it is like to go. most of the people who are going to become committee chairman under the republicans in the house are going to be people who served on the part of the majority and so it is likely to produce a people who yes are going to go along with the velocity they think been there but on the other hand are going to be a little bit subject to knowing that at the end of the day if you are going to get some of this then you have got to figure out a way to govern. the other point i would make is that bipartisanship does not have to block debate.

this whole business of having people who find the flaws in pills actually contributes to the end product, and if congress is literally allowed to work its will, it has a number of really good aspects to it. among other things that force is committee chairman to come to the floor and defend their bills. one of the things i used to hear when i would criticize the republicans when they were in charge and i would tell them you don't have enough open rules going on here guys coming need to have that. i was told while the committee chairman has gotten these kind of perfect bills out of their committee. you know, they are next to perfection and they don't want to have a chance of coming to the floor and having these perfect bills ripped apart. and so my response always was well with the bill is so perfect, why would it be ripped apart on the floor? but the other problem was that it also mentioned the chairman didn't have to spend time on the floor defending each aspect of their bill but that is a bad

thing because they are ultimately the authors of many of these and it is a very good thing to have them come out and defend not only to their colleague but to the country at large what it is they have done. it seems to me that governing becomes harder if the minorities ruled in presenting the alternatives is degraded or diminished. began, i say, the main role of the minority is to become the majority. its chief governance is to criticize. in many offices all over town here, you have potted plants that serve a function. soak in the minority party in congress if the majority respects its role. [applause] >> while he is approaching the podium i forgot to mention that i had the honor of serving with him on the bipartisan ethics task force. i was a staff member in my boss

was the cochair and that was probably one of the best bipartisan experiences i had in my 28 years on the hill. >> i enjoy that as well, done. that was a very positive income -- outcome for the institution. it is really a pleasure to be here today with don and particularly with bob walker. bob really did the minority well. he loved it. he was good at it. it was a joy to see him approaching the parliamentarian with a question which was going to determine how the day went on the florida house. bob was somebody who was really respecting on the majority side as he was innovative, and he was creative and he was the fact that, and he drove us nuts. and at some point you have to respect the people who can drive you nuts on a daily basis and bob certainly did that very well. you know the majority is another

thing. it is always difficult when the minority has its wonderful cathartic victory as it did a couple of weeks ago. only to discover they have caught the bus. the difficulties begin immediately. that sense we are focusing on the minority right now, i have to relate to what is going on downstream in the democratic offices in the capital. and that is something the trial lawyers referred to as pain and suffering. there is no question this is a very, very difficult time. we democrats are particularly good at these circular firing squads and we always do it after elections that don't go well. the left says we should have been more left. the right who is no longer members of the body, say no we should have been more moderate. we shouldn't have done that in maybe we should've done this. there is no real agreement ultimately accept that will we

have to pick up and move on. and they are still going through that process right now. people in the blue dog category who remain frankly need to have a way to express their opposition to the former speaker. and apparently they will have someone, maybe the gentleman from north carolina, schuyler, be the sort of sacrificial lamb, knowing that there is no way he is going to win but wanting to for his own purposes let alone his colleagues say that he was different and didn't want to just ratify his leadership. you will find others, who are simply of the school that, if you lose you know like george steinbrenner would have it if the yankees don't win the world series maybe we need to get a new manager. and there is no question there is always that, and yet, politically these days,

democrats are well aware of the fact that nancy pelosi has brought something to the table for them, and that is the ability to raise money outside of washington, outside of special interest. and while it is great to talk about procedure and rattles on the floor and the use of c-span, practically, and i think nancy cited this a good deal in her work, the campaign committees and the leadership that attends to them, which is made an incredible difference in the last i would say five to 10 years, i served as chairman from 90 to 94. by the time we entered into the more recent decade, which is just about to leave, the entities had sharpened themselves tremendously. better staff, better informed, more control in terms of having influence on who ran and how they ran and whether -- were

funded. recruitment became incredibly powerful. i don't think anybody has done a better job than kevin mccarthy who was just a think about to be made with a membership on the ways and means committee that he may take a leave of absence from. a reward for doing an incredible job upper creating candidates who ran as republicans and in many cases one this term. many of them actually were defeated in primaries and whoever beat them, there were still a real effort to get serious people with public service backgrounds and experience in the public sector generally to be candidates. that makes a big difference particularly when you are running against incumbents. it is great to have the wind at your back. recruiting goes really well plan the mood of your party is in the ascendancy. it can be very tough when you are losing support in the general public can people see

their opportunity perhaps five years down the road, not immediately and they don't want to run loose. recruiting has been incredibly important. they have raised more money than a valuable opposition research. democrats did a wonderful job, hoping to stem the tide this year i going into the weeds and finding out a lot about the tax liens and divorce agreements etc., of the republican candidates. frankly it didn't do any good in general. it did kind of cause some of the republican campaigns to sort of hit some bumpy spots, but the wind is at your back, you can overcome just about anything and you can elect a governor of florida, the state with the largest senior citizen population, who has been a perpetrator of medicare fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. you can tell, didn't really matter what was wrong with your candidacy. you were going to win, and i

think it was pretty impressive in many states that they did that. now you have to look at reapportionment at this point. republican victories were not only large, they were extremely timely and they are doing i think as we speak. a lot of homework as to how they can cement another 10 seats perhaps without even going to the election by simply taking the redistricting and the reapportionment that leads to that and locking in both syntaxes for example where they will pick up three or four seats, and perhaps protecting republicans in states like pennsylvania, new york, if they have the state senate. in ohio where they are losing seats to the south and the west. so that was a very important part of this transition and it is very important as the democrats go forward to strengthening their political arm as they move into the next political environment and none of us know exactly what that

will be. all we know is in the sort of economic environment it will probably be just as volatile. the question really becomes for me, what should the legislative role of the minority be? republicans have been educating the democrats now for about 20 years. the gingrich/walker -- of the '90s effectuated by the renewed emphasis on retaining power that you saw with the delay and hastert finally came across to the democrats. they have always been somewhat divided in to legislating governing and not particularly good at the politics. they got better at it or good nancy pelosi organize the democratic caucus in a way very similar to the way republicans had organized it. and i have to say in relatively short order, republicans have a fair game, and they did it i

party unity. they did by just saying no to everything, and i think regrettably they did it without really offering a lot of alternatives. they simply don't get into the debate about issues. they simply stand there and resist whatever the obama administration or the policy congress wants to task. and they do it in a way that makes clear to your base into an increasingly conservative independent voter that this was the way the republicans would govern, differently than the democrats. and it turned out to be a great success, but we have a problem in this country. unlike the menzies churchill debate, we are a divided government. almost all the time. even those 40 years where democratic majority in the the house, i think would tell you we had about 20 years for the

republicans ran the senate and a lot of illegal republican coalitions that really controlled the floor of the house. we have divided government now and probably will continue to. and as a result of that we have to govern somehow, and so at some point just saying no doesn't get it done. having constructive alternatives are required. sorting out those issues where we can reach agreement, where we must for the good of the economy and the country, finding common ground. it is always difficult with the minority. they always want to vote no. bob and i were talking earlier about the difficulty of passing the debt limit extension, the fact that so many of these young republicans coming to town have no government experience, have taken positions in the election against any debt limit extension which we all know the country has to do in order to pay the bills that the party been incurred. would democrats continue some

votes to make you that happen or will john boehner have the most difficult crisis on this very issue? it is really one example of where we must find at least in some areas an alternative to just trying to defeat barack obama. there has to be some areas that can be discussed, worked through perhaps, to a conclusion that is a compromise. it used to be in a path that the ways and means committee or the appropriations committee with sort of sort out these bitter partisan issues and bring them out to the floor. that is no longer the case. the leadership has sort of taken over through term limits and other ways of influencing who leads these committees through the steering committee. they have taken all that compromising ability out of the process, and now those committees are there to tow the line. people who hate the idea of line items being taken off the table,

people who love having the ability to send something back to the districts are now swearing off. no way can they prevail as committee chair if they take that kind of position. so i look forward to some discussion about what is going to be going on in the next congress and how this minority particularly might work in a terrible dilemma they have of having their president occasionally asking them for those that they think are not in their interest in terms of pump remising with the majority. i think we have begun to see some of that formulation with the simpson commission's recommendations. the left in the writer taking off for the hills. the question is, can there be a center, and that will be a very important issue for both wine already and the majority. [applause]

>> there are plenty of seats if anybody still needs any along the wall here or up here at the table. matthew green. >> thank you very much. what i'm going to do today is talk about the minority party from a theoretical and empirical perspective and my purpose here is twofold. first, to help us i guess propose a theoretical way of thinking of of the minority party, what they do and why they do what they do. and then second talked about briefly in the time i have certain categories of that to be that the minority party in the house of representatives undertakes to try to achieve basic goals. and to at least suggest the question, not just why they do it but whether it actually works. they make a difference and a political influence as it were. so, my focus -- here we go.

first of all, one question is why am i looking at the house and not the senate? i'm looking at the house of representatives. with a look at the minority party at all which is done mention not many do they look at the senate and for some fairly straightforward reasons. has been of the senate minority has a lot more power, both individual members and minority party members especially if the minority party work together. procedural tools such as the filibuster, loose lipped another procedural rules make it easy for the minority to slow things down. and this is why wb rolls among others has focused on this and called part of the minority party tool kit, this ability to filibuster legislation on the senate floor. .com if you watch c-span and see with the minority party is doing, they are not just sitting around doing nothing. they are acting.

they are conducting activities both on the floor and of course off the floor in the question is why are they doing these things that they are so powerless? they don't act in a helpless fashion, and so one of the things that motivate them to do this research is to understand what the minority party is trying to achieve and whether they are able to do so with the things that they do. now my focus is going to be the house. many of the things i will talk about are applicable to the senate minority but the examples i will get far from the house in particular. so there are three questions that i will propose and that motivate my interest in the subject. the first is, what does the minority party in the house actually do? the second is why did they do it? in the third is whether it makes a difference to the political outcome. i'm not going to answer all three questions thoroughly partly because it would take a lot longer than the time i'm allotted, partly because it is part of a larger research process as don mentioned that is still underway, so i don't have firm answers to all these questions but i will suggest

answers to some of them in my talk. first i want to talk about the second question why does the minority party do what they do? and the way that i suggest conceiving of the minority party or thinking about it is in terms of collective goals. now i'm not the only person to suggest by the number of other scholars also talk about parties in terms of their collective goals. but if a party has a goal, collective glow, then presumably the activity they will undertake are designed primarily to achieve that goal and that they have several goals, then they may undertake activities to achieve one or more of those goals. so what i have proposed is typology of goals in which the minority party can be thought of as having four major collective goals and i will talk about each of these very briefly. the first is as congressman walker mentioned and perhaps the most important to not be a minority anymore, to be in the majority are winning elections. and this is to be sure a very

important goal of the minority party. some might say the most and some might say or have the only but it is certainly important in the house of representatives. the second goal is to influence policy and the idea here is that even if you are in the minority party to me you are a member of congress, you care about policy. you got elected to congress presumably to influence national policy so you are going to want to try to exercise influence on policy. to be sure they can betray us between the first and second goal in the can talk about that later. the third goal, these two goals have been proposed by other scholars such as stephen smith and charles jones. this is not a new idea but i suggest to additional goals that also can maier motivate the minority party in congress and especially the house. the third is the protection of procedural rights and powers. the idea here is that members of the minority care about their rights under the rules in their own right. to be sure the rules of the house can allow them if they are

liberal enough, to influence policy or to try to win elections but they are also important in their own right. you get elected to congress, you are representing over 600,000 people, you care about your rights as a member of congress. the fourth coal that i suggest his internal party unity. this one is maybe a little less persuasive case because one could argue really get a tea is the means to achieve in and such as winning on the floor are winning elections, but i would argue that in many cases the minority party seeks to unify either in ways they can't quite say exactly, they are not sure how it is going to achieve future goals but it is something that is important. or it achieves other things that matter to minority party levers. for them since they don't have to worry about dealing with open defections on the floor price coverage of the divided minority. if the their parties and by they can focus less on building discipline or discipline to build its unity and focus on other things as well.

and as a show here in the chart, there are four different basic strategies that a minority party can undertake to achieve one or more of these goals. campaign related activity, position taking some activity in the public sphere, legislating and obstruction so i thought i would do is briefly talk about some examples of each of these four categories and then some up. the first activity of campaign related and of course a lot of things members of congress do can be focused on campaigns or elections, so what i mean here is activity that is primarily or principally focused on election activity and winning elections. two examples i will mention briefly. the first is candidate recruitment which is very important for the minority party, for either party frankly, to get people to run for office, challenged members of their their party or to run for open seats. now in the paper that i wrote for this talk for this panel, you talk about one way of measuring the success of recruitment which is the quality of candidates. another way which is not in the

paper is just looking at how many people you get to run on their party against the majority party and this is data compiled i nate silver, the blogger who is currently affiliated with "the new york times." chose number of house seats held by each party that were uncontested. notice if you will the top bar which is the number of democrats who did not face a challenger. the difference between 2008 in 2010, republicans successfully got almost every house incumbent this year to face a challenger, and that means to be sure not all of these challengers may be of high-quality but that put pressure on the majority party to fund those candidates, to put up some degree of defense against those incumbents and so forth and in contrast the bottom of the chart with a number of republicans who did not face challenges and the democrats did worse compared to 2008 in finding people to run against incumbent republicans.

so candidate recruitment is very important. of course it is difficult to know for sure the relative role of party leaders and campaign, folks doing campaigns for the minority versus other factors. as congressman fazio mention when the wind is at your back recruitment as a whole lot easier and there have been stories and reports for example congressman mccarthy telling the press that there was an difficulty recruiting members until a republican to run for congress, tell two things happen. one was scott ran winning the special election in massachusetts and number two was the enactment of of the health care bill. all of these republicans came out of the woodwork saying i want to run for congress either because i think i can win and/or i am really unhappy with obama and i don't want to see the demo cracks in charge in congress anymore. separating these two is difficult but to be sure it is important a minimum for the minority party to be putting in effort into candidate recruitment. second briefly i will mention fundraising and in the papers talk about overall fund-raising

by the dccc as well as republicans and i also look at how well the democrats raise money for special candidates they targeted in 2006 when they were in the minority in the so-called red to blue program. this chart shows how well red to blue members raise money. this is the green bar. in the quarter before they were put on the list and a quarter after they were put on the list. compared within the red, members from roughly similar districts who are running, democrats and the blue and a random assortment of members and democrats who are running. sure enough red to blue members, candidates were raising a lot of money but they continue to raise a lot of money after they were put on the red to blue list whereas other lawmakers may have also raised more but nowhere did the exact amounts are the same dollar amount as those who were on the blue list. same thing happened for the second round of those democratics added to the red to blue programs in july 2006. again the green bar showed they

raised significantly more in the second quarter after they were put on the list as opposed to members from similar districts. dimock rats were also running. very quickly, the other three spheres i looked at, legislating. this is a large complicated sphere. a lot of ways the minority party can influence legislative theory. i look at amending on the floor and surprise surprise minority party members do not have success in influencing legislation on the floor and less these two things happen. when they are offering an amendment that is relatively minor or noncontroversial or they can command a pivotal majority of members. they can get enough members of the majority party to vote with them. this has been particularly the case on campaign finance legislation in recent decades. but, the caveat here is that as i said there are a lot of other ways to influence legislation. a lot of legislation might flied minority party interest before it is introduced or in committee and of course if the minority

party has their party controlled by the senate or, and/or the white house than they have more leverage. so it is possible for the minority party to influence policy at just a strict amending process is relatively -- the last two spheres of activity, public position taking in the example i will discuss here is election-year agendas come alternative agendas. i think it is a little bit more removed from recruiting candidates so i look at things such as the contract of america, new direction for america, the pledge for america. the minority party suggesting what they would do if they took control of the house of representatives. two quick points i want to make about this. contract with america was very important and in many ways influence what minority parties would do after that but we shouldn't forget that this was not the first time a minority party tried to offer an alternative agenda.

for instance congressman john gross who is the leader of the republican minority in the 1970s, after the devastating 1974 election when republicans lost a massive amount of ct got his college together and they drafted their own alternative agenda may publicize it in a book he wrote that was published in 1976 called a feudal system. this is not the first time we have seen minority parties try to do this. the second larger., there is not a whole lot of evidence that these have at least help the minority of achieved their electoral goals for a number of reasons. polls have shown that is donald wolfensberger noted his book most americans don't know about these things. is not clear they vote based on these what these agendas say. voters tend to be retrospective so they just a party in power rather than prospective where they think the other party will do. so at least in terms of influencing elections, these don't seem to have a whole lot of influence but i think they can play an important role in

other ways which i can talk about. the fourth and final category is dilatation of tactics. this is where the senate gets all the attention, filibuster and all this. the rules allow the minority to at least pester the majority, slowing things down here and there and example that i gave here are motions to rise and/or a journey which is a path to intrepid legislative process. in if they don't they require a recorded vote, usually divided by a recorded vote which is another 15 or 20 minutes. to basically stop what we are doing right now. the most famous example of this in recent years was probably in 2008 when congressman tom lantos passed away. it was a memorial service for him. the house went into session for some unclear reason and they were considering some resolutions. the congressman diaz-balart offered a motion to adjourn and said all this hullabaloo how dare you do this while we are

having a memorial service and back and forth and back and forth. that is not the only time the minority parties done this. very quickly this graph shows the percentage of recorded votes cast on motions to rise and/or adjourn. you can see that as a total, sort of a percentage of all roll call votes, less than 6% and oftentimes much less. and there's a lot of fluctuation but i think was most interesting about this chart is how it is very rare until the 1990s. now it is seen as a potential for minority parties, potential to to offer a lot of oceans to go -- rice and adjourn. of course these are both effective when they are used more than once. this is the percentage of motions to ricer adjourn offered by the minority party that occur within one day of each other and you can see now we see these routinely, that 80% of motions apprised to adjourn are done at least two times over the course of today's. caveat here, sometimes this is

just one member of congress with some personal grudge who offers them five, six, eight, 10, 12, times. so it is not necessarily a good sign of the minority parties concerned or their objections. so they shows the percentage, the average percentage of the minority party that votes for these motions to rise or adjourn and you can see again a great deal of fluctuation. i think most interesting here is the difference between the last congress, the 110th in this congress. so in 2007/2000 republicans were offering a lot of motions to rise and adjourn and most of the party was for them. this congress not only were there fewer but hardly anybody was supporting them. we can talk about some recent -- but one reason is the case for my discussion with folks who work in the minority leadership is that there was a decision after 2008 that these things didn't work. they weren't helping the minority achieve their goals, and so they were abandoned both the number and in the frequency with which members would support

them. the last chart on this and then i will quickly wrap up, the other way to think about these are understand why they are done is to look at why the people who offer them what their justification is. why are you offering a motion to ricer adjourn? most of the reasons are not too surprising and most of them can be connected to these four goals. what was most interesting to me is the percentage offered by members who were upset at the agenda because they wanted some other bills to be considered on the floor. this is not a power the minority party has to change the agenda so it is interesting they would be doing this out of protest. you do they really thought they could change the agenda and wanted to or it was a way of highlighting their agenda to the broader public. so to conclude, the minority party is not irrational, the things they do have a purpose. it is often to get the majority but not always and i would say that some of these tactics can work to some extent in helping the party achieve some of their goals. to general things that i think

matter for the minority party, resources, minority party if they have money, they have talent, they have individuals who are entrepreneurial. that can help them achieve at least -- strategies well. for a pivotal status they can win over majority parties on the floor. can they attend attention? and finally the goodwill of the majority which congressman walker mentioned, smart majorities, give the minority opportunity. and so one could argue. >> please turn off your electronic devices if you have a cell phone. >> that might be also a cue for me to stop. very quickly, sometimes the majority minority has influence because the minority gets in that. we don't see it so often in aggregate sometimes and individual pockets of politics in the house we too and that in my talk. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> one thing that i notice, and

probably one of the few walking people outside of the hill that looks a special rules but the majority began writing into the special rules for bills and lay down the procedures. prohibition, anybody offering a motion to ricer not only the chairman of the commission can do that so that is why do you were saying a lot fewer those motions. at that i'm going to turn it over to jackie calmes. jackie has had the benefit not only of covering congress for "congressional quarterly" when she first came at covering budgetary and appropriations matters but also covering a number of campaigns both congressional and presidential so i think she can give us some perspective to mackinac some of the stuff is perceived outside the beltway and on the campaign trail. >> i am here at the time of another turnover because when i first started covering congress, 1984, and i actually thought

year after year went on, that i would never cover a congress that had a republican house majority. seriously, never thought in my career i would see that. and a 92, there was a group around the late '80s, early '90s called the 92 group of house republicans, and their names suggested their goal. they were going to win a majority and we are all going yeah, right. and of course they didn't but they were actually, the seeds were planted that year for the midterm election just like we have got now, where the party in power, the party that held the white house when typically but not always, lucy to the midterm and newt gingrich and i'm sure u2 bob were, new you would gain seats in 94. in fact, the statute of limitations is passed on this. i can say that, in