of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and calendar en bloc calendars number 1174, 1175,

1176, 1178, 1179, 1204, 1214 and all nominations on the secretary's desk, in the coast guard and noaa, the motions be confirmed, the motions be laid on the table en bloc, any statements relating to the nominations appear in the record as if read, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. gillibrand: i ask the chair to lay before the senate a message from the house with respect to senate bill 3817. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the following message. the clerk: resolved that the bill from the senate, s. 3817, entitled an act to amend the child abuse prevention and treatment act, and so forth and for other purposes, do pass with an amendment. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that the senate concur in the house amendment, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and

any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 676, h.r. 2941. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar 676, h.r. 2941, an act to reauthorize and enhance johanna's law to increase public awareness and knowledge with respect to gynelogic cancers. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection.

mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to calendar number 219, s. 372. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 219, s. 372, a bill to amend chapter 23 of title 5, united states code and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i ask consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered, the akaka amendment at the desk be agreed to and the committee-reported substitute amendment as amended be agreed to and the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table without intervening action or debate and any statements related to the measure be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. con. res. 77, submitted earlier today. the clerk will report.

the clerk: s. con. res. 77, to provide for the approval of final regulations issued by the office compliance -- office of compliance to implement the veterans employment opportunities act of 1998 that apply to certain legislative branch employing offices and their covered employees. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements related to -- relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 700, submitted earlier today. the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 700, to provide for the approval of final regulations issued by the office of compliance and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the

measure? without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements related to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i understand that s. 4023, introduced earlier today by senator lieberman, is at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 4023, a bill to provide for the repeal of the department of defense policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces known as don't ask, don't tell. mrs. gillibrand: i now ask for its second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day.

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following senators be recognized to make their farewell remarks on the dates and times indicated: senator gregg, 25 minutes at 2:15 p.m. tuesday, december 14. senator bayh, 20 minutes, 10:00 a.m. wednesday, december 15. senator lincoln, 30 minutes, 2:30 p.m. wednesday, december 15. further, that if rule 22 is in effect, then the time be charged accordingly. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, december 13. that following the prayer and the pledge, the jowmpl journal f proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time two for the to leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and that following any leader remarks, the senate renewable portfolio consideration of the motion to condition occur with respect to h.r. 4853. the vehicle for the tax compromise, with the time until 3:00 p.m. equally divided and

controlled between the two leaders or their designees and that at 3:00 p.m., the senate proceed to a vote as provided for under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, there will be a roll call vote at 3:00 p.m. on monday on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur with the reid-mcconnell amendment in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4853. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the

c-span: you'll sigh deal making over the weekend to bring on as many democrats as they can to

get this done. it is on speaker pelosi to bring this to the floor. you might see a vote move forward. >> what version is likely to pass both chambers? >> caller: i would look to a version on income taxes and payroll tax, but it looks like provisions, for instance, on ethanol will be added as a sweetener to some different law lawmakers. >> senator republicans said they'd block every bill, but anything other than those expected to move this week? on the phone: the big thing to keep an eye on is the big don't ask, don't tell, as a stand alone. they are hopeful if tax cuts get done in an orderly manner, they can move forward with that, and that's a big priority for democrats to calm the base after

a turbulent week. >> what about the defense authorization bill? on the phone: it depends if the stand alone moves. you might look for it to take a backseat for the meanwhile if the don't ask, don't tell repeal moves on its own, but if it's the only option, harry reid might go for it, but it would be difficult given the demands the republicans are making. >> what about the dream act? on the phone: well, senate leaders plan to bring it up for a vote sometime, and that's what the administration said it hopes for. that said, you know, it's just such a tight calendar democrats face in the senate. harry reid said he hopes to adjourn for the christmas holidays and rest of the year on december 17, next friday, and if they get the tax cut deal out of the way to republicans satisfaction, it's a race to the finish.

>> michael of the hill newspaper, you can see his articles at thehill.com. thank you very much. on the phone: thank you.

>> we'll take a look now at today's washington journal with a look at the history of presidents at the midterm point in their administrations. >> host: joining us now is david greenberg, a history professor at rutgers university, and is the history lesson author on the online magazine slate.

dr. greenberg, thank you for being on the washington journal. if you would -- it's a two part opening question. how have presidents done historically in their first terms and contemporarily how is president obama doing in your view? >> guest: well, right. in terms of the mid text elections it's almost always the case that the president loses seats to the president's party. there's been exceptions, franklin roosevelt in 1934, one seat. bill clinton in his 6th year, 1998, won seats for the democrats. george bush in 1990 won seats, but the democrats lost pretty bad. it's a harder question to say to what degree was obama's fault whether it was bad leadership or failed leadership on his part, and to what degree is just a function of, you know, very

terrible economy. i think, you know, there are elements of both. >> host: well, when you look back and see george w. bush losing seats or ronald reagan or jimmy carter in 1980s, historically, has it been the president's fault or is it things that congress has been up to? >> guest: well, it's always a combination of things. i mean, -- one, there is a dynamic by which, you know, this is political science called serge and decline. you win big, bring in with you two year congressman, senators. two years later, the congressmen, some of them are going to be swept back out in the tide. six years later, some of the senators are swept back out. some of this is dynamic. it also has to do with the economy. when times are bad, voters are

more motivated to go out and punish the party in power which they tend to identify with the president, so that's certainly, i think, was the case this year where voters who turned out were much more republican, much more upset with the way things were going, and voters stayed home. the demographics showed high turnout among those who were unhappy. >> host: now, contemporary presidents like to compare themselves to harry truman. there seems to be a trend in that direction, and you've recently written a column here, give 'em hell, barry. what's your perspective on that? >> guest: he came to the office as an unknown.

fdr died, and truman took office and saw through the war which america was going to win by that point, but there was uncertainty over who this man was, and when he was forced to kind of, you know, run on his own, not himself, but the democrats to run without fdr as their leader, and without the war on, they did very badly in 1946. now, truman had a choice there. he could have sort of gone with the republican agenda and there were some people in his own party, william fullbright of arkansas suggested truman should resign and appoint a secretary of state that the 46th election was a referendum and truman had lost and he should turn over power to the republicans. other people, liberals,mented him to -- wanted him to fight harder. what he did, i think, was very

instructive. he reached out to achieve bipartisanship, but not of a scweeshy sen tryst, let's meet the republicans halfway. on certain issues, particularly domestic issues, his fair deal, program of economic well being to extend fdr's new deal, he really helped that. he stood his ground and fought, and in some cases the republican congress passed the antiunion bill which truman veto. it didn't pass over, but he went downsiding on those things. on foreign policy he established clear principles to lead in a bipartisan fashion and author of michigan stepped up to the plate and said we're going to form a bipart san containment policy with you including the truman

doctrine of aid to greece and turkey to fighting off communism there and included nato, and so truman in a way had it both ways. he knew how to get bipartisanship in a principled way, and he also knew how to be partisan in a principled way. when it was time to run in 48, both things ran in his favor. he was now seen as a stronger foreign policy president which he wasn't seen as in 46, and he was also more loved by liberals and democrats and people who felt he was really sticking up for the working man. i think there's a lessons of sorts in there that bipartisanship is important, but it shouldn't be a reflective-spit the difference power, but the principles in power which remain the party in the white house feels are important and fundamental. >> host: so given the current

political situation, the anger of the left at president obama, the working on the tax bill with the republicans. >> guest: well, i think there's different elements in that anger. i think some of it is that these bush tax cuts for the very, very wealthy have been for a long time a real thorn in the side of those who believe in greater economic fairness, and for that reason, it was a painful pill for liberals to swallow. there's also the issue though of the negotiation, and that, i think, quite rightly justifiably, the left feels that obama has not been the most skilled negotiator. i mean, remember, he's never done anything like this before, and this is something people forget. i mean, obama came to the presidency and i'm someone who generally supports him, but i'll

say this with less hard actual achievements to his name than just about any president in the proceeding century. he really had not had a hard record of accomplishments, and he certainly http://engage -- hasn't engaged in congress with major issues, and on a number of issues, i think, people justifiably feel he negotiated badly and gave away too much without getting anything in return and without holding out. now, different people have different assessments of who came out well and who came out badly in the latest deal, and people point out looking at dollars allocated more go to liberal priorities than republican priorities. others point out that the democrats put these tax cuts for the very wealthy, kind of gave them away much too early and

could have extracted more in return. >> host: david greeneberg is our guest and slate columnist writing the history lesson column. we're talking about presidents at the midterm. recent presidents at the midterm of their first term. it's a history lesson today. send us a tweet at twitter.com slash cspan wj or e-mail us. independent line, darrell, good morning, you're on with david greeneberg. >> caller: thank you, how are you doing this morning? >> good. >> caller: one question to ask. i'm kind of confused here. the economy in the mess it is in, i mean, you got democrats and you got republicans in the white house fighting over deal

that could help thousands of people, millions of people, i mean, why not pass the tax bill? all right, if the republicans won't take the tax credits, give it to them. people are behind it because people want to be greedy. okay, if they want that, give them the tax code. give us what we need. >> host: anything to respond to there? >> guest: well, when times are tough, people fight for their economic self-interest. i think if that's the caller if i was right. we have in america today, the parties do represent, you know, for the most part different, you know, segments of the economic speck spectrum, and so you see real fights over tax cuts and distribution of wealth. >> host: given the current situation after the 2010 elections, do you see president obama changing course over the

next two years, and is there a historical parallel? >> guest: well, it certainly seems that this last tax deal is an effort to be more towards the republicans to give them more of what they have wanted in terms of negotiation. you know, i think all presidents have done some of that. people talk about bill clinton as having done that. i think in a way that's a false parallel. there's a myth out there, and i sort of read it in the newspaper this morning in the new new new york times that clinton moved to the center after the first two years, but people forget the tax bill after 1993 even though it got no republican votes if i recall correctly, was a centrist

bill putting the emphasis on deficit reduction which is what ross perot pushed in 1992, and it pushed more progressive taxation for liberals, but it is a hybrid bill. he also did nafta which is lat of people were not happy with, and his health care plans that republicans opposed was formlated in a market-based theme. it was not a liberal plan compared to the other options on the table. clinton did govern in 93 and 94 as the new democrat that he ran on. once he lost the congress, his hand was forced, and he did compromise on certain things, but he held out and fought and had budget shut downs, so i think all presidents do some conciliation and some holding the line on principle, and the

question is really on which issues are dear to the president's heard. >> host: peg, democrats, you're on with david. good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. on the tax extension plan, i think for many democrats we kind of do it as a billionaire bailout plan, and probably what sticks in us the most is the estate tax cuts over 5 million, but i have a history question for you. many years ago i read a book on thomas payne, and in it the author claimed that george washington made a statement to thomas payne and some others that they had to remember the most overriding principle of business which that they will do anything they have to do to line their pockets with gold, and the

reason he made that statement was because during the revolutionary war while his soldiers were going without shoes and food and blapghts and so on, american businessmen were selling supplies to the british for profit, and he was extremely angry over that. can you verify whether george washington made that statement or not? >> host: all right, thanks, peg. >> guest: i actually don't know that statement or quotation, and you know, i'm not sure whether washington said that. it certainly was true, the larger point that there were people prospering in the business community and mother chaments and -- merchants and so on even as soldiers were going cold and hungry. this -- people tend to sometimes deny it

or be defensive towards business, and it's one of the aspects of capitalism, and business works in its self-interests, seeks to maximize profit. i think it's a job of government to dry to make -- try to make sure it doesn't do so, you know, in exploiting those who are not making the profits, that's there's some fairness involved in the economic system, but it's quite natural for business to want to do that. >> host: wade, dairy, new hampshire, republican line. go ahead. >> caller: you have to bear with me. i don't know if you remember me, but i made a statement that reminds me of the wendy's commercial of where's the beef. i never got to finish what i was saying because i got cut off, unfortunately. i got a quick question. i'm new at the history stuff and looking at things through the elements of how the world

changes and whatnot. i'm wondering that you made a statement about clinton lost the congress. i think it's odd -- as you know by all accounts i've been able to cross reference and research into, he did a lot of good stuff for the economy, so i'm trying to understand this whole thing in retrospeck of how, you know, mr. president obama seems to -- excuse me, my children. at least what he proclaimed is he wanted to make change for the people, the average common person, and now he's falling through with not wanting to give the tax cuts to the wealthy which seems to be the big dispute today, so i'm trying to understand this political machine that seems to run, seems

to run like a big sledge hammer in the people's face because it was told us to that by the people, for the people, you know, united we stand, divided we -- >> host: all right, wade, leaving it there. mr. greenberg. >> guest: right, a couple questions there, or comments. i think about clinton. i agree he did a lot of good for the economy. the 1993 budget bill, i think, is one of the great unappreciated accomplishments of his presidency, and in a lot of ways it set the ground work for the growth and prosperity of the 1990s. he didn't get a lot of credit for it at the time. partly, there was republican united opposition to it, and he was sort of forced to scrounge up every last democratic vote, but what's also interesting, and you see this a little bit with, you know, the stimulus, and some of what obama got passed too,

people were convinced that clinton raised their taxes in 1993 where far more people got tax cuts or lower taxes as a result of the tax bill than ended up paying higher taxes, and yet, you ask people what happened, and they say their taxes went up. sometimes it takes awhile for people to appreciate the benefits of a bill like that 1993 budget bill which, you know, i think by the time clinton ran for reelection and by the late 90s, there was a recognition there was a new prosperity at hand that we had a new economy, it was the internet, that was thriving. sometimes there isn't necessarily a correlation between the policy good that a president achieves and how he does the next time around at the polls. >> host: david brooks this morning in the "new york

times". i want your response. the big story of the week is that president obama is returning to fist principles, republishing himself as a network liberal. this is not a move to the center. it's not the clinton model or the truman model or any other stale category people are trying to impose on him. it's standing at one spot in the universe building alliances with people in other spots in the political universe. >> guest: well, i mean, i think the latter part of the statement is true enough. good presidents, and i do think clinton and truman fit this contrary to brooks do now how to reach out in different directions from where they stand to build alliances in different directions. i mentioned that earlier that clinton went one way with nafta and another way with the economic plan even though they were passed within a few months

of each other or a few weeks even. you know, brooks, i think, is often interesting. he often, i think, has a tepid sigh to bring in a -- tendency to bring in a lot of social science or scientific research, kind of watered down, you know, pop, to give it a hook or a novel piece. i'm not a network president. that doesn't have much meaning or resonance to me. >> host: we are talking about presidents at the midterm in recent history. georgia, calvin, democrat. hi. >> caller: hi, how are you doing? can you hear me. >> host: we're listening go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: okay. my comment is i really don't feel sorry for the unemployed, and i do not feel sorry for the people that are out of work because if they had got up out

of their beds in 2010 and vote on tuesday the 2nd, we wouldn't be in this situation right now. we wouldn't be in the situation because republicans would not be getting back in office. democrats will, and he'll get these bills passed. >> guest: well, i think there's a kernel of truth in what you say. obviously, i did see some poll numbers that showed that the unemployed, that turnout among the unemployed was relatively low, and those who have beenless affected by the -- less affected by the economy was relatively high, and i'm sure had the unemployed voted in greater numbers it would have helped the democrats somewhat. on the other hand, in a way, it begs to question, i mean, the reason people don't show up to vote has to do with disaffection, has to do with feeling abandoned by the

political system including rightly or wrongly by the democrats and the president. in retrospect, i think it's clear more should have been done to stimulate the economy early in balm's -- obama's presidency and more in particular on a jobs program through of some sort. now, whether that would have been possible is, of course, a difficult question, but i think, you know, people are not always fully in tune with, you know, the relationship between volting and -- voting and their economic situation, and to be fair there is often not such a direct correlation. it would have been hard going for the unemployed. i guess i have a bit more compassion even if i wishings you know, more people voted otherwise. >> host: professor greenberg, 1992 was not a good year for the

united states. what happened in the midterms that year and did president reagan do any altering of course or was he pretty much set on course? >> guest: well, you have somewhat similar story. reagan suffered a set back in 1982. the democrats gained seats. they had already held the house of representatives and had lost the senate in 1980, but, you know, they lost back some of those seats, so the democrats hand was stengthed. the key reagan, tax bill, budget bill, had already passed that institutionalized the tax rates that gave the new shapes to our tax structure, but reagan was forced to back off on a number of items. he had like bush, like a lot of republicans going back to the 30s, had wanted to really

reform, if not do away with or privatetize social security. he was kind of forced to back off that effort. instead, he moved to eventually doing the social security commission that came up with more, you know, much more modest reforms that kept the basic system in tact. reagan did a lot of compromise, and he's remembered these days as kind of, you know, a true blue republican, rock ribbed conservative, but he did his share of negotiates. him and tip o'kneel developed a relationship where they got a lot of negotiating done. >> host: maine, go ahead, peter. >> caller: i know you have taken a hit, and everybody calls in who is their favorite moderator, and i'd like to say, you are my

favorite. professor greeneberg, i'd like for you to talk about trade policy. we had a person on previous to you talking about free trade policies. i think one of the areas where president obama is taking a hit is on free trade. he did speak during the campaign about renegotiating nafta. he's put through things in the korea trade tale and yet has to address in the off year elections, i think he took a real hit also with the tea party actually making a lot of leeway on this type of area. we've seen a relative decline over the past 30 years, in our industrial base and status as a superpower relative to other nations, and i really think it has to do with the erosion of our industrial base. if you can talk about ham trade policies that built us into a

superpower, i'd like to appreciate it, and i'll take your answer offline. >> guest: that's not my expertise, but alexander hamilton is the patriot saint of those who would have a strong, nationally directed economy, you know, government support for manufacturing, and this did help to build the united states into a superpower, into a self-efficient economy. on the other hand, i think, you know, both parties at least the leadership of both parties is aware that we're in a different era now that, you know, a certain amount of free trade is, if not inevitable, certainly wise and the trick is to try to sort of promote trade actively to improve all economies while at the same time still trying to nurture, you know, the american base, and whether or not there's, you know, a fiewsm in, you know, heavy manufacturing as

there once was is a debate among others. >> host: we have about 15 minutes left with our guest, rutgers professor david green bring. are you teaching this year? >> guest: i'm not. i'm working with a think tank that has positions for visiting scholars from around the country. it's a chance for me to begin on my research. i'm working on a book i'm calling "the history of spin." how presidents from roosevelt and how they established media and the whole apparatus that surrounds the presidency. >> host: what have you learned that may surprise us that's in your book? >> guest: one is we have a tendency to think this all is a fairly recent development maybe with television or with ronald

reagan as a television president. go back to roosevelt who was really the first president to have press conferences, inform mall press conferences beginning with him getting a shave with a flock of correspondents around him, and roosevelt cultivated the prez with mass circulation newspapers he tried to get on the front pages each day, and even then there were contribute igs who were -- critics who were denouncing him saying his entire presidency was built on media manipulation getting the press corp. to eat out of his hands, and you also had those who would criticize the president's failings as failures of communication. the discourse that presidents fool us with spin, that they use the media and other tricks to kind of give us a false impression of themselves really

goes back a lot further than a lot of our commentary would suggest. >> host: next call for professor greenberg, brooklyn, new york. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i'm very interested to hear of the people giving complaints to president bush on caving into the republicans for the tax cuts, but i don't believe that comes from democrats. i believe that comes from progressives, another one that should be up there because in the democratic call line there's different people and progressives are mixed in with the liberal democrats we'll call them. excuse me. as barak obama would say the notion that not raising people's taxes is a tax cut, not the end of the tax cut considered especially for people making $250,000 or less, and people making above that, 250,000 or

100,000 is not a millionaire. it's quite a long ways before you reach that mark, but progressives are classifying them as millionaires and making them villains. it's for everybody to hold on to their money and do with it as they shall please instead of the government because when that happens i feel things go the wrong way. if we have a person running from the middle, that would be good. you'll have people upset and unhappy on both sides. >> host: thanks, mike. anything to add to that? >> guest: obviously the caller, you know, supports the continuation of the tax cuts, however you want to phrase it. i'll comment on the point about progressives. you know, probably about 20 years ago, you know, i think of the decaucus come bane as a key

moment and the word liberal falls out of favor and democrats more to the left which is most democrats started, some of them especially those who are activists or from that stance, started looking at another label. progressive is a funny word. it was associated with roosevelt who had a progressive republicanism. it's been associated with woodrow wilson and henry wallace who was a traveling communist in the 48 campaign. it's had a lot of different meanings over the years. these days it seems to represent, i would distinguish it from liberals. sometimes, you know, i think of different magazines. the nation which is further to the left i think as a proz agreive magazine -- progressive magazine, and want new republic where i once worked and occasionally write for a is

a liberal magazine. liberals these days tend to be for free trade, going back to that issue, and the progressive, sometimes is used as a synonym for the far left of the democratic party, but, you know, everybody uses the terms a little differently, so, you know, i think it's safe to say that on the whole, most democrats would have preferred that, you know, the tax cuts expire on those making over 250 or there's a proposal to take it up to a million, but that didn't get very far. i think it's safe to say that liberals favor more and democrats favor progressive taxation. >> host: the author of three books already. nixon's shadow and presidential duals that came out in 2006. i remember that book.

in fact, i got that book. where did you find those doodles? are those public record? >> guest: most of them are. i have to credit collaborators. they had come up with the doodles traveling far and wide to different presidential libraries and archives and brought to to basic books with the editor there then came to me and said, you know, she wanted a historian to put these in context to write the text for the book, do an introduction, and it seemed like a fun project and i could use the book to say something about, i think, our growing interest in sort of the personal, private, even psychological side of the presidency that over the course of american history, the president has become, kind of, you know, on the one hand so far out of reach, but on the other hand, has had to affect this style to feel like he's one of

us, and these doodles are a way to imagine some insight into who they really are. >> host: next call for david, from florida, thank you for holding, you're on the air. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question, but a comment more or less with the taxes of president clinton and president obama. i feel under 1993, in the 1993, president clinton, there was a equal vote in the house and vice president gore had to break that tie vote, and that was the tax increase, and the reason why the republicans are for that was because it was a tax increase on the superrich and the

international corporations that we have, and that contributed partly to our surpluses, not all of it, but it was a big help, and that part was that tax increase for the upper rich. now, on our great president, mr. obama, i'm really a liberal at, you know, social issues, but i'm very conservative on the monetary side, but i feel that the liberals or the democrats seem to have more of a pulse for those who are least fortunate than ourselves, and -- >> host: all right, harry, leaving it there. professor greenberg? >> guest: that's true. people who are lower on the economic ladder tend to vote democratic, and the wealthier tend to vote, you know, obviously, general stations, more republican. it's also true that, you know, clinton did raise taxes on the wealth in 1993.

there were cries that this was going to ruin the economy. it did with the consuming prosperity lead to the surpluses that we briefly had. that's one example in history, but whenever there is a call or an effort to raise taxes really on anybody, but particularly on the wealthy, there is this sky of falling rhetoric that it's going to ruin the economy, and that's just not pointed out historically. >> host: a tweet from spoony35. can you comment on a political base that seems to be for fractured in the 21st century. >> guest: it's interesting to say it seems more fractured. i would have in some ways said the opposite that it seems to me that you have kind of core groups of activists, and this is always worked or at least for a

long time for the case of parties seem to me especially vocal and especially notable in the political debate these days partly because you have cable channels that cater to those groups, partly because you have blogs and other outlets where they can have a louder voice, and also partly because of the mechanisms by which congressional representation is done that both parties tend in congress to be further to the extremes than where the line share of their voters are. on the other hand, it's important to stipulate that's not really symmetrical. sometimes we talk that both parties have gone to the extreme. the republicans, and there's a great book called "the off

center." . the republicans are far more off to the right than democrats are to the left, so it may, you know, i think it's certainly fair to criticize left activists for skewing the democratic party to one side, but it hasn't occurred on anything like the scale you've seen in the republican party. >> host: two more calls, pennsylvania, go ahead, wan da. >> caller: yes, wasn't it the dot com bubble and clinton that made the economy? >> guest: i'm not sure about why the -- i think she means -- >> host: y2k. >> guest: yeah, i'm not sure what that really has to do with it. i mean, there was some bubble obviously involved, but there was a lot of real growth and investment in the high-tech

cementer. you -- sector. you can't say it was all a bubble, and as far as the republicans, they opposed the 1993 bill that laid the ground work. i think, yes, then clinton did work with republicans with other legislation like the tell come bill that arguably might have contributed. >> host: where the arbitrations were midterms? >> guest: the party in the white house to lose congressional seats. we've had two big exceptions recently. first was in 1998, and i think most people agree that that was because the republicans in congress overreached with the impeachment. most americans were against impeaching bill clinton. they wanted his wrist slap. they didn't approve of the business, but they were ready to move on. republicans pushed that through. november, they were punished at the polls.

the other time was 2002. we were coming out of never. there was -- 9/11. there was a still of lot of fear and anger. people looked to the president and his party to provide strength on national security which, you know, for a number of years the republicans had done better among the public on those issues. however, the republicans brought up the question of an iraq war vote in the fall of 2002 before the election, put democrats in a very hard spot, and when the debate was about national security, the democrats ended up doing poorly in 02. those are two notable exceptions, and i think they should give us paws about the iron laws of history. yes, there's good reason why there's a tendency for the party in the white house to lose midterm seats, but it's not an iron wall. it doesn't have to happen. there's a lot of individuals, presidents, congress can do to

make it otherwise. >> host: last call, grant, new mexico, go ahead, bob. >> caller: yes, it just seems to me that there's a world of difference between the clinton administration years and the contemporary years. since 2002, we've gotten into two wars, and the interesting thing, i think, is that the people on the right more perhaps than on the left, have really become prisoners of what we might call political stereotypes, and it's, you know, it's a concern to me because i think midterm elections, especially midterm elections, do not give us a feel few how the -- for how the nation as a whole really in other words feels

about a particular issue at that point in