tv Capital News Today CSPAN April 30, 2012 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
11:00 pm
he's from a conservative district and should represent them to the best of his abilities. but beyond that, he and a couple dozen or so are conservative republicans have succeeded in driving his entire party to the right to the point where the bills these past have to satisfy a lot of the conservative republicans and sand very little chance of being ratified by the senate passed by the president's signature. sestak what is his view and the view of the freshman class the speaker to estimate his more charitable than the other key party freshman who spent time with, done dan lips boehner
11:01 pm
11:02 pm
>> without question, the most famous of the 87 freshmen. he was a tea party sensation before he was ever elected because in 2009 he gave this so-called bayonet speech, in which he exhorted his audience to pick up their bayonets and charge the enemy to victory. but i say equal to opportunity offender because although he is very much a tea party supporter, from the ft. lauderdale, florida
11:03 pm
area, he wasted little time upsetting leadership. i met with him on a set of meet the press. while we were doing meet the press, david gregory of nbc asked him what things should be cut. and what should be looked at, including defense cuts. no sooner had we gotten off to set than his cell phone rang and it was buck mckeon, the chairman of the house services committee saying what the hell are you talking about? and he wanted to be on this committee, but nonetheless said mr. chairman, i know the low hanging fruit, there are things that need to be cut. as soon as he did get to town, he took at the calendar that eric cantor had put forth, which would involve congressmen spending less time in
11:04 pm
washington. this is exactly backwards. we had so much we should do that we should be spending more time in washington. eric cantor was offended at that too. funny come at your question, west played a role, and surprising even himself, convincing freshman but there is no point for 100% of a solution, that 70% is better than nothing, and he was instrumental in bringing freshmen on board for this among others. if for nothing else, for military. he was a lieutenant colonel. he was discharged after a harsh interrogation that nearly led to a court marshaling and imprisonment. in fact, noted in the book at the time that he was sworn into office, he had -- had fortune turned a different way, he was just winding down a prison term in fort leavenworth. allen west is in most intriguing
11:05 pm
guy. for all the outlandish thing on 10 things he said, he still walked around with all this information in all of his books, reading books in a bag -- a bad that so has the bearing of a guy from the army. when he has had qualms with leadership, has often compared them, one timely to the military leadership that he himself experienced. >> why did you devote a chapter to sheila jackson? >> i think that congresswoman jackson lee is emblematic, of course, of the progressive dynamic of the democratic party. i think more than that, of this being that i perceived throughout the book, of how congressmen are all sort of entrepreneurs. and all trying to get their piece of the pie.
11:06 pm
sheila jackson lee is a very controversial lady in washington. she's not even well-liked amongst her own democratic party. in part because she insists upon speaking on every subject, insists upon amending every bill, the republic or democrat. be it republican or democrat. there she is, fine-tuning everything. also, she is pretty tough on her staff. she is not well-liked. and yet, she is a very, very effective spokeswoman for her district in houston. she is beloved and has won by margins ranging from 50 to 70%. sheet, to me, is a good case study in how you can be effective at home and remain in the house of representatives, even as he rang over their own allies remain what about the
11:07 pm
reporting of speaker boehner's appearance on cnn. speaker boehner's job is more difficult without earmarks to pass out. >> yes. in fact, there are a number of anecdotes in my book. where he says that very thing. something that he says to the oldest congressmen, ralph hall. where chantix comes of the hall and says no, ralph, it's not the same without earmarks. we can't herd the cats away be used to. there is also a moment when members -- senior members of the appropriations committee are registering discontent because so many freshmen and so many more senior conservative members have been invoking against continuing resolutions bill that the provisions committee had worked very hard to put together. these senior members, the senior appropriators say to speaker
11:08 pm
boehner, we have to do something about these guys. you can't let them get away with this. you need to strip them of their committee assignments. you need to take them off of the list for congressional delegation overseas trips. speaker boehner says no, we can't do that. that will martyrdom. speaker boehner has an expression, and he says that when you say follow me, and you had often you look over your shoulder and no one is behind you, you are not leaving. you are just taking a walk. in a way, that makes boehner temporarily suited as the speaker now. it is also emblematic of how difficult it is for him to lead this very, very rambunctious freshman class. >> how would you describe the relationship between speaker boehner and nancy pelosi? >> they have a working relationship. but let's face it. things have been so divided, right now, that it is not as if -- there were times, such as the
11:09 pm
shooting of gabrielle giffords, when they were in correlation. whenever there are other sort of housekeeping duties, relating to the body itself, those two and their staffs are in communication. but throughout the book, the only time that the republicans reach out to the democrats -- is when suddenly, the last minute, they realize they don't have the votes. then it is not boehner communicating to a nancy pelosi, it is house majority mccarthy mutating with lawyer. >> what are the takeaways to rebut? >> i set out a experience as much as anything else. on election night of the midterms, i was so struck by these 87 freshmen who would be taking office. fully one third of whom had no
11:10 pm
political experience whatsoever, had never held an elected office. i was anxious, as much as anything else, to chronicle in a mr. smith goes to washington kind of way. how these guys would fare, how they would -- to what degree they would change the institution and to what degree the institution would change them. i spent a lot of time embedding myself amongst aggression untrimmed freshmen, as well as members of the democratic side of the aisle. along the way, and covering their experiences, i covered the more sweeping narrative of the 112th congress, and i think that there is almost no way to interpret that narrative is one of a terrible -- one other than a parable of dysfunction. that was particularly present in the debt ceiling stand up. in the book, the book is a case study in that, while at the same time being a vivid narrative of all of these congressmen who
11:11 pm
seek to put their imprint on the institution. >> finally, before we go to calls, how would you describe the relationship between house democrats and president obama? >> it is better now. it has been better since his speech to the joint session in september of last year. previously, it was not a good relationship. i shouldn't say it was a bad one, but democrats felt he was getting away with things. they certainly felt that with the debt ceiling. even before then, the president, in january 2011, gave a speech about winning the future and investing in america. that was from the narrative that the white house was trying to peddle, but they basically lost their grassroots in that narrative, and what became the prevailing theme was not cut, cut, cut.
11:12 pm
president obama was so quickly losing his edge. basically, he was trampled, narratively speaking. trampled by the push by republicans to roll back the government. >> robert draper is our guest. "do not ask what good we do." inside the u.s. house of representatives. that is the book. previously, robert draper has written another great book, transport. "dead certain: the presidency of george w. bush." now there is a call for him. jacksonville florida, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. you have the republican congress, the were strongest in america preceded by the worst president in american. that would be george bush. let's look at the congress track
11:13 pm
record -- the republican track record. they come in with their speeches that were not going to raise taxes on anybody. okay. what is the first thing they do? they were george bush tax cuts. whether they do? they cut. they raise the system. >> we wanted to bring all this to a conclusion. caller: they don't want to raise this -- they have the ryan budget cuts. two to $5 trillion. [inaudible question] >> anything to respond to there, robert draper?
11:14 pm
>> as to the republicans and what they were up two with a 112th congress, the argument has been made, certainly, it is an argument that they would make that they were responding to a movement, and the 2010 election. basically they had a mandate as a result of the voters turning the house back over to the republican party. they wanted to roll back the obama administration. what the voters were saying was enough. there is too much government. the $780 billion stimulus, this massive health care bill that the democrats can't even explain, much less defend, is much more than we bargained for, particularly in economically difficult times. they interpreted that -- the results of the mandate to be just as i described it. the problem is that it was divided government. it is not as the public handed
11:15 pm
the keys of government exclusive to the republicans. the democrat party controlled the senate and of course barack obama is a democrat as well. rather than attempt to govern and rather than to pass legislation out of the house, legislation that likely would gain the approval of the senate in the signature -- and the signature of the president, they passed legislation far to the right of what anything -- anything the democrats could stomach. as a result, jordi leader harry reid and essentially paralysis occurred. >> mr. draper, after spending the time you did embed it in the house of representatives, delete with the same amount of respect, less respect, more respect? >> in a lot of ways, peter it is a good question. i am ambivalent as the average american is about it. on the one hand, i really like a
11:16 pm
lot of the congressmen that i have spent time with on both sides of the aisle. on the other side, i am dismayed by their performance, continue to be dismayed by as most americans. i'd have thought a lot about what the solution would be. it is a real paradox that the house is the most democratic institution that we have, and yet, perhaps the most loathsome institution that we have. it has reached a record low of 9% approval rating. this past september or october, inspiring john hagel to say perhaps even pedophiles could do better. when the public registers such disgusted discussed at an institution and allows this behavior to continue when it has the opportunity every two years to change the makeup of the house, it is something of an electoral roll travesty.
11:17 pm
>> good morning, you are on with robert draper. caller: it's been a while. i think the millionaire tea party members won't legislate anything that will tax the bottom line. you know? i think the american people have seen what their corporate agenda is. i think they will have a difficult time this reelection. you know? this reelection this fall. i think they have been working against the average american citizen, and they have been legislating for the one or 2%, you know? this fall as their policies and everything oz. >> well, you may be right. some of these guys could get voted out of office, but the republicans got lucky in that
11:18 pm
the 2010 elections coincided with the national census with reapportionment that takes place every 10 years and with a congressional the congressional redistricting. as a result of this, most states are controlled by a republican state legislator, and they got to redraw the congressional maps, and did so in a way that would benefit a lot of these republicans -- among them, a guy that i have spent a lot of time with, blake farenthold. he won in 2010 in a district that had been -- had a democratic representative for something like, i think, 14 terms -- 28 years. the district is in the present hispanic. ortiz is hispanic. blake farenthold doesn't speak spanish, but he prevailed by 800 votes as a result of great tea
11:19 pm
party support. in 2011 and 2012, he would have to somehow figure out how to appeal these voters that the turnout in 2012. instead, redistricting has taken place. blake farenthold had been handed a different district, one in which the hispanic portion has been sliced away. one that a republican can inhabit the next 10 years. he is an example of why, regardless of performance, a lot of republicans may stay in office. >> markets is a republican in pensacola, florida. you are on with robert draper. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i enjoy your show quite often. i enjoyed listening to mr. draper's comments today. i think that the tea party has gotten a bad rap from people.
11:20 pm
i think it is very misunderstood. my question to mr. robert robert draper, is in reference to congressman west. you feel like congressman west would be a good running mate for mitt romney, at the same time, why does this democratically controlled senate and as such and the -- such an accord to seem to vote on every good bill that the republicans come along with? >> both good questions. relating to allen west, i do not know who will be you romney's running mate. furthermore, i've talked about this at length, he is not interested in being president or vice president right now. he is still wanting the ropes
11:21 pm
legislatively speaking. i think that romney's campaign would reckon that though allen west is from florida, florida obviously being the key state, a battleground state, nonetheless, he tends to say things off the cup that make many news headlines than the romney campaign would like to suffer from a running mate. as to the other question relating to the senate, it's a good question. the senate was, throughout the 112th congress, has been -- thoroughly infuriating to the republicans in the house. harry reid, the senate majority leader made the strategic decision early on, that rather than negotiate with the republicans in the house, he was going to let all of their bills languish. why? first because he really believe there is no point in negotiating with them. he believed that they were intent on dragging america much
11:22 pm
further to the right than the democrats could. the second was he believed on a messaging level that it made more sense to leave the republicans out there and frame them as extremists, rather than dignify them, as it were, by negotiating. i understand the frustration of not only members of the republican half, but also americans as a whole, for that strategic decision. it seems that it is very cold and very cynical. we will see in november whether or not it is effective. whether or not harry reid will be punished and his fellow democrats for stepping on house legislation, or whether or not that effort to paint republican legislation as extremists legislation is going to bear fruit. >> robert draper has a book that is published by the free press. it is "do not ask what good we
11:23 pm
do" where did you get the title? >> it is from congressman fisher ames. he served four terms overall. he also crafted the final language of the first amendment. fisher ames was, in failing health, but in large part due to the stress put on them by the house. after four terms from he decided he isn't going to run anymore. he wrote a lamenting note to a friend of his, talking about the partisan disagreements in the house. in the snow he wrote, do not ask what could we do period that is not a fair question. choosing the title, i wanted to } the partisanship and division have always been with us, nonetheless, back in the days of fisher ames, they managed in the first session but despite the federalist and anti-federalist to stand up and executive
11:24 pm
branch, it should pay back the war debt, and for good measure come to write and pass the bill of rights. they could get a lot done despite of their disagreements if that were the case now. >> each week now from a caller. >> it's a good question. it is a question that is central to an anecdote to the deathdealing standoff. a number of speaker boehner's allies in the house come to him and say to him, john, you need to be careful with your negotiations with president president obama. if you come up with something that can only manage to get half of the votes of republicans in the house, then there is a good chance that there could be a mutiny against you. don't think that eric cantor would like to see it. his staff is already spreading rumors about you. they are already trying to form
11:25 pm
divisions and john, you were around during the new gingrich days when there was a mutiny against him. it only takes a dozen or so to do it. i think ultimately, eric cantor and speaker boehner have been wrapped up on legislative matters, and eric cantor has lost himself more sense the miserable approval ratings that the house has accumulated. he has been far less aggressive, even cbs. nonetheless, does speaker boehner know that eric cantor is an ambitious guy? absolutely. >> what about kevin mccarthy? you seem to spend a lot of time with him? >> the reasons i did is because kevin mccarthy was the guy who is tasked with hurting the taxes, particularly the freshman. he tries to get people together to vote on republican legislation, to try to get the requisite 218 votes to pass a
11:26 pm
bill. this became a very difficult job, and all the more so since, as we alluded to before, peter, they don't have the carrot and stick other marks and things like this. also i was interested in mccarthy because he is an ambitious guy. it's hard to say exactly what his endgame is, i'm not sure he knows her, but he had only served in the house to terms before he became the third most powerful republican in the house of representatives. so i was interested in his own ladder climbing, as well as his struggle to bring these freshman together to convince them of the virtues of teamwork and of unity to get republican bills passed. >> how would you describe his relationship with speaker boehner? >> i think it is a pretty good one. he has worked hard to cultivate that relationship. they have known each other since mccarthy was actually the district director to bill
11:27 pm
thomas, the house ways and means chairman. a republican. and furthermore, boehner is well aware that currently knows the freshman that are than anybody else. mccarthy recruited a lot of these freshman. has used his office as the unofficial slop house for the -- the newcomers to hang out in. speaker boehner takes the temperature of mccarthy frequently. >> little rock, arkansas on online. caller: good morning. i would like to add another aspect to this conversation. the aspect of grover norquist. also, eric cantor, newt gingrich, -- [inaudible
11:28 pm
question] to me, what it looks like, speaker boehner -- it looks like they are a bunch of angry white people. they have everything locked up. this was from day one. [inaudible question] they have done nothing for the american people the block, obstruct, and grover norquist -- [inaudible] >> robert draper? >> for one thing, you are alluding to the meetings that i write in the prologue of the book that took place on the night of barack obama's inauguration. it was a meeting of about 50 or
11:29 pm
so white males, congressmen, senators and other republican leaders. it was put together by a republican pollster frank one. the unofficial leader was newt gingrich. it was held at the caucus room. this is not meant to be some sort of dark conspiracy. it was mainly supposed to be republicans licking their wounds, drowning their sorrows. they were awestruck. from a partisan standpoint, devastated. the 1.8 million people out on the mall, they wondered since they control nothing, what are we going to do? it was like the five stages of death -- whatever -- they sort of went through denial and then recognized that they had lost their way, that they had been unprincipled. then they talked about the way that they would dig their way out of this and it included the way to do so. the way to be unified in their attacks against the obama
11:30 pm
administration to attack vulnerable democratic congressman, to attack cabinet members. again, to do this in a unified, practically unanimous the possible manner, with the hopes of in 2010, taking over the house. then using the house as a pitchfork or whatever, the point of the spear against the obama administration. that, of course, is what came to pass. he mentioned grover norquist. norquist is mentioned a number of times in the book. because of his no new taxes pledge -- the trick is, a lot of the 87 republicans, no one had ever been to put a gun to their head to get them to sign a no taxes pledge. these guys were very, very anti-tax. and they were determined to lower taxes come to roll back government spending, to eliminate obamacare, and so
11:31 pm
norquist was in step with them, but i don't think that he had to be the least bit coarser. >> you describe three kinds of congressmen. what are they? >> one of them is a congressman -- this is going to be a rick perry question. one of them is a congressman who is a congressional leader. one who is like speaker boehner or eric cantor or mccarthy. another is a chairman who chairman who uses one of these house committees as they are system, and the third is a congressman who is content to represent his district's. that is an elusive vision of the three types. it was given to me by someone who had been a leadership guy. i use than the book to apply to john dingell who had been poor,
11:32 pm
30 years, the most powerful democrat on the energy and commerce committee and had used energy and commerce, build up that committee into one of the great fortresses of power, but who is challenged and ultimately kicked out of leadership by his fellow democrats, by nancy pelosi and henry waxman. and two, as a result, had to content himself with being a congressman and a third category, a guy who was in charge of districts. but the book makes it clear that john dingell at the age of 85 still knows how to get things done. >> we have another caller on the line. caller: compliments to you and c-span and brian lamb. you guys do a wonderful job. mr. draper, good morning. i wondered if you might have a candidate the pennant of my representative out here in arizona. i wondered if you might have a candid opinion.
11:33 pm
>> do happen to know david schweikert? >> i don't know him well. he is not one of the guys i focus on. but schweikert, he is a thorn on the side of house republican leadership. in fact, had been on the 18 because he was kicked off because he voted one way -- i also mentioned that he got along with gabby giffords. she happened to run into schweikert and gave him a tour of the capital and then went on the next day and, of course, the terrible tragedy occurred. but beyond that, those are the, i think those are the only times schweiker was mentioned.
11:34 pm
>> isn't he in the primary right now? you know when it's scheduled? >> that has been interesting because when dan quayle, who was elected largely by saying that barack obama is the worst president of my lifetime, when he came to congress come nobody thought that he would be pressed into a primary where he would find himself defending his credentials. the results of that that has been one of the more emotionally wracking for the republicans within the house primaries that we will be seeing. i can't remember the schedule. >> here is the cover of the book, "do not ask what good we do." robert draper is the author. chicago on online. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you guys doing. mr. draper, i want to comment on my assessment of the current house. are the republicans concerned
11:35 pm
that they have no idea of government? i think you did speak to senator reed's position on how to deal with the house, but i think that they confirmed his action by what they did -- [inaudible] with the debt ceiling crisis. in the end, they couldn't carry a vote to bring its resolution. the democrats had to vote on. [inaudible] they created. you have a house -- a republican house, they can get legislation passed. they have no accomplishments from the time that they have been in there. to me, this indication -- another you disagree, but you have to be able to get things accomplished, and they don't have a clue on how to do that. >> thank you, caller. in fact, let's talk about the debt ceiling situation. i think it illustrates the
11:36 pm
quandary that the republicans are in and the desire on the part of republican leadership to get things done. despite what the results might indicate. when these 87 freshman went through their orientation, frank lund is the pollster. this is detailed in my book. having to ask for an informal show of hands. he said how many of you incoming freshman congressman would read raise the debt ceiling? and for people raised their hands. he said okay. how many would under no circumstances do so? the other three raised their hand. leadership, kevin mccarthy, john boehner, they knew that it was a problem and they knew whether they would face a public we are not -- that as boehner said in a republican conference, it would be armageddon it economically speaking, -- if they failed to raise the debt ceiling.
11:37 pm
so it became a matter of great exertion on the part of kevin mccarthy, in particular, he had these listening sessions in which he would try to explain to the freshman republicans with the debt ceiling was. and what concessions, perhaps, they can expect from democrats in return for votings for raising the ceiling. this being the carrot along with the state. about two weeks before the august 2 deadline, the republican leadership was sufficiently concerned that a lot of the freshman as long as seniors were not getting the message that they brought in by former treasury official under the present bush administration. it was explained dispassionately what would happen, august 2, if failed to raise the debt ceiling. they took them through the
11:38 pm
narrative of -- all the federal prisons would be closed and peoples mortgage interest rates would skyrocket. about one third of social security recipients would not receive their paycheck. on and on. people in the conference began to scream at jay powell. they said how dare you give this biased presentation. you should be talking about the evils of spending, the need to live within our means, not talk about all this stuff. this was what the republican leadership had to deal with. you can't feel too sorry for them. they wouldn't be in power, speaker boehner would be minority leader banner if it wasn't for these 87 freshman who won in 2010. at the same time, it is they be careful what you ask for situation. these guys were much further to the right, much more extreme in their thinking than leadership knew what to do it.
11:39 pm
especially regarding the debt ceiling. it took heavy lifting to get the vote that they didn't get to raise the ceiling. >> the book states that speaker boehner was very languid, and he acted like he shrugged his shoulders, unenthusiastic, -- he was taxed with capitation and employing of the cover. his jittery 2001 speech on house floor to govern the body of the 112th congress and to the claim that the republican-controlled congress would hold ourselves accountable by asking the following questions. our efforts address integration
11:40 pm
and economy? are they cutting spending? are they shrinking the size of the federal government while protecting and expanding individual liberty? if not, why are we doing this? >> yes, and in fact, that very series of questions became a plaque he would find capital and republican offices. cantor was more hotwired the sentiments of the tea party than boehner was. and he recognized that this was a conservative movement, that to some degree, it was a tighter they had by the tail, and also they have something that they could exploit. speaker boehner did see that too. he saw the debt ceiling is a moment in which they could extract a germanic concession from the demand democratic. he played the tea party freshman
11:41 pm
as a bargaining chip. there were examples of him explicitly saying that i have a bunch of hot leather guys over there. they're going to let him default, and if you really want us to vote for this, you have to give us some things. now, this was explicit or invited talks with eric cantor. during the by the talks, when they're discussing revenue increases, kantor says that that is not something that we are prepared to do at all. then vice president biden says what do we get out of it and eric cantor says you have to vote on the debt ceiling. i know that might not sound like much, but the fact is we have a lot of members who feel like failing to raise the debt ceiling is exactly what we need. then kantor says, we are working to educate our guys. >> eric from pennsylvania. please go ahead with your question or comment for robert draper. caller: my comment is simply on the idea of compromise that everybody is talking about. i'd just like to use a mental
11:42 pm
image of the broader plane. i want to go east and he wants the west. where is the compromise? we can go straight up or straight down, it still won't get us to where we want to go. it is best to win where we on and not go anywhere. compromise is not necessarily a good thing if it gets us constantly going to the wrong place where nobody wants to be. i see that, and people talk about legislation, and went on to compromise -- well, if everybody is unhappy with this compromise, it is probably a good thing. and i thought no, you probably just have the worst element instead of the best. it might have made both sides a little bit happy. a do-nothing congress is not necessarily a bad thing if it stops them from doing the wrong thing. >> well, i think the analogy is
11:43 pm
appealing up to a point. maybe it does not apply. often, people refer to the craft of legislating as more akin to sausage making. it is an unseemly practice. it is not an appetizing thing to look at. the reality is that the nation and the business of the nation has to be tended to. for example, the house controls the power of the purse. they have to decide on a budget or if they can't decide, then they have to at least be able to pass continuing a continuing resolution so the government can fund its activities. you think well, maybe it would be a great thing if the government shutdown. but the government has shut them up or comment if it is shut down for a length of time, it would mean that, again, federal prisons would close and there would be no infrastructure, it means that people would fail to receive their social security checks and etc.
11:44 pm
the reality is that it costs money to run a country. in doing this, when there is a divided government, when there are democrats who control one of the legislative branches and the other part control the other, they have to compromise. there is no getting around it. having said all that, i do take your point. there are a lot of people who believe that it is exactly the sort of this compromising that is endemic to a system where everybody gets a little bit of what they want. too bad about the public. but all this mutual back scratching -- that is basically a part of the problem. i think a lot of freshmen believe this as well. they believe that -- in fact, one of them said to joann emerson, who is a moderate republican congresswoman, she was upset by this attitude that
11:45 pm
the debt ceiling did not need to be raised she asked what it was about exactly. she said explained that tea party position on the debt ceiling. he said the explanation is that we have spent too much money. if this is a consequence that we have to bear, so be it. there is that sense that they are. but emerson's point of view was, well, okay, that sounds like really teaching us a lesson, but roiling financial markets and causing the default is not the prescription. >> will turn back to the in god we trust to be. >> decanter rule, is, we should be focused like a laser on the economy. on reducing the size of federal spending, on tax reform on
11:46 pm
economic matters and that is all we should be doing, or what exactly are we up to? that is the cantor rule. then comes in god we trust. that was put forward by one of the virginia congressman. allen west thought that this was exactly the kind of thing that makes congress a whole as well as a laughingstock. when we have nine-point something% unemployment -- why with all these other pressing issues are we even bothering with that would ratify in god we trust. in fact, allen west gave a speech on the floor of congress in which he apologized to his constituents and to the nation for the leveraging for the lack of focus that his own leadership was extending.
11:47 pm
>> charles, a guest on the phone, we are talking with robert draper. caller: god bless the tea party and allen west. this $60 trillion. we have to get our hands around this. democrats and republicans. we have to set out together and get it worked out. or it will be the downfall of the country. my next comment -- are we going to have a follow-up book on the people leaving the democratic party? i'm talking about mr. hsu is that you cannot be a democrat no more. i would love to for you to write a book on that. i -- you are just a democratic cat now. let's just get that out there. >> i am actually just a
11:48 pm
registered independent. you could argue on a cat, but not a left hat. i'm not sure that schuyler actually said he couldn't be a democrat anymore. i think what he did say is that the democratic party wasn't as hospitable as it once was to blue dog democrats such as himself. shuler, who has spent a lot of time with, what was the administrative coach or fiscal conservative on social issues. nancy pelosi remained the leader of the house republicans -- or, the house democrats, and registered his process to her on the phone. i had a long conversation with her about it. he ran against her. that is not in fact why he's running. he's not running because he got redistricted by the republican-controlled state legislator in north carolina to an extent that progressive crown
11:49 pm
jewel of his district -- and i know this because i used to live in nashville, has been stripped away. he would've had a lot of trouble gaining reelection. he recognized -- recognizing the growing evidence that moderate democrats have had in his own wing, and that he has other things you can do at this time, he decided to bail out. >> is their second book here? you see a follow up to this book after the 2012 election? >> go, i don't know. to me, i have become really interested in the institution. i am interested in the history of the institution and have done research about that as well. some of which couldn't make it into the book. but, i have to say, it went in as engaging as these characters are common it is very dispiriting to write about a body that agenda does not
11:50 pm
function. i had figured with these 87 republican individuals coming in, that there would be an element of attacking the obama white house and in so doing, the house might come to resemble the wwf, the world wrestling federation. as a legislature body. i still didn't think it would be a body of stalemates to the degree that it has. the characters are really colorful, but the outcome is a tough one to cover. whether or not readers could stomach another 300 or so page narrative on that remains to be seen. >> greensboro, north carolina. you are on with robert draper author of "do not ask what good we do" cocco thank you.
11:51 pm
i think that we really recognize the significance of the meeting that the top 15 republicans have during the inauguration of the president. i think they actually met to plot to make the president failed. that is what they have said is that this was their one goal. it seems like this is what they did in terms of that meeting. one of the things that look like they decided to do -- they were going to vote no on everything that the president -- not looking at how that would hurt the american people as well. the only goal was to make the president failed and people did not help, it didn't make any difference to them. >> their goal was to regain power. the means by which they figured they would do so, was to make the president fail. that is a distinction without a difference, but again, i reported this at length in my
11:52 pm
book. there have been other reporters that have written about this meeting before then just a paragraph here and there. i interviewed most of the 15 participants and got a pretty granular sense of what happened. again, it wasn't this nefarious meeting where the great powers behind the curtain decided what was going to happen in america. there was a bunch of guys who got their butts kicked, basically, and felt badly about it. as franklin said, he said we are irrelevant now. we might as well sit around and be irrelevant together. that is what it is meant to be. but in the course of this, these guys being politicians and competitors, talking about how they can get their power back -- yes, it's true. nowhere in the conversation was let's find ways to work with this president. it was let's find ways to undercut him. i make that point in the prologue. there is not one thing mentioned during the course of this for our dinner was the state of
11:53 pm
america at this time. of course, to be fair to the republicans, the democrats, in many ways in 2009, behaved as if they didn't care. they are passing a cap and trade bill out of the house, which was maybe a politically charged thing to do, because it was destined to fail in the senate. it was cognitively dissonant to moderate democrats, it look back and what is passing a bill have to do with greenhouse gases have to do any of this? it may be laudable, but maybe not the time for it. in so doing, the democrat suggested that they didn't care either, which played into the republican narrative that was fashioned on that evening on inaugural night, which was watch the democrats. they're going to overplay their hand. they are going to be too exuberant. they will allow us to save that they really don't care and don't
11:54 pm
care about hard-working struggling americans. they care about their agenda. the democrats walked right into that. >> jim himes at week's end. what grade would you give president obama's skills relative to the president? >> relative to the president is assuming that all grades have a great of relativity to them. i gave him a grade c. he certainly tried to fashion with speaker boehner. there has not been nearly as much outreach without the democrats. i should mention as well that he has even of -- upset democrats in the conventional black caucus, talking about how the chairman of the cbc, emanuel cleaver, has dealt with a lot of frustrations during the
11:55 pm
frustrations in the midst of the cbc, particularly, this republican who made offensive comments about another person who happens to be a muslim. what upsets in the most was that the obama administration, even without the explicit prodding of the republicans, was cutting back on community block grants and things like this that he felt that were really important. tell that they were important to minority communities. furthermore, there was a program that chairman cleaver was instigated instigating, along with other republicans to address areas of persistent poverty, and when he took this to the president, he said that speaker boehner and paul ryan are on board with this, the president tried to dissuade him, cleaver, from passing the
11:56 pm
persistent poverty initiative. so you have also been problems with obama as well as republicans. that just shows you the difficulty to be president. it is easy for us to sit here and say you should do better job. but there are a lot of elements within congress that you have to deal with. >> one of those fun little tidbits that i found a new book is that emanuel cleaver and jeff henschel and are really good friends? >> concealing is the chairman of the republican congress. he is a texas republican who sat on the super kennedy. maybe people will hold it against them, maybe not. emanuel cleaver, who is from missouri who had been the mayor of kansas city, grew up in texas, which is about 30 or 40 miles outside of dallas. he is a native texan. i know more than i should about this stuff. he was very close with cleaver.
11:57 pm
he was an agreement with cleaver that it would be good thing to put money towards poverty regions. he was in step with him on that. >> this is the book. "do not ask what good we do." robert draper is the author. free press is the publisher. thank you for being on the program. >> pleasure in it in a few moments, arlen specter on his career in the state of politics. and a little less than an hour, author john shaw on richard lugar. after that, if a party on senator ellison said. later, we will re-air "washington journal" on behind the scenes of the 112th congress in the 2010 midterm elections. >> several evidence to tell you about tomorrow morning.
11:58 pm
the committee continues investigation into his corporations possible ties to british politicians. that is here on c-span 2 at 6:30 a.m. eastern. also on c-span 2, at 830 eastern, bloomberg posed an event on the economy federal economy and housing market. this includes shaun donovan and allen greenspan. >> four years ago, i was and a washington insider, and now i'm at this dinner, and i look like this. [laughter] [laughter] today i look like this. [laughter] [laughter] four years from now, i will look like this. [laughter] [laughter] [applause] [applause]
11:59 pm
12:00 am
>> stat thank you very much, mr. president and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. there could be no better place to have this discussion than in the constitution center. the three key words in the constitution at the beginning we come the people, and i'm an delighted to have my colleague the former member of the houset of representatives mike castle and join me and as david eisner members ly characterized, mike and i are members of the of 30 your club which is not too easyo
12:01 am
to come by.. it it takes awhile to get that kin of seniority this book, "life among the cannibals," was designed to come out in the midst of this election season to try to appoint the american people with why washington is what it is today, and that is gridlocked and dysfunctional, so that if the electorate is properly motivated, now is the time to do something about it. and the title with the cannibals is by deliberation for motivation and for accuracy. because that is what is happening.
12:02 am
it is really cannibals be powering senators and representatives. and i will be very specific. starting with bob bennett, the senator from utah, for 18 years, 93% conservative rating, wasn't pure enough to be renominated by the republican party in 2010 for one vote. mike castle in delaware was defeated in a republican primary i ate tea party candidate who had to defend herself on television as not being a witch. and the same applies on the democratic side, where a top notch senator like joe lieberman
12:03 am
couldn't win a democratic primary. so what has evolved is a great worry on the part of members of congress that if one vote is cast, which calls us the party to -- and a primary where there is a very low turnout, that is the end of the political career, and there are very few who are prepared to put their political careers on the line for a vote notwithstanding what the public interest is. and this book goes into great detail as to my approach to being in public service and the votes that are cast and the one critical phot, which was the end
12:04 am
of the association between the republican party and me. and i think ronald reagan best put it when he said years ago, when he was a democrat. did you know that ronald reagan was a democrat? he was. and is ronald reagan put it, he did not leave the democratic party. the democratic party left him. but let me assure you that the republican party in 1980, when i was elected to the senate was a vastly different republican party than it was as we moved into the 21st century. win this stimulus vote came up, i was convinced that if we did not have an infusion of funding,
12:05 am
that we would be heading for a 1930s style depression. and we had seen a few months earlier when george w. bush was the president, that he came up with a 700 billion-dollar package to assist the banking industry and the automotive industry. $700 billion was the twin brother to what president obama came up with a few months later, with $878 billion in the stimulus package. the house of representatives voted down the bush program and the stock market dropped 700 points in the end of september of 2008. the republican caucus in the
12:06 am
senate was organized and the vice president cheney came to talk to us. you know dick cheney, that wild-eyed liberal. well cheney said that if you don't pass this package, you are going to turn george w. bush into a moderate herbert hoover. and a majority of republicans voted for it, including bob bennett. that was the end of bob bennett's career. but when president obama was elected shortly thereafter, it came up as his first legislative initiative to have a stimulus package. suddenly, republican caucus was out for his scalp. jim demint, the senator from south carolina, was heard to say we are going to turn this into obama's waterloo.
12:07 am
mcconnell, the senate republican leader, said their republican senate agenda is to defeat obama. this was three years and 11 months before the 2012 election. and nobody in the republican caucus except for olympia snowe, susan collins and arlen specter would talk to the democrats about the bill. i had been the child during the 1930s depression, and i didn't want to see another depression. my father, who was a russian immigrant in 1930, found --
12:08 am
which would was yiddish. we lived in wichita, and my father packed up the family, headed east to philadelphia where he had a sister. in the depression, that is what families did. they moved in with one another to survive, and those were really tough times. and i had been there. it was plain that the vote was going to be highly precarious and it turned out to be just that. and that single vote out of 10,000 turned out to be the problem which i had. and that has created a situation where for example, senator collins and senators nau would not cross again the line.
12:09 am
we had a case called citizens united, which is pretty well-known, where the supreme court of the united states decided that corporations and unions could make unlimited financial contributions. actually, unlimited anonymous expenditures, independent expenditures, so-called. and they left a narrow opening, that is that congress could legislate to require disclosure so that at least you would know who is putting up the money. if sheldon adelson, from south carolina for newt gingrich for $10 million, you would at least know who is putting up the money. i think adelson overpaid for south carolina. but that was his choice. 59 senators on one side of the aisle, myself included, voted for what we called cloture
12:10 am
movement, but not one republican senator would stand up to provide the 60th vote. neither collins nor snowe. they had seen what happened to arlen specter and they were wiser and that went down in defeat. so today you see the emergence of the giant super pacs, anonymous contributions. where's the money coming from? where's the chamber of commerce getting that money? foreign? foreign corporations? nobody knows. the law doesn't require disclosure that that sort of paints the picture as to help and shy people are about crossing the party lines, putting their political careers on the line. and you know, seeing the emergence of the tea party, you have seen what has happened in the town meetings right here in
12:11 am
convention hall in early august of 2009. secretary of health and human services sebelius came to talk about the president's proposal for the affordable health care plan, which was before the supreme court last week and a tea party was out in force. had we been in this room, having this discussion, we wouldn't have been able to hear one of them talk there was so much noise in the adjoining room. and a few days later, i started my august town meetings. every year in august, while i was in the senate, i would make it a point to visit every county. usually i had 80 or 90 people.
12:12 am
on this day i had 1200 a rather famous town meeting, where they had the replay again and again and again of a rambunctious crowd, highlighted by one fellow who charged up, came within a few inches of my nose, his fist waving. he made the front page of "the new york times" the next day. of course, so did i. [laughter] but he was the star of the show. but he became a major television personality. but the country was up in arms and cancer, i think president obama made a mistake and unloading too much too soon. he had 3 trillion-dollar programs, one for cap-and-trade on the environment for global
12:13 am
warming and the second billion dollars on health care. it was estimated in fact at one point to be $1.6 trillion almost a trillion dollars on stimulus. it had been more than a trillion until it was pared down just slightly to $878 billion. so where do we go from here? might look provides an idea for the future, and the idea centralizes around the experience of senator lisa murkowski in alaska. senator murkowski was supposed in a primary by tea party candidate and went by senator demanded, and the tea party candidate cannibalized lisa and defeated her in the primary.
12:14 am
then lisa came back in an extraordinary move to run a right-hand campaign. do you know how hard it is to write in murkowski? if you spell it with a y instead of an i your ballot is thrown out. if you spell it with an all instead of the u, your ballot is thrown out. but she won, and i think senator murkowski's experience shows that if you inform the public sufficiently and motivate the public sufficiently, you can reinforce what is outside this building, we the people. the power is in the people. the power is there, but it has to be exercised. and you know how often you hear people say well, one vote doesn't count.
12:15 am
but that is replicated billions of times, and the nonvoters control the process, and the extremists on each side control the elections. if you want to win the iowa primaries, you have got to stay up until middle of the night to be able to caucus. a couple of final notes, the book has some lighter sides to it. i tell about an experience with senator kennedy in the senate gym. i was relaxing in the hot tub one day in the whirlpool, a great experience. income senator ted kennedy. who i worked with very closely for a lot of years. not this closely.
12:16 am
and there is steady, 285 pounds in his birthday suit. he comes to the edge of the hot tub, sort of like a diver, plop. all 285 pounds. you know the old saying, a rising tide lifts all the boats? my head damned near hit the ceiling. [laughter] just one other story of a little different line but that has attracted a lot of attention. when john mccain and sarah palin came to campaign in neighboring delaware county, i was asked to introduce them. before we went on stage, mccain said arlen, give me some political advice on what to do in a swing territory with the
12:17 am
independent voters. so, john and sarah palin and i went to a little area at a little conference table that were in very close quarters. i started to give him some advice on embryonic stem cells. i knew sarah palin was against embryonic stem cell research, but she didn't say anything unintelligent. because she didn't say anything. [laughter] but, the relevant part is not the substance of the conversation. the relevant part was sitting knee to knee in these close quarters. do you know the length of sarah's skirts? almost everybody does. and you know when you sit down, as gertz don't go down, and she
12:18 am
is a very beautiful woman, very sensual. i wrote this very discreetly. the general approved of it. [laughter] but it has attracted more attention than my ideas on how to solve the nuclear issue with iran. [laughter] well i'm really delighted to be joined by mike castle because mike castle is a bloody warrior like arlen specter. mike castle served with great distinction in delaware as lieutenant governor and then as governor. five terms in the house of representatives, so taking tough positions inside a tough, tough
12:19 am
party apparatus. when he was in his caucus, as i, the republican caucus on the senate side -- it's a really rough going. and delaware and america lost a great public servant, and from the point of view of the republican party, the party lost a seed. mike was issue when to win that seat. joe biden had given it up to become vice president and his son was in line to run, but when the younger biden looked at mike castle, he said not me. mike castle is too tough with his record in stature in delaware.
12:20 am
and a tea party candidate emerged. i don't know which which but very few people voted. she won, and she chained -- the seat changed hands. so i'm really pleased to share the podium and the platform with representative castle and look forward to his comments. >> thank you arlen. i am also very pleased and thank you for your kind comments. i just want to ask you some questions that relate to things that you and i have been involved in. we have both been termed and i think are self-described as moderate and moderate republicans for a long time. clearly there has been a complete taking apart of the moderate wings of both the democrats and republicans in the congress of the united states.
12:21 am
they differ a little bit state-by-state but in the congress is clearly that way. i am trying to determine the cause of that because when they take polls, the self-description but by most people is that they are moderate liberal or whatever and the majority people are very close to it first as any other description of being extremist or hard line. the parties i met in separate that out because they tend to be a little more extreme if you will towards their views of being either progressive liberal or conservative and it becomes very difficult to get people elected who are going to be in the middle. i am trying to determine the cause of all of this. i think part of it is the political parties who have the ability to take some of the legislation you mentioned and destroy a person's voting record on that basis. but i think part of it also is the media that we tend to overlook. there has been a big change in
12:22 am
the media in the last 10 or 15 years in this country in that it has become a lot more polarized. i am not just talking about "fox news." there've been answers to that. "msnbc" and others if you will which tend to offset the conservative side of this and a lot of the political pundits who do a lot of the writing on the very ideological basis in this country tend to be the ones who are also on the air doing a lot of this talking. i think that it's been divisive and is part of the demise of the moderate wing because there is not a lot of moderate answer to that. you may or may not comment on your book. i've only the chance to skim the book but i would be curious as to your view of the media's role in terms of the sort of changing of the political balance in this country away from moderates. >> mike, i think you put your finger on the critical aspects. i think it is talk radio and talk television, which whips the
12:23 am
fringes and activity. i think the money is at the hands of those who are willing to finance people on the outside eagles sense, the wealthy who really have more extreme positions. but i think ultimately, that the moderates lose because so few people come out and the people who come out are those who were most interested or the zealots who were really the enthusiasts to come out. and the generalized population has the attitude, my vote won't make any difference. i think that is the principle cause.
12:24 am
>> let me ask you a question that i am sure is on all oliver minds right now and that is what is happening in the republican presidential primaries which have been going on apparently for some period of time. you have been in both political parties but what are your thoughts about that, not so much in terms of who the nominee they need. i assume it will probably be romney or at least it certainly seems that way but in terms of the nag activity and again as you mentioned, you have these very wealthy individuals with their super pacs and the citizens united case was allowed to happen in this country. but how is this going to play out with the public? is this something that the republican candidate will be able to rebound from or is the damage which is being done in terms of the very negative advertising which we are seeing so prevailing that it's going to be very difficult if not next to impossible for the republican candidate to be able to spring
12:25 am
back from that? >> well i believe romney is going to have a lot of ground to make up and it's an open question as to whether he can do it. the republican primary has caused romney to move so far to the right, he is off the board. you have 10 candidates appearing in new hampshire who have a question. the question is, would you agree to 1 dollar in taxes for $10 in cuts? anybody in the civilized world and when i say that maybe that excludes those candidates, which they have course i will give you the 1 dollar in taxes for $10 in cuts but not one hand went up. not huntsman, not anybody. it was a well-kept secret but i ran for the republican
12:26 am
nomination in 1996 cycle. and i was in new hampshire. there were nine people there. the question was, how many of you promised to abolish the department of education? eight hands sprang up instantaneously. ridiculous question. you can't abolish the department of education. you just can't do it. so here you have herman cain and michele bachmann and one after another pushing and pushing brownies so romney so far to the right. senators and forum, prodigious worker, covered all the counties, played right into his strength with the evangelical right, but as soon as the people of america found out about him like the people of pennsylvania,
12:27 am
there he went. and romney has changed position so many times, bill maher had it right the other night when he said romney has changed positions more often than a pornographic movie queen. [laughter] and i am asked who am i going to support in november? i say well, i am not senator arlen specter any more. i'm citizen arlen specter and i'm not happy with president obama to be frank. this policy in afghanistan is absurd. i spoke out on the senate floor against 30,000 additional troops there. we have no fight with the taliban. there is no al qaeda there. i was part of the delegation to visit president karzai and he is not somebody you can do business with. you have the tax cut.
12:28 am
obama extended it and i spoke out against it. should never have extended the tax cuts for the rich in my opinion. then you have a commission cochaired by alan simpson on the deficit and national debt. doesn't pay any attention to that. and how about romney? well, which romney is going to appear? which etch-a-sketch will we now? how will we reset it? the answer to your question in my opinion is that the primary process has moved republicans this romney so far to the right he is going to have to make a sharp u-turn. ..
12:29 am
might be curious if you have any thoughts. i thought about this on what is going to happen down the road with health care and i think that's very dependent upon the election of the president and the house and the senate and a double barrel part of this is what are your thoughts about where they're going to go in terms of the republican house and congress and the democratic senate which is very tenuous in terms of its members and you could turn over in this election and if so what will that have if obama is reelected on the future of health care is going to bethn regardless of what the supremest court.th >> my sense is that the supreme court followed the conventional wisdom will strike down theeme affordable health care act act. my own legal judgment is that it is constitutional under congressional authority, under article one in the comments of
12:30 am
us. the way it has been interpreted. there have been many programs, social security and medicare, medicaid and others, which have served as real precedents. but you have a very ideological core, this is the court which elected bush and they came down with citizens divided, and kennedy is a swing vote. i have studied kennedy very closely since i participated in his confirmation in 1980. kennedy has a pension for the name kennedy court. the argument along a mandate, he said a couple of things. one was that the mandate
12:31 am
certainly goes far toward an incursion on liberty. suggesting that he would strike it down. then later in the argument, he left himself some wiggle room saying, well, if people get their health care at the emergency room, it is just a burden to everyone else. so you can be sure. if they strike it down, well, i think it's going to be a very confusing situation. there are some things that have already gone into effect. some parts of exchanges, for example. covering miners were children on their parents policies. i don't think you can keep the elimination of pre-existing conditions. i don't think you can compel the insurance companies to take everybody if you don't have a
12:32 am
mandate. what will congress do? i don't think congress will agree to any -- just nothing. you have a supreme court decision, if they strike it down, it will leave an enormous number of unanswered questions. questions to be litigated in the district court systems and the court of appeals, which will take years. meanwhile, people are sick. it will be very deterrable situation for the country. the supreme court of the united states is so far gone on ideology. roberts and alito testified one way about congressional intent, following fact-finding, they disregarded 100 years of precedent and citizens united. one thing that has not been
12:33 am
emphasized enough that maybe will be in this campaign, but roe versus wade is in jeopardy. ladies and gentlemen come out there in c-span land. when you have a hundred year precedent that corporations and unions can't make political expenditures, and you have a 1990 case, called austin, where the supreme court upholds limitations, and then congress enacted into law, and then the supreme court upholds it in 2003, and then seven years later, you come along and with a flick of a pen, declare it unconstitutional -- there is no precedent that is saved. if ideologically the court disagrees with it. and that is a real problem.
12:34 am
>> okay, folks. it is returned. there is a microphone here. you have to get in line and come up to the microphone. there is someone here. anyone else would like to query the senator can get into line and we will try to go through this as rapidly as possible. get in as many questions as we can. please keep the questions as brief as you can. the senator can give brief answers, but he is a senator. [laughter] three i like the first two questions because they have books in their hands. [laughter] >> i am a volunteer. i am a member of no labels. i've been to washington four times, including four weeks ago also, the government of affairs committee. we have a bill before congress with no budget, no pay. i'm not sure if you are familiar, but i'm wondering what you think of no labels. one portly, one portly, does
12:35 am
this country need a third party. with people like you, and somehow coalesced to have a moderate middle. taking control of his country again. >> i am familiar with no labels. i went to new york when they were first announced. i am also familiar with what you referenced, no budget, no pay, which is politically very popular, although i am not sure if it is really feasible. having said that, they did pass budgets and the provisions bills, which they don't seem to do anymore. and by the way, no labels is a movement to say to you should not put labels on politics. republicans, democrats, one way or another -- you should be able to get things done together.
12:36 am
and i think it is actually a very good movement, which will do positive things in this country. it has raised a considerable sum of money. a lot of people are taking a great deal of interest in it. having said that, there is a third -- i don't want to say it is a political party, but a movement by another group. a group that is actually gotten on the ballot in every state that they tried to, and will, in all 50 states. when you go to vote for the presidency are coming you can be one of several things. you can vote for the democratic candidate, the republican candidate, the candidate of this other particular group was going to be nominated by some sort of an internet nominating process. the president and vice president will have to be of opposite parties. senator, if you're running for
12:37 am
president, maybe you will be on there, i don't know. [laughter] that is interesting, too. maybe we need to do something different in this country. no labels is a part of that. at least talking to each other and getting things done. it makes sense. >> i think your idea of no budget, no pay, is a good idea. i just don't know how you get congress to pass that. >> good luck. [laughter] >> they would be the ones that would get no pay. i think if you put that on the referendum, you have a pretty good shot at it. >> [inaudible question] >> we had senator heller who is running for reelection in nevada. he has done his own polling, and no labels has done polling. over 85% -- between 85% and 90% of the people are in favor of no budget, no pay. senator lieberman said he won't be surprised to learn that the same polling figures don't take place in congress. somehow, if we can get congress
12:38 am
to do the same thing as the american people -- maybe something can happen. >> try a referendum. [laughter] >> yes, sir? >> senator, i am proud to work in the public programs partnered here in the constitution center. when you see come lottery in our congress period in 2013? in my lifetime? and my middle aged children's lifetime? in my grandchildren's lifetime? thank you. >> i am hopeful the day after the 2012 elections. if you throw enough of the rascals out and making comments more worried about losing their seats if they don't vote in the public interest instead of voting to preserve their offices, you have a chance to say it. it depends on when we the people
12:39 am
raise enough hell. >> and your. >> it is all set forth in the book. [laughter] >> i'm getting a little worried about libel and slander. we have to be careful of what we have to say. >> hello, i have a question for both of you, actually. i think part of the problem are kind of politics now is that i don't find that there is enough candidates that i like or that i want to vote for. it's two longtime political leaders, what expression you have for people who want to run for office? i find that young people feel disillusioned and many don't know where to start, especially now. what words of inspiration would be safer people that want to go into politics or see leaders today, and what advice would you
12:40 am
give them at this point? especially women. there are not a lot in office right now. >> first of all, there are an increasing number of women. that is very important. more so, as we all know, more women are attending college now than men. there are more women becoming leaders in the private sector, and it will spring into the public sector. i think it is very important to understand the significance of represent people. but also the enjoyment of it. i was in government for a long time. i don't like the way it ended, but i enjoyed the experience tremendously. i enjoy helping people. my staff enjoy helping people. that was a part of it. you don't think about it much, but you get those phone calls about the problems with social security or health care, and you are able to help them. that is a feeling you don't get in most of the private sector type of positions, which are out there. i think it is very rewarding. i believe that anyone can do it. i can say that i started in the state house of representatives
12:41 am
when i was 26 years old. in wilmington, delaware. i knocked on doors. i talked talk to people. they were happy to see somebody. at that point, not many people did anything like that. they supported me, and i was able to get elected. that was the springboard to what i did later on. i think that young people can do it. i would never underestimate a good, enthusiastic young person with good ideas in terms of their ability to do it. the political parties are very receptive to young people doing this. they are generally looking for candidates, maybe in areas where their particular party is not doing that well. the next person can go out and get the job done, as far as getting elected. i think it is a very rewarding career. sony people tell me that i would never do what you do. sony people tell me that i would never do what you do. i cannot imagine undertaking that or whatever. but they can, if you could. the opportunities are there.
12:42 am
i would hope that our good that young people, whether they be well educated or not, they can contribute a lot to the public discourse in this country. those are the people that we need to get involved. but the young people are going to be the future of america. we cannot discourage that. my hopes are that both parties get more young people. >> i think you get your motivation around the kitchen table. tracy spectre is sitting next to joan. she became well known among the
12:43 am
republicans. she and i are trying to have enough talk around the kitchen table to produce another senator or president out of the spectre family. i got my motivation at the kitchen table for my father. he lived in russia, and in siberia they wanted to send all the troublemakers they are to avoid a revolution. he wanted to go to kansas instead. it was a close call. [laughter] he emphasized the importance of government. and how important it was in our lives. that motivated me. i became a committeeman, democratic committeeman downtown i became an assistant da. i didn't have any money, didn't have any powerful friends.
12:44 am
i won some big cases. i was asked to be one of the young members on the warren commission staff. i won an upset victory for the da, one a republican primary, and you can do it. like mike castle says, if you work at it. >> you mentioned in ideological court. you feel that lifetime performance are still relevant for supreme court justices, and would you support a constitutional amendment that sets limits, say terms of eight or 10 years or something like that? >> well, i think it is worth considering. i wouldn't put it at eight or 10 years, but i think you might have a cut off of age. what we really have to change is
12:45 am
the confirmation process. i invite you to come to washington. we are having a five year retrospective on judge bork. i want to talk too much about it today because that is my next book. [laughter] and i want david eiseman to invite me back. >> thank you, senator. >> i will give you an idea. he goes through my mind, and i'm not advocating this yet, but something to be thinking about is that maybe members of the house of representatives should be elected for four years instead of two years. that business of running every two years makes them extraordinarily sensitive to fund-raising, to the political environment, and then on willingness to be, i think, more open-minded about what they are doing. maybe that would have to be some sort of a cap on how often you
12:46 am
can run. this is a terminus problem in america today. not just because it influences things, but it takes away time from the workers must be doing in terms of representing the people in congress. i think that that rapid turnover, which we see in the house, you don't see as much in the senate, but we see in the house -- it is pretty germanic. it is very often that somebody defeats someone else in a close election and that opponent says that i will run again next time, and the race is still on, and it never goes away. it is a bit of a problem in america today. something to be thinking about. i think in terms of where the country would go. good luck making that change. just something to put out on the table. >> hello. i am a retired school administrator and a volunteer here at the constitution center. i would like to say first of all how much we appreciate you coming here and sharing your book with us. it is an honor to be in the same room with both of you.
12:47 am
i look around, and i think about things that have just happened in philadelphia like the [inaudible name] scandal. the delaware port authority, nonsense that is going on with people who are being less than honest and less than moral. i start to wonder when i look at education. education, it feels like we have so much deemphasized civics and social studies in favor of passing tests in math and reading. i wonder, to me it seems like that has a correlation to the lack of a moral compass of so many people. congress seems to have in so many people in the public realm -- serving supposedly as servants of the public. i wonder what you think. either of you or both of you.
12:48 am
>> i will leave it up to the senator to handle. [laughter] >> well, education would certainly be a big help. there is no doubt that the schools do not emphasize government. they do not emphasize civic responsibility. and they don't really do much to inform the students about what goes on in washington dc. sandra day o'connor, who has spoken at this podium, in the constitution center decries the fact that students don't know anything about government in washington. that is a first step. the moral compass is a big significant factor on education. >> so much of it comes back to
12:49 am
the kitchen table. what the parents do. i mean, a lot of the blame is placed on no child left behind, which is an existing law with respect to elementary and secondary education, demanding students being able to pass tests and being able to read, write, and do math. other subjects are theoretically being ignored. first of all, i think that is a little bit faulty. i have been in every school in my state -- small state. [laughter] and i have seen the good principles. and i have seen them put together schedules and figure out how to work other things into it. even when you are dealing with certain aspects of learning required, you can work in civics education and et cetera. i think that there should be more of that. i think there should be more basic economic education, too,
12:50 am
which might have prevented some of the problems with foreclosures and excessive student loans and things which are going on. i think the things that need to be done, this race to the top business is the next generation of no child left behind. perhaps it will try to address some of those issues. but i believe the educators themselves need to look very carefully at how they can manage it. education is or is going to be, ultimately, a local decision. that's what we have to keep in mind. the federal government will put some money into it, but the bottom line is that it is the local educators who will make the decisions. your basic premise is how do we get there, and i'm not certain. i think i am being given the signal that we are done. senator, i will give you 30 seconds to sell your book. [laughter] >> i would make one addendum to that question. that is, i would encourage high
12:51 am
school students to go up for debate. go out for debate. it will acquaint you with the substantive issues in the public arena and the teachings of research and analysis and public speaking. those are key ingredients to getting someplace in politics. >> very good. let me thank the senator very much. let me thank all of you. let me just say that he is going to be here. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] i'm sure you want if you want to purchase a book, he will be happy to sign it or whatever it may be. >> don't forget "life among the cannibals." this book was written to try to influence what happens in america. i don't care about the premiums and the royalties. but i do care about people understanding how tough and vicious it is behind the scenes in washington. and how the partisanship has destroyed the public interest.
12:52 am
there is an answer, and we are here it in the constitution center and the big letters across the front of the constitution center, don't mention "life among the cannibals", but mention we the people. we the people can eat and devour the cannibals. read the book. [applause] [applause] >> thanks, everybody. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
12:54 am
was seem to have earned a certain place where people will listen to me and i've always cared about the country. the greatest generation writing that book gave me a kind of platform that was completely unanticipated, so i thought i ought not squander that. i ought to step up as not just as a citizen and a journalist but as a father and husband and grandfather and i ought to start
12:55 am
a dialogue which i'm trying to do with this book about where we need to get to next. next author john shaw on the career of the sixth term republican senator richard lugar of indiana. he's a congressional correspondent and vice president of market news international.thi this is a little more than half an hour. >> greetings and welcome to indianapolis. my name is brian and i
12:56 am
in this capacity, i have the honor and privilege of not only traveling with senator richard lugar, to europe all the way to siberia to albania, but i have also had the opportunity to travel with the author that is going to be speaking tonight, which is john shaw, which has been in congress for market news, and has written his third book featuring senator lugar. i have to tell you, a story that isn't in the book. john and i follow the senator from moscow that to siberia to a chemical weapons destruction facility, and we ended up in the renowned town of [inaudible name] russia. then we went out to the facility where the highly enriched
12:57 am
uranium is stored, which has come from soviet nuclear warheads. john and i ended up with officials who briefed us on what the senators were going to see. then we boarded a plane and headed to odessa. on the flight to odessa, we had a briefing that senator lugar participated in. we landed in odessa. we were met at the airport with a motorcade, so we course through odessa. with sirens blaring. we ended up at the london sky hotel. after a brief time there, we traveled through an area of odessa, a very gritty part of the city through an area down to the black sea, where the senator was shown monitoring equipment that was placed on ships that
12:58 am
would pull in ships coming into the harbor, monitoring and look forward highly enriched uranium. that night we went back to the hotel, had dinner with the senator, in which we talked about everything from what he had seen earlier in the day to the united methodist conference of the united methodist church in indiana. it was a wide-ranging discussion. that night, john and i ended up in the london sky bar. it wasn't quite something out of star wars, but i think the motorcade and all the sirens that have brought us into town, piqued the interest of the intelligence community that is centered in odessa. in ukraine, it they are only one of seven of eight nations that border the black sea.
12:59 am
as we sat in the bar, every time i looked up at him at the smoky figure on the other side of the bar, he seemed to be looking at me. then there was a group of people at a table, and they started us asking questions. who are you? where you going? and the guy said there are no flights from here to london. and i remember john saying, well, we are actually going to albania for us. then it became apparent that maybe these folks were looking for information that we should not be discussing so much. but that is one of the elements that i shared with john shaw is he researched this book. i'm going to turn the show over to him so that he can explain the third book that he has written. this one on senator lugar. john? >> brian, thank you for that kind introduction and a little trip down memory lane. the one part of the story that
1:00 am
brian did not mention is that when we pointed out that we were going to albania, brian kicked me under the table. i got the idea that that wasn't probably the smartest thing to be saying to some strangers. thank you so much, brian, for cohosting this event tonight. i would also like to thank kathleen angelo who is cohosting. i very much appreciate that. i would also like to thank marge davis for allowing us to use this incredible facility. finally, i wouldiketo rebecc .. mandy clark and their colleagues from the press who have been wonderful to work with in this whole project. it has been a pleasure to work with them. what i'm here to talk about tonight is this book, which prime minister called "richard
1:01 am
lugar: statesman of the senate." the book is coming out before one of the most eagerly anticipated primaries in indiana in and many decades. the truth is that i could pretend that this was great timing, but it was almost a total accident. i have been working on this book for a number of years. i work full-time, for market news international, between working a full-time job and covering the senator, it was a very full career. this has taken a long time to write. it is coming out at a very interesting time. the senator is involved in a contentious primary. he gives a sense of how charged the atmosphere is here this morning -- i went to a coffeeshop and a guy was waiting on me and we started talking about indiana politics. i mentioned that i had written a book on senator lugar. the first thing he said is the book pro lugar or anti-lugar. the first thing i said was i
1:02 am
hope it is fair to him. describing about how he goes about his work. i began this book in 2006. i had just finished another book in 2006, a book called "the ambassador." ron was a incredible diplomatic found a way to get into washington. as i was finishing the book i wanted to find someone else who could give me a little insight into how to best into how washington diplomacy and foreign policy works. i thought of, of course, senator lugar. i grew up in illinois. as a midwesterner, i followed his career. i have been covering washington since the 1991 year, and i have covered him as well. my thought was to not rock unturned to write a biography,
1:03 am
but do a case study on how a senator can shape foreign policy. my idea was to interview him extensively, get a sense of how he approached the job, to travel with him, both in indian and overseas, as brian mentioned, and also to interview some of his colleagues to get a sense of what they thought of senator lugar. his first those interviews go, i have some incredible interviews with vice president biden, senator mcconnell, governor knowles, former congressman lee hamilton. to ask about the senator. one thing that was striking was to talk to them and asked them to tell me about richard lugar. almost everyone of them use the word statement. it is interesting because how rarely the word is used now in american politics. in an interview, i try to get a sense of what they actually meant by that the term. a lot of them didn't have real precise definitions. as i thought about their comments and thought on my own,
1:04 am
i developed a working definition of what a statesman is. it has four or five elements that i want to briefly present. this may be providing a context about the senator's career. the first one is the sense of working in the national interest. the long-term national interests, and interest goes beyond the next election. i think it also requires a willingness to take some political risk. as we all know, not a lot of people are eager to do that. a third element is a willingness to work with the other party. perhaps that is even rarer now in american politics. another element is the willingness to break from your own party, to disagree with your own party when you feel like they are on the wrong side of an issue. another component is the willingness to work on issues that do not have a short-term political payoff. to work on programs and policies, to do good work when no one is really watching, in
1:05 am
effect. id., i think that is a rare thing in american politics. the final thing is that there is an ability to actually deliver and get things done. you can have the best intentions in the world, but in the end, you need to be able to deliver and produce. i think that is also a critical element of statesmanship. this book -- i don't argue that richard lugar is the perfect statesman. there are parts of the book that are positive. there are parts that are negative. i am sure that there are things that he disagrees with pretty strongly what i wanted to do in terms of structuring the book, is to start off with a biographical chapter to put his life and career in context. the first was to describe his life in indianapolis, a very consequential time. i spent some time trying to understand the nuances, a major experiment in government that he undertook in the 1960s. i tried to give a backdrop of
1:06 am
where he comes from politically. i chased his senate career. he was elected as you may know, in 1976 for the first time. his early career was sort of dogged, discipline, no major breakthroughs. but i think that tipping point of his political career occurred in 1984. to the influential in senator, there were two tracks you can take. the first is a leadership track to try to become a republican or democratic senator. the second is to develop policy expertise and become a chairman or high-ranking member of a committee. interestingly, lugar began pursuing the leadership track. there was a five person scramble to succeed him -- senator lugar did not make that. due to some twists and turns, he became chairman of the foreign relations committee starting in 1985. that was a strange way -- they
1:07 am
redirected his entire career, and he became it has become one of the leading spokesman on american foreign policy. he also worked in agriculture issues. i think that the real one is for policy. the book itself focuses on some areas that the senator has worked on. i describe some of the things he did in his early career. the focus of the book is the product is working on when i was interviewing him, which was 2006 to 2011. the book describes his work on energy issues, global issues, arms control, efforts to overhaul the american foreign policy apparatus. a very technical, comforted a nuclear agreement with india, and an international treaty -- the law of the sea treaty. i won't go through all of this, of course, but in almost all of
1:08 am
these areas, the senator has worked in a pretty practical, dogged way to get results. he is a conservative republican, but he has not been particularly partisan, and he has tried to work with people from both parties to actually solve problems. probably the signature issue of richard lugar's political career is the lugar act. it is a program to locate comet secure, and dismantle weapons of mass distraction from the former soviet union. it includes biological and chemical weapons and also has expanded to other parts of the world. sugar go the senator went to africa and viewed how the program is working there.
1:09 am
the nunn-lugar program is a program that has over performed, it is a program with good solid intentions, well-managed, accomplishing things. we only spend about $1 million a year on the nunn-lugar program, and a lot of people think we should be spending more for it. the senator has been nominated a couple times for the nobel peace prize. that will be remembered as sort of the core of his legacy. if not, richard lugar -- one of his greatest accomplishments -- is his involvement on the iraq and afghanistan wars will be remembered in a more complicated way. my own view is that the senator has had some very intelligent, even forward-looking things to say about the iraq war. but i don't think he had a lot of influence. and i think there are two reasons for that. i think first, the bush administration was not particularly interested in congressional insight into iraq.
1:10 am
if you read read some of the memoirs that are coming out now from the bush administration, it is very clear that the congressional reaction to the impending war was not of a particularly great concern to the administration. i think a second factor is the senator opted to voice his concerns and reservations in a private, quiet way, rather than to force a public confrontation. this is one of the great dilemmas of of a lawmaker. recent history is replete with examples of lawmakers trying to struggle to find the best way to shape an administration's view on a controversial issue. in the mid- 60s, william fulbright disagreed with the johnson administration's conduct with the war in vietnam. he tried to persuade them to
1:11 am
change course privately. he held public hearings in 1966, which really galvanized the public debate on the subject of vietnam. in the meantime from a marginalized him within jobs and administration. they didn't want to talk to them anymore because he had gone public and broken the administration. at the same time, mike mansfield, who was the senate majority leader, have the same sort of reservations. he opted to keep his concerns quiet. he was very supportive publicly. yet, he also didn't have a lot of impact on the debate. i think the senator faced an acute dilemma about what to do, whether he should stay quiet or make his concerns known in quiet talks or whether he should go public. i have talked to him. in the course of this book, many times, about his views. he felt that he would have more impact by taking a quiet approach. it is certainly a legitimate
1:12 am
point of view. there are people who disagree and think that he could've gone could have gone and should've gone in a different reaction. one of the best interviews i had in the project was with chuck hagel, a former senator and nebraska, who is a huge lugar fan. he said it is very clear the demonstration was not going to respond to private treaties, and the only way to get action was to go public. lugar disagreed. one should note, that several years in june of 2007, he went to the senate floor and gave a memorable speech in which he basically said the administration's policy in iraq is not working. we need to change gears. many took that speech as a tacit admission to try to work with the administration privately. if the experience in iraq, i
1:13 am
think, will be remembered as a disappointing chapter in the senator's career. one of the really good chapters will be his work on the arms control treaty with russia. here it was classic lugar. it was a complex, difficult treaty. he viewed it as part of the arms control agreement that the reagan administration had initiated. he did a deep dive, understand it the nuances of the issue, and the decided that he would work with you, administration because it was in the american national interest to do so. candidly, he was not treated well by the senate republican leadership. mitch mcconnell said that lugar was a wee person, but he also brought in jon kyl, his deputy. you have an ungainly arrangement in which both lugar and kyle were involved. it seemed like republicans were turning to kylemac on this.
1:14 am
even though most people had a much greater understanding of the treaty comedy to be much more balanced approach to the treaty. but it was classic lugar in the sense that he worked hard on it. he was completely a gentleman. he did not react to mcconnell in any adverse way. he was very committed to working hard on the issue. he sent out a number of dear colleague letters. it was a model of a senator and what they can here. it was a remarkable set of letters. it laid out with the treaty was. while proponents believed, what critics believed, in his view. it was, i think, extremely fair-minded. the sort of work that we hope that our lawmakers will provide. it happens too rarely. i'd like to end my remarks by talking about his current campaign. obviously, it is a campaign that
1:15 am
has grabbed both the national attention and international as well, of course, indiana, which is something un which is something under -- it is being viewed with great interest. something that i had to wrestle it -- because as i was finishing up the book in 2011, the one big question i had to ask myself and to try to answer, which is how can it be that it is a successful senator, very popular at home, respected, respected throughout the world -- he is fighting for his political life. i won't presume to tell people in indiana with about the debates and stuff they have going on, but it seems to me that the senator has faced some headway and that you have to understand. the first is that congress is deeply unpopular. opinion polls for congressional approval or in the high single digits. there is a sort of guilt by
1:16 am
association but i think a lot of incumbents have to work through. secondly, i think the senator's brand of republicanism, which i was would describe as fiscally conservative, but internationally dedicated to foreign policy, it is being, i think, at least temporarily pushed aside toward a different type of conservatism that is more focused on social issues. these are the issues that the senator really hasn't talked about a lot over his career. i think a third factor that is weighing the senator down or causing his reelection some difficulty -- is that his whole term is that of a moderate, civil, gentle person. i think it is a tone that works wonderfully in washington. it is the way you solve problems. but i think it is, in some sense, out of sync with the more confrontational anger, if you
1:17 am
will, demands of the senate republican base. i think his whole temperament is a little bit -- it is a little bit out of step. i also think it is the simple fact that the senator has cast some votes that put them in the mainstream of congress, and even republicans in congress that have been identified by some in the republican party as un- sufficiently partisan. the arms control treaty minister spoke about this one. some of his votes on the supreme court nominations is another. lugar view is that if these people are in the judicial mainstream, the president should have the prerogative of putting supreme court nominations before the senate. and unless there are disqualifying elements, the senate should confirm them. that, to me, is the backdrop.
1:18 am
the senator has known since 2010 he would face a tough reelection this year. he has done, i think, a lot of things i think you would expect them to do. he has raised a lot of money. he has spent a lot of time -- he spends a lot of time in indiana under all circumstances. he spends even more time here. i think he has also shifted his, if not policies, his rhetoric. i think he has become far more artisan and confrontational. i am on the press list and get a number of e-mails on health care or keystone or something, but i think that he is taking -- he has moved to the right to be more in step with the tea party movement. my one view is that i'm a little bit surprised that the senator has not run more aggressively on his record. i think he is one of the more
1:19 am
significant senators in the last century, certainly in foreign policy. and i think he has this considerable, impressive history and the background, i think, is the people of indiana -- they have been very proud of him. i think he has explained passionately and unabashedly, he is pulling back -- the campaign has become more tactical and negative. as i conclude, i would actually like to recommend that people read a wonderful essay by brian wrote last week about the campaign. in which he basically said that it was time for both candidates, both senator lugar and richard murdoch, the state treasurer, to up their game. but they dispense with the bickering and resident issues and taxes and murdoch's attendance at meetings, and just lay out their agenda for the future on things like fiscal
1:20 am
policy, and for policy, health care, and et cetera. i think it will be interesting to see in the coming weeks -- the final weeks of the campaign, the senator really does run fully and aggressively as statesmen of the senate. let me just stop there. i would be glad to take any questions. i ask for any confidence comments too, on the campaign. >> thanks very much. [applause] [applause] >> questions from anyone? >> if you will go to the microphone, that would be great. thank you. >> when did you actually start on this project specifically? about five years ago, was that? >> i started in the fall 2006. my first trip of with the senator was in the fall 2006
1:21 am
period in which it is running unopposed. to just show you how the political world shifts, at that time, he was running unopposed. he was chairman of the foreign relations committee. he was a republican president. one of the big challenges of this book -- one of the real challenges is that even though you have senator lugar, who has had a steady career, the political landscape around them has been shifting constantly. it has sort of been like trying to hit a moving target. as i said, the senator's career, i think, has been very steady. the political circumstances surrounding him have changed considerably. i think. >> it probably doesn't fit in with your statesmen approach, but you mentioned the agriculture committee. back in the 1980s, i know he was -- he did a smoker job on jesse helms and the foreign relations committee. he has been very active there
1:22 am
and have the freedom to farm act. when corn and beans went down. others senators got skittish and they repealed it. but the agriculture is another significant contribution. >> i think that is a good point. i mentioned in the book that lugar has worked on the agriculture committee. he was chairman, as you mentioned, in the 1990s. he, as you mentioned, past the freedom to farm. i talked a bit about agriculture but the focus of the book is one foreign policy. i also spent some time writing by the senator's relationship with jesse helms, which has been a difficult one. they have been actually, jesse helms -- lugar was the chairman of the committee from 1985 to 1987, when the republicans won control, jesse helms uses seniority to take control of the chairmanship, and effectively,
1:23 am
forced lugar into the second raking position. it was at that point that he went back to agriculture. the battle between lugar and jesse helms is an interesting one. it has been something that has shaped lugar career in a very interestingly. >> john, talk about the political vulnerability of foreign relations chairman. you mentioned that other than jesse helms, could you go onto a little detail on that? >> yes. it is a committee that -- that has been politically difficult to be on. in fact, lugar, i remember when i first interviewed him, no one has a thorough grasp of the political vulnerabilities of the senate foreign relations committee like dick lugar. from william fulbright, frank church, there is just a whole slew of people on the foreign relations committee. it is something that he is
1:24 am
committed to. one of the chapters is goaltending on the homefront. i described how the senator is trying to keep his political strength at home solid to allow him to work on foreign-policy issues. he does a lot of things to try to connect the world of foreign policy to the likes of indiana. specifically he speaks loud and works a lot on trade issues, which is a way that he believes you can connect foreign policy and the need of people in indiana. he's well aware of that history. up to now, he has been able to survive it. we will see one march 8 in the the primary comes. >> john, i want to begin by saying what an excellent speaker you are. and that is evident that you know your subject very well. my question is, and maybe was
1:25 am
just touched on, but how does a farm boy from indiana get so passionate about foreign-policy? >> well, i think that it is a wonderful question. i think that there are two simple answers, prosaic answers that will sort of point to that. i think what the senator would say, he would say that his time as a rhodes scholar was a real opening experience -- eye opening experience where he traveled extensively to the uk and elsewhere. and he really saw the world through the eyes of others. he cites his work as a rhodes scholar as being hugely important. he also speaks a lot about his time as a young naval officer, working for it a man who was a grand strategist and foreign policy. as a young naval officer, it was shaped for his life. he also told me that his mother kept him grounded. that is a small, tangible
1:26 am
abdication of what a different place and world captivated him and actually brought the world outside of the united states ally for him. >> another entity that question, there are those of us that were old enough to remember world war ii. when you live with foreign policy were from 1939 to 1945, it becomes a daily habit. >> and it is not an abstraction. it becomes real. that war was so all-encompassing in american life. that is an important comment as well. >> one other point i might just mention briefly, one of the things that i have struggled with in writing the book, and i think i gather that it has come up in the campaign -- is the senator's relationship with president obama. it has become a source of some contention and controversy. my own feeling is that well,
1:27 am
i've actually talked to the senator about this. he first heard of barack obama when he was a young senator running for the u.s. senate senate in illinois in 2004. he was struck by the fact of someone running for office who is interested in foreign policy. i think mr. obama referred to lugar very positively. when obama jumped into the stratosphere after his speech in 2004, i think senator lugar kept a much more close eye on him, and when he was elected, barack obama in 2004 -- lugar wrote him a letter and -- he was then the chairman of the foreign relations committee, and he said that you would be a good asset to this committee. he brought energy and star quality to the committee. obama joined a committee in 2005. they work together. they took a trip together.
1:28 am
during the 2008 campaign, senator lugar endorsed john mccain, as you might expect. but he also was careful not to disparage obama. in fact, just weeks before the 2008 presidential election, he gave a very interesting foreign policy speech in which he talked about the obama and mccain approaches to foreign policy. it was a very even minded speech in which he was, praising both for certain things and criticizing for both things -- it's the sort of thing that you hope that public officials will do. you look at something and you call it straight. but even then there were criticisms from republicans who felt that he was not sufficiently critical of obama. since barack obama was elected, and came to office in 2009, i think lugar has tried to work with the president when he could. i think, you know, despite
1:29 am
campaign rhetoric that we hear in indiana, i think that senator lugar is neither barack obama's best friend or his worst critic. .. my own view is the relationship is that complicate one and i will make this point. i have been surprised the obama administration has not drawn on lugar more often for insight or counsel and i'm really surprised that the bush administration, bush 43 did not consult lugar here because here you have someone who wanted the president to succeed. he has seen all there is to see about the world. joe biden likes to say that senator lugar has forgotten more about foreign-policy than most
1:30 am
u.s. senators ever learned.p the bush administration had this incredible resource fair and wh they did not draw on him more frequently and more often is astonishing.shin senator hagel is very passionate on the subject. he had lugario who was dying to, help theo president but no one called very often. it was frustrating i think. nig. >> can you talk about the relationship and how that has progressed since senator biden has become vice president? >> they were colleagues together on the foreign relations committee. they get along well. they have opposite temperaments as you probably know. senator lugar is quiet and soft-spoken and doesn't like to draw a lot of attention to himself. vice president biden is a more flamboyant and talkative person
1:31 am
but they have a respect for each other that it's interesting. the of this sort of the ability to decide what issues they can agree on and to focus on those and no they would harp on it. one of the interesting moments occurred during the nomination to the u.s. and u.n. ambassador and the reserve certain moment when the relation was considering its nomination and lead in the game there was a republican defections of it was clear that he was about to go down, and he basically turned and i'm not sure if senator lugar at that moment quite caught what was going on but he whispered in his ear you don't want to call the roll call here. you don't want to lose. again, the short term thing would have been for joe biden to let it pass and have the nomination collapse.
1:32 am
but they had a sense that when they were colleagues for the long term and thought it was not important to have the senator out on the issue that could have been embarrassing to him. thank you very much everyone for being here. it's been a pleasure to chat with you, and will be very interesting for everyone to see how the next couple of weeks turnout and with the world looks like after the may 8th primary here in vienna. thank you all very much. appreciate it. [applause]
1:33 am
1:34 am
1:35 am
[laughter] [applause] that is not even funny. [laughter] >> mr. president do you remember when the country rallied around you in and hopes of a better tomorrow? that was hilarious. that was your best one yet. [applause] honestly it is a thrill for me to be here with the president. a man who has done his best to guide us through very difficult times and has paid a very heavy price for it. there is a term for guys like president obama. probably not two terms. >> miss any part of the white house correspondents' dinner? you can watch anytime on line at the c-span video library behind the scenes, the red carpet and all the entertainment at
1:36 am
c-span.org/video library. >> earlier this year booktv attended a party for the publication of "shooting from the lip" the life of senator al simpson. the author is the senator's former chief of staff, donald hardy. this is about 45 minutes. >> we are coming to you. we are here to celebrate your book. >> where is annie? >> i know, this is awesome. you met dawn from way back.
1:37 am
1:38 am
there is and go. >> hello and to. >> has my wife arrived yet? >> i don't think so. >> this is pretty good to be immortalized in your lifetime. >> immortalize? >> can i say hi. my name is donald hearty. >> he is the author of the book. >> oh, hey. it's wonderful. it's so modest. >> there is a troublemaker and tom. hi ginni, how are you? >> it has got to be about eight volumes. >> i am so glad. >> i didn't write the book. you know jenny.
1:39 am
jennie thomas and clarence and you know jim billington of course. >> this is just a great party. >> we saw you a few weeks ago. >> jimmy, clarence thomas. >> it is a good seeing you. hi deere. how nice of you to come. >> bless you. bob would be here. there were all sorts of crowds so it was a little bit hard. >> hi. >> anyway we loved your christmas card. you didn't have to do that. >> we were in deadwood. we. it made it to dead were. >> did you go to the game in
1:40 am
laramie? >> no, did you go. >> no, i didn't get to it either. what are we doing? >> we are going to take a photo. >> here we go. my god, call the cops. this is bizarre. >> oh and he. >> good to see you, sir. how are you doing? >> you are the doctor, aren't you? >> the weather was great. >> hey, nina. >> how are you? it is good to see you. you don't look a day older. did you see annie?
1:41 am
>> no. that is what david said to me this morning. he will show up. i just said hi to norm. >> he was behind barbed wire. you will never forget -- >> were definitely the head. >> announce my name and i said you never told me. i didn't know. you didn't? >> no. >> i didn't know that. >> i have to find and kill. there she is. right there, the white-haired lady with the gray jacket. how about your dad? >> he is 101. he is still talking.
1:42 am
>> i worked for a guy in the 80's. [laughter] >> hello, hello. >> no, no, i never do that. i'm not tall enough. >> you tell al, give them the usual greeting. >> i will, i will do it. >> who was that? >> the secretary of transportation. >> was that norman at that? you are doing a good job. >> i have this little gas tax bill starting out minimally so we can change it up hired to
1:43 am
what it is supposed to be but i'm not getting any support. i have had all my arguments. i've got people worried about it now. they don't want to raise taxes. grover said no. >> i say when coburn takes 6 billion out of ethanol and tom called the ludicrous and i called the deceptive. >> tom is helping on this. and so is coburn. i am gaining ground. >> how is diana? issue will? >> yes, she is good. >> and go is in there. sam donaldson said -- >> senator do you mind holding this book for one of the members of the press? >> i did not write this book. i don't get any money out of this book. i did not write it.
1:44 am
know, the money goes to the author. i don't get any. nono, it's true. >> thank you so much, sir. >> you are very welcome. yours gets special care. >> i used to work with michael conger and senator thurmond's office back in the 80's. this is my husband, greg. we are big fans of yours. >> i made it in my lender for. >> you are sweetheart. it is so nice to see you and i can't wait to read this book. >> i didn't write it but it's really a good book. >> we are getting one for his mom and dad. thank you senator. it's great to see you. >> it will just tear their heart out. tears will stream down their face. >> you haven't changed a bit. >> travis jordan. it's been a couple years.
1:45 am
i was a millward scholar back in 2006. >> i am working for senator and the still and he has written me a couple of letters of recommendation. i appreciate all the support. >> he is a terrific guy. i told him when i saw him, i don't know if you have ever been in politics that you will give them. he is a wonderful guy. >> keep still tells us that story. >> is a true story. >> it's good to see you. >> thank you for being here. i will personalize it. >> senator, hi. c. r. u. still flying? >> i am. i was at press secretary on the house and when i got there in 1988 my boss bill klinger, bill is doing great.
1:46 am
he gave me a list and he said if you want to know how i think here's where you pay attention to and yours was the first time on the senate less. it only had a couple of games on it. he was the chairman of the board of trustees for a years. >> he drag me out there and it was a lot of fun. >> i checked within about six weeks ago and he is doing great. he said they years was enough but he still has a home there and spends his summers there. really a pleasure meeting you. [laughter] >> i am still here is your bodyguard, as your bodyguard, baby. >> who is that over there? the bodyguard. >> my editors told me to ask you one question. who are you going to support for the republican nominee? >> i watch our party. i'm 80 years old and i voted for ike. all i can tell you is the republicans have a beautiful
1:47 am
ability to give each other saliva test security and then they lose and they complain for four years. >> i've got to remember that. >> that is actually what they do. they say how did we get this and they say 20% of you voted for ross perot. >> have not answered my question. >> no, not going to. >> i told you he wasn't going to answer you. >> i would have to say i wrote a -- to romney. it was for 1000 bucks. i could've done more but i haven't earned enough money and i don't get anything for this book. i just waited because i have effectively made everyone in america mad with the co-chairmanship of this committee. we know we have succeeded so far because we have made everyone mad in america. erskine and i go all over the
1:48 am
country and have spoken to over 500,000 people. we have gotten standing ovations. it was the first is tell him what a trillion bucks was. >> what what is that? >> h. william bucks and now you stabilize social security. not heard an old seniors but how you do something with medicare that is eating a whole through -- it doesn't matter what you call it. call it elvis presley care. >> thank you. >> how are you? >> good to see you. enjoy a little bit of cody coming to d.c.. >> who are these people? >> i know, i know. >> all your fans. >> it is bizarre. >> you will have to change that. a second printing.
1:49 am
you covered jokes for them, right? >> we got a couple of copies. >> i read it is greater first and then i read it as a reader and reading it as a reader -- to. >> it's a lot more fun. >> i can't wait to read it. >> it's wonderful. will we see some of your brewed in here? excellent, excellent. >> are you kidding me? >> you didn't have to do this. >> we couldn't not. >> get in here. >> get in here deborah. you are so dear to come to this. >> he loves you. >> i kissed him on the head right now. >> are you kidding me? this man loves you. >> here is a great guide.
1:50 am
we used to do a hell of a lot of business, didn't we? >> i really miss you. >> you have to say hello to all these folks. he doesn't want to go do anything and he saw that in the gus deborah, have to go to an event. >> i am working my way up but i didn't get there. ann is here. there she is right over there. a lot of people voting for her, john. >> how are you doing? >> i am doing so well i can't stand myself. i have everything. well, almost everything senator. [laughter] by the way, you arranged for keg, my wife and i, to get married in the howard baker room. >> is everything working well? >> we are still together. is the most fabulous.
1:51 am
anyway, see you, friend. thank you very much. >> how are you? are you subduing your stuff? >> i am getting in as much trouble as i can. i am freelancing and working on my own book. >> would be writing about? >> my dad. >> he is living? >> no, he died at 100. >> well that is a book. >> the last time i saw you we were in church down the street. you are making huge things. see you, honey. >> ann is over there. >> you are related to the queen, aren't you? oh my god. i am in the presence of royalty. >> i know who it is. it is david.
1:52 am
it's david brinkley come back from the dead. >> i am buying five books. how much are they? >> i don't know, i didn't write it. >> you didn't write it? what the hell are we doing here? >> don hardy. >> hello, don. >> you probably want to go to the brown palace. >> yeah, yeah. >> ann, annie, right here. sam and jan. we want to get a picture. there she is. >> look at that darling. i am here because of you. >> oh, i know it. >> right here, please.
1:53 am
>> you wanted to raise my taxes. you didn't have to do that. >> he wanted to raise the taxes and i told him to raise revenue in this country. >> we know what you make. >> a long history. >> the author and his wife. don and becky and they have been six years on this baby. >> i'm surprised they finished it in such a quick time with the way you are, you old coot. >> go ahead and tell c-span whatever you like. [laughter] >> these are pals of mine. how are you? your book will get special
1:54 am
attention. >> we have already bought it, but i told them that i wanted you to write something in it. >> i have all stacked up the ones i want to sit down and really deal with. i will see you tomorrow. we are doing five different things. we ought to have a pile of books to receive my personal attention and i can do it tomorrow some time. stack them all up. betty j. gerber. george t. beckett. we are going to fix it up. we have hacked off everybody in america. linda, my child. you little rascal. how good of you to come. >> i really mr. rife to sign the
1:55 am
book because i said i'll but she did most of it. >> i am going to tomorrow, between -- i don't make a nickel off this thing. i didn't write it. >> i forgot about that. they have lots of quotes. >> i didn't write it. anyway, i want to add some special notes to this. >> does that mean we will ever get that? >> look, you will get it back. is that my here these? [laughter] >> the one you lost 45 years ago. >> anyway, john dingell came and he doesn't go do anything. i love the guy. they can't caught me kissing him on the head. >> he wouldn't, except for you. a lot of us wouldn't come out.
1:56 am
1:57 am
signed. >> are you sure that is all they want? >> to bob and judy wooster. to bob and judy worcester sure. best wishes. that is for bob moss' friends. he loves you and i love you. i will see you later. >> i have got to get a picture. ann can i get a picture with you two? >> i know you know how to take it. >> i will do it. it is one of those, one of those roaming errors. it's a brand-new thing. get in here. don hardy, debt -- get don.
1:58 am
there we go. he was one of my students at harvard. >> can i get by with just us? >> this is one of my finest students. he is of the other faith. >> i'm at the white house now. a speechwriter for the president. >> 45 minutes, just the two of them. [laughter] that is how productive session start. >> is this your daughter cracks oh no, it's margaret. >> gets me, my daughter is not here. >> oh wow.
1:59 am
you were a tiny boy. >> his mother was judge alice k. murray. a democrat with 13 children. >> nine boys, for girls and the first one out was the first one dressed. >> that is a great saying. >> i wish i could've been your author. >> he used to take the whole staff over. >> oh my goodness, look at this. >> you remember my wife, sarah, right? >> all of the crew. >> cody sends his regards. >> he wanted and alfalfa party. i said i can't help you.
203 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on