she is interviewed by a guest host a.b. stoddard associate editor of the hill. >> host: we are here today to talk about "fighting for common

ground" how we can fix the stalemate in congress with olympia snowe the senator from maine. i am a fan of your service and i want to start by thanking you for all that you did in congress and i'm looking forward very much to what you are going to do outside of the system. you actually, so interesting to read. i read about you departing the congress of course but then when i read your book to learn you call that a place of burn bridges and scorched earth and you could no longer fulfill your responsibility as a problem solver and that you are embarrassed by the 112th congress with the bipartisan inactivity and bickering and inability to address the challenging problems in america. you now hope that you can help correct the system from the outside rather than be in. that is the bad news obviously

two people like me and longtime watchers of the congress who felt that people like you needed to be in it and as you noted in your book bob schieffer of cbs said what is it say the state of our government when serious people like olympia snowe feel their service is no longer worth their time and effort. that is the part that should word -- worry the rest of us. make the case for me and your viewers that you can actually in leaving, so few moderates at all in the congress, try to change the system from the outside. >> guest: i'm frequently asked that question but it occurred to me when i was facing the cold, stark reality of the question of whether not it was going to change. actually so many people asked me that question in maine and across the country.

it was over a short period of time, whether or not it would change this polarization would dissipate. i came to the conclusion regrettably that it would not over the short term and that given the pronounced changes in the outside with campaign, campaign zhang campaign fund-raising and outside organizations that wade and, the polarization of both of the political parties and certainly changes going on in my own party and the republican party, i just didn't see how it would outweigh what was happening on the outside. if i could contribute in the next six years another way what would it be? i decided that i had to first reaffirm what people were feeling about congress that yes

they are right that it is too partisan and two what can we do about it that would be different. now you're coming to generations of people and generations of lawmakers that think this is the way it is. >> host: right, and for those of us who have been watching for so long and in my case right before the republican revolution in 94 we have seen these changes. we felt them in the electronic media and the professionalization of politics, the mandate for fund-raising which is so different than those early days, the punishment of cooperation and compromise and the 24-hour news cycle. it is true that so many lawmakers and you say in your book have just gotten -- and that is the process. you write in your book, i heard you an interview where you talked about how in working from the outside there needs to be a grassroots effort to be an equal

counterweight to the forces of extremism and you said these outside groups have tireless efforts to divide so obviously there has to be a tireless effort to unite. he said it's important we make certain a benefit so we can break what has become a parliamentary gridlock in congress. how do we provide a benefit and reward to people like you in the system? >> guest: well first of all obviously it's in the elections. most notably and that you demand bipartisanship and hold candidates and elected officials accountable. why aren't you working out this solution? why are you an session working solution? what do you intend to do if you are a lack did about being bipartisan? will you work across party

lines? force them to commit to the whole notion that they work across the political island, for solutions rather than having of constant political standoff and it is really to turn the tables. you know the forces of polarization, they are well-funded and well organized and so the same could be true if the vast population in this country demanded and insisted upon bipartisanship. and so it is to be a counterweight and it also is to change the incentives in the political system and reward those by voting for those candidates are those elected officials who are and to vote against those who aren't. i think that is really important because people feel like there is no control and they have no sense of control. but we really do have to organize obviously but secondly

is that each in our own communities and officeholders all the way up. it's also filtering down to the local levels as well. you really do solve a problem sitting round a table. and imagine if everybody just stood down because they weren't getting what they wanted 100% of the time in all spheres of life? >> host: how are these candidates and officeholders going to be monitored if the forces that divide our monitoring, all of the time, how can the supporters of bipartisanship amass the resources and organization to keep track of a member who is not working across the aisle or who is, to reward them in primaries when they do, to punish them when they don't? how does that become, do you believe that the discussed is there, the outrage is there and the passion is there to force that kind of monitoring of

politicians the way that those other interests to? >> guest: first of all getting somebody's voting record is pretty easy these days and you know there are a lot of analysis done by various groups on the hill and in publications like the "national journal" where you can easily garner that. also real-time on the issues that are pending before congress. that is critical because you say right now okay, developing a budget. why aren't they finalizing a budget? there is a good example of saying america doesn't have the budget he codes they just won't reconcile their differences so in real time they can communicate with social media. you can use social media for organizational purposes and communications and that is what the opposing side does. the bipartisan policy center has a web site. part of what it is going going to be as offering options and information to people to know

real-time what is happening and what lawmakers are championing in those efforts to work across the political aisle. it's that sort of thing that's got to happen in order to turn the tide against what is occurring inside congress. >> host: right. i just want to mention some of the issues you have been involved with so that the listeners and viewers know what an expert you are in the process and we are going to get that because that is so critical to the breakdown. you have been a champion of reducing the debt, a fiscal sanity as you call it and the champion of the budget balance amendment. you have worked tirelessly on telecom legislation. you are the inspiration behind the raid which is an effort to wire most of the country schools. you have worked on to the tax credit headstart and establishing liheap home heating support, the equal rights

amendment pension reform, welfare reform, family medical leave act schip violence against women act legislation on unfunded mandates congressional accountability act and such a leader on women's health and i think that is so impressive including the inclusion of women in medical trials, cancer research and legislation to end discrimination by insurers against anyone on the basis of genetic information or the use of genetic testing. i think that is so incredible. so along the path, you became obviously so familiar with process both in of the maine state legislature when he came here with your service in the house and then the senate. talk to people -- though i'd know c-span viewers are very familiar with the process in congress of legislating but for someone who might be flipping around, i want them to know why as you seek to engage them out in the country in the process in

reforming the system for why it's important that you talk about filibustering an amendment and the rules in your book and why, maybe you should tell people why parties avoid passing budgets. we know it's important that way don't they do at? >> guest: what has happened in the senate most notably for three consecutive years, we didn't even consider a budget resolution. i served on the budget committee for eight years and throughout the budget history since 1974 you know there have been years in which the buzzett -- budget resolution hasn't passed the three consecutive years and this is obviously the fourth. they found past one in the senate but the house and senate has not recognize their differences and this is supposed to be done by april 15 so statutorily congress is required to pass a budget and complete that process by april 15 and here we are languishing. it's no wonder everything has

gotten so distorted and out of whack. sequestration and the automatic cuts, right? we have major debt piling up and we have 16.8 chilean dollars in debt and we are in in uncharted territories without question and meanwhile the deficit is coming down as a temporary event. we are going to have major issues on the horizon which isn't that far down the road. all of that matters in having a budget he codes it gives you a framework and then the committees, the policy committees, the authorizing committees are then supposed to set to work within the confines of the numbers given in the budget resolution on education transportation and health, certain numbers and they figure out how it's going to be used in terms of the policy and dictating the policy and then of course inappropriate and decides she apportioned in. the porton thing is none of that

happens in a a wonder there is a breakdown in the process. it's completely broken and when you lose discipline you loose discipline. everything falls apart. there is no order to the whole process. if we don't have a budget that affects appropriations and we have semiannual budgets now basically because they have to avert a close down. we should have a biennial budget so congress can do the oversight. i think that is a huge reform to have a budget for two years like the states do and then you can make adjustments and do much more thorough engaging oversight. but now they are doing six months at a time possibly for continuing resolutions and then pat themselves on the back and go about our business and yet all these programs are languishing. we don't deferred crises by

these shutdown threats and of course the debt ceiling and everything else combined that alone the long-term question on reducing the overall debt. >> host: you point out in here the importance of the committees that are experts on the policies, the many different ones that is so important before the monies appropriated because of budget process means that we revisit all of our policies of the government every year and you refused, you don't engage in any policy matter. something you'd been a habit of doing if you are passing budgets all the time so you also point out how there is a shorter amount of time spent on debate and amendments on the floor. then the members are working together and then they are not doing any committee work anymore. they are not doing the budget and they are no longer socializing and it has led to this gulf that is so wide and so discomforting. i was really fascinated and i am

going to be quick about it but in 1980 in your second year in the house jimmy carter's targeted fiscal assistance program was helping cities with higher than average unemployment and he went ahead and step in your leaderships back and worked the system the way it was designed to be worked. you passed an amendment providing that no one state to get more than 12.5% of the money, making the whole program fares to smaller states but fair to everybody. it was a vote of 214-179. this is something that couldn't happen today and it was the way that the system was designed. it is an important anecdote i think because i sort of got chills thinking this is the way it once was. >> guest: in the minority in the house of representatives and a freshman. >> host: truly incredible. you have also the most

compelling personal story which all the years i've been following you i did not know most of. i knew some of it but it's in the book and it is such a great instruction about character and confidence and i want everyone to know that you lost your mother to cancer when you were young and then you lost your father. uncles and aunts taking care of you that left you as well. he lost so much. wonderful anecdotes about you becoming such a survivor and adventure sleeping on benches in grand central station when you were 10 years old, losing your first husband which actually was the birth of your political career. and i really enjoyed all of those descriptions and so it was obviously material to the fact that you became a hard-working legislator but one with so much moxie as well, so much

fortitude. and i'm interested, i also agree just in substance your assessment of what happened in in the debt ceiling debate in 2011, why it was such a ruse on the public that there would be a supercommittee because they couldn't solve it and then there would be this stop trigger which ended up not really being the case. they all knew it to be undone. i'm interested in your thoughts about this moment. do you think that there will be a budget conference? do you think that there will be a grand bargain? this is another make or break moment for the government potentially this fall when the debt ceiling is to be increased. how is your level of confidence not? >> guest: i've been telling audiences that it's 50/50 which is more than last year but i'm beginning to wonder if that is even possible given the current circumstances and the time remaining to accomplish it. as you know there's a certain window in a legislative process

before the politics really interfere although it seems to be constant interference which is the difference that distinguished previous congressional does -- sessions. doing mostly legislation and everybody's moving so it's a synchronized fashion on the issues that matter for the times especially when you had urgent and compelling issues. as we do today and as we did back in 2011 and 12 and we just sort of ignore them. that is why i put this book out and the publisher agreed that in talking about what should change what people could do to change it anyway and now so we don't lose another two years. because that puts us even closer to a very tough time period when we are going to be facing entitlements burgeoning and it's hard to make those changes in a

shorter period of time without being punitive to the people who depend on them. can we get a grand bargain and i discussed this with my audiences across the country. a couple of things. i thought if it was possible to get a house and senate budget conference to resolve the differences between the two co, maybe it was conceivable that they could design a grand bargain there on the issues of entitlement reform. i'm not so sure that is possible given the widely divergent views. the agreement has to calm between the president and a group. the president is going to have to bring them together and entitlement. >> host: i think the viewer should know there's a budget that is past due and the congress is right now refusing to do its duty because even though they haven't reconciled the two different versions and

time is running out, while the talk about the tragedy in oklahoma, the troubles in syria that are growing worse every week and obviously now many oversight investigations into what happened in the internal revenue service and the department of justice and what happened in benghazi last fall and the invocations of obamacare. people should know that the clock is ticking on time to solve those fiscal matters and as you point out in the book so many times that great debate, the debacle of 2011 created the sequestered and americans had to find out 17 months later that it was there all along and had been dealt with. all of a sudden everyone is panicking over these draconian indiscriminate cuts that will potentially rock the economy and to learn it was there all along. all of a sudden members of congress -- >> guest: the supercommittee was the alternative. the supercommittee didn't come

up with a plan to cut the debt by the $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years in the sequestered in the automatic cuts would take place and didn't expect either side to let it happen for different reasons. of course it did. it was part of the agreement of the new year's day agreement and then of course they let it happen in the beginning of march. >> host: is a good that the sequester happen because now, can they do a sequestered in? what is the fail-safe next time, the break the glass plan? >> guest: it's just like gramm-rudman collins. the late senator who said it's a bad idea whose time has come. he understood what it was and i thought as much as we don't like the automatic cuts at least we have a mechanism.

that is why i've been an advocate of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. we need self enforced discipline of vista doesn't exist. everyone said we could do it on our own but obviously not. that's not going to happen. >> host: there is snow super nodes on the supercommittee. >> guest: no there is not in asking the supercommittee to perform miracles within 90 days when congress hasn't been able to do it for years because they have haven't put their minds to it and a priority in dealing with these issues and to allow this sequestered to occur. it's not so much the amount but the fact that they were not making any distinctions between those that worked and didn't so then you have the air traffic controllers. i point that out to audiences. congress reacts with a strong reaction from their constituents. they didn't want to incur the wrath of their constituents and sitting on a plane that is idling on the tarmac in the title -- pilot comes over and

says i'm sorry we lost our controls due to budget cuts and i was sitting on one of those planes when it happened. i'm just telling you, do you see the motivation? that is the same motivation constituents are saying, why are you sitting down in solving the problem's? wired in washington working on the budget? why haven't they appointed conferees? the house and the senate appoint conferees to settle the budget question but even that isn't happening. >> host: what is your sense from your conversations both around the country when you speak to voters and then your former colleagues about whether or not there is any back lash from the sequester, whether or not people on the hill feel they can go that route again in? do you feel that there's a feeling of remorse, of hope to change the system this time? i know they are not appointing conferees but individuals having these conversations are people on capitol hill concerned that they can do this again or is the

quest or not -- sequester not so bad because they fix the air traffic control or? >> guest: we can see as it involves their taking care of individual areas so what does that say? some areas deserve it more than others or should we not be looking at all the programs and what she get higher funding and what gets less funding so there is an inequality that exists. it raises those questions and that is one of the things i've gotten from my audiences, where's the fairness in that? they fix one part of his sequester but not the other? that is part of the point here and as far as my colleagues, we have current legislation in the ethics boundary. but the whole idea is in my

conversations from the past there is no doubt a lot of my colleagues don't want to work this way. they are disappointed. they came to do something and are surprised by the way and which, especially in the senate a deliberative body, supposed to be a deliberative body. the house is different because it has a larger membership so they have to have some controls although that is changed dramatically from when i was there. being a minority for 16 years in the house of representatives i never thought much about being a minority because i had opportunities. i worked with my side to get to become a majority on the basis of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets but we didn't champion those issues when i had the opportunity. >> host: we are going to get to that. i think that's interesting and i think it's a big question about

whether or not republicans as they tried to broaden the effort to win a national coalition in the white house whether or not they are going to be able to fight on that old gospel which was formerly a single focus of fiscal responsibility, whether or not they are going to sort of rotten the topics of conversation. so you are right, there are forecasts about the deficit getting better but it's only in the near term. that is really something the democrats and republicans have to focus on and i want to give republicans some credit though. they're busy legislating on tax reform. it's not really in the news but i'm sure you're where the congressman dave camp in the house and senator raucous on the senate site and others in both countries -- both sides are trying to hope and opportunity

presents itself. it can't be done by supercommittee and it cannot be done in the 11th hour and they are doing the work to try to hope that they can move that. i think that is really important for frustrated americans to know. tax reform is really the gateway to solving a lot of our problems as you have written and so i want to point that out on a heartening note that is something that may breakthrough after all of the focus of course on the politics of benghazi and the irs and doj in these other stories that are consuming so much time. you are obviously going to continue to galvanize people around the country by speaking to them. those who read your book and those who don't about this window, the budget window for 2014, the raising of the debt ceiling and hope for tax reform

and why it's so critical and to get involved so that there is something besides stumping for midterm elections going on these next few months. i think that's important. people don't realize they think president obama is just looking at his next three and half years but they don't realize is actually looking at such a short window before he is a lame-duck. we are looking at another election which is really going to be starting this fall. once they get through september. >> guest: close to thanksgiving. you have that opportunity to do the budget because the new fiscal year begins october 1. another temporary measure and you go through that exercise and that is wrenching to the economy. when you do a short-term measure of the budget the agencies really have to work at the lower

level. they can't ascend that is going to be carrying it through for the year. for example on low income fuel assistance, direct consequences brought to bear. one individual who is depending on on the program but the agency couldn't run it at the higher amount so she could only get a small portion. it wasn't enough to fill her tank so you see it does have consequences the way in which they operate. >> host: that is why think your book does so well, talks about the importance of this process that people often ignore but it's so critical to problem solving. we are going to take a quick break and then we will come right back to discuss more of your book.

>> when the attorney general arrange me in california after extradition he indicated that he wanted the death penalty on each of the three charges and he wanted the death penalty three times. that made me realize how serious they were. again it made me realize that it wasn't about me. first of all i couldn't be killed three times. it was about the construction of this imaginary enemy and you know i was the embodiment of the enemy. >> she wasn't that interested in talking about what happened. the crime, the implications, being chased by the fbi.

the love story, she wasn't that interested in talking about it so she is also one of these people you don't necessarily go to directly. i was trying to get to it directly. so i figured out there they were very important people in her life and i chipped away to the people she knew and trusted and was able to get points and get them involved and let them see my previous work. slowly she came around and she agreed to meet me. >> host: we are back with senators sub to talking about her book "fighting for common ground" how we can fix the stalemate in congress. and we wouldn't be jumping into the stalemate if you didn't talk about one of the things he raising your book which is so interesting and you just mentioned in our first segment,

the lack of focus and action on the balanced budget amendment when the republicans have a chance. he said in 2001 republicans control both branches of government and in retrospect you can understand why there was no attempt by republicans. you also talk about in 2003 a stimulus package that president bush and the republicans believed was acquired post-9/11, pre-beginning of the iraq war but obviously that you talked about everyone knew it would be expensive. there was terror in afghanistan, lingering economic uncertainties and he said the administration at that juncture a range of stimulus between $350 billion in tax reductions and the administration promoted a package of $674 billion in

january of 2003. i was shocked. i expressed support for a robust short-term growth package but expressed deep concern that the stimulus proposed contained too many measurements it had merit but warned fast acting and would not promote growth. you you were talking about how you had to enough and oppose oppose it because it was a large unpaid for tax cut essentially that -- and i was so taken with the similarities and parallels between the stimulus of 2009 and it sort of begs the question, the republican party talks about the changes so much bad had happened in in the republican party sent to have been a republican in your lifetime. is the republican party really supportive of reducing the deficit or reducing taxes? your experience with this, you have the opportunity is as a party and it wasn't taken and

you have always been a reformer of the balanced budget amendment. talk a little bit about whether or not fiscal sanity is the defining unifying principle of their public and party or if it has got lost somehow in a passion and zeal? >> guest: i think it was significantly diminished as the highest priority or with a priority at all which did surprise me. when we capture the majority and 94 in both the house and senate it was at the forefront and we lost it by one float. the balanced budget amendment in the constitutional amendment on two different occasions and i think the vote was in 97. we went full throttle on our agenda that included the balanced budget amendment and by march we had spent almost a month of debate on that question. we have the presidency and the congress in the early 2000, we didn't do anything. we didn't address it and it

seemed we went on to a different direction with respect to just consistently having tax cuts. then of course in the aftermath of 9/11 we then had 2002 because of the stimulus. and then in 2003 it was continuing to address the problems in the aftermath of that event. the economy was not rebounding and that is what surprised me but yes i think we moved in a different direction. at that point it was on tax cuts and it was on more social issues than it was on the question of fiscal responsibility. it was no longer the major underpinning of the republican party and i raise that in my meetings. >> host: you were at the white house with president bush who you so enjoyed and respected and he looked him in the eye and he said, majority leader bill frist was there and andy card and vice

president cheney. you said is that we were committed to balanced budgets. we are supposed believe that nala this. we don't any more? you remember we are in the same congressional class where i talked about budget balance. you talk about the shift of focus on fiscal rectitude and then more focus on social issues on the importance of social conservatives based punishing moderates like yourself and that shift, i have a theory then i want to run a play that republicans will have a fantastic -- hold the house and possibly the senate. the affordable clear act is going to be so messy and it will scare people so bad that it will it take effect next winter but the time before the midterm elections of november democrats don't have a good chance and holding onto the senate. i see a 2010/2014 parallel and i

see a very energized tea party after the 2014 election which is going to affect 2016 until the party enough with romney and these moderates who can't win. we had a great 2014 and i would be interested to hear your thoughts in that. >> guest: that is not far from reality actually. i could see that is definitely a possibility and you are right about the affordable care act. the obamacare. i raised the specter of the problems with the implementation when i was in the throes of all of that. i cited it and i was so concerned that they should really hold that and fix fix it before they let it go because there were some serious problems. even though i didn't supported at that point they really should work to address the major fundamental problems with the implementation.

i could see what was going to happen with that. you know but they decided interestingly enough to move forward with it and you know the president thought it would dissipate and the anger and antipathy would dissipate and i said no i think it's only the beginning. i disagree with that. >> host: is so interesting, the bill was passed without any democrat or republican knowing about the cost control and how much it would cost americans. >> guest: i submitted a request to the budget office in and the day the bill was dropped on the florida senate in the ine end of november i sent a letter to the cbo director asking for an analysis on affordability. what were these plants going to cost americans and businesses? that question had not yet been answered. but unfortunately i couldn't get my analysis for obvious reasons. the director apologized because

he obviously had to fulfill other requests from the majority who basically has, is first in line so i could never get my study and here i was a main player on the health care issue in terms of trying to get to the heart and the crux of the matter. i mentioned to the president holding back on it, build a bipartisan group and work it out on a smaller scale because there are too many problems when it's fraught with peril and its implementation and will be very difficult to implement. >> host: the story of your role in health care in the debate is fascinating and i think the readers will really enjoyed all of your back and forthwith the president obama which is always constructive although in the end he did not take your advice but it's really illustrative of the political tension that really infuse the debate in the bill writing and what happened to it and why it's having so many problems now. before we move on, there is a

lot about your thoughts on not only our system but your party and i wanted to ask, and here you have a fascinating mention of joshua green's 2007 piece on karl rove's plan for realignment from 2004 and in it you listed that rove had five proponents in which he hoped to pull democrats into the party and divide the democratic party and permanently elect republicans to a long-standing durable majority. you said that included education standards, the faith-based initiative privatization of social security and private health care accounts and partial immigration reform. so today your party is under tremendous pressure to expand its universe of supporters to include young people, latino, african-american women that they have lost one more time,

everybody that the obama coalition contains to try to go after and peel off some of those voters in order to win a coalition for the white house. because they do well and midterm cycles but that is a different electorate. so there is pressure even to acknowledged that climate change is a result of man-made activity, embrace marriage, something may be on guns and of course immigration reform. what is your advice about how to broaden the attempt? >> guest: president reagan is a good example. he embraced the conservative philosophy but he believed an effective and efficient government rather than one that is simply eviscerated. he talked about opportunity and how we had a responsibility to nurture an environment that creates the opportunity for individuals to flourish and expand on their own potential.

we should be about hope and the opportunity that we want for the american people to aspire to. but rather it's all about negativity. it's about decimating government. well, you know frankly government has a very important role. it should be a limited role. we need to reposition ourselves not only in terms of the language but also in terms of the policy. speak to the young people, two women, two hispanics and the community. you have to show that you are embracing and expanding and not folding it under an umbrella because that is where we are today. it has to be based on economic policies and how to position ourselves on immigration, absolutely and our policies are in an environment where they can fulfill their strong potential. as it is now, the way in which they deal with even from within

the republican party, how they handle moderates for example. what is the point because that is not appealing to someone on the outside. how do you attract people from the outside if you are calling people names on the inside? you don't accept the diversity. i was part and parcel of the whole group trying to build its majority and we finally -- i was the cochair of the 92 group in the house and that was to be a majority. we all contributed. we knew we had differences. that was no surprise that we had litmus test so you could narrow your face. face. how do you expanded on the outside if you can't maintain it from within and demonstrate that you are inclusive and not exclusive? >> host: it's interesting because in 2010 the party has been leaderless for so long and it was cleansed by a movement without a leader and without

that leader we are divided on drawn policy. it's so interesting to see how many divisions have popped up. i want to focus on one of the aspects covered in your book which i think is so important because i'm a woman and that is your experience as a female legislator in your state which had a lot of female representation, more than the national norm and of course in the congress. you said that they are 18% of the congress is female alto 51% of the national population. i loved her and doubt about, your data about by 2013 the total number of women serving in the house and senate ever was a 296 and if you put them all together in the house chambers it would be 139 empty seats. that's pretty incredible. i wanted to cite something.

there was a wonderful and it does. i know you have gone to establish the women's leadership institute and he will be working with high school young girls in high school and developing their professional skills as well as their confidence. i loved this. when you are a 26-year-old arriving in the statehouse in 1973, the senate majority leader said olympia i know right now you are looking around wondering how you got here but let me tell you in six months you will be looking at the same thing wondering how everybody else got here. talk about the importance of confidence in being a united states senator but being a woman and how important it is to foster that as leaders or for business owners or even moms. >> guest: i encourage women to be involved in stuff up front

frankly. i always say two graduating classes, i could never imagine that i would have been running for the united states senate when i was in your position either but leave open the possibility of doing that because it is critical to have those examples in governing institutions and all places in our society that are important up women's voices that are reflective of women and our population. the second part of it is that they bring in a different experience. it's also important to have that voice at the table. and so i encourage them to think about it as a possibility in the future. and when those choices presented itself and even for me as much as i was passionate about politics and running for public office, i would come to washington to work, i always have to go against the grain. whatever you do in life it is what it is and that is what i always did -- did.

i went against the grain and i felt so strongly about the things that i believed in so that made changes in policy. there was a direct correlation. i love the fact that even today the women's health initiative that we spawned by the disclosure that he and i h. was excluding women in clinical study trials. the largest clinical study trial ever for women and results in lifesaving discoveries for women. it's a cause and effect to having women participate in the political process and what evolves from it. title ix for example, in fact i was talking about it the other day with donna brazile as a matter of fact. she was the beneficiary. i said you love the fact that you have young women who are so

active. there's no second thought about it. they are active in sports and they made sure they were treated equally. >> host: it's so fascinating how somebody writes and protection scheme many of them during your four decades of service. you were really there at a formative period that women younger than you may take for granted that you are what is to the changes. women especially really should read about the fights ahead on behalf of women. i loved also an anecdote about your much revered senator margaret chase smith of maine who gave a speech called the declaration of conscience directed at mccarthyism meaning senator joe mccarthy in june of 1950 and you quote a

financier and political consultant named bernard rukh, who said if a man had made the declaration of conscience he would have been the next president of the united states. and you mentioned in the book when you are talking about hillary rodham clinton who is an old friend, you said extraordinary while modeling you have known her for years because your husband's service governors together. >> guest: the order in which the states commenced the union, that is how they said. >> host: it was so serendipitous. you are old friends and obviously colleagues and you said the united states is ready. she is obviously in the democratic party. whether or not you want her to run or whether you would support her and any feelings to have. you have an enduring respect for

her service as secretary of state. when you look at the future and you think this country is ready would you you as the republicans sit it out if she ran? >> guest: that is too far down the road to speculate about all of that i think if hillary wanted to run she should run. she did sit -- set an extraordinary example of how a woman can run for public office. that is what is important. shiite thing broke down that there are single-handedly and is highly talented and capable and smart so if she chooses to do that i think many women will in brace her candidacy. i think the country is prepared to have a women president. i think by virtue of the fact of

what she accomplished at that point in time in her own candidacy has dispelled that a woman cannot -- differences within the party on the primary but by virtue of her candidacy and how she conducted herself i think she basically eradicated any fears about how a woman would handle herself. >> host: there are many delightful anecdotes that you mention the book and little nuggets for congress watchers like myself to enjoy that one of my favorites is that you do frequently senators get together and privately they nurture each other and mentor each other which i thought was so impressive and female justices which is something i've never known before, which i thought was really quite wonderful and what an honor also. and i thought that is really

another reason to sort of dolphin and to learn not only about the way things used to be but how much women look out for each other in positions of power and how charlie bipartisan it is and the way you talk about hillary clinton and obviously your friendship that formed years ago before she was in the senate is just a unique connection. you don't want to depress anybody and you want to tell them there's a way out. even if it's not near term there is a path to unity and productive future for the congress, diminish polarization in the future if some steps are taken in the meantime. you list them in the book.

you have recommendations for a five day workweek, an annual budget, a biennial budget, restoring the process of getting to the budget, a bipartisan leadership committee which is so interesting. that means they have to leave the congress and get out of their own partisan leadership. no budget no pay which means members if they are derelict in their duties will not collect their own paycheck. filibuster reform, a more open amendment process no more hold some legislation and returned, think this is so critical, to regular order. you can't throw off in emergencies supercommittee sequester bill at the last minute. everything will have to go back. and the polish leadership pacs which made me chuckle because you were only one of five senators without a leadership pac. open primaries on in the about myself and commissions instead

of state legislators to sign on redistricting. i think it's important for americans to read your book especially on the chapter on all of these political, so the fix is in on the system so they don't know about redistricting and they don't know about how districts actually swing every election cycle and 79% of us vote because it was already decided. so this is really, i think you have all the right ideas and if you can share a little bit although as outlined in the book. you have a great anecdote for congressman rick noland who left the house. where'd you get the establishment and the incumbents , the crusty old system that might seem new but is now so said dan, where'd you get them to throw away the

leadership pacts? >> guest: they would find it a relief if everybody had to stand down on both sides of the aisle. that is the key. any changes on campaign finance reform has to be a level playing field on both sides. that is what we have to orchestrate with mccain-feingold. it was my provision that was struck down in citizens united but it was the evenhandedness so both sides had to do it, that's one less level of financing for raising money. think about it. the house of representatives, think probably the majority at least have leadership pacts. it's another avenue to get money to candidates in a much higher level than you can as an individual. the point being it's not only they are raising money for their own campaigns, they also have to raise this money for their leadership pacts because it's

expected that you are going to raise so much money, especially if you are chaired the committee. yes then you are expected to. >> guest: it take so much time. it's another huge distraction. it reminded me of the honorary mission years ago when members of congress would be paid for speeches and so the whole schedule would revolve around the days in which they could go give speeches on mondays and fridays but ultimately came to the conclusion rightfully that we should ban the these. it had an impact because people would come back to town. one less level of raising money because that is a huge time-consuming effort and not to mention a distraction. >> host: also you note in there that the loudest voices of our always heard. during the gun debate whether

they supported gun controls are gun rights heard from the gun rights activists. that is just the truth. the brady bloomberg difference coalition is yet no match for the organization at the grassroots funding and their loudness of the gun rights coalition. so you have i called in the sweet 16, 16 republicans who voted against a filibuster on guns. they knew they were going to vote with the gun control but they work on rights supporters. but they voted against their party and their site on process. i thought that was worth, that is an example. will they be rewarded? should they be reported because they try to clear the air and stop the filibuster for a bill? >> guest: i think that is a

case where constituents decide. they were willing to have a debate on the floor and that is important. that is an important step forward and then they can discuss the policy. oftentimes it becomes a critical vote as we know and a lot of pressure is imposed on senators depending on which side they are on, to vote a certain way. so yeah i think that should be certainly reflective. that is not an easy vote especially if they are going to be against the policy. sometimes you do that and that's important obviously. >> host: it's not easy though. the national rifle association association -- act of rebellion. >> guest: it was a difficult vote. >> host: you talk a lot in the book about how people's voices need to be heard and he mentioned something very important because we only usually hear about this when the

switchboard is shut down over a big issue review said each interaction is tracked in every office on a daily if not hourly basis so when you have the newtown families, the victims families in town and you have a big vote on something, public pressure can be brought to bear on either side. this idea that even though people might not know it, that they are being listened to is important. tell us when you were a senator, how that works and why there can be political consequences, people that need to get on the phone. >> guest: it's true and i've been emphasizing this to my audiences. even speaking to groups here in washington, these organizations said would you please tell membership that it is important to go to the hill and have conversations and to call?

i emphasize that, don't underestimate your voice. the other side does it. on the gun issue, people have asked me that how is it that 90% of the american people support it but somehow it didn't prevail? i said well you know did you call? how many people call? how many people e-mailed? yes it makes a difference. the pressure is there because then it's more obvious to their constituency that they were those voices and you are hearing them. if they don't hear from the other side and obviously the one side they do hear from matters. in some cases on the gun issue that was the case. and so they have to speak up. people do not realize or appreciate the effects and the power of their messages and the impact it can have on senators and members of the house. >> host: and you think of social media has increase their ability to be heard?

>> guest: absolutely, absolutely and that is the other thing. that is a great message multiplier. a message multiplier to get your message out there to organize. absolutely and even your communications with the offices. i always want to know how many constituents called on this issue just to get a sense of it. when i go home, i want to know. so it is important to hear from people. that is why they should not underestimate their power. the other side is they must. >> host: they have to weigh in. thank you in. thank you so much senator snowe. i really enjoyed it. thank you. >> guest: thank you.

at this year's annapolis book festival author mickey edwards talked about his book the parties versus the people, how to turn republicans and democrats into americans. he is joined by former rnc chairman michael steele. this is an hour. >> good afternoon everyone and welcome. my name is michael steele. i am really honored to welcome all of you. i'm the former lieutenant governor of this great state of maryland having served with bob ehrlich from 2003 to 2007 and i am more recently, and you probably read more infamously the former chairman of the republican national committee

from 2009 to 2011. we will certainly do as i like to say turn the elephant between 2,002,011 which seems to be turning itself back for some reason. but, i am real pleased to be here. i'm also the author of a book called right now, a 12 step agenda for defeating, 12 steps for defeating the obama agenda. it's not as nefarious as it sounds. it really was and remains a prescription for the gop to deal with this age that we now find ourselves where the political landscape is shifting almost daily. the attitudes of voters are much more open as we have seen recently and how to the political parties deal with the

very thing that confounds them the most? that is a citizen rarely who are engaged, intelligent and know what's going on and are developing a political mind of their own. a new form of activism. i am very honored to be joined by a dear friend and colleague, someone and i will let him go into the details of his background but needless to say this guy has the presence of mind while in congress and the presence of voice today to really light a path for i think the future growth of republicanism in the republican party and is he will tell you share his journey through not that tim or mind has been a little more interesting than mine. nick yi is one of those great voices out there and so it's a real pleasure to welcome mickey

edwards. >> thank you mike. first of all thanks to the key school and giving us a chance to come here and talk. it's a special privilege because mike steele has been a good friend of mine for a long time and i'm honored to share the stage with him. so let me tell you a little bit about my book. it comes at this a little differently than what mike does but although when we sit and talk about issues we think very much alike. i had this new book out from the yale university press and the title of it which gives you an idea of where i'm coming from is the parties versus the people. and it has a subtitle, parties versus the people doesn't sound generally exciting when people usually get most and transpires the subtitle of the book which i did not write.

.. and that taught at harvard for 11 years, and then i taught at princeton. one of the things that happens when you teach is you have a chance to step back from the

daily grind. they have time to think to reflect, observed and decide what you see happening. and what i saw was, no matter what the issue was teeseven this is true whether bush was president or a bomb was president, it did not matter whether you were talking about an economic issue or a cabinet appointment or anything else, republicans are all on one side, and democrats are all on the other side. no matter what the issue was, our government and become more like the nfl, not like a group of americans sitting down together saying, you're the problems we have, let's debate them, talk about them and then let's of them. instead it was, how can and if you,. [inaudible question] if you because you belong to different farm. if a different level and your head. i start to you about why that was. how we get to that point. if you were reading the papers every day, you see that here are two or three republicans talking

to two or three democrats about doing something together. and that is front page news. you know, we have actually got republicans and democrats willing to talk to each other. so why is that the way that it is? and i go back. i thought about, the only thing i ever found that our first four presidents agreed with each other on was don't create political parties. washington adams, jefferson, madison, don't create political parties. they had them, but they were not like these where it is all the time the against you, just because you belong to the other club. and so i thought about why we got to that point. and that included -- will talk about it. you all know this, the role of money and all this other stuff. and i'm glad to talk about those. i know mike is. i want to give you a couple of examples of the political system we have created. i was giving a talk to the american academy for the advancement of science, and i know nothing about science,

nothing about technology. i should not admit that since there was a member of congress and had to vote on issues about science and technology, which is to understand. but i looked at -- here is a starting point. what does the constitution envisioned in terms of how we as a people are going to govern ourselves? for one thing it envisions that because the power of this country is not in the white house, the power is in the congress, almost every major power, war, spending, taxing, approving treaties, cabinet appointments and the supreme court appointments, everything is a congressional power. the power was put there where the people themselves could control the outcome. the idea was that people are going to go to the polls, like their leaders, and that's of the people -- well, what happens if it's not the voice of the people .

ltv to produce samples. when joe biden became vice president and there was an opening, everyone knew who was going to be that new u.s. senator. a former governor and member of congress. challenge in a primary. and she beat him. two things happened. one, there are 1 million people in delaware. o'donnell only get 30,000 votes. why didn't ages peter in the general election? because delaware has this crazy block called the sore loser law that if you run for your party's nomination and you lose, your name cannot be on the ballot in november. those 30,000 people kept all of the million people of delaware from choosing who they wanted in the u.s. senate.

all that power rises. so go over to utah where senator mike castle was running for -- you should have put this guy in the senate. but never mind. i won't get into those things. robert bennett was running for reelection of the senate in utah they have a convention. there are 3 million people in utah. 3500 read the convention. 2000 voted for other candidates because of those two dozen people his name could not be on about and a member for the 3 million people of utah because they have this done what. how many states have this crazy law? forty-six. here is another provision of the constitution.

every senator and representative must be an actual inhabitant of the state from which their elected. the idea is, if i were running for congress here i would know you, i would know the people of annapolis, know your economic interest. you know me, my reputation, the community. that is the area. but what happens when you allow the political parties to control redistricting of a congressional district? the idea is that the congress people are supposed to know the community. so a personal story. i am a city guy. i've been on the farm once a twice. i have no idea what i was looking at. and i am a republican who was elected in a district that had not elected a republican since 1928. there was 74 percent democrat. democrats cannot figure out how one. mother did not know how one. but i did.

so the democrats, the other party at that time controlled the state legislature. there were able to read from my district from the middle of oklahoma, all of new england fits inside oklahoma. call the way up to kansas. halfway across arkansas. what happened? was not representing we farmers and cattle ranchers. i did not understand their interest. it i cannot speak for them. both of those examples i give you are because we allow the political parties to control our electoral process. and we wonder how come our congress is controlled by the hard line ideologues, hyper partisans. it's because they know if they compromise they're going to give primary. they're going to get knocked off in a primary where small numbers

of hyper partisan ideologues dominate the of up to five outcome. how did we allow these two political clubs to control who we can vote for and what the districting is? was active republican, active in the party. as started thinking later, what have we done to ourselves when we see a congress where people will not sit down and talk to somebody and the other side of the aisle. it's because we set up a system that alexis kind of people and gives them the power. i just -- one more quick thing and then -- then you get elected to congress. you take the oath of office which, by the way, is not an knows to be loyal to the president, and is not to be loyal to your party leaders whittier party.

you take the oath. people are elected at the same time i was. you take that oath. i thought, now we are all together. the parties, where all members of the united states congress. that lasted about three minutes until we started dealing with it would be speaker and dominate each committee in congress. if you have been to the house floor, if you have seen the house floor, somebody speaks here, you have a lectern here. they're always is, a lectern. not in the u.s. house. there are two lectern's. republicans stand at one to talk to of republicans and democrats talk and another. if you want to go half a cigarette or you want to eat a sandwich or make a phone call you go to the coat room, but there isn't one. there is one for republicans over there and democrats over there. we operate the united states

congress, the branch of government with all of the power that is supposed to make this decisions for our country, we tweeted as rival clubs instead of people coming together. so the bottom line from what i did in my book is, we are not electing stupid people to congress. we're not electing and patriotic people. we are electing good people who are trapped in a system we have created that rewards instability , that rewards intransigence, that punishes cooperation and compromise and then we are shocked that that is the result we gate. so that is what my book is about. i'm glad to talk about that. i want to here about mike's book. >> well, that was pretty scary. that is our congress, our government. and that is part of the political process. now, as mickey was laying out, particularly in the first

scenario, the bob bennett race and the kristine out, race, both of those happened on my watch as national chairman. and i remember meeting with a group of very, very excited and some would argue excitable, republicans about a month after i had become chairman who were laying out for me a new strategy that was beginning to emerge from around the country. and they called themselves tea partier. and i said, okay. what's the deal? there were very, very clear about the focus that they wanted to bring to the discussion, to the debate about the role of government, the size of government, the extensive government. so we met. at that time they began to talk about being outside the party.

and part of my responsibility as the national chairman, looking at the political process to let individuals like mickey to the congress is to make sure that we have as cleanup process as possible. that we don't cut our nose off to spite our face in the efforts to getting the victory. in other words, the race that matters, the battle that matters is the one in november, not the one in september or june or february, meaning the primary process. but what i recognized very early on was this tension that was beginning to build within the political structure at the primary level. and the popoff point, the volcanic moment was new york 23. the 23rd congressional district in new york spring of 2009 were the party officials of the local partyecided to go

around the ordained political process, in other words, having a primary but instead picked their nominee over the frustrated voices of actors within that particular congressional district. someone was put on the ballot as the republican nominee, and that was really one of the key turning points politically within the gop of activist, to party voices raising up against the system. part of my job as the national chairman, and it's something that i wanted to capture and i believe i captured it in the book was coming out of the system in which we have already watched and witnessed the devastating losses in 2006 of which i was one of the

casualties in my senate run here in maryland. 2008, the presidential. the party had lost its brand. it had been tarnished to the point where it basically stunk. voters have rejected what we had to put on the table, weather was philosophically, politically to a policy lice. our donors are beginning to dry up the coffers by holding back, with a limit checks because they did not like the direction the party was going in. it had begun to take hold in the last turn of the bush ministration, and so a lot of the economic conservatives who would eventually form themselves into the tea party really began to figure out and find another way to assert pressure back on the party, on the establishment of the party.

as a grass-roots activist i found myself in a very interesting position because i understood both sides. the establishment to protect the status quo, and other words, the process to go through a claim primary to go fight the democrats in november. and the frustration of this newly emerging voice of activism who were really upset the party held back on its fundamental core principles with respect to the economics, not social. one of the big misnomers is that it is somehow this social conservative movement. it is not. the tea party -- now what it has morphed into, this subsequently become is very different from the first meeting i had with them in february of 2009 as they were beginning to emerge around the country. and as you saw played out in town hall meetings that summer.

you hear these voices ranging on abortion or marriage or social issues raising against the violation of the constitution. the proper role the congress to come to the table with the budget to manage the spending of the country. so you have these very different dynamics that are beginning to emerge and in some cases submerge. part of my responsibility as a national sharon was to try to figure out the best route to win an november. so i'm looking at two potential candidates tell me make the argument. it had to focus on what the citizens of the country wanted done, in other words, the people's business. two of the individuals that summer happens to be chris christie in new jersey and bob macdonald and virginia. and when you look at where the party is now and where it needs to go, those two governors to my

belief, are clear examples of the future direction in many respects. you have a blue state like new jersey with a governor, republican governor like christie who is able to of navigate politically but more importantly from a policy position to take the values of the party, articulate them and transit center policy is very, very smart and very, very reflective of what the people want. however, you now have this competing interests that has grown in those two years between 2000 -- since 2011 that pushed back against that because it has now become intertwined with a social agenda and it is kind of lost some of the economic edge with the success of obamacare and other successes that the administration has had. politically the party finds itself right now up against the proverbial wall.

and the direction it next takes, in my estimation, will determine whether or not it goes the way of the wakes or it actually becomes a party that competes for a governable majority in the future. and that ties back into what make he has written in his book, and i think his book really reflects the attitude of voters out there. this idea, can you come as an elected official, be more like us. whereas, where i am sitting on the political process side, the party organization structure, the challenge there is to create a structure in which the voters feel that their ideas, views are respected and heard as they go through the overall process of running for office and talking about points and things like

that. because of very interesting dynamic for a political party that largely helps sway -- held sway in the 1980's, 90's, and much of the first part of 2000's , at least until 2004. 2005 is when the wheels began to come off and since then there has been this massive struggle as we see get played out from candid it's who talk about vaginal probes and legitimate rape. verses those who want to talk, like chris christie come on how to govern the state and country in these changing times. so what i tried to do through a political strategy standpoint right now is to get the party to focus on both its challenges and its opportunities right now. and like any good 12 step program, you have to begin with a knowledge and you have a

problem. and our problem is us. our problem is largely what we think of ourselves, what we value, how we articulate those principles and ideals that were part of the founding organization of the party in a world that looks vastly different from the one that ronald reagan inherited in 1980, and everyone loves to go back and put up ronald reagan as the beacon of life within the gop. ladies and gentlemen car ronald reagan, they guy we knew and loved, lastly was president of the united states, if that guy into the republican fire today he would lose. so for all this talk and embrace of ronald reagan within the gop, they do a disservice in my estimation to his honor, to his memory because there would not elected today, given his stance on immigration, what he did as

president and governor on taxes, on some of the other social issues out there. and it goes to the heart of the struggle that we have to deal with inside party, trying to get the elephant to recognize its core and move forward in this world that is changing around us and not necessarily throwing your finger up to the wind and testing the waters every 30 minutes, but standing on some firm, principled ground that recognizes the value of the american dream, the recognizes the desire of those who want to be a part of that american dream, whether they are here now were coming in the future, that understands the direction demographically this country is taking at in 30 years it will be a majority minority country. what does that mean? how the political parties deal with that? the lead service we give to

minorities in this country is just that, quite frankly, with service. if you don't believe me, visit their neighborhoods, their communities. change happens around, not within. i have always argued that the gop, as that of just throwing black faces out there, hispanic faces and saying, we know one, to, it should be much more embracing of the movements that are going on within various communities. in other words, shut up and listen and pay attention. so, for example, when my body, center rand paul goes to howard university, you don't go to howard university and tell them what they already know. you don't insult their intelligence the way. would you do is you bring in why they should listen to you. what of value are you offering. how will you make their opportunities to access the american dream as they define

it, not as you define it, but as they define it, real. in the political parties find themselves -- i think the democrats are going to find this when they get to 2016, particularly if hillary is not the nominee of the party, that those tensions that exist within the party began to get exposed. it would just be on the left, not the right. moderate conservative democrats will tangle with center-left and progressive democrats, just as you have seen within the republican party since reagan stepped off the stage, since that clue is no longer there, that is the logical glue, if you will, that he was able to brain, right, left, center recently together. you see now. so the political center the party right now is how you begin to man those cracks before the

foundation completely breaks. in light of the demographic, political, economic shifts that are occurring in the country. and right now the goal is to recognize the challenges, admit the failings that we have committed, and then begin to turn the elephant in that direction that points to the future, standing on a foundation that is all about individual opportunity, all about individual choices and freedoms and decisions. we cannot be a party that says that we are about individuals making choices but then we want to limit some of those choices. we cannot be the party that says we are about treating economic opportunities, but then not put policies @booktv but policies on the table that are basically in eviscerating as economic opportunities, particularly for the poor, particularly for those who are at the margins.

i think that we can be a party that speaks to a limited role for government without being anti-government, without being disrespectful of those institutions that heretofore have been beneficial in helping people get up and move forward. the challenge then for government, and i'm sure you saw this in congress is that it has a tendency to just throw stuff out there and then not follow up and not manage the opportunity, not managers possibly the resources, and that creates a lot of attention now we see today. we're not going to spend one more dime until you cut. well, we won't cut and less to spend more so that we have the resources. that back-and-forth has now bled into the political. what was policy has now become political which makes it much more difficult to do policy. >> estimate does. i agree largely with mike.

in terms of changes, it it would be good for the republican party, i think the changes would be good for the democratic party to make. i really don't care about either one. you know, i spent my life as a republican. i am very -- the story was told before about how we run our primaries, how we allow the ideologues to -- in both parties -- to control the outcome has really driven me in a different direction. and while the story i told about the examples of the 46 states that allow a tiny, unrepresentative minorities to decide you can be on the ballot, you know, i am actually optimistic. why am i optimistic? 40 percent of americans today registered as independents. "usa today" had a big article, the american people are fleeing from the political parties.

in 2006 the people in washington state where they have initiative petition in the constitution, the people of washington state, having followed all of this, having followed the republicans verses the democrats on everything, all their magic, there is unity. all the republicans agree on one thing. they are against whatever the democrats are for. all the democrats of the. they are against with the republicans are for. enough of that nonsense. it went to the polls. initiative they created. they get rid of party primaries. and they got rid of the ability of the political parties to control what the congressional districts were shaped like. thirteen states had now done that. if that was 2006 and 2010

california did it. california got rid of party primaries. california governor party control over redistricting. being reintroduced in arizona. the people are saying we want more democracy in our democracy. in order to appeal to of the electorate. i think the people are finally getting that point, fed up to here as i have become -- i have a lot of good -- i am a republican, always have been. i have a lot of friends or democrats. i love the mall, and i want them to sit down together. if you want to do something for the school which deserves

whatever good you can do for, if you want to do something a new facility, new building, where should be, how much a cost. what should you do in the building. how many rooms, what equipment. you would all get together and form a group and say, let's make a decision. not one person in this entire room would say, okay, all republican sit over there and all the democrats it over there and let's come up with different rival plans and fight it out. we cannot continue to do that. so i think -- i hope that the republican party does make the changes that might talks about or that i talk about, but i hope to ultimately our decisions don't get made by what is good for my party, but by what is good for my country. >> well, with that we want to

throw it open. we have some time left for questions from anyone in the audience if you have any. there is a microphone right back there, if you could advance to the microphone, that we will picket. >> hello, gentlemen. i would like each of you -- maybe you could start first, your thoughts on citizens united, short-term and long-term. >> citizens united. i have to be careful. i am a lawyer. i don't know if i am allowed to say that think the justices were smoking something illegal. i won't. >> is legal in some states. >> with the only thing i will say about that. i mean, corporations are people. give me a break. first of all, i am not going to challenge the knowledge that the supreme court justices have about the constitution. but they obviously skipped the

corporate law because corporations to five corporate law makes clear that there is a distinction between corporations and persons. so my -- i have a chapter on this in my book. and i probably have one of the more extreme positions. that is, when you go to our cast a vote there is nobody in line with you except another human being. and when you give money to a campaign, there should be nobody giving money except the human being. no corporate money, no labor union money, no political party money, no money except from human beings in limited amounts, not casino owners in las vegas, but instantly reportable is the way to fix the money system. >> so how would you address what mayor bloomberg is doing in new york right now? with basically targeting based

on what you're saying. you would tell us something like that. >> i think what he should do is try to encourage as many people as possible to individually give money to defend the people he is trying to defend. on not trying to take people out of the system. i just wanted to be people. i don't want to five you know, i agree with bloomberg, but i don't think it should be okay. i have more money than you, so i will determine the outcome. he is inarticulate died. go talk to people. go into tv. go into those states and say, want you to put the money up to help elect x. >> the citizens united case, again, is one of those things that happened on my watch. a lot happened. but that also happened during that time. we had a case before the court as well which basically was something apart from citizens united.

it is a companion our sister case which spoke to allowing the political parties, our argument was a third-party entity should not be the source of campaign funds, but that money should be back within the political parties. mccain fine gold ended that. and what mccain fine gold said, well, if you have unlimited wealth and you wanted to share that unlimited wealth with a political party you could come only to the extent of $30,000. before mccain fine gold that money that we now see being poured in, millions and millions of dollars, an individual could write. the difference was, in writing the check to the political party you have full disclosure. we had to record the date, time, mount, your job, all the pertinent information and then put that on a public record within 30 days.

citizens united said, okay, not only is a corporation a person for purposes of campaign finance law, but we will let that person do what no other person in the country can do, and that is to give unlimited amounts without any record. unlimited amounts without any record. so there is no way of knowing that you just read a $25 million check. democrat, republican, doesn't matter. they now you wrote it, but we don't. they claim that they will disclose the information. okay. selectively. if you say don't disclose, now writing a check, what you think they're going to do? so i think what you're going to see is over the next couple of years in congress, particularly if the republicans lose the house next year, the congress will proactively go after citizens united and put in place

some of the controls of notification, identification, and recreation of donors, which i think should have been done in the first instance. >> yes, sir. >> yes. it is my view the political divisiveness, especially hard line political divisiveness is increased in direct correlation to the incessant pounding of talk radio. i'm wondering if you have any comments on the role of talk radio and the formulation of policy. >> sure. there is no doubt that talk radio has been a real bone and pain to the political process and certainly to the political parties. the growth of it, at least from the republican / conservative side really harkens back to the

only viable outlet that a lot of conservatives felt they had to express their views on a lot of issues. and hence you see, for example, the success of conservative talk radio in various forms and the failure of liberal talk radio and other efforts. it is the way the political process for those activists unfold itself. republicans like to get in there and want to hear each other. they want to your reinforcement of agreement on an issue. pound compound, count. whereas for a lot of the folks on the left it is much more visual, television oriented. if you look at ms nbc, my network where i work, it's much more oriented that way. the impact, however, on the political process, i think, has been profound from both the radio and television aspects. and i think you see now both fox and ms nbc and cnn to a certain degree trying to adapt to this

landscapes that we have already talked about in terms of the attitudes of voters being less edgy and much more looking for the conversation. i don't want to hear yell and scream and shout. i don't want to hear you over talk me. i don't want to year you have to agree with me. i want to hear a common-sense solution to the fact that have been unemployed for 18 months, that i may lose my business in six months, that i have to get a kid through college and the cost of tuition is now $50,000 versus $20,000.10 years ago. so these are the new realities that i think the beginning to shape some of that. again, you still have the edginess, particularly in conservative talk radio. and i think that that has not been helpful, as we have seen. an example of not helping the debate from a talk radio standpoint simply because it put the party and it put the

candidates running for office in the unenviable position of having to go out and either slam brush or do the right thing and say that what he said was just bone had been stupid. and we saw how that plays out. we saw how that played out in the case. and so that is still a dynamic, real dynamic within the party to contend with, i would say it is getting less and less so. >> of want to just add one thing. i totally agree. talk radio and talk tv are a major problem. and they just-up, you know, the anger and the instability a lot. we don't do a very good job of pinning blame on the people who own those networks and make their money off of boring poison in the political system, but it is more complicated than that. they are a big part of the problem, but there have been a

lot of studies that show with the exception of the people in this room, all of you are not part of this, but everybody else you know talks only to people who think the way they do. and you and your friends generally all watch the same shows, read the same columnists, you know, andrea and watch in order to reinforce the positions you already have rather than being open to listening to different points of view on issues and having a respectful conversation with somebody who thinks differently than you did. that's a real problem. that is what gives talk radio and tv the immense power that they have got. and so we would like to reform that, but we have to reform some things in the culture so that we have more critical thinking, more people understanding civics and they're willing to, where they hear a different point of view, listen instead of just forming a rebuttal in their minds while the other person is talking.

talk radio, talk tv are not the whole problem. >> i just want to respond to mickey's comment. i occasionally talk to people whose ideas are off the wall. i said, what is your main news source? to you listen to fox news? all the time. and then i stop my conversation because these people aren't looking at the norm. there are looking summer up here with their ideas. my next comment to make the -- michael, watch you all the time and ms nbc. sometimes i wish you could get a chance to finish your statement. >> let me interrupt you. [laughter] >> but when you are speaking about bipartisanship, i remember when tip o'neill and the reagan were good friends.

bipartisanship always started at the water's edge. foreign policy was bipartisan. they're used to be a lot of bipartisanship. it is only recently that this debate for this position is not increasing the national debt and turning the whole country upside down, started. i think they used to agree on a national debt, except for newt gingrich. and then he changed his mind on that. so what do you see happening? in terms of -- and i say the republican party closer to the middle where it used to be. i come from new york. we said so many good republican senators to washington.

>> well, let me this -- will be very interested to get mickeys you on this idea. i have come to the conclusion as a native washingtonian, someone who grew up in washington d.c. and whose, you know, for me my local news was, you know, national news. it was what was going on in washington. it was not national. i have watched that transition away from this idea of bipartisanship, the last bipartisan -- truly bipartisan era that we had was with clinton and gingrich, and we saw what could be accomplished. it started off a little rocky. but both sides recognized very quickly that if there were going to it -- tackle the debt and deficit, try to work toward a balanced budget, if they're

really wanted to begin to work at the water's edge on internal reform or entitlement programs like welfare, that they would have to do this thing called consensus. it would have to find that sweet spot. in 2000 all that changed and we became rich state simply states. the strategy implemented by a call rose and the team and that presidential cycle set up this paradigm of us versus them, read verses blue, conservative versus liberal. overlay with this idea of compassionate conservatism, but the underlay was in your face. so i have concluded that in the last ten, 12 years this sense of bipartisanship no longer exists. when you hear members of congress talking by partisanship , they're lying to you. it's not going to happen because they're not going to do it. as mickey very well illustrated, the system does not allow for

that anymore. what you see now that i think really speaks to this next stage of where we need to go is consensus command we have begun to see it in an issue like guns where you have had to me, senator pat to me from pennsylvania and tell mansion from west virginia find it the the consensus, the sweet spot on an issue that no one in washington, we could get anywhere near some resolution. flip the script on immigration reform. what happened there. everyone at the beginning of emigration, we thought this train was going to roll out and we would get it done. they have not been able to really nail down fully the consensus yet on what to do and where that is going to go. so you still see on the right and the left, that edginess, that sort of, well, i'm not sure

so that is really what i think the new dynamic is. whether not the leaders -- and i use that term loosely with this bunch -- can really find that sweet spot, that consensus, that point that says, now you have to give up something and i have to give up something. it is not about party or anything other than the people. that space in the middle, that sweet spot. it may be little to the right, little to left, but it is in that area where the people want us to beat. have we get there? and that, ladies and gentlemen, you should pay close attention to over the next year to see whether not the white house, senate, congress can find that sweet spot, that consensus on some of these complicated issues that we have begun to see emerge on something like and control. >> the only thing is i think mike and i both agree that on the republican party we do have that problem. democrats do, too. the blue dogs, we used to call them boll weevils, the

conservative democrats are all gone. max baucus found that out very quickly and so did others. the same thing as happened in both parties. more focus on republicans, but the democrats have lost their conservative and moderate members of congress as well. i was in congress turned a lot of those days. now we can look back and talk about bipartisanship at the water's edge. it was not the way. it was not the way in vietnam. it was not the way in the issues in central america, nicaragua, el salvador, all those kinds of foreign policy issues. there was a speech given by a senator saying that bipartisan -- the partisanship and is at the water's edge, but it was never really true. we have always had those divisions. what is different now is we have always had some people in the house and senate who would reach out and bring people together so that they could say, how can we move the country forward. uni have strong disagreements, but we have to make sure that

the water stays to work, the bridges don't collapse, our troops get their supplies. that is missing now. that is because of the primary system. if you say, we disagree about a lot. that's fine the area where we can agree, the move above detected are primaries. >> one more question. do you think obama has gone a long way in his new budget proposal by curtailing some entitlements and so forth? the conversation started again or is it dead in the water? >> i think he has. i give the president drops the of the day on a program. i think it puts the gop in a very interesting little box right now to actually have to begin to negotiate. the senate has finally come to the table with the budget. the white house has a budget. the republicans have a budget. we have the makings of something getting down, folks. it remains to be seen, but i

think the president's talking about the changed cpi, which is indexing, medicare to inflation, indexing becomes a good starting point. there will still be revenue. the president is asking for another $600 billion in additional revenues after getting close to $400 billion of new revenue in january. i can tell you right now, there is no mood in the republican party for that at this point until we see how the spending side of the equation presses itself out. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> yes, sir. >> hi. my name is fish stark. i am a senior and congressman edwards, my dad served with you

in congress. >> the brilliant, great man. >> thank you. >> absolutely. >> my question is -- i am a democrat, but i followed with great interest the candidacy of angus king. a republican turned independent and he seemed to me to represent the ideal of post partisanship and working for the people instead of the caucus. even though, as you said, 40 percent of the registered voters of the united states are independent, is incredibly hard for independent candidates to get on the ballot and get funding. one of the down sides to the new primary system is that it completely shut out third-party candidates in the general election. so i am wondering of a the next several years, what do you see as being the viability of independent nonpartisan candid it's and how do you think if they are to become viable that will change the landscape of american politics? >> two things. first of all, i was quite sincere. your dad, very, very, very good man.

be very proud. the thing -- it is always very hard for somebody who is green party libertarian, whenever independent party to have much chance to succeed in a system like what we have. what has happened with the california and washington primaries, even if you end up -- because it is early yet to turn general election, so even if you end up in a runoff in a very liberal district, a liberal district that is not ever going to elect a republican, but the two guys to end up in the primary, in this case they're both liberal democrats, they have to appeal to third parties, independents, libertarians and greens and so forth in order to win. it's totally changed the dynamic in that race and in washington. i do think that is one of the things. angus king. there is a very positive and a little bit of negative that

comes out of that. he's a good guy. it was good to see an independent elected as an independent, running as an independent. the problem was that angus said absolutely that he had to caucus with the democrats because the party's control the system. if he doesn't caucus with a party he can't get a committee assignment and he can't get, you know. so we have to break that where it is not party leaders to decide whether or not you can get a committee assignment. surf -- >> that is the key. analysts said we won't have a viable third party in this country if it is from the top down. we have seen it pass for people run for president as an independent. it has to be organic from the bottom up with the citizens decide i want you, sir, the independent voter, or you, ma'am, the independent activists to be our representative.

that begins to form an organization that begins to crack at the gop in the democratic system which is deliberately designed to keep everyone else out. whether it is on redistricting, whether it is i'm getting on the ballot, just getting on the ballot can be a nightmare. lord help you, if you want to try to petition something to the voters to referendum. again, the system is designed for very limited access, very few players, and those who are players are in the system already, protected by it. incumbency has enormous value. and until you begin to break that very little will change. the way you do it is from the bottom up with activists kind of pushing at the system. >> we show real bipartisanship in california and washington. the republican leaders and the democratic leaders came together to fight against.

>> right. >> thank you, sir. >> i think we -- >> are we done? are we done? think we are down. we just at the cut off. we want to thank you all very, very much for coming out. ..

>> indiana law professor current david trippi argues for a two presidency as a way to enforce limits on presidential power. he writes about his proposal in the book, "two presidents are better than one" and disgusted at the university of pennsylvania law school. this is an hour. >> thank you for having me. i'm grateful for the opportunity to share my ideas about political dysfunction and how we fix it. i began thinking about two representatives had served in the indiana house of representatives and i was there for three turns. and like most candidates do not or started running, i pledge to the end. i was going to work with my colleagues across the aisle and support good ideas, whether they are democratic or republican. i tried very hard to do