off. >> did beth campaign with him >> >> yes, they were on the train, exhausted. >> >> we didn't talk about key west, and they saw the white out, and i wonder if they visited key west. how? >> well, he used it to go fishing and swimming, and one of the secret servicemen who used to go with him or exscout had a trick he liked to do, hold you under the water until you were almost dead, but it was mostly men and men things. he liked the company of men, all that stuff, and ms. truman didn't go many times, but she would go. margaret had a public persona. she was kind of easy with the press and things like that. people liked her. >> watching some what's calledded footage without sound

of the truman's in key west, and it looks like he relaxed that. >> he did. his fashion sense was remarked upon in key west. >> the hawaii shirt. >> the flashy shirt. >> fits in now. >> yes. >> they took movies of them partying arounds, carrying on, and he let it go at the mason's or went to the big masonic building there, interrupted and said, here, i'm harry. >> can you imagine the president being this casual today? >> he was, but he was in control. >> casually in control. >> no. >> why not? because of the media or -- >> things changed. look at the blarehouse assassination attempt with the president watching this happen. they don't have the freedom to move around like they used to. there was no way that was going to happen. >> harry truman was elected, surprising the press, the political establishment to a

second term and busy term it was. this is a list of the highlights of the second truman administration. the establishment of nato, the korean war, assassination attempt we talked about, and the 22nd amendment to the constitution following roosevelt creating presidential term limits. how challenging was the second term? >> the first year was z said to be the happiest in the white house saying here was the chance to be president in his own right, the fair deal started really kicking off, but then things go wrong, largely because of korea that shatters the economy, people's faith in him and willingness to understand. >> and mcarthur made the biggest show of it on earth, addressed congress and said, oh, soldiers never die, just fade away, and it was a popular song, and they threw a lot of mud,

really. >> did beth change her approach to the first ladyship in the second term spending more time in the white house? >> she is still going back and forth a lot, but, again, that's largely because of family issues. she's -- they reestablished the partnership, get over the personal tensions they had in the early days where she's feeling left out. they find the rhythm again, and their union is happier and steadier in the second term. >> louis, washington in los angeles. >> caller: yes, thank you. what was mrs. try mapp's opinion about her husband's association about -- with tom? i know it was mentioned, but what was her thinking and her opinion about tom, and the association with president truman? >> thank you, a good question. >> he was a political boss in missouri, and he was a king

maker, and his son, mrs. truman's family knew him, and i doubt she thought much of it. i mean, she thought he was probably just fine. truman says in the letters he's going that way because that's how he got in office, but he quickly began to sprinter off on that, but i don't imagine mrs. truman thought of it because she knew him. >> how politics were done at that time. >> they were a prominent family, and she knew him. >> the reports is in branson west, missouri. >> oh. >> you're on the air. >> caller: hello. i was wondering if beth truman attended former or future first lady's funerals. thank you. >> gosh, i don't know. >> i know three first ladies

attended her funeral, but that's a very good question. >> well, she would have -- >> certainly some died because she lived a long time. >> well, i'm trying to think. >> mr. roosevelt died. >> she certainly probably went to mrs. roosevelt's funeral, i would imagine. >> i'd think so. >> eisenhower? >> that was much later as did mrs. franklin roosevelt. >> there was not a huge opportunity. >> and not expected. now, that's a tough one. >> that's a really interesting question. i don't know. >> what was best truman's pet issue? did she have one? >> i don't think they had pets. >> no, a pet issue? >> no, no. >> nothing. >> well, actually, i take that back. she was interested in health care. she urged harry to increase funding i think to the national institute for health, a research

foundation, and you can look at the numbers in the second term. that best of my knowledge goes up. she really thought people should have better health care as did harry. >> he proposed universal health care. >> one of the reasons he was unpopular. >> yeah. >> i want to tell you about a book, and it's my lead-in to the question about the best truman portrait, but this book has been established by our partners in the series, and it is a collection of biographies of the first ladies of the united states, has all official portraits, biographies of each of them, and as a keepsake for those, you see the yellow bubble at the bottom, listed as a special edition for first lady's special series. this is available on the website at c-span.org/firstladies, and in it you find best truman's official portrait. the portrait was done, and we have a video explaning the

background about beth truman's official portraits. >> this painting was originally painted as the original white house portrait. they went looking for portraits to hang to rehang in the white house thinking that was important, looked high and low, and she could not find my grandmother's official portrait. she called my grandmother and said, mrs. truman, do you know where the painting is? we can't find it. my grandmother says, yes, it's on my wall. >> mrs. johnson says, you really shouldn't have that. it belongs in the white house. my grandmother said, no, that's my painting. it's on my wall. that's where it's going to stay. i think mrs. johnson tried a couple more times, but eventually, she gave up, and she had a copy painted. there's two copies made, and one hangs in the library down the

road and the other is in the white house, but those are the two copies. this is the original portrait. >> i don't know who did the portrait, i can look it up, but back to the table here. >> we have to tell the story about the renovations in the white house because the trumans and eight years in the white house spent less time in the building than any other president. >> the engineers were concerned the thing would collapse on to the trumans, essentially. >> well, the trouble started after pearl harbor when the core of army engineers came in to do a survey, and i talked to members of the crew, and the ceiling in the east room dropped

40 inches. he walked in there under the plaster. it was that it was considered a fire trap and recommended roosevelt move out, didn't do it, and they wanted to paint it camouflage in the war, and he wouldn't do that. well, after the war, the house was empty in the upstairs, and the floors jiggled, and he loved houses that did that, but the plaster would begin to trickle down from the light fixtures, yeah, and they would -- so they decided they had to get out, so they moved across the street, and great plans done, redoing the white house, and he can summon with mrs. truman, that was the easiest thing to do, but george built the walls, and truman wouldn't hear it. it was gutted, but the stone walls were never touched, and, in fact, they wanted to take a bulldozer in through the door, and they were going to open it up with pix axes, and he saw

them, said, stop, and they took it down and reassembled them in the cellars of the house, and the hoys was rebuilt in steel and concrete. the walls, backing of three feet, and is this doing -- nyway, that's a steel frame inside, eight inches from the original stone walls, and each room is a cage. when it was finished, it was believed to be bombproof. and they moved over to blare house where they lived most of the time, and they loved it, had the blare things in it, never decorated, anything like that. >> for a moment. >> he consulted with beth, but because why was this not done in the first term? it was falling down then. they were convinced somehow the press would blame the trumans for bringing down the white house, and so they waited until

he was reelected to tackle this project. >> did living in the blare house have positive or negative influence on his presidency? >> it might have allowed him to relax more. >> he ate every meal himself with the stuff like that. >> one of my favorite stories, he wrote beth letters when she was home in independence, and he was convinced he could hear the ghosts wandering the hauls, and he enjoyed imagining they were there to keep him company. beth thought it was silly until they heard a crash and thought for a minute there were ghosts there. >> well, if they took the insides out, maybe the ghosts went with them. >> might have. >> how much of the original white house was preservedded? >> man tell pieces were preserved, some doors, during

the clinton administration, when the blue room was redone, there was the old original pine, e nor -- e -- enormous boards, insisted they were in the house. i don't know what percentage, and, of course, next year is the 200th anniversary, and to% was torn down -- 30% was torn down after the fire. the walls are a hundred percent, and what percentage is that of the house? i don't know. subbasements were dug, and a secret one was dug, and truman ordered the park service to vender $750,000 of the budget to do the basement, the one in 9/11 that the vice president was in, and it was done secretly, not secure anymore, but bess had

that out of the park service budget. >> we have film, video of when the president reintroduced the white house to the nation afterwards. what was the public reaction when he was reopened again? >> oh, i think people thought it was beautiful. >> absolutely. >> national geographic did a beautiful issue on it. >> this is the tour nbc gave. >> people thought it was beautiful, done by a department store in new york, the decorating, and chuck made zigses, and mrs. truman and the president refused to decide on wall paper and things like that because it was not their house, but it was for the future, and the staff, they made most of those decisions, and it was done cheaply. i mean, they beat everybody down. frank gave fabrics for 50 cents a yard. >> they asked how much influence did bess have, and the answer is as much as she wanted.

>> as much as she wanted, but they felt they were tbhot going to live there long, and that there was something more important. >> what's your question? >> caller: i have two questions. one, was she a sports fan, was she rooting for the cardinals? >> kansas city royal, all the way. >> the second question was, you mentioned that harry overcame his prejudices, but i heard the story through meryl miller who wrote "the plain speaks," one time at the house, he said he cowcht let them in because he was jewish, and the family was kind of antisemitic. >> one of harry's best friends, one of his army buddies, eddy jacobson, he was jewish, ran the men's clothing store in kansas with, so the truman's did associate with jewish people.

>> wasn't he his best man? >> i think bess's brother was best man. >> in the wedding who did a suit for him, but chargedded him for it. >> i don't think that was jacobson, but he was a dear friend. >> very close. >> a viewer wanted to know after watching that, where did they raise the money to fix the white house. >> congress. >> all of it? no public appropriations? >> no. it cost $5 million. i think that's what it would be today. >> peter in boston, hi, peter. >> caller: hi, how are you? >> good, thanks. >> caller: any other first ladies? >> she admired eleanor roosevelt. they were friendly, not dear friends. eisenhower, before she was the first lady, when bess was the first lady, they took a spanish class in the white house, a group of ladies decided to learn

spanish, and bess grew found of her then, and there was lift a rift between the trumans and eisenhowers, but bess was fond of her. others? >> i can't think of many others. >> they did very much enjoy the company of both kennedys, stayed at the white house after jackie was in the white house. >> went for the inauguration, didn't they? >> uh-huh. >> didn't like joe kennedy. >> no. >> but they liked the son. >> yeah. >> all the video of all the first lady programs we've done so far and also lots of other videos you have not seen here, that's at c-span.org/firstdailies. we put a special thing about the ladies we feature that we have not used during the program. go there now, you find another story about his grandmother from the home in independence. something just for you online. 1952 election, why did the truman's decide -- could they have run again? >> yes. >> the constitutional amendment

did not only apply to the incumbent, but it would have just been his second time being elected. bess said to him that she could not take another year. >> how old then? >> 61 at least in the white house, so he was 69 he would have been. >> yeah. >> and she didn't think he could take it either. they were in good health for the age, but korea and mccarthyism was spreading. they were getting worn down. >> once eisenhower turned republican, it was clear who was going to win. >> what was the relationship since he had been president at the end of the war? >> well, part of the trouble was that eisenhower was a republican where truman had hinted that he might support eisenhower if he wanted to run in 1948.

truman admired eisenhower for a long time, and eisenhower was aloof to him from all the letters and memos that we see, and then truman was highly offended in the transition petered when eisenhower did not appear to want to take his advice, and then a big social snub occurred on inauguration day, customary for the incoming president to stop by the white house, have tea, pick up the outgoing president, and ride together. first eisenhower said, wanted to be picked up at the hotel, the truman's said, no, and so they arrive at the white house, but they would not come inside and greet the trumans. >> they sat in the car. >> they sat in the car, and the president of the united states had to walk out to him. you can feel the pictures if you look at that inauguration. >> he was almost thrown out, no guards, guards taken, had no pension coming to him, and one

of the secret service detail took a leave to accompany him back on the train, and no one said bye until they were at the train station, and there were, what, a hundred people cheering them? >> no. i think there were more. it was another time that no one turned out. when they returned home, there were thousands. >> he had trouble with the thousands. you know, that story about him getting out of the car and going to the door, and the crowd pushed in, and glasses gone and hanker chief gone and built an iron fence that. >> they didn't expect crowds, and peoplemented to see them. there's a story about margaret one day coming out on the porch yelling at someone to go away, and they later found out he was an escaped mental patient with a gun. >> very different times.

>> the city of independence put up a policeman, off duty, on the back porch. that's all the security they had. the pensions started and secret service detail. >> bess did not allow them in the house still. >> i didn't know that. >> no, she would not allow them in the house. >> in fact, in the white house years go back home in independence, she did not allow secret service protection. >> she wanted to live as normally as possible. >> did they go anyway with her? >> not that i'm aware of. >> really? surprised she got away with that. >> don in chester, pennsylvania. hi, don. >> caller: hello? >> your question, please. >> caller: yes, i have the good privilege of corresponding with mrs. truman, twice, after her husband's death i sent her a copy of a tribute i wrote for the school paper, and she responded with a nice letter, and i sent birthday greetings, and she replied. had terrible arthritis but made

effort to be down home. the interesting was in the book about her mother, she comments that president truman was very protective of mrs. truman concerning her father's death, a cousin, larry, told them about the death, and president truman had a fit about that and ripped into the woman, which was unusual, a courtly gentleman as a rule, and that was an interesting footnote to the family history. she was there with her husband and johnson and kennedy and there's pictures there. thank you. >> don, before you go, how did you get interested in the truman s >> caller: greasingly enough, before he was killed, i got a book on president kennedy, interesting me in politics in regime, and sense -- since that, i've become a particularly aficionado of the

presidents, but just politics in general, american politics, from 1932 to the present. >> okay, thanks for the call tonight. so in the years after the white house one of the things they did was an interview for national television in 1955. talk about those interviews. who were they interviewed by? >> their daughter, margaret. >> the daughter asked the question. it was a program on cbs called "person to person," a big hit program at the time, the only television interview that bess truman did. how about that? in her whole public career, and you're going to see a little bit of that next. >> but mother? >> yes. >> tell everyone why you went back to missouri instead of staying in washington. >> there was never question staying in washington. there was no question staying at home. is that all right? >> yes, i buy that.

mother? >> yes. >> are we still getting sight seers and visitors? >> oh, loads of them, yes. >> all the time in >> all the time. every day. >> yeah if >> the experience the other night, we went to see your cousins across the street, and there were so many out here in front of the house, we couldn't come home and spent most of the evening on the front porch over there by ourselves because the cousins were not home. >> oh, fun. >> suspect that ridiculous? >> yes. what about the time someone picked your tulips, remember? >> oh. you know, well, yes, someone came into the backyard and picked all my beautiful white tulips. one of the men in the place went down to ask her just what she thought she was doing, and she didn't think mrs. truman took some. >> fine thing. >> she helped herself. >> that's all the she wanted.

>> after all the work you did. >> yes. >> mother? >> yes? >> for years, we had secret service around us. do you miss washington? >> yes, i love it there, but i'm completely happy at home, and, of course, secret servicemen didn't bother me as much as they did you and dad. >> no, i remember you lost them. >> yes, i did, early in the game. >> uh-huh. somebody saw it. ann wanted me to ask you, how much influence was mother when you were in the white house. >> she was a wonderful influence and wonderful help. a president is in a bad way if he didn't have a first lady who doesn't know her job. she's the greatest thing a president can have, and mine was. >> good. >> mother, let me switch from washington to kansas city. how's the baseball team going? >> well, we are doing pretty well. we'll have a great team once

post season. >> sounds good. you're the fourth in the family, anything good on tv lately? >> well, a few good things, yes, but i have not been able to find any wrestling matches. >> no good wrestling matches? >> no, not at all. >> mom, do you want to talk about politics specifically or in general? >> no, not in either category, thank you. >> that's definite enough. >> dad? >> your mother never talks politics. >> oh. >> that's discipline -- that's fun. >> it's great. >> it was a longer "person to person" interview of margaret truman of her parents in 1955 after they left the white house. they come across as plain folk. >> they were. they valued that, valued hard work, honesty, a good laugh, and normal people. >> he was not popular when he left the white house. it took many years for the reputation to be reestablished. why were so many people seeing them in missouri? >> well, part of it, he was not

necessarily unpopular at home, he was the hero in missouri. independence, missouri, has not had any other presidents, and they probably thought they could walk up and say hello as they did in the past. >> how did they spend the post white house years? they were long. >> they were. he had to make money. he was not getting pension, and several offers came, but he never believed nip should trade on the presidency, so he wrote the memoirs and best edited every word, and that was the first project. >> and the establishment of the truman library? >> he was intimate to that, i want mat to that and believed very much that it was a matter of history, of interpreting history, and he did the original design himself for the exhibit. >> and kept an office there, and visit there today, you can see the office one of the striking things is it looked over the future grave site. >> the great story was he said i

can just see, bess, you'll lay there next to me, and one day, i can see myself saying, oh, i feel like going to the office, and you'll say, harry, you oughten. >> that's how they expected to spend eternity. >> pictures of the truman family grave sites now. they had -- margaret, by the way, had four sons. >> uh-huh. >> as you saw, cliffton truman is a very involved in the legacy of his grandparents. one of the fourth sons passed away, and i don't know about the other two are involved in the library and preservation of history. there's one story, and we're running out of time, but it's a great story. what i want to know is about the trip taken with the president by car after leaving the white house. did they really just do it, the two of them? the convertible trip across the country. >> i can't remember the author's name. >> there's good stories. >> find it on the web, and the truman's trip, the automobile

trip. >> drove to washington from missouri? >> it's a wonderful book. >> one of the stories i remember is of people passing on the road and nearly having accidents because he was in the convertible, and they recognized they just passed the president of the united states and the first lady. well, as we wrap up here, two minutes left, someone keeps asking, wants to know what is the greatest contribution of bess to the role of first lady? >> demonstrating you can be a strong influential partner, and you don't have to be on the front page or tv every day. influence can be strong without being public. >> exactly, and supported her husband. >> uh-huh. >> and the president when he became the president. she supported him. they were aware the president is an individual. >> bess died in 1982, ten years later. she did she spend the ten years

after he passed? she died at age 97. >> he was at home, tried to keep up her correspondence, same with margaret. >> she had a care giver timely and several at the end, but she died at home. >> in her home, and i imagine that's the way she want the it. >> he died in the hospital. >> how should we remember? remember the way she wanted to be remembered, that you can be a wonderful first lady even if people don't know it at the time. >> and did she have, then, any influence on the role of first lady? was she really, truly her own person? >> i would say she was her own perp. g i think absolutely. >> it's not possible anymore. mrs. reagan was going to play cards with friends, something truman would have done, oh, my goodness, you thought she committed treason. >> right.

>> mrs. truman would have said it's my life, and i'm not elected. >> but not possible today. >> no. >> she was an independent minded performance when it was allowed? >> it depends on the woman, if she wanted to get involved. today, women are so much more out than they were then, and >> this was 1940s, 1950s american woman. >> she was her own person. >> thank you for the story of bess, harry, and margaret truman, the tight-knit family in the white house thrust intoed job after the death of roosevelt and making it their own. we appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> thank you to the white house historical association as a partner in the series and the folks at the truman library and house in independence with their help with the videos tonight. ♪

♪ ♪ >> next week on first ladies, influence and image. lady eisenhower, limited relations with the media holding only one press conference and took charge of running the white house, conducting white glove

inspections, and approving a record number of state visits. when her husband, general dwightize p hour, was elected forces in europe, an article reported she's a career woman, her career is ike. on november 4th, live from inside the eisenhower farm in pennsylvania. purchased in 1950 #, they spent their time there for the rest of their lives including during the white house years. join us for a look at the life of mamie eisenhower on "first ladies: influence and image" next monday on c-span, c-span3, and on c-span radio.

>> unauthorized does not mean untrue. it means that you're doing it without the cooperation and blessing of your subject, and i do believe it's a legitimate wonderful way to cover history, especially public figures that have spent many, many years and millions of dollars creating their own image, and so i think it's valuable sometimes to go behind that, so usually i'm the one who's trying to get behind that and tell you what's going op. >> presidential history, political intrigue, and american

culture, the biographer sits down live for three hours beginning at noon eastern sunday op booktv's " in-depth," and look for other guests including feminism critic, and mark levin on january 5th. don't forget, there's a few more days to post comments on this month's book club selection, "walking with the wind" the early years of the civil rights movement at booktv.org/bookclub. >> this is 15 minutes. >> >> good afternoon.

new zealand minister defense and i just finished a very positive and productive working lunch where we reenforced the close ties between the united states and new zeal land. having fought together in every may gofer conflict in the last century including afghanistan, our bonds are rooted not only in the common interest as specific nations, but also in the history and values we share. our partnership is important to peace and prosperity, and the united states remains committedded to strengthening this partnership as one component of our reambulance to the region. one of the themes we emphasizedded today was the significant progress we've made in expanding our defense cooperation since the washington declaration was signed last year. in addition to high level visits like this one, we've had a productive set of exercises and training initiatives. the first joint defense policy

talks in almost three decades, and the scheffel -- successful meeting with army chiefs, two nations cochaired in auckland. that meeting focused on how to work together on global peace keeping operations, a central part of where we hope to improve our partnership. today, minister coleman and i confirmed we'll continue to work more closely together on peace keeping issues. new zealand provides military instructors to the u.s.-led global peace keeping initiative beginning next year. we also discussed benefits of the increased cooperation on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in asia pacific. both nations have led multilateral exercises to help improve coordination in these operations. demonstrating our ability to work together in the interest in the region. all areas of the cooperation underscore the broad nature of

our defense relationship. we look forward to continuing to deepen our defense cooperation in the future. near term steps include military-to-military talks next month in honolulu. new zeal land's deployment to the multinational antipiracy coalition in the gulf of aiden, and the united states upcoming participation in what will be new zealand's largest ever multinational and interagency exercise. further on the horizon, we look forward to the full participation in next year's rim pack, the world's largest multilateral naval exercise. today, i authorized the new zealand navy ship to dock at pearl harbor 20 # 14 and extended that invitation to minister coleman, the first time in new zealand navy ship will have visited pearl harbor in more than 30 # years. the docking of the ship of pearl

harbor will be another act in strengthening our relationship and the rebalance to the pacific. i'll ask minister coleman for his comments before questions. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary, and i begin by saying it's great to be here in washington. i thank you for your hospitality. as you outlined, look, there's a long history between the u.s. and new zealand built on common values, our troops fought in many theaters around the world, most recently in afghanistan, and a big theme of the talk today was actually, we are looking forward to the future cooperation with the u.s., looking for commonground to extend cooperation as the secretary said, and we are keen to build peace keeping capacity. we made great strides in the defense relationship over the last two years on the back of the willing and declaration and in the washington declaration. we greatly appreciate the listing of restrictions on ships

docking in u.s. ports, and i want to thank you for that waiver. we're also very pleased to see the resumption of talks after 30 year, and where we're getting to, really, is the resumption of a contact it's at the political level, officials' level, or mill level which we have not seen for a number of decades so we're looking forward to continuing a great business as usual relationship where our people are exercising regularly together where we work on issues of common importance across the asia pacific region and potentially beyond. we talked extensively about the u.s. rebalance through our part of the world, and new zeal land welcomes that. the military side of that is the public manifestation, but the point i made was that actually there's multiple legs to. this there's the diplomatic leg, the trade leg, very important for the new zeal land perspective, and we are keen to

see ttp negotiations concluded on quick a timetable as possible, and we welcome the new climate of engagement that we have with the u.s. across the range of portfolio and policy areas. we had some high level u.s. visits starting with secretary clinton, and leon panetta was the last september, and in return, you made our ministers very welcome, and we are certainly looking forwards to our prime minister potentially being able to visit the u.s. coming here to washington, d.c. in the first half of next year. i thank you for the hospitality. the relationship is in great shape and there's a great future to come between the two countries and defense cooperation area is one part of that. thank you. >> thank you, thank you very much. all right.

barbara -- >> before we move to questions -- >> absolutely. >> just breaking with pentagon protocol. there's no opportunities that should be passed up to promote new new zealand. when secretary hagel was out mowing lawns, i was able to wear this. thank you very much. i want to give you this. >> thank you, thank you. >> it's appropriate on the back. >> there you go. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> well, a high honor indeed. which, of course, i'm completely unworthy of, but nonetheless, i shall accept it in the spirit given on behalf of all the their -- nare-do-wells there in the shadows where they belong. >> where they belong. >> thank you very much.

good luck. >> thank you. >> i know you're very proud. >> thank you. >> of the guys, so thank you very much, and i'll put this -- >> [inaudible] >> okay, barbara. >> we want to have both of you gentlemen about views of what's going on with the national security agency. mr. secretary, to start with you, because you jointly oversea the nsa and as a senior member of the national security committee, clearly, this is in your portfolio as well, so what did you know about collection of intelligence from world leaders communications whether it was data or whatever it was, what did you know about it? when did you know about it, and have you discussed it with the president and feel it appropriate? why is it appropriate?

mr. minister, how worried is your government that the united states is intercepting communications, and what does this do to new zealand's trust with the u.s.. first, mr. secretary. >> barbara, i don't discuss conversations i have in national security counsel meetings. i certainly don't discuss publicly conversations that we have regarding intelligence. we are examining dynamics out there and procedures and processes, i think, the white house has been very clear on that; and i think those who lead intelligence community even very clear on that. we have great respect for our partners, allies who cooperate with us and we cooperate with them to try to keep the world safe, to keep each other safe, to keep our nation's safe, intelligence is a key part of that, and i think this issue

will continue to be explored as it is now, but that's all i have to say. >> mr. secretary, in fact, the white house said the president did not know about this until the review this summer about communications intelligence policy. if he didn't know it, it seems unlikely that a national member of the security community, you didn't know about it. did you know about it? >> like i said, i don't comment on intelligence matters, and that's all i got to say about it. thank you. >> and, mr. minister -- >> new zeal lain's not worried about this. we don't believe -- quite frankly, nothing anybody could hear in our private conversations that we wouldn't be prepared to share publicly and cartoon in the local paper showed an analyst potentially listening to the communiques from new zealand and a stream of z's coming out. we don't have anything to worry about and have high trust in our relationships with the u.s..

>> secretary hagel, do you agree or disagree that iran could produce enough weapons uranium in a matter of a few weeks for a nuclear bomb, there was a report released concluding something similar, that it would be a month before iran could have enough weapons grade uranium for a bomb. do you agree or disagree? mr. minister, what's your country's assessment how long it takes iran to break out in >> well, our intelligence community as well as the intelligence community of our allies have varying interpretations of timelines, on the capability and capacity iran possesses. main point is we are working right now to try to find some high ground here to resolve the issue of the -- this -- what we believe is a very significant

threat to the future of the middle east and our security. the president has been very clear on this that his position is iran will not be allowed with the capability to develop nuclear weapons capacity. the varies timelines on when they most likely break out vary. >> but do you agree or disagree with the prim minister? >> there's varying degrees of elements on time lines. >> i don't have anything to add regarding timelines, but what i say is it's important that the iranians are not allowedded to develop this capability, and it's important that it is a continued engagement with them, but at the same time, pressured to make sure that this does not happen, and it's very -- it's going to be very clear what the freeway world's view on this matter is so they can't develop the capability.

>> this is something you can answer. what effect will sequestering have for the next two or three years on asia rebalance, and are there any u.s. weapons programs or acquisition issues you hope to get closer with the united states, like the f35 fighter, other aircraft, weapons, having the calls in new new zealand? >> first on sequesteration and effecting the rebalance, as general dempsey said, continued cuts will affect all of our plans in all areas, and at the same time we said this rebalance, asia pacific, is a priority, noted this a priority in the budget presentation we made in 2014. we'll do it again for the budgets presentation in 2015 to protect that rebalance in any way we can, but, again, the

reality is when you take the kind of cuts that the pentagon takes this year and continue to take those cuts over 50 billion on track for next year, it affects us in every way, but, again, priorization of the rebalance is at the top of the list as well as cyber and other interests that are clearly in the interest of our country and our future. >> we're not looking specifically of weapons systems programs that the u.s. may have. what we have is a detailed defense capability program looking forward which is basically based around the development of the joint amphibious task force and timing of the various capabilities comes up for renewal, go to the market internationally to see who meets requirements at the best price, and now that might be a u.s. provider or it may be career or somewhere else, but we

are not looking at exaibilities that the u.s. has, and saying, oh, look, we want in on that deal because we're a small defense force. we are niche in what we do and need capabilities that support specific things we have to do, largely in the outback, the southwest pacific, largely around amphibious capability, but we don't see, for instance, you know, talk about if the f35 fighters, that's just not part of our horizon because we can't see with our size a situation where we would, a, ever need that capability, but, b, that we can afford it, so, yeah, that's where we are. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, everyone. >> thank you.

>> as nasa's future goes, so to does that of america, and if

nasa's healthy, then you don't need a program to convince people science and engineering is good to do because they see it at large on paper, and they'll call for engineers to go ice fishing where there's an ocean of water liquid for billions of years. we'll dig through soil of mars and look for life, that gets the best by biologists. there's chemistry, physics, geology, aerospace engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, and all the stem fields, science, technology, engineers, and matt represented in the nasa portfolio. a healthy nasa pumps that. a healthy nasa is a fly wheel that society taps for innovations. >> over the past 15 years, booktv has air over 40,000 programs about nonfiction books and authors. booktv, every weekend on

c-span2. >> next, a discussion on the government shut down, the debt ceiling, and health care law with the president of the nra and former adviser to richard nixon. this event hosted by the center of national interest is 90 minutes. >> [inaudible] i'm editor of national interest, and we have convened this meeting because of the crisis that we recently experienced the standoff of president obama and congressional republicans. in a number of questions emerged from that crisis include, but not limited to the future of the republican party itself, the impact on america's image abroad, and what it implies for the duration of president

obama's presidency. to answer questions or attempt to address them, we've assembled a distinguished panel here today including david keen, the former chairman of the american conservative union and the current opinion editor of the washington times. david is a veteran, political observer, and has participated in republican party politics for several decades. to the immediate right is the grover m. herman fellow in federal best of my knowledge tear -- budgetary affairs, row institute for economic studies, the heritage foundation, and she will address some of the economic implications of the process. to my left is president of the center of the national interest, the parent organization of the

national interest magazine, and he'll talk about implications internationally for the united states. to my left, not politically, but seating wise, is my friend and colleague, bob mary, former editor of the national interest, editor of congressional quarterly for many years, and he'll talk about the domestic everyone cations of the crisis. i'd like to kick it off with bob to give us his thoughts. >> thank you, it's a pleasure to be here. i like to think i bring perspective to the past crisis. i spend the bulk of the time on the west coast concentrating on book projects and so i looked at

washington from a distance during the shut down, and i found myself asking a question, what would mark twain say about this? i think i know becaused on one of my favorite twain quotes in which he talked about the capacity of flees. your average flee, said mr. clemmons, can be trained to do anything a congressman can. from that distance, i was looking at the crisis in terms of two things. number one, is this truly a crisis in terms of what it could actually generate, a default, and what is -- what explains behavior in washington? looking at just a few headlines

of the period gives you a sense of the crisis it was. from the "new york times," warning of global risk leaders -- warning of global risk, leaders urge u.s. to solve its debt limit crisis. these were leaders from the world bank and imf who suggested it was a pros sect. david lee, beijing should cut back lending to washington. china calls for dollar to be replaced as global reserve currency. spurring chinese call for de-americanized world. we were in the zone of danger, but raised the question how could washington politicians be so stupid? i think the problem with the question and the analysis that

surrounded that is it assumes there's no connection between the political machinations in washington and what's percolating and bubbling up within the country at large, but there is a connection as there always is, and the country, as jacob said, was in crisis. it's an ongoing crisis, and it's not going to be over any time soon. everything in washington is a reflection of what is, in fact, percolating in the country at large which leads me to a last headline that ran in the washington post over the by line of the brookings institution, and the "wall street journal," tea party and the g.o.p. crackup now, they channeled walter's piece of years ago talking about

various political traditions in america and identified the jacksonian tradition, the jacksonian code, which encompassed certain ten tenants described as self-reliance, individualism, loyalty, courage. i think of the -- among recent politicians in america, one who reflected the jacksonian credo was the former senator from virginia.

i thought it was a remarkingble statement, the tea party in america arouse, angry, and above all in full revote backed by the new american demography that threat,s and interest and scorns its values. they view bureaucracy as a sort of having a conscious strategy of building political support by increasing america's dependence on government, and pool that the tea party conducted by a pugh research center and others suggested that these people consider obamacare as pushing america toward socialism. that's not entirely wrong in the

sense that obamacare time -- seems to be an advocate of european-style social democracy. so this is a powerful strain in american politics that has significant antesend in the political tradition. it may not be a big majority it ran the country from 18 28 until the civil war in determine of dominating american thinking. it is in these days the reasons having to do with the crisis at hand it is very intensely held political belief and therefore a political force that has to be reckoned with. there are a lot of democrats, liberals, people in the media who suggest these people need to get over it. the country has moved beyond them. and oftentimes you hear some

kind of adjective suggesting they're sort of white bread people which is a pejorative that ranked with almost any kind of pejorative you can throw at the ethic group. but they don't have to get over it. maybe history is not on their side. probably demographic of the country is not on their side. but the american political tradition is on their side. they don't have to get over it because they can press their points of view just as thoroughly as any other group or alignment within the political spectrum. and so what is this question that is pushing america in to these crises? it has to go with the definition of america. are we going to move in to more of a european-style social

democratic etho system? or are we going restain something closer to the free comprise free market concept in our lifetime most strongly by ronald reagan. i don't have the answer. it's a question. saints a profound question. it has america in the grip. as a result of that, america has washington in the grip. as a result washington has become defunctional. as a result of that, we have such things as the crisis of the governmental shut down. now we solve that crisis with a very temporary band aid; therefore, we're going to be back in this very, very soon. i think that this has a long ways to play out before we know

which direction america will go in. >> thank you for the remarks. it reminds me a bit of a piece in the "new york times" a few weeks ago arguing that the best the tea party could do was precisely what ted cruz is arguing that the republicans should from their own interest perspective function best as an obstruction to the force rather than trying to push legislation through. david, i would like to turn to you and say where is the g.o.p. headed? and where should go? why shouldn't we count it out? does the elephant have life in the lives? >> there's plenty of life in the elephant, particularly in the two-party system. in the course of the last two decades, the republican party has been counted as dead and ready to be buried several times. after the 1964 election, when

the solve goldwater took -- say that the republican party was dead. four years later the republican party took the white house. in 1974 the same appeared with television programs talked about how the republican party was dead. in fact, timid republicans actually held meetings to discuss changing the name of their party because no one would vote for republican again. six year later republicans were in the white house. this is not something knew. it's something that goes on. remember when george h.w. bush was elected, there was a talk of what was called the republican lock all the sudden things switched. they said no democrat would ever be elected in our lifetime because it was referred to the media. a few years later bill clinton

was president inspect a two-party system which both parties parties are prone to screw things up and find themselves unable to deliver other promises or performance as adequately as the people who put them in office expect them to perform or simply because people get tired of them. the other parties has a chance of coming back. i think the republican party is in a pretty good position right now if you look at much of the pound try, the talk of the survey that shoe have more blame for the crisis of the shut down than did democrats this means republicans are in real trouble. history and in fact those who looked tat think that by the fall of next year when the congressional elections take place. it's not going to be something that very many people vote on. the former "new york timesman" who makes a habit of handicapping the races as he

does have much impact. that's what history shows. also while it is a crisis in a sense. it's not the extension issue crisis that folks talked about. the comping of this -- the coverage of this one, of this shutdown, i think goodbye to is corrected the faultline here name in more way more significance. the shutdown itself was not significantly different than previous other than the executive branch dpdzed to make as much visible as they could for average americans outside washington so they could argue it was a real crisis. the president argued that never before had this wind of situation occurred where one party tried to put something on to continuing rev lose ghat took

place in the day. the question which was certainly as controversial as anything that we've talked about now. the champion president to suffer through shut down, of course, was jim any carter who still hold the longest and the most daying during which the government was shut down. and the amendment about abortion. if those were insignificant questions, then these presidents were able to bring people to the table to solve one wonders about the ability of the "ft" to do the same. the former chief of staff to ronald reagan later secretary of state, secretary of the treasury writes and talking about the fact when reagan was president he shut down and immediately called everybody together. iron things things out relatively quickly. it didn't happen during this one.

it's the kind of crisis that could become real. for example, of psychology and herd performance. the part of investors and others when it comes to economic decision making. we are looking too much at the democratic facts. what we've had this time is certainly a white house that has argued that this is such an crisis that the entire world economy could collapse as a result of something that happened many, many times before. as we approach the debt limit, the assumption if one reads the daily newspaper or watches crb or the other networks, is if in fact we don't extend the debt limit by whatever debtline the secretary of the treasury set.

it varies from week to week that the world economy will collapse because we'll go back on the obligation. the fact, of course, there's revenue coming in it wouldn't necessarily happen unless the president decidessed to rearrange the bills he's going play. so when the house of representatives voted recently to pass legislation that would require the payment of all international obligation of that sort the president said he would veto it. wants the leverage and scare the bejesus out of voters in the country and people abroad. to the political badgers back and forlt that take place in the country. it's interesting to me add one other thing when we get to the

kinds of when obamacare braced the democrats -- even though it probably meant they would lose their seats as heroes. men of conscious, men and women of conscious. when republicans who believed strongly this was something wrong with it and "the new york times" said they were fool because they were risking their seat. the sphact sometimes courage and heroes depend upon where you stand and want the country to go. so people agree with you that are heroes. people that disagree with you are fools. six democratic senators said we need to delay it for a year

because it's not working and it's a disaster. those six democrats and the other democrats in the senate said that delaying obamacare for a year would destroy everything. now when you remove the partisanship and that they said, gosh, we looked at this and better do something about it. most more thans blame the republicans for the shut down. today a national poll came out 51% of americans want obamacare repealed. >> thank you. now i will turn to robert byrd -- romina heritage foundation daycare. >> on october 16th, congress did what it does so well. it didn't do anything. the dream that passed it ended the government shut down.

the first one we had in over 17 years. but only by setting up another battle in early january. it suspended the debt ceiling without -- which as we all know is driving our spending and debt crises. we won't by how much the debt limit was lifted until february 8th. there's no actual dollar limit right now on the debt. effectively there is no debt limit in place. next week the 29 member of the budget conference committee will hold the first meeting. facing a deadline on december 13th to come up with recommendation tow present to the full house and senate in a report. the first priority, of course, will be able to figure out government funding past january 15th. on that day sequestration, the automatic budget cuts passed in 2011 as a debt limit was race

-- raided by 2.1 million. all that have borrowed happeninged within a year and a half. the cuts to be faced in over ten years through 2021. the sequester would kick in again on that day. the congressional budget office projects without any fiscal restraint the public debt will reach 100% of gross domestic product in less than generation by 2028. democratic research increasingly confirm the danger for economic growth at the growth slowing to have public debt level this high. fiscal uncertainty more over is among the key drivers holding back in u.s. today. that and the president's health care law which appeared ten times in the recent federal

reserve beige book which summarize the concern of businesses in the 12th program reserve district. businesses were reporting yet again uncertainty over increases in health care premium and the affordable care act regulation were keeping them from hiring and especially hiring full-time workers. in concern over the 2,000 page law that barely anyone read before they voted which is known as bawct is -- obamacare. what does to change the size and scope of the federal government. implementing of obamacare and the president senate decided to keep the government partially shut down until they were able to get funding for the law. the -- the challenge with the funding challenge back in 2010.

when barack obama and the senate allies decided to hijack a budget process to ram through the law without popular or even bipartisan support. if you look at the history of the united know callly major change in social policy not social security, not medicare, not even the civil right act was able to be successful over the long-term without any bipartisan support. president obama and his allies decided to enact health care law with just the 51 votes purely partisan majority and that is why we have the funding challenge now because we have a major if i of republicans in the house they control the pursestrings and it's within their constitutional right to deny funding to a law they don't agree with. the founders of this great nation wanted there to be broad consensus before laws were

passed. they neither wanted a single person, nor a single chamber of commerce to be able to impose its will on the public. so they deliberately designed a system with checks and plans that required agreement between the house, the senate, and the president that can only be produced by comprise. but comprise was all but absent during the recent shut down and president obama repeatedly and publicly refused even to negotiate. and it's what happens which is why we had a government shut down the house makes several attempt at trying to fund the entire government but not obamacare or certain provision

of obamacare like delaying the individual mandate when we heard the administration is now even considering delaying it for six weeks as the exchange and especially the web exchanges have proven to be completely unworkable. even so, the administration was arguably using the shut down as leverage to pressure the house republicans in to funding the law because even attempt to reel in part of the government or almost all rejected. i quote from the "the wall street journal" a -- we are winning. it does not matter how long it last bhap matters is the end result. so the house gave in on october 16th and voted to fund -- in the meantime the deficits are

more than half a trillion dollars. before the end of the decade, they will rise to $1 trillion levels. the congressional budget office projects that even with modest increases in interest rates what the federal government paid to service the debt will double in less than five years and triple before the end of the decade. there is broad -- challenge that we face as country the true from the president own fiscal commission whichly ignores to just about every economist out there. the sooner lawmakers come to term with our fiscal reality and start the process of performing programs like social security, medicare, and medicaid. the more deliberate and thoughtful those reforms can be. by judging how far apart they were, however, i think it seems very likely that washington will

continue this groundhog-day cycle of passing 11th hour deal that fail to fix the problem and continue have discussion likely again next year. thank you. >> months ago that -- [inaudible] but quickly avoid it himself the moderator. and begin asking other panelists questions. and he addressed each and to me. he asked what is going to happen with the u.s. -- [inaudible] it is going to be -- something that they will allow

to go out of control. and there are kinds of assurances that this would not happen. that we would have several they are not quite out of the woods yet -- [inaudible] first level exchange what do we have now? what part of currency is -- [inaudible] he said about 60 percent. and [inaudible]

and then he came back to the same topic again. also said when we witnessed what is happening in, we have to draw our conclusions. and it was fairly clear to me that was not just talking about conclusions in term of what percentage of -- it would be broader conclusions about nature and psychology of global leadership. recently in bali at the summit, which president obama decided not to attend.

he said, well within -- [inaudible] which in years were also quite outspoken. they were not -- they were making quite clear that president obama -- and they saw it not only as a problem but also in an opportunity to remind everybody in bali that china was arising each and every reason could not offer. china was willing to --

the singapore -- who nobody not only -- to criticize the united states who is an outspoken and -- a former ambassador to the united nations and he is very critical of united states and must be -- the administration. there is not unusual for him. behalf unusual. the senior members -- they were using all the -- [inaudible]

it involves an -- [inaudible] this is all very disturbing what president obama is saying about this crisis and the shutdown for americans. except it's not quite that simple. do this morning you would know that the big story in europe is -- before that, of course, before that spying on the european union their offices were -- [inaudible] and that was soviet. and a lot of explanation a lot of denials by --

but i know one thing for sure. it smells in a way. effective. a mental image of the united states in the world. and there is knows escape. there is also knows cape from us -- not to -- a way this administration approaches it.

[inaudible] that the administration never made public any evidence that president assad was acting against the united states to the best of my knowledge we had diplomatic relations with assad and -- [inaudible] the secretary of state. so the question was why is it as -- was an independent country? was the president of the united states saying that aside had to go? unless we had a specific plan to remove him. then, of course, similar to in the case of egypt and other conflict where he was saying mubarak had to go. and that we came in egypt where

mubarak -- [inaudible] in the case of syria that it was chemical weapons and -- [inaudible] ofobviously you expect not see in a options was the president of the united states announced that he had to go. this was is a very senior syrian -- [inaudible] to support the syrian uprising. they decided it do it after obama and said that assad had to go. they decided -- [inaudible] words from washington and the president of the united states. and the united states would do.

chemical weapons are pretty terrible. i think anyone will agree with it. there's only one question. the civil law happen to be who were september 11th you -- [inaudible] the way the -- [inaudible] morally speerp your to using chemical weapons. i think it's -- [inaudible] for anyone to make. the president can establish those. then, of course, assad -- [inaudible] cross the line or the administration -- [inaudible]

to syria's chemical weapons which are -- [inaudible] some would say better late then never. -- [inaudible] because there was nothing to discuss. then, of course, they -- [inaudible] an it was not told at that time that very meaningful and -- [inaudible] was in washington -- indeed it was not a very warm conversation. [inaudible]

check call -- was like a diplomatic victory. criticizing them publicly the moment that snowden landed in moscow without trying to have some private discussion between the two presidents about how to get it resolved. but the president decides not to go moscow. not to have negotiation with putin. if the chemical weapon was a priority. the president had to go there. then we wouldn't have the -- in london with the british

parliament acting against the prime minister. we wouldn't have the situation in washington where obama would have discover his own congress would not support him on interventions here. the bottom line is this administration -- [inaudible] i don't unwhy the president didn't go. if he decided not to -- [inaudible] the kind that putin himself -- that it is up to -- [inaudible] would be a priority for the president.

a couple of weeks ago in the administration where the administration was clearly not think that if you are talking about being perceptional you will have to act responsibly. otherwise -- [inaudible] well senator obama in 2008 began -- --

she was really proud of america. but perhaps it's very important distinction. i don't necessarily agree. but what i see is that the actions to the united states 40 years ago i hear a lot of americans -- [inaudible] what they're doing is an

exercise of freedom. but i think -- [inaudible] it was excepting -- exceptional. >> well, on that neat, -- note, i think we have a good basis for stimulating question and answer session here. and i -- the fund to ask and let the audience fire away. who is going to be first?

[inaudible] [inaudible] didn't this shut down defeat the very purpose of some of the leaders -- [inaudible] to from the effective health policy make the g.o.p. issue heavy and the shutdown which people didn't approve of the -- issue. for that reason now is going go away, i think going to refocus on. [inaudible] what they claim they were trying to do. that was to launch a serious discussion on the issue of the health -- [inaudible] on which the american people are largely on their side and if

they actually use -- [inaudible] to flip the american people -- [inaudible] where ted cruz was speaking. he's started with the german -- [inaudible] only a few more my colleagues had gone with me would have prepared. there seem to be a little bit of destructive streak in the g.o.p. i think there's a shakedown taking place. i'm curious -- [inaudible] the answer to your question. yes, the subject got changed to the shut down. but no inspite in of the adultty with the -- no real expectations of winning

though he claimed that he was going win. he had no end-game but the discussion itself as recent polls show increased hostility to obamacare. the challenge that he faced because there was no end game was does the meet -- immediate we're action to the shut down which was the only two shutdown that have created this kind of hostility have be the '90s shut down with gingrich where it was blamed on him and this one with the republicans. the others were taken as part of the game. as part of what we do because the two bodies the legislative and executive branch have different mission and powers and means of exerting leverage. the question in the long run if it was to hurt does it go away. the betting is it probably goes away. what cruz did do is set the table for the db not just cruz

but others as well. set the table for the 2014 election. they may not vote on the shut dpown. they may well be voting on obamacare, taxes, and jobs. and that sense he probably made the republican position stronger. think about it within the party. you look at if say you don't like it much either. i think unless it become a personal civil war and the comment that senator cruz made yesterday if they do that they

accomplish something. if they don't do that they accomplish nothing. >> one of the questions i 4 maybe for david and bob was that it was dick cheney who said that deficits don't matter. and the republican party had two wings on economics, one is the calvin cool age, herbert hoover pretty -- grim focus on reducing deficit and cutting spending, the other one is more optimistic message of reagan and focusing on

economic growth as a way to prosperity and the way to cutting the deficit. and the argument today, which seems to me being seated to the democratic party is that growth is the optimistic path. can republican party sell deficit cutting. is it a positive message? should they be focusing more on cutting taxes, increasing growth as a we to reduce unemployment? >> i think growth is a koa to the political term. you can go back to the republican party. the orale in the national observer you talk about the -- you talk about the santa claus that wants to give you the goody at christmas. and the republican santa claus ought to be giving you tax cuts to generate growth and use it in

the political arena. the problem is republicans had been the tax collectors for the democratic goodies so the republicans became scrooge. it was reagean who basically turned it around. he didn't turn it around because he didn't care about deficit. i'm going it say that in a moment. he turned it around because he cared what his priorities were. he wanted to get the country moving again and his fed chairman was squeezing the heck out of the economy because of the inflation problem, and he needed to generate some growth that was his tax plan. and '76 he didn't run on any kind of tax-cutting plan. he was the original kind of republican we were talking about. when you think about what reagan accomplished there and how george george h.w. bush kind of reversed it and his last budget proposal for his last year that

went up to congress. he had the deficit down. he taunt the deficit down. it was down to less than 3% of gdp which is a manageable level. it shot back up under george george h.w. bush and bush never brought the growth id yop the concept reagan brought. growth has deposit to be the key. there's enough growth you can deal with the deficit problem. that is the reagan lesson certainly lost by the people who look down on reagan in his term. but lost on a lot of people including cheney, i believe, who basically became cavalier about deficit. i don't think that's very smart. to take deficit as the focus is is also not smart. >> i would agree with that. taken out of context which they came in to a time of a deficit

was significantly lower than it is today. and he was saying basically what reagan did. growth is the important thing. you know, years ago, milton took the position because of the nature of the two parties one promising the other things and the other -- that what the republicans ought to do or the conservatives ought to do. this is back in the 'out of and '70s is get off this job of raising money to the could pass out gift and say we're not going worry about that because nobody would let the deficit go out of control. he was wrong about that. they were talking in a different time and context. you're absolutely right and that is that growth has to be the key. there has been and historically the debt, the deficit you remember hubert used to say we owe it to ourselves and now we owe it to somebody else and china, perhaps.

it wasn't that big and we could live with it and manage it. the average voter had no context in which to think this is good, bad, or different. it was never a voting issue. that is changed in the last few years because of the size of what is going on and the sense and the country that we're really on the wrong track fiscally and economically. that's not an argument against -- now there's a sense it may make it unworkable because they take too much out of the private sector. so i think that it's i think the world has changed and the thinking of average americans has changed only some degree of the issue. the deficit is the -- spending in revenue the real

problem is the rapid expansion of the size of the government as the entitlement state is expanding. and we cannot grow our way out of this because if the federal government keeps growing in size and how many resources it's consumed in the economy there's a high colation of low growth as you get to the high level of debt. that's a problem we can only that's what we need to be doing. of course we want pro-growth policy as well. we cannot ignore the problem because it will swallow the economy if we do. i wonder if there wasn't the disqebt between the debate

within the beltway on this issue. thank you. in term of the detail for policy, as opposed to how the event of the past few weeks are viewed both in term of the majority of the american republic and most opinion abroad. i think there's a bit of a danger of having, you know, two fine-brained ingrained analysis behalf the problem is and missing the fact i think the lesson that most people outside washington taken from this is a more general lesson. that's a lack of confidence that our political system is up to the challenge of dealing with big problems like this. and if that is the issue, then or the of arguing about well, you know, whether it's spending outstripping resources misses

the larger cost that country has been forced pay as a result of this spectacle of the system not being able to address that in the first place. isn't that the fundamental issue we've got to wrestle? >> i think -- was looking at president obama it was a -- [inaudible] and it looked to me like a -- [inaudible] commitment, education, the only problem was that president lincoln, with all due respect had to go through a civil war. 600,000 americans had to die in the process. -- [inaudible] you cannot do whatever it is in

your country the majority -- you cannot do that. as saying without -- [inaudible] resistance. without trying to comprise. without treating them as your difficult partners rather than -- [inaudible] i think that -- [inaudible] is a reflection of this fundamental disconnect between the obama administration and the very -- [inaudible] of the american middle class. particularly the white people class which clearly feels there's a -- [inaudible] of obama redistribution. again i completely agree that is -- trying to do.

because that was counter productive. and that was playing games with national press teeing. [inaudible] greater flexibility in the -- [inaudible]

challenge with the -- [inaudible] with the electorial process. on another level you understand that the administration go whatever they can to -- [inaudible] try something else. this may be perfectly legal. some of the people are -- [inaudible] they're not very sophisticated yet.

with a the people are trying do -- [inaudible] between the house republicans and the administration. you're right about the disconnect. think about it. out there in the country the average american thinks we're on the wrong path in a lot of different ways and there's all kinds of problem. in washington there a bunch of clowns from both parties who don't listen. can't do anything and a lot of thing in this case don't understand. and from that sense it alienate it is further. the reason you whether you agree

or veg. the reason the cruise got the popular support because of the frustration. because of the fact they wanted somebody to tell them there's a simple answer. let's just do it. that's what he's saying. and these other guys are weak. i can fix it for you. i remember 1976 it was a foreign policy question. when reagan was running against ford in the primaries, reagan had in the speeches time and time again reference to the panama canlt. it did not resonate until one night in florida it blew the roof off to the place he was speaking. reagan never lost his place was stimmied. he didn't expect the places -- applause there. it it had do with the complication of foreign policy at the time mo -- if you had to have a book shelf

of explanations what you're doing is right or wrong. just oppose it. it may be wrong and current productive. if works because of what you talked about and works in a political sense because it's a populous appeal to the frustrations who has every right to be frustrated and every right to be upset about the way things are in washington. what is the response to the tea party? you have 18 poem -- people in washington saying what is their plan? it's not the job of the american people to come up with a plan. it's a job to say we don't like it or we do. we hired you guys to come up with a plan and implement it. now you do it. that's not the way the reelected

officials. i wouldlike to say i think the professor told you right that the governmental dysfunction in washington can become a significant political issue out in the country in of itself and can become very, very -- [inaudible] there's a large prospect in the country a lot of people will not necessarily tie that to what else is going on in term of the big mix sentiment and pressure and forces and desires that institute the american lek trait. but in washington, nigh can't be separated. the only way you can address them is by understanding say that are one in the same. and this gift to my thesis about pressure leadership in america. when the country is in crisis. any country goes through crisis on a pretty regular basis.

only way in our system. not necessarily in the parliament tear. the what does it mean? it means that the president -- the person who is positioned to this and the only fern's position to do this must scramble up the political fault line and find new coalitions to break the deadlock that is the reason -- the genesis of the crisis. i happen to believe it's a from found deadlock and got us in term of our politics. can president obama do that? not now. he had an opportunity to do that, i believe, when he was elected. in a sense what ronald reagan did and roosevelt did. in his own way lincoln did.

certainly jefferson and jackson. they did it scrambled up and brought the coalition together. they were able to move the country beyond that deadlock. i think that president obama squandered one of the great opportunities opportunities do that. he's not going to have another chance to do that not now in this climate. we have to wait for the next president. can the next president do it? not clear. we have a bunch of questions i will start with the general and jeffrey then start working down this side of the room. at the risk of piling on, [inaudible] four speakers now have agreed is to sort of -- of our discontent.

i think we can quantify that. the question being: do you believe that your government -- do you trust your government the right thing all or most of the time? and the data ran around 75 percent of the american people believed that their government would indeed do the right thing all or most of the time. with the vietnam war that trends started downward, it's been with a few little ripples it's continued to the point where it

is, as i recall, is around 20% now of the american people believe their government would do the right thing most of the time. when 80% of a population doesn't trust their government, i don't know the outcome over time. but it seems to me that the democracy cannot function. ..

>> fundamentally dysfunctional, 80% of the citizenry doesn't trust it. >> there was a more important number in that recent survey, for the first time in american history, majority said they feared the american government, and that's new. the most droughtive thing, we got the dysfunction, all this, and, you know, regardless of which side, if you live in peoria, what side of the fight you live on, you don't like the fight. i came to the town and worked for the vice president who went on and mixed up with opponents, and we took a poll and 65% of