>> and now to london for prime minister's question time live from the british house of commons. every wednesday while parliament is in session prime minister david cameron takes questions from members of the house of commons. prior to question time the house is wrapping up other business. this is a life coverage on c-span2. >> it still has a great deal to offer. it gives no guarantees of the future in the industry which is going to be absolutely crucial to the future development. >> does he want to out talk is on dribble friend? >> thank you, mr. speaker. isn't the most exciting thing about the report is the consensus is discovered in industry with more regulation,

stronger regulator, more resources for the regulator, the potential to unlock even greater investment supporting jobs, taxpaying and energy security? >> i think the real strength of the report, at least the interim version of it, is it has credibility in the industry because it has been informed by the industry and led by one of the most respected figures in it. >> order. questions to the prime minister. mr. david anderson. >> number one, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will wish to join me in sending are r more missed wishes for christmas to our armed forces in afghanistan. >> here, here. >> having just returned from their, i saw firsthand once again their incredible commitment and their dedication and we should remember the families who will be missing them especially at this time of year and, indeed, we should remember all our service personnel around the world. our country owes a huge amount

for the work that they do and the sacrifices that they make on our behalf. mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> mr. david anderson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i joined the prime minister with wishes to our armed forces and also the public sector workers who will work over the christmas period. mr. speaker, this bill has changed 6000 victims who were criminally and -- to asbestos at work will not receive any compensation from the company's. will the prime minister at the 11th hour intervene to prevent this? if he doesn't, will it be fetches him he would rather -- than innocent people? >> i very much respect the honorable gentleman record of campaigning on this issue but i would say this.

the bill is a huge step forward frankly for decades there's been no provision for these people through no fault of their own who will die from this terrible disease. once the scheme that we're putting in place is up and running to roughly three people were receive one and 15,000 pounds each. i think that is an important step for. i don't know what he has to say but i should be proud of effective globulin we're tackling this issue? >> will my right honorable friend join me in saluting the courage of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been peacefully protesting across ukraine for the last few weeks against the decision of the president to break off talks with europe and move closer to russia? does he agree if there's any further violence against them, and those are responsible should be held personally accountable and will he continue accountable and will be continued till accountable and will he continue to hold out the prospect of closer links to europe and the longer-term which is what the people of ukraine want?

>> first of all i agree with my friend that we should pay tribute to those in ukraine who want to have a future linked to europe and want the piece and prosperity and the stability that that relationship would bring. i think we should also say as he has said very clearly that the world is watching with ukrainian authorities have done and are contemplating doing in response to these demonstrations. i think we should stand with the people of ukraine who want a peaceful secure and prosperous future. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, i joined the prime minister in paying tribute to all of our troops serving around the world, particularly in afghanistan. once again this year they have done our country proud. they have showed the utmost courage and bravery, and all of our thoughts are with them and their families this christmas. today's economic figures show a welcome fall in unemployment. [shouting] and for every person -- and for

every person who gets back and work benefits not just them but to them as well. as he agree with me the major challenge for britain that at the end of this year there are more people than ever before in today's figures working part time because they can't get the hours they need? >> first of all i think it is worth looking at these unemployment figures in some detail because i think they do paint and encouraging picture. unemployment is down by 99,000. the number of people claiming on deployment benefit has fallen by 36,000 in this month alone. there are 250,000 more people in work. youth unemployment is down. long-term unemployment is down. unemployment amongst women is down. we have talked before about a million more people in work under this government. it's now 1.2 million more people in work. now, now, or shouldn't be one

ounce of complacency because we still have work to do to get our country back to work, and everyone back in work means greater stability for them, greater ability to plan for the future, greater help for their families. but the plan is working. let's stick at it and get unemployment down even further. [shouting] >> mr. ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, he didn't really answer the specific question i asked. it's good our economy is creating more jobs, but the problem is that too many of them are part-time. now, today's figures -- today's figures show what's happening to wages. as he agree with me it's a matter of deep concern that at the end of this year average wages are 364 pounds lower than they were a year ago and over 1500 pounds lower than they were of the general election? >> let me answer a direct with the question about full-time and part-time employment. full-time employment has grown

much faster in recent months, and overall let me tell him, since the election 70% of the new jobs, and there have been millions of new jobs, 70% of them are full-time jobs. and that is -- now, i agree, we've got more to do. we've got to do more to put in place our long-term economic plan to keep the economy growing but i have to say to them, it's all very well standing up, he said that there would be a million fewer jobs. [shouting] and we are still waiting for him to correct the record on that. now, of course, i want to see more money in people's pockets. the only way we can do that is to keep on with the economic plan, keep cutting unemployment, keep people's taxes down, cut the deficit so we can keep interest rates down. that is our economic plan. wants his? >> let's talk about -- let's

talk about his prediction. let's talk about his prediction. he said he would balance the books in five years. he failed. he said he could cure britain's credit rating. he failed. and the worst prediction of all, he said he would be good a prime minister and they certainly failed at fast -- at that. and he has got no answer, and he's got no answer -- >> order, order. members on both sides of the house need to calm down. it will take as long as it takes as always. very straightforward. ed miliband. >> in the interest anything, mr. speakermr.speaker,mr.speaker, to talk a the cost of living prices facing families up and down the country. that's because they know that families are worse off. now, can he tell us, can he tell us how much is the average gas bill this christmas compared to last? >> first of all let us deal with the prediction. let us deal with the prediction.

he said this -- >> order, order. the question was asked and the answer must be heard. prime minister. >> they have a program which will clearly lead to the disappearance of a million jobs. now we have 1.6 million more private sector jobs, 1.2 million more people in work. it is time he apologized for his prediction of talking the economy down. [shouting] he asked about the cost of living. let us compare our records on the cost of living. they doubled counsel tax. we have frozen it. they put up central tax 12 times, we have frozen. they put up the basic state pension by 75 p. we put it up by 15 pounds. oh, we have a new hand gesture. [shouting] i would have thought after today's briefing in the papers

the hand gesture for the shadow chancellor should be bye-bye. [shouting] you don't need it to be christmas to know when you're sitting next to a turkey. [laughter] >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker -- [shouting] >> we will wait until colleagues come down. i don't care how long it takes, i've got all day if necessary. mr. ed miliband. >> i thought just for once he might answer the question that he was asked. so let's give them the answer. energy bills are 70 pounds higher than they were a year ago. despite all the bluster from him, that is the reality. 300 pounds higher than when he came to office. let's have another important issue for families. cost for charter is crucial for parents going out to work.

can he tell some which the cost of childcare ha child care has s year? >> where providing 15 hours of childcare for two-year-olds, three-year-olds and four year olds. that is something he was never able to get in government. and all of us, it is all very well making these promises. the only reason we are able to keep our promises is we took tough decisions about the economy. we took tough and difficult decisions to get the deficit down. we took difficult decisions to get our economic plan in place, and what he can't stand is the fact is this christmas the economy is growing 1.2 million more people are in work, our exports are increasing, manufacturing is up, construction is doing better, the economy is getting stronger and labour is getting weaker. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> i'll tell you what, mr. speaker -- [shouting] that was a turkey of an answer, mr. speaker.

why doesn't he just for once answer the question? childcare costs have gone up 300 pounds, 300 pounds in the last year, nearly three times the rate of inflation and he's not doing anything about it. there is one group, there is one group he's helped out with the cost of living this year. his christmas card list -- can he tell us -- i know he doesn't like me asking about this, mr. speaker. can he tell us for someone earning over a million pounds a year how much lower our taxes this year compared to last? >> the top rate of tax under this government is higher than it ever was under his government. and the fact is the highest 1% of earners are paying a greater percent of income tax than they did when he was sitting in the cabinet. those are the facts. if he wants to talk about what he's done on the cost of living, we've got income tax or 25 million people. they voted against it.

we have taken 2.4 million people out of tax. they voted against it. we froze the counsel tax. they voted against it. we froze fuel duty. they voted against it. the only reason we been able to do this is we have a long-term economic plan. he ends the year with no plan, no credibility, no idea how to help our economy. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, we all know what his long-term plan is. to cut taxes for christmas card list and make everyone else -- [inaudible] i've got to say -- >> order. their usual low graders to make as much noise as they like. let me just say to them for their own benefit, i'll say it again, however long it takes. right honorable and honorable members will be heard. it's so simple. i think it is probably now clear. ed miliband. >> the more he -- the more out

of -- [inaudible] this was the year the cost of living prices hit families hard. this is the year they introduced the bedroom tax for cutting taxes for millionaires. this was the year he proved beyond doubt he's the prime minister for the few, not the many. [shouting] >> he may not like the fact that he can't hide from them. the fact is the typical taxpayer is paying 600 pounds less because we cut taxes. the deficit is falling, down by a third because we took difficult decisions. today, for the first time in our history, there are 30 million people in our country in work. [shouting] >> the fact is the end of this year we have a recovery they can't explain, growth basic would never come, jobs they said would never happen, and meanwhile, they are stuck with

an economic policy that doesn't add up and the shadow chancellor they can't defend. that is why the british people will never trust labour with the economy again. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> order. we will just have to keep going at it longer because i'm not going to have -- [shouting] >> the right honorable gentleman will be heard. sir malcolm bruce. >> i can give the house something to cheer about. will be prime minister join with me in welcoming the fact that investment in our oil and gas industry this you will reach a record 14 billion pounds accounting for unemployment rate in my constituency of just .7%? is he aware -- we need collaboration between government and industry to unlock -- worth

209 pounds that would otherwise be left under the see? >> i think my honorable friend et cetera important point which is the would report is an excellent report and were looking to put that in place because we want to maximize the returns and implement and investing in the north sea. in recent months we've seen very encouraging signs of greater investment in the north sea not least because of the decisions taken by the chancellor to bring into play some of these more marginal fields. we need to input the would report as he says. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister understand even if dr. richard hatchett doesn't that agreement and consensus are desirable, what will be impossible to achieve if proposals reemerge that argued in the unionist community -- [inaudible] as northern ireland seeks to strengthen its position within the united kingdom, not weaken it?

>> i want to say to the honorable gentleman i think we all agree that richard hass is carrying out a very important and extremely difficult task looking into the issues of the rates of flags and, of course, the past. i've met with richard hass. i think he is incredibly impressive individual. we should let him do his work and we should judge his work on the results that he produces but i hope everyone will try to look at this process with some give and take to bring the communities together. >> mr. stewart jackson. >> unemployment in my constituency stands at 5.5%, the lowest in the financial crisis and/or 1100 -- however there were too many young people who are jobless and lacking work skills. so will the prime minister give an early christmas present by giving his personal support for university technical colleges to be decided in the new year? >> well, i know my friend, the

educational sector will close at the proposal for university technical college. they're working well. i think it's a very good innovation in our education system but the news on youth unemployment is better, 19,000 down this quarter, and the claimant count as well falling but there's a lot more work to do. i think we should take a look at the work experience programs was in dublin of the best records at reducing youth unemployment and so we can do to encourage companies and businesses to get involved in this work experience program. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with the archbishop of canterbury reminding us of societies responsibly towards the support of the poor and the bonobo and archie bishop of westminster specifically criticizing the inhumanity of aspects of government policy, does the prime minister regret as we approach christmas his government's retreat from the compassionate conservatism he used -- used to adopt? >> i don't accept what they write audible gentleman says it all. there's nothing more

compassionate than getting more people into work. the best route out of poverty is work. what we can see for the first time in our country, certainly people in work. i enjoyed debating and listen carefully to our archbishops. i have to say what the archbishop said about immigration i don't agree but i think we should be frank and open about these debates and not be concerned when we do have disagreements. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and the americas does to you and your family. [shouting] the people -- [inaudible] does my right honorable friend up with me that the call to abandon governments long-term economic plan to borrow for the other side plans to borrow and more, will raise taxes and mortgages hard-working people in this country.

>> first of all can the congressional it my honorable friend on her ingenuity way of ensuring she is called regularly at questions in this house. an example i'm sure others will follow the god that made a very happy christmas to you and your wife, mr. speaker,. [laughter] she has been very, very clear in her campaign against the toll on the a 14 and i'm glad we have settled that issue. i think she's right to say the biggest threat to our economy now would be to abandon our plan. we are getting the deficit down, keeping interest rates down, cutting people's taxes, seeing the country get back to work. the biggest risk is more borrowing, more spending a more taxes, all the things that got us into this mess in the first place. >> the end of november i visited my constituency. a school was clicking through to help the needy families over christmas. indeed, they will have a food bank on the school site in the new year. what really shocked me when she told me of a young girl, age 15,

who arrived on a monday just before my visit not having eaten all weekend. because there was no food in the house. how does the prime minister expect that young girl to fulfill her educational potential? >> we've got to do everything we can to help britain's families, to help those, help families into work and that's exactly what we're doing under this government. we also have to make sure we protect the income levels of the poorest and that's why, for instance, that child tax credit is up 390 pounds under this government, protecting the money that goes to the poorest people in our country. >> mr. speaker, experts said that labour's energy price freeze announcement would raise prices in the short term -- >> order, order. members shouldn't yell at the honorable gentleman. he's asking his question. let's hear it. >> experts said that labour's energy price freeze announcement would raise prices in the short term, and protect the big six by

freezing new investments. since then prices have gone up, national grid pay have -- >> i'm struggling to find anything that relates to the responsibility of the prime minister in the honorable gentleman's question. therefore, we will proceed with gordon. >> [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. as the prime minister sits down for christmas dinner to show lacks with his family and friends, will be -- for my poor constituents and have among others this christmas is mired in the incompetence and random -- of sanctions? my case work on this includes the woman denied -- for doing volunteer work at one branch of the national charity rather than another. will his new you resolution be resolving this chaos and the universal credit?

>> i think the best thing we can do for his constituents and to get everyone's constituents is keep on with the economic plan that is jim demint more jobs in our country. if we look at the northwest, the number of people employed is up by 37,000 since the election. on deployment has fallen by 29,000 since the election. we need to keep on with it. while a course that each of the benefits system works for people who need it but he does and his constituents a favor by talking down the performance of the economy. >> mr. speaker, will be prime minister pay tribute -- [inaudible] have done such a brilliant job in both taxing the recent coastal jobs and helping repair the damage? does he agreed special mention should be made of two local newspapers who campaigned tirelessly, which has raised

over 1000 pounds? can he tell the house what can government departments to -- [inaudible] >> i think my friend is right to raise this issue. i was impressed when went to norfolk, went to see not only the amazing contribution to emergency services have made but as he said also local newspapers in highlighting this issue, nothing to prepare people for what was to come, and also the flood coordinators and the people who work voluntarily to help our community. i was tickling her breast by what i saw in terms of the lifeboats have done because of the enormous wave that swept through their station but even without ever able to get out and tell people. as he says because we put money into flood defenses we did protect a lot more homes than otherwise would've been effected, but the work needs to continue. [inaudible]

>> i'm very happy to look at the individual case that the honorable gentleman raises. it is worth noting the fact that it was working under the last government, the government in which he served by a very happy to look at the individual case and see what can be done. >> thank you, mr. speaker. a number of unemployed claimants in my constituency has fallen to 439. that makes it the third best performing constituency in the country. will be join with me in congratulating local businesses for the role they played in this? >> well, i'm very happy to congratulate local businesses on what they've done but the fact is what we are saying and what labour predicted would never

happen is a private sector led recovery. for every job lost in the public sector we've seen three or even for jobs created in the private sector, mostly by small businesses, and we need to give up the economic environment that is helping them to take people on to invest and to grow for the future. >> at the last election many of my constituency believe the prime minister when he said no is, no butts, no -- [inaudible] thousands losing their homes, schools being demolished, even the threat -- [inaudible] does he appreciate that many now feel that they've lost all faith in him as a man that keeps his word? >> i'm afraid the honorable gentleman has a strong view about this but he don't accept what he says. we said that there would not be a third runway. we have stopped with the promise. we now have a report being done by howard davis which is all party support. i think it's a very good report, and income report, and i think that people, i think people

should read that report before they start shouting across the house of commons in a completely inappropriate way. [shouting] >> order. order. i know what i'm doing but i don't need any help from backbenchers. a reference was made to treatment of constituents, not to observations made in respect of members of the house. so on very clear on that. the procedure is extreme of clear as well. >> mr. speaker, in the northeast all 29 constituencies have seen an increase since 2010. i recent open an engineering academy. as my friend agree with me that it is only by the provision of better skills and apprenticeship that we will improve the living standards of our young people today? >> i think my honorable friend is right. i saw myself on a visit there what a difference the extra apprenticeship and extra funding is making. look, we want this to be a recovery that he shared right across the country.

in the northeast, unemployment has fallen by 3000 this quarter but it is still too high. there are 28,000 more people in work and were it in the election but we've got further today and we got to stick to the economic plan that is delivering. >> thank you, mr. speaker. is the prime minister concerned that in the detailed -- of the audit stated by the end of this parliament wage levels will be 5.8% lower? >> the point i would make is if you look at disposable income is higher this year than any year it was between 1997-2010. and the reason for that is in spite of slow wage growth we have cut people's taxes. you can only cut people's taxes if you take difficult decisions about the deficit, difficult decisions about spending and we haven't had support from the party opposite for one single of those difficult decisions. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. at the prime minister --

[inaudible] you want to know why an investigation into the meetings held by -- the former transport secretary have not been reported on despite four months of waiting? >> i'm aware of the honorable ladies letters with respect to this. she's taken up this issue of churchill get an answer shortly. >> mr. speaker, on a slightly more seasonal node -- [laughter] may i probe the prime minister? [laughter] on the revelation contained within the autumn statement that over this parliament arlene is forecast to be 198 billion pounds more than originally planned? will now accept that his pledge to balance the books by 2015 has all the credibility of some

proposal to build an airport on a nonexistent eyes and in the middle of a bird sanctuary? [laughter] >> well, the honorable gentleman always brings a flavor of pantomime to our preceding. [shouting] and if he's worried, if he's worried about the deficit, entities worried about borrowing he ought to look in front of him rather than look behind them. because we haven't had any support anything we've done to cut the deficit entities would about the deficit, why did his part proposed to put it out? >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is very good news that a record of a people are in work and they are keeping more. but another milestone this week where -- [inaudible] that's another example of how this government is taking the right, long-term decision. spent i think the honorable lady

is right to raise auto and will. it means more people are saying for the time and that means more stability, more security for them, the great ability to plan for the future. does this affect our 39 people in work, someone more in work this christmas than last christmas, all of those that are able to plan fo for the future d that that basic security that people in our country rightly praised. >> now that the prime minister has declared mission accomplished in afghanistan, will begin t. that none of our brave servicemen and women who have served their will face redundancy after they come home? >> i would urge the honorable gentleman to look at what i said. i was praising the role that our armed forces have played. they have carried out the task that we asked them to carry out, and they done it with huge professionalism and skill. and as i said they will be able to leave that country with their heads held high, secure in the knowledge that we put in place what is necessary to stop terrorism and terrorist training

camps return to afghanistan. there are very clear rules in place about redundancy, those people about serving or having returned from afghanistan are not able for redundancy. [inaudible] out of work and were strengthen unemployed under labour. with the 700 businesses in the constituency likely to benefit from the government extension, can approach the prime minister continued to everything he can to help to remove burdens on businesses creating jobs? >> it is welcome news what is happening in worcester and, of course, across the country not only is unemployed them but also vacancies are up which is good news for the future but in terms of the high stream, we've taken steps forward in terms of the rate rebate of 1000 pounds announced in a statement for business on the high \street/{-|}street and, of course, the 2000-pound employment of violence which means they don't have to pay the first 2000 pounds of national insurance contributions and that

means businesses in worcester and culture will be able to take on more people. >> thank you, mr. speaker. further to the question from the honorable member, the four-month pass a series allocations were made of the northern ireland secretary -- [inaudible] during her time is 10% to get. will the prime minister osha that the cabinet secretary respond before the house rises for christmas recess? >> i've seen a copy of the cabinet sectors response and i'm confident it will be sent in the next few days. >> i welcome the prime minister's acceptance that something needs to be done to stop the eu migrant access in british benefits. but we did agree with me that what he's proposing which will probably be found illegal by the european court is really spending in the wind when it comes to the problem that we face, and that the only way to us to get a drop of our borders back and control of our benefit

system is to leave the european union? >> i don't share my honorable friends pessimism. the steps that we're taking including the announcement today that people coming to the uk should not be able to claim benefits within the first three months. we are taking the steps on the basis of legal advice and looking very carefully at what other countries in the eu do. i want to do everything possible to make sure that the right of free moment is not abuse. there is a right to work in different countries of the european union but they shouldn't be a right to claim in different countries of the european union. where i would agree is i think we need to do more in future and the lesson we must learn is domestic labour made that gives unfettered access to her labour market when told that others join the european union which led to one and a half million people come to our country was a profound mistake. >> average household incomes will be success are lower in 2015 than 2000. is the prime minister concerned about this, and what can be said to my constituents who are

really struggling with the cost of living crisis caused by his government's policy? >> the first thing i would say to her constituents is we are racing that 10,000 pounds the amount of people can earn before they pay income tax. that is worth 705 pounds to typical taxpayer. because of the progress we've already made, disposable income this year is higher than any year between 1997-2010. now, the members opposite might not like these faqs but they are true. it's worth remembering why we are in the situation in the first place. >> you shouldn't have to shout to make himself heard. prime minister's answer. the prime minister. >> the point i was making is the reason we're in this situation is laid out by the institute of fiscal studies two weeks ago when they pointed out we would have the biggest recession for 100 years under the last government which cost the typical family 3000 pounds. a should be apologizing for that before moving on to the next

question. >> mr. rohrabacher would. >> thank you, mr. speaker. christmas with city will be defined by an stopping grief and horror in subzero temperatures. i encourage the prime minister to keep a relentless focu focusn the humanitarian relief in so you can encourage the rest of the international communities to meet u.n. demands for 4 billion of assistance and ensure that that assistance is much more generous. >> i'm very grateful on behalf of the whole house for the honorable gentleman, my friend raising this issue before christmas because i think that is where our thoughts should be. there is a huge imaging crisis affecting up to half of the syrian a population of the first thing i would say is bring can be proud of the fact that at 500 million we are the second largest bilateral donor in terms of aid going to syria, going to countries and helping people in those refugee games. what we should be doing is encouraging other countries to step up to the plate in the way we have done and make sure we

fulfill our moral obligations to these people are going to suffer at christmas time. >> order. there is to be -- >> here on c-span2 we will leave the british house of commons not as they move onto other legislative business. you've been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays at 7 a.m. eastern while parliament is in session. you can see this weeks question time again sunday night at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's question, plus links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can watch recent video including programs in with other international issues. >> several live events to tell you about this morning. politico host a discussion as the political year in review here on c-span2 just after 8 a.m. eastern. an hour later just after nine,

on c-span3, senior white house adviser valerie jarrett speaks at an event hosted by politico and peterson foundation. hispent justice ruth bader ginsburg was interviewed yesterday. we were shown as much of this as we can until our live event shortly after eight eastern. [applause]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> someone will have to control the microphone. it's also a great privilege for me to have an opportunity to ask questions from justice ginsburg instead of the other way around. [laughter] and i want to thank all of you out there who planted questions with mean in the hopes that i would ask those questions, but i probably won't ask any of those questions. but let's start, justice ginsburg, with the supreme court of the united states.

you and your court handled the most ethical and most controversial questions of our day and of our society involving life, death, voting, property, race, freedom, campaign contributions, all of those things. what's so special about this court, despite the fact that you decide these controversial questions, the supreme court of the united states is the most respected institution in our government, and it has been for a long time. tell us about why that is. >> ted, i would add that it is probably the most respected high court in the world. one reason is that we have been involved in passing on ordinary laws and effective action for

constitutionality. in most countries in the world, parliamentary supremacy was deeply rooted. and it wasn't until after world war ii that courts abroad began to engage in judicial review for constitutionality. so just to take a few notable cases, when president truman decided that the country was at war in korea and couldn't risk a strike in the steel plants, so he took over the steel mills. and that was challenged, and the court held mr. president, you do not have the authority acting alone. you need congress to be with you. so what did truman do the next

day? he turned the mills back over to the owners. now, that is remarkable. minicourse in the world, we have an excellent police staff at the court but we have no guns. we do not have our own purse. yet, when the supreme court makes a decision like that, probably the most dramatic one was the court said turn over the tapes, and nixon did and resigned from office. so part of it is the court has been at this for a very long time. and 86 -- it is accepted, take your case, bush beat gore. the court made its decision. i dissented as you know. >> i do know that. [laughter] spent but the next day the

country accepted it. nobody was writing in the streets. the election had been settled. it's about, the court is a revered institution, and i think that all of the current members have one thing in common. we want to keep it that way. we want to be sure that when we leave the court it will be in as secure position as it was in when we became a member. >> that leads me to a question. you do decide very controversial cases, and sometimes the dissenting opinions clash with the majority opinions with quite a high level of intensity. and yet the court comes back together every year in october after the final decisions are rendered in june. you all seem to get along personally with one another, notwithstanding the difficult and intense decisions that are

made, is that true? what are your relationships? >> it's a most collegial place i've ever worked, more than any law faculty. part of it is we know we have to work together to keep the court in the position that it holds. so to take bush beat gore as another example, now, that was a marathon. we granted review on saturday, briefs filed sunday, argued on monday, decision on tuesday. very soon after, within days, we had our january, regular january city and. and we all came together and it was almost as though nothing had happened. it was the same. we were going on to the new sitting. >> hasn't always been that way? there was a book written called nine scorpions in a bottle.

[laughter] and i know that does not reflect the relationships that exist today but some people felt that in the past years the justices on the court develop animosity toward one another. so if that's true what do you think, to what do you attribute the relationships that you have now? >> different periods of the court was collegial, and an collegial. and perhaps the most striking example of an un-collegial court is when president wilson appointed brandeis to the court. wilson had appointed mcreynolds just before. mcreynolds like jews, so much so that when brandeis spoke at conference, justice mcreynolds left the room. every time there's a new court

-- every time there's a new justice, we take a photograph. figure that brandeis was appointed there was no photograph because justice mcreynolds refused to stand next to justice brandeis. so there have been animosities on the court from time to time. and i can tell you that the current court is most collegial. >> its well-known i think that you and justice scalia are very, very good friends and have a wonderful relationship with one another, notwithstanding the fact that his judicial philosophy and your judicial philosophy can be quite distant, and you've dissented from his opinions, and vice versa. is that true about your relationship with justice scalia? what causes that to be true? >> i met justice scalia the first time when he was on the faculty of the university of chicago, and i was teaching at

columbia. he gave a talk about a famous administrative law case at the d.c. circuit and had handed down vermont yankee. and he was severely critical of that decision. i disagree with almost everything he said, but he said it in such an utterly captivating way. [laughter] and even now, ted, you have been a consumer of our products and you know that -- [laughter] that our styles are quite different. so his style is attention grabbing, would you say? and mine is, i was a moderate and restrained in comparison.

[laughter] >> i find it attention grabbing when you ask me a question and i'm arguing in the court. that gets my attention. now, hope you and justice scalia our opera buffs. you go to the opera together. sometimes hours. i read in the paper that someone has written an opera about justice ginsburg and justice is clear. did you know that? this is true. >> but everything in the court is done by seniority, although i am older than justice scalia, he was appointed before i was a so the opera is called scalia ginsburg. [laughter] >> and tell us about this opera. i mean, how could you write an opera about the two of you?

although i think there's a lot of people out there that would like to take a hand in that, but it's really going to happen. tell us. >> i'm going to show -- this is just a random page from the score. so you see, it does exist. this is an opera composed of a young man who advertises himself as a composer. and. but he also has a law degree and in his constitutional law class he was reading his opinion, my opinions, and he decided this would make a great opera. [laughter] and i'll give you a sample. this is justice scalia's opening. it is labeled rage.

[laughter] and the main refrain goes this way. the justices are blind. how could they possibly -- [inaudible] the constitution says, absolute nothing about this. so that's his opening. and my response, it's in the style of dirty, and it goes you are searching anything for a bright line solution to a problem that isn't so easy to solve. but the beautiful thing about our constitution is that, like our society, it can evolve.

[applause] >> i'm sure that everyone of us here are going to be wanting to stand in line to see the opera. is it within a year? d. you expect -- what is the plan? >> there's a reading, or a thing in february in -- somewhere around baltimore. so that, that would be the first time that the entire will be played. >> justice ginsburg, in 1981 ronald reagan appointed justice sandra day o'connor to the core. she was the first woman to serve on the united states supreme court. i'll say parenthetically than 112 off limits to the supreme court, i think. you were 108, is that correct, when you replaced justice white?

[inaudible] >> you with a second woman appointed to the supreme court just 20 years ago this year. what did it mean to the court when it finally had a woman justice? and then when he came on the court, two women justices? i'm also going -- you might say what it's like now with three justices, female. >> when xander was asked that question, what does it mean to have a second woman, she said, if you think i'm glad ruth bader ginsburg is, court, you cannot imagine the joy of john o'connor to be no longer the lone male spouse. [laughter] and she was there all alone for 12 years. well, a sign that women were there to say, came when i was

appointed, they did a renovation in our roving room. up until then there was a bathroom and it was labeled a man. so when sandra was in conference and the -- they installed a woman's bathroom equal in size to the men's. [laughter] so things were changing. for every year that we sat together, that justice o'connor and i sat together, invariably one lawyer or another would call me justice o'connor. they heard a woman's voice and they knew that there was a woman. and although we don't speak alike and we don't look alike, now with the three of us, no one

called me justice sotomayor. no one called justice kagan justice ginsburg. it's an exhilarating change. after sander levin and i was all alone in my corner of the bench, and i did feel lonely, now we are all over because i've been there so long. i sit towards the middle. alain is on my left and sonia on my right. and as you well know, ted, those two women are not shrinking violets. they are very active in questioning. at the court. it's one of for the schoolchildren who parade in and out to sea that women are there, definitely part of the courts operations. >> could you describe since you mentioned the oral argument

process? i take most people don't know that the court hears about 75 cases a year, in each case, except in unusual situations is allotted one hour for oral arguments. that means each side gets a half an hour. some people think that the lawyers get up and lecture or give a speech as a part of their oral arguments, not like that at all. can you describe what oral arguments like and how much you participate? >> let me just say something about the 75 cases that we here and decide. that the 75 comes from a pile of over 8000, over 8000 petitions for review. and from those we select a very small number your the reason we do that is we see our job is

keeping the law of the united states more or less uniform, whether its statutory question or constitutional question. is everybody agrees, if all the lower courts are endocrine, there's no need for us to step in, but when good judges are of different minds and what is the right answer, that's when we step in so there will not be one u.s. law on the west coast, another one in the middle states. so the 75 we get down to that way. the oral argument time, as you said, is half hour a side. that's very precious. the justices come to the bench after having done dreams of reading. -- reams of reading. i think most of my colleagues start as i do by reading the

opinion in the lower court. i read the trial court decision, i do that before i return the law is great because and i know if the lawyers by giving an honest account of what the decision was spent and if they are not, justice ginsburg catches it spent and nowadays, we have many, many friends. so many that it is not possible for us, for the justices to read all of those. my law clerks have instructions, read all the green breeze. everything is color coded. light green is supporting petition. dark green, the respondent. and then arrange the friend of the brief course for me in three piles to want to skip. that's the largest pile. another one is a scam or read

pages nine to 13. it has a part that's not in the parties bridge. been in the small pile it says reid. those are the really, really good ones, people who are not just saying -- [inaudible] when we come to the bench we are very well armed, prepared for the hearing of the case. and we ask the questions that we think are the most difficult ones, the ones on which the decision may turn. so the advocates should have a chance to address what's on the decision makers mind. some lawyers resent our interruptions. they would like us to keep quiet and they would like to present their prepared spiel. but for me, at least in the days when i was arguing cases, the

cold bench, the danger that you sat and listened, was the worst possible because i had no idea what was in the mind of the judges. sometimes a question is asked, not so much to elicit a response from the lawyer, but to persuade a colleague. and sometimes a justice tries to assist a lawyer who is on the ropes by asking a helpful question. any lawyers in -- many lawyers miss becky because they are so suspicious i've met. but when i come off the bench i have a pretty good idea where my colleagues are on that case. so sometimes talking to each other, talking through counsel and not to counsel.

>> have you found that certain styles of advocacy by the lawyers worked better in the court? justice scalia was here before this group a few months ago and talked about advocacy. he's written about that. you must have your own views about what works and what doesn't work. can you say a word or two about that? ..

pick up on the point that i wanted to get across without leaving a pause that would invite another, another question. >> you, this raises that many people don't know but you were an advocate yourself as you just indicated before the supreme court you represented in cases, you handled cases involving rights of women and discrimination. >> and men. >> and men on questions of fender discrimination arose. john roberts argued 39 cases or something like that before he was appointed to the supreme court. does it make a difference that you were yourself an advocate

and so know what it's like out there? or most of your colleagues have not argued. justice kagan was the solicitor general, so she argued a number of case that is one year but does it make a difference to be on the court, to have been an advocate? >> to me it does in this respect. i tried to keep my questions tight and not to behave as a professor who's asking a complicated hypothetical that goes on and on and on. so i tried to abbreviate the questions so i'm not cutting into the lawyer's time excessively. >> so you having appreciated what it's like to be interrupted and to listen to speeches in the form of questions. you don't, you avoid that

yourself but some of your colleagues have a little bit more broader latitude towards that, the question asking process. >> yes. but i have occasionally commented on that. i think we appreciate how precious that half hour is and we try to be more disciplined. it's such a contrast to observe a proceeding in the united states supreme court and then do what i'm going to do in february, go to the european court of justice, court of the european union. there the justices sit in magnificent maroon velvet robes and ask no questions at all. they sit through the entire argument. i think it would be very hard for me to stay awake if i was operating on that kind of court. >> could you comment on the

confirmation process? and then we'll have some questions from the audience. the, when you were confirmed 20 years ago the vote was 97-3. i did not look up who were the three senators who voted against you but you bet you could name them but then when, but the process is become very contentious. john roberts, there were 20 plus votes against john roberts for confirmation. there were more than 40 votes against justice alito when he was confirmed. can you comment on what the confirmation process has become compared to what it was like when you were confirmed? >> justice breyer and i were confirmed in halcyon days. had been before that, the failed nomination of judge robert bork.

there were justice thomas' turbulent nomination. i think the committee was mindful that it's public reputation had declined because of those two nominations. so there was a deliberate effort to be civil. there had been no women on the committee. so they enlarked the committee by two. and they had senator feinstein and carol moseley braun were added. , added to the committee. i was nominated in june. any senator could have put a hold on me so that my hearing wouldn't come up until the new term was underway. although there were three negative votes none of the three

tried to stop the confirmation process from occurring speed i wily. my biggest supporter on the judiciary committee was not now our vice president, joe biden, he was chair of the committee but it was orrin hatch. i had as was announced a long-term affiliation with the american civil liberties union. not one senator asked me any questions about that affiliation. my hope is that we will get back to the way it was. you spoke about the chief and justice alito but it was also true of justice kagan and justice sotomayor. they had many negative, negative votes.

so the great man i knew and loved said that the symbol of the united states really isn't the bald eagle. it's the pendulum. so now i think the pendulum has gone too far in one direction in the handling of judicial nominations and should go back to the middle. >> i think we all would hope that. now we've had, let's give a hand to justice ginsberg. [applause] do we have time for questions? time for questions? >> we do have time for questions. there are two microphones. i would just ask you go to one of the microphones, identify who you are and your company and also no questions from the media today please. thank you. >> and no questions on decisions that are pending decisions or about to be heard.

>> gary. >> thank you, gary shapiro, consumer electronics association. first i want to thank both of you for your historic leadership in protecting the rights of gay americans to mary. t was a terrific change and necessary in our country. [applause] and thank you so much, justice ginsberg for sharing your thoughts with us today. one thing, as an american as part of the business community that is troubled me increasingly over the years and i would like your view on it, is there a lots of laws and they're longer laws and there are ambiguous laws. we have example of how at&t tried to buy a company they thought they could buy with great lawyers presumably but yet it was struck down by government and cost at&t $4 billion. the business community is always trying to think they're following the laws but they're ambiguous, and they're unclear.

is that putting a greater burden on courts, number one? and number two, if you had a message to our legislators, and wish they could do something, a magic button you could press what would you like congress to do differently than they're doing today? >> to the first part of your question, many, many laws are ambiguous, dense, can be read in more than one way. sometimes more than three or four ways. in that respect our congress doesn't stand up so well in legislative forums in the world. there seems to be a lack of discipline. one, one tool that has been used in other places is to have a expert drafting committee go over the provisions and try to,

to detect ambiguities. but sometimes the ambiguities are deliberate because the question was a political hot potato and the members of congress preferred to punt it to the court to say what the law meant. so but i think people in the business world who care should let their, let their representatives know that you are having a hard time because the laws are unclear. >> next. >> justice ginsberg, my name is jock sachs. i work at equifax. my question for you after

same-sex marriage and same sex rights as whole, where do you see the future of quam protection jurisprudence being applied down the road? >> thank thank you for asking tt question because the equal protection clause is my favorite clause in the constitution and i think it shows the genius of our legal system. let's go back to when it all started in 1787 and the constitution opens with some beautiful words. we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union. if you asked the question, who are we the people? and that includes me because we were not part of the political community until 1920.

people were held in human bondage and even white males in many places could not vote unless they were freeholders, unless they were property owners. so we went from an idea of we the people. it was rather confined and over the course of now more than two centuries that motion, we the people, has become ever more expansive. so people were once held in slavery. native americans did not count in the beginning. women. the equal protection clause has, has worked to perfect, to form a more perfect union, to perfect

we the people. i think the founding fathers had that idea from the start but they were held back by their, their times. and you heard the lyric from my aria about the constitution is like our society can evolve. >> terry mahoney, comcast business for business. solicitor olson, let me just say that i'm very struck by your integrity, that you evolved, my perception of you has evolved over the years. justice ginsburg, you have always been one of my favorites, semiperfy. my question, please don't take this as endorsement ever policy i asked about but would term limits for the supreme court, an eight teen-year term limit, give each presidential term two nominations. thank you. >> it's a good question but it's

highly hypothetical because article three of the constitution says that the judges shall hold their offices during good behavior. and on the whole, federal judges have been a well-based lot. [laughing] >> is that because everybody's watching? >> but i think the original idea is to make sure that the judges were going to be independent. the framers did two things. one gave us life tenure. and two, provided that our salaries can not be diminished while we hold office. most places in the world, i would have been gone years ago because the retirement age starts at 65, 70, 75 tops.

so it would take a constitutional amendment to change that and our constitution is powerfully hard to amend. as proponents of the equal rights amendment well know. as proponents of statehood for the district of columbia. so the likelihood that you could galvanize a public to amend article three to put a fixed term, some systems, see the constitutional council in france has a nine-year non-renewable term. in systems that have a long, relatively long but non-renewable term the motion is we don't make it, we make it non-renewable so that the judges won't court favor from particular constituencies.

it is a real problem in the united states in state judiciaries that are elected but the federal judges are all appointed and sit during good behavior. >> raises the question, should a justice plan his or her retirement for, to coincide with the office of a president's of the same party so that if it's a republican appointee the justice would, should wait until there is a republican president? >> appreciate your coming out early. very excited to have some of washington's fascinating, most fascinating and most respected correspondents here who will talk about what we just saw and are going to give us a preview of what we're about to see. and we're going to have them come on just in a second.

three of them are best-selling authors and. so we'll be talking a little bit about their books too. i would like to thank bank of america for making this series possible. we've had a fascinating year around the country talking about some of the most important issues in washington. so i appreciate for that. i have as always the twitter machine with me. we'd love to get your questions, your rebuttals for our panelists as we go, mark it #playbook breakfast. it will cop up here. welcome all of you in live stream land and hope you will tweet along wit. now i would like to welcome our panel. come on up. [applause] thank you very much. so we have jake tapper of cnn who this year started the lead

on cnn he is author of the outpost, an amazing war story that is now available in paperback but amazon still available in hard back. it is a great gift. you probably not heard -- next we have kelly o'donnell, nbc white house correspondent. former inbed in iraq. covered news in l.a. and new york. probably not heard but mark leibovich had a book this year. this town, also "new york times" best-seller. and peter baker, chief white house correspondent of "the new york times," a friend since "the washington post" days when you were covering mary setari. i was with the "richmond times-dispatch." and peter's amazing book about the bush administration, "days of fire." amazing work. seven years of work went into this book. this weekend "the new york times" magazine picked it as one

of the five best non-fiction books of the year. so to kick things off, jake tapper, if you could interview anyone in 2014 who would it be? >> first can i say how i met you? i wasn't lucky enough to know you in the "richmond times-dispatch" days. i met you, we were at the reform party convention in -- >> with matt labash. >> with matt in dearborn, michigan, and you were with "the new york times," darting around. that was quite an exciting time. >> still darting. >> that is when jesse ventura was talking about taking over the party. good times. >> jesse ventura was pock who to interview? >> he is not. if it is anyone, anyone in the world? >> you're jake tapper. sure. >> i guess edward snowden i would love to interview him and do a long interview with him about not just his life but the leaks, what he has leaked and

why he did it. very close second would be pope francis. and i don't know which one is likelier to happen or less likely to happen. i'm willing to travel to russia, to brazil, to hong kong, or to the vatican for any of those interviews. >> so, edward snowden if you're watching on live stream. and what would you like to know when you were done talking to him that you don't know now? >> about edward snowden? >> or his holiness. >> well, his hole aniness i would like -- talk and commentary remember how different he is from his predecessors. i wonder how he feel he is versus substance and tone. >> and how intentional it is. >> how intentional it is and how much media jumping on comments. when you read the comments he has made. it does not seem accidental. does not seem as though the

media is jumping on this to drive a wedge between him and his predecessors. in terms of snowden, in addition, you would want to do an actual program by program takedown on what he objects to and why he has leaked. but i think psychologically you want to know made the snap. what made him to decide to do this incredibly bold and risky act. what drove it psychologically for him in terms of -- because not like you go into the national security agency thinking that you're not going to be conducting surveillance and there aren't going to be perhaps questionable practices, or at least ones that are on the edge. so what was the moment? >> kelly o'donnell. you're kelly o on twitter and morning joe. seem to think that is your name. you're up on capitol hill for this amazing year and last week on the day that paul ryan and patty murray did a deal, reuters

did a story with the headline, "u.s. budget deal could usher in new era of cooperation quote. what are the chances? >> i think there is a moment for modest cooperation. there is a buzz, if you're getting along, a worthwhile thing. we've seen that before. i think there is a certain premium that the government is giving to lawmakers right now to encourage them to get along. i think sort of institutional forces make that difficult. if they get enough sort of praise and payoff for getting along i think that can be helpful. so that is sort of my optimistic sense. i think that can go off the rails at any point. >> mark leibovich, yesterday we were emailing like possible topics and i asked you what mistake d.c. journalists often make? you told me -- >> just one. agreeing to do the playbook

breakfast. >> second choice, thinking that the elected officials they're writing about and, oh, yeah, so what's the mistake journalists make and they said thinking too much about the officials we're writing about acting so sew lysates of them and wanting to be their friend. have you ever made that mistake? >> i was actually, you did not, i was worried that just this follow-up would happen. first of all, i actually thought the first question i would get, why did you agree to do this. i'm thrilled to be here. thank you all for coming. i made that, it wasn't a mistake. it was a reality and it happened once. >> oh, common. >> well, put it this way, i am friendly with, many, many, public officials. there was one public figure who i actually felt like i, you know, i had a personal relationship i would not write about, that happened seven 1/2

years ago, my wife had breast cancer or she was diagnosed with breast cancer. i was writing a profile of elizabeth edwards and john edwards and week after he announced she had this relapse. i was supposed to be the print interviewer of them like that weekend in vegas. that day, my wife out of nowhere get this is diagnosis. i told her then, pr rep, jennifer palmieri, can't make it. then elizabeth edwards called and she was incredible friend through that at that point i recused myself from all elizabeth edwards or edwards related stories. >> pull back the camera. why are journalists too sew lysates of public officials? -- solicitous? >> too solicitous? you have to ask journalingists. one of the mistakes in washington generally people

accrue their own self-worth to the institution they're working for and the organization they're trying to -- so that they were so solicitous to me and they really like me and we actually could be friends. it is really cool that senator x and congressman y come to our wedding. look at this and we can show all of this off. in fact you realize you just, it is a real, it can be a real seduction game and you can lose your distance. >> kelly, you've known some of these members and senators for years and years. how do you avoid having them think you're their friend? >> i don't think we're personal friends. i think we're professional friends. i think there is value being warm and friendly knowing about their kids and know about their spouse and some of their interests not directly related to what you're covering. i think there is a lot of benefit in the simple niceties of life in betting along but i don't think i'm personal friends with anyone i cover. >> who up there in the house

leadership or senators is friend did iest? most wants to hang out with the press or maybe thinks the press is their friend? >> wow. that's a dangerous, the trap door is right here. [laughter] i think there are very, very, i think politics often will draw into it the people who have that tactile need, that need for -- >> not answering the question. >> i'm not going to name a name because i have to go to work there today. i think there are a lot of, there are friendly people and i appreciate that friendliness. i find i maybe have the best relationship i have been in their home states or districts and seen them in that setting and then in washington. i think there's, a different dimension to knowing them that way. >> what is speaker boehner like when reporters are around but cameras aren't on? >> he is pretty frank and direct i think. >> smoking. >> i thought i should alert fire

officials at one point. i smelled smoke and i realized we're near his private space. he is very warm. i think he actually likes interacting with reporters more than it may appear and i think he is willing to give us some of his perspective how things are working he is not as free or chooses not to say as free publicly. i like those moments because it helps you interpret his public activities and his public statement as bit more if you have a sense what he was thinking when there were no cameras around. >> so, peter baker, you have this amazing history out about the eight years of the bush administration but you're also one of the most astute observers of the obama administration. yesterday ron fournier post ad story online, with the headline, "this is the end of the presidency." now that was a trick a quote referring to bush but his point was, there are a lot of perils between the fifth year of obama and the fifth year

of bush. how deep is the obama hole? is it bush deep? >> there are parallels. we get wrapped up in this silly debate. a website knit a hurricane. all that's true. but hey, you know, you heard it here first. the similar -- >> i believe it was your newspaper on the front page tried to make that -- >> the case we made on the front page was the political -- >> and your book party. >> the political positioning where these two presidents are at this stage of their administrations is similar obviously for different reasons and for different dynamics but the point was president obama one year after his re-election has found himself, his credibility challenged. the trust that people had in him has diminished. he now has a you know, more than 50% say they don't think he is telling the truth all the time. his reputation for competence and effectiveness is challenged the same way president bush's

was at this point and you saw in president bush the potential, ramifications of that. he fell below 50% approval ratings in march of his fifth year in office and he never got above that again for the rest of his presidency. he went longer than any president before with less than majority support. and that has tangible impact. he didn't get social security in the second term. didn't get immigration the second term. ownership society he articulated as domestic agenda for the last four years of his administration didn't go anywhere. and that is danger for president obama. the difference is that the overarching albatross for president bush was the iraq war. president obama doesn't have that. in theory he can get past this moment. in theory can recover but as one democrat put it to me, you can lose 10 points in a week but you can't get 10 points back in a week. you tend to get it back one point at a time. >> peter, "days of fire", bush

and cheney in the white house. you have a sentence here, to the extent that president bush salvage ad failing war through the surge after years lettings his generals calling shots, bush ultimately could not salvage his presidency. at this moment, is it possible that the presidency looks better than iraq? >> that is a good question. he is a better place today than he was when he left office. his numbers are some ways better than obama. in gallup in the summer he had 49% favorability rating versus 46 unfavorable. that is the first time in eight years he had a positive net. that results from the fact, a, in general we tend to be more reflective and fonder about our ex-presidents than we are in the moment when we're feeling so passionate. b, i think that his, his quiet, grace after leaving office has probably, you know, helped him with a lot of people. >> why does he do that? he has this amazing platform

that bill clinton, used it in a different way. you got amazing access to bush aides, cheney aides. what did they tell you about why he has run so clearly under the radar? >> a, it is reaction to the fact he didn't much like former presidents, second-guessing him when he was in office. president carter, call your office. he reacted badly to that. doesn't want to do that to president obama. b he is tired of politics. he is done. he said at a dinner party in dallas one night after leaving office when he saw obama's hand go up on inauguration day, he thought to himself, free at last, free at last. he had been through some days of fire, pardon on the conceit of the title -- >> very nice. >> only would happen in this town. >> yeah, good. [laughter] that when leaving office -- >> following the same playbook. [laughter] >> we'll send you the outpost if you don't watch out. >> leaving office, giving award

to morgan freeman actor. morgan freeman had been president himself in movie, deep impact. that is where the comet hits the planet and destroys all civilization. he goes off script and that he said was only thing that hadn't happened the last years. he was exhausted and didn't want to be part of the whole environment anymore. >> president bush, who flew with president obama, hitch ad ride as bush used to same himself, hitched a ride on air force one to the nelson mandela funeral. afterwards, during the flight came back and chatted with a reporter longer than he hotted with reporters on air force one probably in his presidency combined. reporters there, off the record, you weren't there. what have you heard about -- or what he said, what did you think of "days of fire"? >> i'm under no obligation. the reports i heard he came back for like 90 minutes of the he actually left at one point. comes back with laura a second

time. and without giving anything away that is too specific i think in general he was very relaxed. chitchatting about painting particular. obviously picked up the hobby. we'll see if he paints steve holland some day. you but you know, he was chatting about his life today. he was chatting about his presidency. he was reflecting on some world leaders, things like that. i think, he was asked about the book. he didn't participate in the book. but, and i think he says he hasn't read it. >> very generally what does he think of it? >> i think in general without again giving away anything from that particular conversation i think the thing that i imagined he would be upset about in the book, if nothing else the equal billing with cheney on the cover. it has cheney on the cover. the reason we framed the book that way, if you will write a book about the bush presidency you kind of had to address that question anyway.

why not use that this extraordinary and interesting relationship and particularly more interesting than we really quite knew at the time. why not use that as a narrative structure for the eight-year story the so i think while the book actually kind of punctures the myth, tries to puncture the myth cheney was somehow the secret puppet master running everything, i think president bush is probably annoyed that he's on the cover with him. >> jake tapper, this year you launched lead, 4:00 p.m. on cnn after having been chief white house correspondent for abc news, what was it like to adapt from the role of correspondent, very high-profile to anchor? >> it's a completely different job. it would imagine i think going from a reporter to an editor. you're responsible for an entire hour. i don't have to beg to get on air. i don't have to convince anybody to get on air. but ultimately the flip side is true. i'm responsible, if there's a mess-up i'm responsible and if there's a story selection that

wasn't the best, i'm responsible. for the ratings i'm responsible. so there is greater freedom editorially to assert what i think is important and cover things i had trouble getting on air as a correspondent especially when narrowly confined to the beat of the white house. and that's freeing but then also comes the burden of actually being in charge of something and being responsible for something. which comes a lot more, criticism comes a lot more than compliments. >> jake, there's a lot of cable news out there. how do you try to make "the lead" distinctive? what is your brand, your signature? >> i can tell you what we're trying to do. we're trying to do a fun, smart, news program, like the front page of a newspaper where, if you pick up a great copy of say "the new york times" and there are five stories, one's money, one's world, one's politics, one's national, one's sports, one's pop culture and you want to read all five of them that is what we try to do every day at

"the lead" and try to get a wide array of stories. we also try to do it in a way hopefully you can't tell what my political leanings are which helps, defacto way with today's cable tv landscape. that distinguishes it from competitors in some ways. >> and how does, at a time when we're all reading so much on our device, we seem to all know the news, what is, how does cable news stay essential in that environment? >> i think there are two ways we can do it and obviously we always don't succeed. one of them obviously what is going on at 4:00 or 7:00 or 9:00, whatever the case may be is important. and more important than what you saw on your iphone three hours before. but then also trying to get smart people and newsmakers and contacts to story, things that, everybody on this panel except

kelly works for the competition has been on "the lead." >> i watch. i turn up the volume. >> we'll have you anytime you want to come on. thank you. let me know. >> i'm sure there will be a very gracious accommodation. >> anytime you want on. we have coffee for you in the green room. mark, peter, you have all been on. we try to get smart people to talk about events of the day and say things you haven't thought b obviously the people who watch cable news and read playbook are relatively savvy news consumers. we need to bring something to the table other than what they already know. >> kelly, o'donnell. , you've been a nbc correspondent in new york, in l.a. and d.c. what is the ecology difference in those places? what is the different sense of those three big news capitols? >> i'm so grateful i had the chance to do work at the network level in other places because i didn't fully appreciate until i got to washington how everything that happens in washington really does happen out in america too and i found that

covering everything from the o.j. simpson trial which was sort of my first big, network long-running story to fires and floods and the sort of urgent emergencies to entertainment things in those days when i was in l.a., it was before "access hollywood" and so forth so we did some entertainment stories. that variety jake was talking about he was looking for, being able to do that in the course of telling stories is so helpful. during the immigration debate, i've been on the border doing a whole variety of stories along the border and that gave me a little context personally. it may not always find its way into the story but certainly frames how i look at it. so very grateful for those experiences. in new york it was everything being launched to international stories to being on wall street, all things that have helped covering politics here. and my favorite times really are when you get out in the country and get a chance to talk to real

people as we say and see them in their lives and hear what is interesting to them and people are quite bold telling you what they like and don't like and it is really great to get that feedback. >> present company accepted, what is the biggest failing of tv news in telling that real story of america, the bigger story of american life? >> one of the challenges has always been is the constraint of time. it is extremely difficult to boil down complex things that are layered and textured in real life and put them in a minute 30, a minute 50. that's always hard. it always has been hard. i think -- >> when you do it the power is incredible. >> brevity is very compelling sometimes. i think if you can, i always look at it that we're all writers here but for me the words are also a part of, in some ways like the person producing a record, you take the song, you take the lyrics, you take all the things a production team can put to it and there's a different impact than just reading the lyrics or just hearing the basic melody.

with tv news i think there's a way where you choose your words, you choose the sound bites and the images, whether they be video or some graphic things we're able to do. that combination is what gives you impact of experience, of being there. i think that is what we go for. to try to transmit the experience for people. >> as you know i'm from the l.a. area, people out there just don't care about the news but do people really care about what we do? >> in a different way. i mean, d.c. is an industry town about power and politics. l.a. is an industry town about media and movie-making and new technologies and many social trend come from the west which i found very interesting when i was living and working there. i don't think people care about the minutia that we care about but that's okay. we trade on that in this town. aptly, that is where you got that title. i tease these guys in the back.

they're all signing books. is there a petition i can sign? i would be happy to. so i think that people don't care in some of the same ways. they don't necessarily speak the same language of legislation or of politics but they do care when it affects their lives. more often than i find what happens in washington does affect people's lives and we have to be smart about telling it. >> to interject if i could, i am friends with a lot of soldiers i interviewed for the book and a lot of them are retired now and a lot were emailing me on the book this week about ryan murray. they knew it was ryan murray and they knew, the retirees knew their cost of living going to go down and cut. they were aware of it. they were aware of the budget deal in a very real way for the guys who don't make a lot of money in the service and a lot of them are messed up from their time in the service because of what they did for us, that's a very real way that a compromise here, that everybody was

heralding because it was a moment of bipartisan compromise affects people in the real world and whether you support the compromise or not, whether you support that 6 billion-dollar cut or not, they were very aware of it. >> they have had impact. you already have including patty murray the part of this deal said we'll find a way. we can find a way to adjust that going forward. other people are looking for ways to make a change to this effect in the increase of the cost of living for pensions. there is an immediacy people feel something, that can have an impact. >> mark leibovich, in this town in my favorite chapter you write, "politico" often gets blamed for defining down and amping up "politico" news. playbook is an insider's dog's breakfast. of overnight news, press release previews, random sightings around town and birthday greetings to people you've never heard of.

[laughing] is it that bad? >> i don't mean that all in a bad way. dogs eat breakfast. i eat breakfast. i read playbook. i absolutely dispute the bad premise, that is exactly what it is i think. >> what is the most legitimate criticism of "politico"? [laughing] would you like me to step back? [laughter] >> the most legitimate i would say putting it in the context of this conversation, it absolutely put it this way. okay. i would say this. it amplifies the insider dom i think can be a very dangerous part of what we do here. what the media does. what the leading thinkers here do. what i mean by that is, one of the many reasons washington is seen being very out of touch for

the rest of the country is that a kind of group think prevails here and a kind of group think that leads to major misconceptions what is really going on or what is really important to people. whether it is the conventional wisdom there is absolutely weapons of mass destruction in iraq which of course, "the new york times" had a little hand in perpetrating all of that. >> why do you look at me when you say that? >> we used to work at "the washington post." no, america is not ready for an african-american president. hillary clinton is inevitable nominee of the democratic party in 2008, or 2016. health care. there was a ton of coolrage in "politico", everywhere, about the politics of health care over the last year since it passed. it would have been nice to sort of actually have a, you know, maybe more technical debate about whether this thing was actually going to work which of

course is the bookstorery now. i don't think "politico" alone drives that by any sense. in a sense the business model of "politico" is to be espn for politics. snoop fred ryan coined that. >> and it's true and i think that is a great business and a great franchise but one a lot of people would say espn has elevated the personality of sports somewhat coursenned conversation of sports, coarsened coverage of sports and also the notion this is not sports, this is real life. this affects real people and sports does too but it's different. >> what is the most important thing you've learned since "think town" came out because of feedback from people or traveling the country doing talk shows you wish you would have included or reflected? >> one thing, oh, this is actually a great question, and i think pa good answer and

reflects on what kelly and jake were talking about earlier. i wish i had been maybe clearer in one page or two paragraphs about the distinct distinction with this town, assume rightly to be washington, d.c. because it's a book about washington, d.c. but in fact the citizens of this town are a very rarefied culture of people of disproportionate wealth, influence, attention, exposure and citizens of this town do not reflect the hundreds of thousands if not millions of anonymous, very hard-working people who make this city work. not to mention, you know the men and woman who lost their lives at the naval yard couple months ago. the, you know, these are people who make this city work and ultimately makes the country work. >> in retrospect is there anyone you were too hard on in "this town"? >> now's your chance, man. >> to hard on? >> like if you had a do-over you

would not quite say it that way? >> there's, i mean i'm an inveterate second-guesser. i second-guess everything. >> peter is nodding. >> i second-guess myself most. mid tore certainly will all attest to this. certainly would do some things differently. i would say that about anything i have ever written. i don't think i was too hard on anyone. i would probably have been harder on certain people. >> who were you too easy on? >> i don't know. wait for the sequel. no, there's no sequel. >> without naming a name, what category of person, what buckle of person you were too easy on in retrospect you realize, that's really the problem? "new york times" reporters? >> i think that the ilk is pretty well covered. i really don't, i think elected officials, former elected officials journalists i'm pretty equal opportunity i think. >> so, peter, this is sunday's

"new york times" book review. 10 best books of 2013. there is five non-fiction. there is "days of fire." how did it start out and when? what was the germ of the idea that became this amazing chronicle of eight years? >> actually started in 2006 before it was over. i was very struck by how many troubles the bush white house was having in his second term. it started off, after the election i said, i've got capital, i'm going to spend it. he was at a high. won election without any recount or asterisks. he felt expansive in his ambition both for the country and even the world. the second inaugural address was this extraordinary articulation of the idea of american freedom spreading around the world. the next two years was just, you know, a dogs breakfast of misery for any president and for him. it occurred to me this is something we hadn't seen quite

extraordinary way. i originally had an idea doing the book on second term. >> when you started out reporting that's what you were doing. >> i was covering the bush white house at the time and i started collecting string and had a contract at end of 2006 and early 2007 and the idea just kind of, the book changing over time. ultimately, after the administration was over, we expanded the scope, we'll try to do all eight years. we'll try to make this the first real history of that administration. then, you know, my friend helene cooper, your friend helene cooper as well, suggested the idea of using bush and cheney as narrative arc. use them as the two main protagonists and talk about their evolving in rather dramatically different relationship people understood. >> peter what is the most interesting thing you learned or been told since the book was published you wished was in it? >> i had this account with

cheney and blah blah. i was there when bush did blah blah. why didn't you tell me this? so i'm collecting string enough to the paper back. i will not give away too much. there is fascinating katrina story i hadn't heard. different moments people told me. you know that scene in the book? it was even more so. actually one lessoned i learned from doing books and this is the third, that when you cover the white house in the moment as we do every day for "politico" or "new york times" or cnn or nbc, it is almost always more than you suspect. like when they said, we're not debating this or, so-and-so is not in trouble, or, this really isn't happening, it is almost always happening and almost always happening far more than you ever really imagined and we should always take those kind of denials with a grain of salt. >> we're going to do a rapid round of one, word answer, then we can discuss our library.

we'll give a one word answer. it is more difficult to cover the bush administration or obama administration. jake tapper? >> one word? >> bush or obama? >> i'm on cable. asking me one word? bush. >> kelly? >> we get to expand, right? >> yes. >> i'll say obama. >> mark? >> bush. >> i'm going to say obama. even it out. >> kelly, expand. >> at the moment i think there is an interesting issue getting some broader attention and that is access to the white house. i think that collectively we have not told our own story well in terms of traditional news media. when i say traditional i don't mean in the sense where you get it, whether it is newsprint or digital. i mean in the sense of news that is supposed to be, report the news of the day without a lot of

opinion attached. i think that issue of access is the white house allowing coverage for official functions of the presidency? bill signings? meetings with world leaders. things where what has happened over these last few years we'll see an official photo and that photo is often interesting and sometimes it appears newsworthy but it was taken by an employee of the white house, not a group of news photographers or journalists who were able to independently attend an event, cover an event. people say, well, it's a picture. why not have what do you expect? are you just trying to do something that would make any president look bad? are you looking for something embarrassing? no, if the president's signing a bill part of his function. if they are swearing in a new cabinet official. if they are meeting with a world leader, i think those are events of the office that should have

coverage. they used to have more coverage than recently. >> why not? why is the obama administration going the other way? >> i think they felt they could go directly to the public and they certainly can. they can have their own photos. they can have whitehouse.gov and have their own video service but no the to the,clusion of an independent press. >> peter baker, white house correspondents association, other journalistic associations formalized their concern about this. yesterday there was meeting with the jay carney and white house correspondents association and a frank and useful discussion. is there a sense both what you hear from and what you read between the lines in a public statement and they get it and they will respond and something might change, or, are they just trying to run out the clock? >> i think they get it. i think they will try to respond. the truth is it is easiest thing in the world for the white house nice to photographers. the photographers are not there to try to screw them in any way, right? they want to get good pictures. they're not trying to do things

that are tough or mean or in any way embarrassing to the white house. seems to me the height of silliness not to facilitate the, all presidents they like the photographers. when they come back on the planes, those are ones they want to talk to because photographers -- >> bush called them, my people. >> they're friendly. they're not asking tough questions. they're trying to capture an image in a moment and they're not threaten in that sense. being nice to photographers is seems the easiest thing in world for the white house to do. >> peter, you have a sense how the obama people think. what are they thinking? why have they carried it to this extreme? every white house does it. every white house gets worse. why is it this much worse? >> i do think, this is my elaboration i agree with kelly's point. what i would add to that in terms why i say obama rather than bush, bush is difficult, bush's white house was difficult in its own way. each white house has its own

challenges. the thing i miss about this white house we used to call the pool spray. bring reporters the oval office. president would be meeting with world leader, congressional leader, what have you and chance for pool to ask couple questions of the day. mr. president there is riot in cincinnati or bill on the hill or ukraine is up in arms. uncle of leader of north korea has been executed what do you think? we don't get that anymore. >> why doesn't he do that? >> they want to control the message. it is what kelly said. they want to control everything. they think those things distract from their intended message of the day. >> and they're right. >> they're right. i completely understand that so many events go by we never hear president's thoughts about that north korea is great example. they just executed uncle of leader. number two guy. >> that's fascinating. i would like to know what the president thinks about that. we'll probably never get that chance. by the next option to question

him comes along we'll move along to three three or four or five stories. >> i add just briefly, if you're in the pool spray and you in the oval you see which advisors are present. that tells you a lot who has the president's ear. the event might be happening here. i always like to look who else is in the room. who can approach the president. those things give you a lot of texture of the moment i have found some times in covering bush was helpful to know what might be coming next. you get a feel for the room. if you're never in the room you just don't have that opportunity. >> jake, what are the pros and cons of the obama press relations? you said they're easier to cover than bush. like what? >> they're not easy to cover. i agree with everything that peter anklely have said. what the white house communications staff has done has been arguably in violation of the president's committal, commitment, rather, to openness and transparency and accountability. and peter's example is a perfect

one. they want to control the message. they don't want the president to talk about north korea. he is the president of the united states. to a degree we're entitled as the public, not as reporters but as the public to hear what his thoughts are. steve harvey didn't ask bit, i don't know what we'll hear his thoughts are on the subject. my question was actually personal to me. always weird to me when conservatives praise how tough i was on obama when i was white house correspondent because the bush people hated me. so probably in a lot of cases still do from covering him in 1919 -- 1999 and 2000. however difficult the obama people might be at least, you know, 25% of the time they return my call or email. that was not the case with bush and his team. >> mark, you have the cover story of sunday's "new york times" magazine "the

post-shame mccain." has a quote, if you live long enough anything is possible. this is the cover. tell us about that photo. tell us something notable in that photo. >> the money shot here is "days of fire" by peter baker. [laughing] "the new york times" is really savvy about this sort of cross branding. >> mccain is beyond shame but we're not. >> you're not, exactly. >> looks noto shopped. >> totally. >> this is kind ever thing where this will get all the attention and no one will read the book. yes, anyone else want to look at it. >> you can say this from reading the story, you know and covered senator mccain since 2000. what did you learn about senator mccain that you didn't know or that surprised you. >> i think just in the context of recent incarnation. he has been a person of so many phases and so many next acts.

25 or 26 next acts himself in his life and it sort of, what was striking to me how reflective he is. it was either a flavor of reflective, seems like kind of reflective you get when someone is deciding to run for another term which he is in the process of deciding. >> what do you think he is going to skied? >> i think he didn't admit this, a lot depends whether the republicans win the senate next november because he would be armed services chairman and he wants very badly. if they don't win he doesn't get it. >> you read the article you think he is going to run again. >> yeah, although i wouldn't, he changes his mind a lot. >> kelly, you think he is going to run? >> i do. i do. i think he is one of those people who is so in the game, and i don't mean that to diminish the importance of what they're doing calling it a game. he is someone who thrives off the activity. i think one of the lessons of mccain that you can have many

acts and that is interesting in american politics, that you can reinvent a bit. you can evolve or change or you can be down and then get back up. so i don't see him wanting to get out of it. with respect his age, i think he is among the older but has a more youthful spirit than some of the older senators. his mother is living into her early 100s. so i think he, he would reject the notion that he is too old. that's my guess. >> mark's story is great and people should read the whole thing not just your nice excerpting this morning, mike. one of the greatest anecdotes i heard before but also is in mark's book, john mccain retirement equals death. his dad retired and died. >> the next day. >> when you have, now "the new york times" has roberta, john mccain's mom