no distinction between spending we don't need and spending we do. we can revisit the history of how that happened. i have some rather grim memories of it, but the notion was that even as we were bringing down the deficit we would come up with a sustainable smart long-term approach to investing in the things that we need. that didn't happen. so, now these cuts that have been maintained have been keeping our economy from growing faster. it's time to undo them. if we don't, then we will have to find our economic and national security priorities in 2016 at the same levels we did in 2006. understand, during the decade between 2006 and 2016, re economy has grown by 12%. our population has grown by 8%. new threats have emerged.

new opportunities have appear. we can't fund our country the way we did 10 years ago. because we have greater demands with an aging population, with kids who need schools, with roads that need to be fixed, with the military on which we are placing extraordinary demands. and we can't cut our way to prosperity. other countries have tried it and it has not worked. we have grown faster than they have because we did not pursue these blind unthinking cuts to necessary investments for our growth. by the way, because we have grown faster than them we are brought our deficit down faster than they have. i went to repeat this because the public carlee never believes it. since i took office we have cut our deficits by two thirds.

the deficit has not been going up. has been coming down precipitously. we cut our deficits by two thirds. they are below that average deficits over the past 40 years. so, the bottom line is congress has to do its job. it can't flirt with another shutdown. it should pass a serious budget. if they do, get rid of some of these mindless cuts even as we are still proven about maintaining the spending that we need, but not spending we don't need because it's not working. their own nonpartisan budget office estimates we will adnexa half a million jobs to our economy next year alone. we can immediately put half a million more people back to work. if we just have a more sensible budget. in these negotiations, no one will get everything they want. we have to work together, though. even if we disagree.

at some point, we have to want to govern and it not just play politics or play to various political basis. at some point we need to pass bills so we can rebuild our roads and keep her kids learning and keep our military strong and help people prepare for and recover from disasters. that is congress' most basic job. that's what our government is supposed to do. serve the american people. so, without limited questions and i will start with julie of ap. hang in there, kids. >> it will be over soon. thank you. there have been several developers in syria that i wanted to ask you about starting with russians evolvement. you met with president vladimir putin this week and i wonder if you think it was honest with you about his intentions in syria to

read if russia is targeting groups beyond the islam-- and islamic state, does the us military have an obligation to protect them ask on the situation in syria up more broadly, there is obviously in failure in that us train and equip program, do you believe that program can be fixed or do you have to look at other options? would you be willing to reconsider a no-fly zone, which several presidential candidates including your former secretary of state are now calling for? >> well, first and foremost let understand what is happening in syria and how we got here. what started off as peaceful protests against assad, the president evolved into a civil war because assad met in those protests unimaginable brutality. so, this is not a conflict between the united states and

any party in syria. this is a conflict between the syrian people and a brutal ruthless dictator. point number two, the reason assad is still in power is because russia and iran have supported him. in in that sense, what russia is doing now is not particularly different from what they had been doing in the past, but it's more overt. they had been propping up a regime that has rejected by an overwhelming majority of the syrian population. because they have seen he has been willing to drop barrel bombs on children and villages indiscriminately and has been more concerned about clean to power then the state of his country. so, in my discussions with president putin i was very clear. clear that the only way to solve the problem in syria is to have

a political transition, that is inclusive that keeps the state contact, that keeps the military intact, that maintains cohesion, but that is inclusive and the only way to commerce that is for mr. assad to transition because you cannot rehabilitate him in the eyes of syrians. this is not a judgment i am making. is a judgment that the overwhelming majority of syrians make. i said to mr. putin that i would be prepared to work with him if he is willing to broker with his partners, mr. assad and ron a political transition. we can bring the rest of the world community to a broker solution. but, a military solution alone and an attempt by russia and iran to prop up assad and try to pacify the population is just

going to get them stuck. it won't work. they will be there for a while. if they don't take a different course. i also said to him that it is true that the united states and russia and the entire world have a common interest in destroying isil, but what was very clear and regardless of what mr. putin said was that he doesn't distinguish between iso- and a moderate sunni opposition at once to see mr. assad zero. from their perspective, they are all terrorists and that's a recipe for disaster and it's one that i reject. so, where we are now is that we are having technical conversations about the complexion so that we are not seeing us and american

firefighter near. but, beyond that we are very clear in sticking to our belief in our policy that the problem here is assad and the brutality he has inflicted on the syrian people and that it has to set. in order for it to stop, we are prepared to work with all of the parties concerned, but we are not going to cooperate with a russian campaign to simply try to destroy anyone who is disgusted and fed up with mr. assad's behavior. keep in mind also, from a practical perspective the moderate opposition in syria is one that if we are ever going to have a political transition we need and the russian policy is

driving those folks underground or creating a situation in which they are the capacity needed and it's only strengthening isil. that is not good for anyone. in terms of our supports of opposition groups inside of syria, i made very clear early on that the united states couldn't impose a military solution on syria either. but, it was in our interest to make sure that we were engaged with moderates opposition inside of syria because eventually syria will fall. the assad regime will fall and we have to have someone who we are working with that we can help pick up the pieces and stitch back together a cohesive cohort country.

so, we will continue to support them. the training and equip program was a specific initiative by the defense department to see if we can get some of that moderate opposition to focus attention on isil in the eastern portions of the country and i'm the first one to knowledge it has not worked the way it was supposed to. i think that the department of defense would say the same thing. part of the reason, frankly, is because when we try to get them to just focus on isil, the response we get back is how can we focus on isil when every single day we are having barrel bombs and attacks from the regime. so, it has been hard to get them to reprioritize looking east when they have got bombs coming up in from the west, so what we are doing with the train and equip his look at where we have

had success, for example, working with some of the kurdish communities that pushed isil out , seeing if we can build on that, but what we are also going to continue to do is have contacts with and work with opposition that rightly believes in the absence of some change in government inside of syria we are going to continue to see civil war and that will turbocharge isil recruitment and jihadist krugman and we will continue to have problems. last point i want to make about this because sometimes the conversation here in the beltway differs from the conversation internationally. mr. prudent had to go into syria not out of strength, but out of weakness because his clients,

mr. assad, was crumbling and it was insufficient for him simply to send them arms and money. , he has got to put in his own planes in his own pilots and the notion that he put forward a plan and that somehow the international community sees that as a viable because there's a vacuum there, i didn't see after he made that speech to the united nations suddenly the 16 nation coalition that we have start lining up behind him. iran and assad make up mr. putin's coalition at the moment. the rest of the world makes up hours. so, i don't think people are fooled by the current strategy. it does not mean that we could not see mr. putin begin to

recognize that it is in their interests to broker a political settlement. as i said in new york, we are prepared to work with the russians and the iranians as well as our partners who are part of the anti- isil coalition to come up with that political transition and no one pretends it's going to be easy, but i think it is still possible so we will maintain communication, but we are not going to be up to get negotiations going if there is not a recognition that there has to be a change in government's. we are not going to go back to the status quo and the kinds of airstrikes against moderate oppositions of russia is engaging in will be counterproductive to read it will move us farther away rather than towards the ultimate solution that we all should be looking forward to. [inaudible]

>> julie, throughout this process i think people have constantly looked for a easy bloke cost answer. whether it's-- we should have sent more rifles in early and somehow been everything would've been okay or if i had taken that shot even after assad offered to give up his chemical weapons they immediately thinks would have folded or the assad regime would have folded and we would have suddenly seen a peaceful syria. this is a hugely difficult complexed problem.

i would have hoped that we would have learned that from afghanistan and iraq where we have devoted enormous time and efforts and resources with the very best people and have given the afghan people and the iraqi people an opportunity for democracy, but it is still hard as we saw this week in afghanistan. it's not by virtue of a lack of effort on our part or lack of commitment. we still have 10000 folks in afghanistan. we are still spending billions of dollars supporting the government and it's still tough, so when i make a decision about the level of military involvement that we are prepared to engage in in syria i have to make adjustment based on once we start something we have to finish it. we have to do it well. do we, in fact, have the

resources and the capacity to make a serious impact understanding that we have still got to go after isil in a rock. we still have to support the training of an iraqi military that is weaker than any of us perceived, that we still have to do in afghanistan. so, i push and have consistently over the last four, five years sought out a wide range of opinions about steps we can take, potentially, to move syria in a better direction. i am none-- under no illusions about what incredible humanitarian catastrophe this is an hardships we are seeing in the refugees that are traveling in very dangerous circumstances and now creating real political problems among our allies in

europe and the heartbreaking images of children drowned trying to escape war and the potential impact of such a destabilized country on our allies in the region. but, what we have learned over the last 10, 12, 13 years is that unless we can get parties on the ground to agree to live together in some fashion than no amount of us military engagement will solve the problem and we will find ourselves either doing just a little bit and not making a difference and losing credibility that way or drawing -- buying ourselves drawn in deeper and deeper into a situation that we can't sustain. so,-- and when i hear people

offering up half-baked ideas as if they are solutions or trying to downplay the challenges involved in the situation, what i would like to see people ask is specifically, precisely what exactly would you do and how would you find it and how would you sustain it and typically, what you get is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, so these are hard challenges. they are ones that we are going to continue to pursue. the top line message i want everyone to understand as we are going to continue to go after isil. we are going to continue to reach out to moderate opposition we reject rosser's theory that

everyone opposed to assad is a terrorist. we think that is self-defeating and will get them into a quagmire. it will be used as a further recruitment tool for foreign fighters. we will work with the international community and our coalition to relieve the humanitarian pressure on refugees. we are working with the turks and others to see what we can do along the border to make things safer for people, but ultimately we are going to have to find a way for political transition if we are going to solve syria. john carl. to make thank you mr. presidency. back in july he said the gun issue has been the most frustrating of your presidency and we certainly heard that frustration for me last night. so, in the last 15 months of your presidency, do you intend to do anything differently to get congress to act or do

something about this gun violence problem and i have to get you to respond to something that jeb bush to said and to be fair to governor bush and want to read it directly. asked about the drive to take action in light of what happened in oregon, he said: look, stuff happens and there's always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it's not always the right thing to do. how would you react to governor bush? >> i don't even think i had to react said that one. i think the american people should hear that the make their own judgments based on the fact that every couple of months we have a mass shooting. in terms of-- and they can decide whether they consider that stuff happening. in terms of what i can do, i

have asked my team as i have in the past to scrub what kinds of authorities do we have to enforce the laws that we have and place more effectively to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. are there additional actions that we can take that might prevent even a handful of these tragic deaths from taking place? but, as i said last night this will not change until the politics changes and the behavior of elected officials changes. so, the main thing i'm going to do is i'm going to talk about this on a regular basis. i will politicize it because our in action is a political decision that we are making. the reason that congress does not support even the modest gun

safety laws that we proposed after sandy hook, is not because the majority of the american people don't support it. i mean, normally politicians are responsive to the views of the electric. here you have majority of the american people take if the right thing to do. background checks, other commonsense steps that would maybe save some lives. couldn't even get a full vote. why is that? is because of politics. is because interest groups, fund campaigns the people fear and fairness it's not just in the republican party. although, the republican party is uniformly opposed to all gun

safety laws. unless we change that political dynamic, we will not be able to make a big dent in this problem. for example, you will hear people talk about the problems not guns, it's mental illness. well, if you talk to people who study this problem it is true that the majority of these mass shooters are angry young men, but there are hundreds and millions of angry young men around the world. tends of millions of angry young men and most of them don't shoot. it doesn't help us to identify-- and the majority of people who have mental illnesses are not shooters. so, we can't sort through and identify ahead of time who might take actions like this. the only thing we can do is make sure that they can't have an entire arsenal when something snaps in them.

if we are going to do something about that, the politics have to change. the politics have to change and the people who are troubled by this have to be as intense unorganized and is adamant about this issue as folks on the other side who are absolutists and think that any gun safety measures are somehow assault on freedom communistic. or a plot by me to take over. and stay in power forever or something. i mean, there are all kinds of crackpot conspiracy theories out there, some of which are ratified by elected officials in the other party on occasion. so, we have got to change the politics of this and that requires people to feel-- not

just feel deeply because i get a lot of letters after this happens, do something. well, here's what you need to do, you have to make sure that anyone who you are voting for is on the right side of this issue and if they are not, even if they are grandmother stuff for a couple of election cycles you have to vote against them and let them know why you're voting against them. you just have to-- for a while be a single issue voter because that's what's happening on the other side. that's going to take some time. the nra has had a good start. they have been at this a long time and have perfected what they do. you have to give them credit. they are very effective because they don't represent the majority of the american people. but, they know how to stir up fear and strip their base and raise money and they know how to scare politicians. they know how to organize campaigns.

the american people will have to match them in their sense of urgency if we are actually going to stop this, which isn't to say stopping all violence. we will not stop all violence. of violence exists around the world, sadly. is part of original sin. but, our homicide rates are a lot higher than other places and by the way has the same levels of violence. it's just you can't kill as many people when you don't have easy access to these kinds of weapons. i am deeply saddened about what happened yesterday, but arnie is going back to chicago, let's not forget this is happening every single day. it's in forgotten neighborhoods around the country. every single day.

kids are just running for their lives trying to get to school. brodrick when we were in new orleans city with a group of young men when we were talking about katrina, and i've got two young men next to me, both had been shot multiple times. they were barely 20. so, we have got to make a decision. if we think that is normal, then we have to own a. i don't think it's normal. i think it's abnormal and i think we should change it, but i can't do it by myself. the main thing i'm good to do, john, is talk about it and hope that more time i'm changing enough mines along with other leaders around the country that

we start to finally see action. i don't think it will happen overnight. cheryl. >> thank you mr. president's. to go back to your opening remarks. he said he won't assign another short-term cr. as you know, yesterday secretary of the announced that the government is borrowing authority would run out around november 5, would you recommend negotiating an increase in the debt ceiling as part of these budget negotiations on spending limits and also does the speaker's race complicate these negotiations? >> i'm sure that speaker's race, what if these negotiations. [laughter] >> that was a rhetorical question. it will conflict with the negotiations, but when it comes to the debt ceiling, we are not going back there. maybe it's been a while, so let me refresh everyone's memory. raising the debt ceiling does

not authorize us to spend more. it civilly authorizes us to pay the bills that we have already incurred. it is the way for the united states to maintain its good credit. the full faith and credit in the united states. historically, we do not mess with it. if he gets messed with it would have profound applications for the global economy and could put our financial system in the kind of tailspin we saw back in 2007, 2008:

and we can do that in short order. it is not that complicated.

the get started on that work immediately. push through the next several weeks. try to leave out extraneous issues that may prevent us from getting a budget agreement. i know for example there are many republicans, and that if you disagree with them on that issue. i think that it is mischaracterized the planned parenthood does, but i understand they feel strongly about it and i respect that. but you cannot have an issue like that potentially wreck the entire us economy. anymore than i should hold the entire budget hostage

through my desire to do something gun violence. i feel just as strongly about that. i think i have better evidence for it. but the notion that i was threatened the republicans, that unless they passed gun safety measures that would stop mass shootings i'm going to shut down the government and not sign an increase in the debt ceiling would be irresponsible of me. and the american people rightly would reject that. well, the same is true for them. if they want to defund planned parenthood, there is a way to do it. pass a law. override my veto. that is true across a whole bunch of issues that the disagree with me on. that is how democracy works. but you have to govern, and

i am hoping that the next speaker understands that the problem speaker peter had or mitch mcconnell had been not dismantling obama care or not eliminating the department of education or not deporting every immigrant in this country was not because the speaker did not care about conservative principles. it hadit had to do with the fact that they can do it. in our system of government which requires compromise. just like ii can do everything i want in passing immigration bill. put hard-working americans who are just now able to dig

themselves out the massive recession, but them in harms way. wrong thing to do. the issue is obviously deeply personal, the gun issue. apart from congress is an action, the desire from the laws in the on that, these perpetrators are angry, aggrieved, often times mentally ill. is there something that you can do with the bully pulpit committee for moral authority with your remaining time in office to help fix these individuals? >> no. i think that i can continue to speak to the american people as a whole and hopefully model for them

basic social norms but rejecting violence and cooperation and caring for other. but there are a lot of young men out there. having been one myself once, i can tell you that us being able to identify or pinpoint who might have problems is extraordinarily difficult. so i think we as a culture should continuously think about how we can nurture our kids, protect our kids, talk to them about conflict resolution of there discouraged normal

interaction. intervention program for mentorship, the kind of thing you're trying to encourage. 99 percent or 99.9 percent from hopefully grow out of it, i don't think there is a silver bullet there. the way we're going to solve this problem is that when they act out, when they are disturbed they cannot easily access weapons that can perpetrate mass violence a lot of people. because that is what other countries do. i want to emphasize this. there is no showing the somehow we are inherently more violent than any other

advanced nation or that young men are inherently more violent in our nation than they are in other nations. i will say young men are inherently more violent, but there is no sense the somehow this is something in the american character that is creating this. levels of violence are on par between the united states and other advanced countries. what is different is homicide rates and gun violence rates and mass shooting rates. so it is not that the behavior for the impulses are necessarily different as much as it is that they have access to more powerful weapons. >> you just said he rejects

his approach on syria, it syria, it was a recipe for disaster, what are you going to do to stop and protect moderate opposition fighters? protect them from russian air attacks, and how do you respond to critics who say put in his outsmarting you? >> i have to say, i'm always struck by the degree to which not just critics the people by this narrative. america had precipitated the worst financial crisis in history. massive recession the world

opinion was just barely above russia. i think potentially slightly below china. then we were shooting 800 jobs a month and so on and so forth. and today we are the strongest large addressed economy in the world. probably one of the few bright spots in the world economy. our range of god we are more active on more international issues and fortunate responses to everything from the bullet to countering heisel.

trying to put it to a more diversified economy. as a consequence of these billion moves the economy is contracting 4 percent this year. they are isolated in the world community, subject to sanctions that are not just applied by us but by what used to be some of their closest trading partners. their main allies in the middle east were libya and syria. mr. gadhafi and mr. aside. and those countries are falling apart. he has now just had to send in troops and aircraft in order to prop up this regime at the risk of alienating

the entire sunni world. so what was the question again? [laughter] i think it is really interesting to understand. russia is not stronger as a consequence of that have been doing. they get attention. the sanctions against ukraine are still in place. and what i have consistently offered from aa position of strength because the united states is not subject to sanctions, and they are not contracting four year,, what i have offered is a pathway whereby they can get back onto a path of growth and do) people. so mr. putin's actions have

been successful only insofar as it has boosted his poll ratings inside of russia which may be why the beltway isso impressed because that tends to be the measure of success. it is easier to do. but this is not a smart, strategic move on russia's part. and what russia has now done is not only committed its own troops into a situation in which the overwhelming majority of the syrian population sees it now as an enemy, but the sunni population throughout the middle east is going to see it as a supporter, endorser of those barrel bombs landing on kids.

at a time when russia has a significant muslim population. so i want russia to be successful. this is not a contest between the united states and russia. it is in our interest for russia to be a responsible effective actor on the international state that could share with us on with japan, other countries because the problems we have a big. doubling down,, recognize that this is not going to be a good long-term strategy and that he works instead to bring about a political

solomon just as i hope that they can resolve the issues with ukraine in a way that recognizes russian inequities that upholds the basic principle of sovereignty and independence that the crazy people should enjoy like everyone else. until that time we will continue to have tensions and differences. but we are not going to make syria into a proxy war united states and russia. that would be bad strategy on our part. this is a battle between russia, iran,, iran, and esophagus the along the majority of the syrian people. our battle his with heisel and our battle is with the entire international community to resolve the conflict in a way that can end the bloodshed and in the refugee crisis and allow people to be at home, work,

grow food, shelter the children, synvisc is to school. that is the side where on. this is not some, you know, superpower chessboard contest. and anybody who frames it in that way is not paying very close attention to what has been happening in the chessboard. last question. >> good to see you. >> good to see you. >> i promise i won't take too long. >> have been boring them to death. there have been times where i have snagged rebounds. >> i wonder if you could tell the country to what degree or change of mood which discussed in private and pope francis, what you think his visit might have meant for the country

long-term and for democrats who might be wondering if it's too late for joe biden to run for president, and just to clarify, to what degree did hillary clinton's endorsement just yesterday of the no-fly zone put her in a category of embracing a half-baked answer the borders and mumbo-jumbo. >> on the latter issue, the last question you asked, hillary clinton is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems. she was obviously my secretary of state. but. but i also think that there's a difference between running for president and being president. and the decisions that are being made in the discussions that i have with the joint chiefs become much more specific and require a make a different kind of judgment. that is what i will come to

apply as long as i'm here. if and when she is president that she will make those judgments, and she has been there and at the she knows that these are tough calls but that is not what i said. that is perhaps what you said. what i am saying is that we all want to try to relieve the suffering in syria, but my job is to make sure that whatever we do we are doing in a way that serves the national security of the american people, that does not lead to us getting into things that we cannot get out of the to effectively and is much as possible that we are working with international partners

provide a space in which we can bring about the kind of political transition that will be required to solve the problem. i think hillary clinton will be the 1st to say that when you are sitting in the seat that i'm sitting in things look a little different. she has been right there next. i love joe biden, and he has his own decisions to make. i will leave it at that. in the meantime is doing a great job as vice president and has been helpful on a bunch of issues.

he is a good man with a warm part of the big moral imagination. and i think he had such an impact as he has around the world because you care so deeply about the least of these and in that sense expresses what i consider to be as a christian the essence of christianity. and he has a good sense of humor. well, i can't share all his jokes. they weren't all clean. [laughter] and as i said in the introduction when he appeared here at the white house, i think it is really useful that he makes us uncomfortable and is generally, that is

constantly prodding people's consciousness and asking everybody all across the particle spectrum what more you can do to be kind and helpful until of and to sacrifice and to serve. and in that sense i do not think he is somebody we should be applying the typical american political measures you know, liberal and conservative, left and right. he is speaking to all of our consciences. we all have to then search ourselves to see if there are ways it can do better.

you know, i think that when i spend time with somebody and other individuals, some of whom are famous, some of whom are not, but who are good people than deeply moral, then it makes me want to be better. and those people are great gifts to the world. sometimes there just a teacher in the classroom. sometimes they are your name, sometimes your mom or your wife. sometimes the kids. they can encourage you to be better. and that's part of the wonderful thing about francis.

this rejection of the absolutism this is on 100 percent right in your 100 percent wrong but rather we are all sinners and all children of god. that is a pretty good starting place for being better. thank you guys for your patients. you can now the home. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a presidential news conference and state dining room at the white house after the pres. announced the resignation of arnie duncan as education secretary effective in december and his choice to replace defense secretary john king. former education secretary and chairman of the senate education committee republican senator lamar alexander had this to say about the current education secretary. as a biga big heart, cares about children command i have enjoyed working with them. >> the supreme court is scheduled to begin its new term on monday. earlier this year i conducted a poll of supreme court and the impact of his decisions. you can see here, some of

the decisions are more familiar than others. 46 percent of americans are familiar with brown v board of education and it goes on from they're. here to talk more, executive producer mark. tell us a little bit more about the series and why c-span is doing it. >> all of our history series wins currency to our programming. we look at the role the court has been playing not just the last ten years but since it began , i think this ball really shows that the supreme court is relevant, encouraging for us, the series that we are doing takes a look at 12 decisions over time that really have currency today, and eight of them are listed in that poll it shows that the court does

play a really important role in deciding, and the genesis of this was ruth bader ginsburg was talking to the national constitution center dinner, our partners in this and she was talking to them about the case of loving versus virginia. the point of it, there are people involved in this case. really with the court ought to be taking a look at is not only the decisions, but people are involved in these cases. want tocases. want to take a look at not only historic supreme court decisions but the people involved, the personal stories, the people the people that care enough to take the case to the supreme court. >> when we will the series aired? more background about how these cases were chosen. >> it's a 12 part series that begins monday, october 5.

the court comes in for his new session, and each monday night from nine until 1030 we will do 9090 minute programs that take a look at all these 12 cases. >> and the background on how these cases were chosen, how did you go making those decisions? there is much more than will be shown during this series can. >> it was an interesting exercise. the supreme court has been meeting since 1790 trying to figure out just how many cases they have decided. it's probably over 20,000. you can do a parlor game. we came up with 12 along with our partners at the constitution center, talk to constitutional scholars, legal scholars on the left and right. and so it was tough. there are a lot of great decisions that are not on this list, but this is a good mix of different amendments, personal

stories, sometimes these cases are cases where the court got it right and set precedent that is followed through to today, and some of these cases are cases where history is judged that the court got it wrong. quex's said supreme court kicks off its new term on monday, tell us which case you will be featuring monday night when the series begins and why. >> monday night we feature marbury versus madison which is the foundation that chief justice roberts, ginsburg, and a lot of the justices, it is cited as one of the most often cited cases in history of the court. what it does is it establishes a court as the arbiter of the constitution which is still being debated today. there is a debate going on

showing that there is relevance aware of the court should be deciding issues like gay marriage. so this establishes that, but it is a great case that shows aa personal story behind the case. there is about going on between john adams, thomas jefferson, john marshall behind-the-scenes that really is the story of the case. personal stories that are engaging. >> 9:00 p.m. monday night. landmark cases executive producer. >> senate foreign relations committee chairman and white house deputy spoke syria,

russia, iran, and other foreign-policy challenges. >> good morning. >> and architect of the iran nuclear agreement review act , we want to talk about that is what is next. first, some hotspots. we need to start with situation in syria. we are pres. obama and and the un this week talk about unmanaged transition. a very different tone than he took previously. is there a shift? if so, does it strike you as a smart thing to do?

>> i don't think there is any question, but they're continues to be in evolution. to consider that you will deal with isis and leave aside in place is something that creates quite a conflict. if you look at what is happening, we had a hearing yesterday and see the tragedy of what has occurred during the tenure. [laughter] 140,000 people were killed, 4 million were displaced. we have done by those numbers were at least 240,000 people are dead and 11 million people are displaced. this is a human tragedy of

effort portions, the biggest since world war ii. obviously we have missed opportunities. when it was evidently could make a difference relative to what happened on the ground. we misswe miss those opportunities, particularly in august and september 2013 bipartisan support for a ten hour operation, no boots on the ground, no flights over syria, that could have really changed momentum at a time when we did have a moderate opposition. then after that there were opportunities for us to do some things an important appropriate way. and then i know there have been decisions on the presence us to deal with an air exclusion zone which would serve two purposes, to seal the border of turkey,

people flying into aa stumble and making the land of turkey and syria and iraq we could have sealed the border and at the same time provided a place for humanitarian aid to be given inside the country. as we continue to miss opportunities, no doubt things are evolving. one thing you have to say, knowing that people get no push back command just continues. we visit people in the region resetting conversations that they have one-on-one with him asking him why he has been so overt command he sees no push back what it is doing is raising his popularity within the country. so that is continuing right

now on the ground. continuing in the air. we continue to let things evolve. i don't know where this goes , but it is evidently are at least open to discussing the future. >> thinking about the changing role, just this morning russian warplanes have begun bombing targets in syria. do we have anybe have any us pushback? >> well, we received reporting this morning that even a set of just targeting isys we have received reports that they are even hitting rebel camps, in other words, not people affiliated with high sis. look, i obviously think

things have to be de- conflicted. i am still hopeful that somehow or another us and other western friends and sunni allies in the region will be something to create areas within syria were humanitarian aid can be given, you can begin to coalesce we see as things evolve it is unlikely the administration will take steps. >> defenders of the present say an impossible situation destined to degenerate, not something under us control. >> well, i look at -- i read those stories this morning. there will always be a divergence of opinion.

i still believe during that timeframe, august and september 2013 which was a moment, an opportunity during a ten hour operation to really degrade the lead to deliver chemical up in the air which would have felt degrade the ability to deliver the barrel bombs that are being delivered now , but there was a moment where there was some momentum by the free syrian army kind of israel. i don't think anyone will debate that. by us not taking that action they lost. itlost. it took the wind out of their sales. we did not pushback. we jumped into his lap to deal with the chemical weapons issue. they talk about the fact that they have done away with all of the declared weapons. obviously they have not declared, although we know

he's using chemical weapons now. have friends in europe mishandle it also cameron took it to them, they pushed back. that created somethat created some consternation on behalf of the president and the administration. again, our friends in europe and ourselves, let's face it, at a time when we could have taken some action that would've made a difference in my opinion and in most people's opinion we didn't. but i also want to say something else, we lost so much credibility. i am in the region constantly. it hurt us significantly as far as people believe they could rely on what we as a country say.

i understood that the pres. i believe the pres. says there is a redline on behalf of our nation, something that whether you are republican or democrat you should stand behind.behind. i did it in committee, we passed authorization. we came back on my moment of the foreign relations committee. >> one of the terrible consequences of the turmoil in syria is this flood of refugees we see in europe. given our role in the world and this particular conflict, does the united states have an obligation to do more to address this crisis? that only sending money and eight but accepting a significantly increased number of syrian refugees? >> look, we arelook, we are certainly the largest contributor of eight, people understand that. the countries together in europe now have surpassed us, but as a country we are the largest contributor, the

largest taker of refugees. what the administration has proposed asis that next year we take an 85,000 instead of 70 in the next year we taken hundred and 75. congress will look at that and my guess is assuming we feel like the vetting can take place in an appropriate way likely it is it will be supported. but it really is almost a façade. think about it. we are talking about dealing with the people you see on the tv screen. texas 18 months to two years to actually that people. the amount of experience that will be a part of that is like 2500. at the end of the day you would think that we and

others, these are people just like you and i want to raise their families and dignity to have visions of hope for the future, just like people in this audience , and you would think that we would try to be able. instead ofinstead of this pittance that is occurring relative to people actually being brought in because of just a procedure that takes place, you would think that we want to deal. that is why it is more troubling when you see russia saying are going to support aside, iran immediately after the nuclear deal announcing that no foreign entity will come in and change the dynamic on the ground, you know that he is the root cause of all of this occurring, he is the one that today is torturing people and manners that are

stop saying in public because it is so grotesque. these are the kind of things that took place. yet he is inflicting that today as we sit here. so i would hope that our efforts would be more toward dealing with syria in such a fashion that syrians to live in our own country. >> let's talk briefly about afghanistan. it is the biggest military victory in a decade does this mean the united states should reconsider the plan to withdraw? >> certainly this was a major change on the ground. we have not had the subjectivity in a long time. certainly the military folks

on the ground understand that if we take it down to three or 4,000 troops all they are really doing, we understand the military has a huge footprint on people are there thankfully. they are there to ensure only send people overseas we have the ability to protect them and care for them as they have injuries. and so if you take it down to three or 4,000 all you are really doing is protecting yourself. we do have to rethink that. obviously the turn of events on the ground being gained by the taliban is usually disappointing, but i think you know we have to rethink it as we see the momentum taking place on the ground. >> all the money, human resources, casualties, how does anything change so that

when we look forward how can we make things different? >> look, i have visited where we have been training. i will tell you, when you look at the caliber of people we are training and there allegiance to really deal with the issues, it is pretty disheartening to see the amount of dollars spent in those training operations anything you see sometimes that we care more about what happens relative to things on the ground and they do, it's very disheartening. powell certainly, the statement that if you break it you own it, i know he will be here a little bit later, our nation in the lesson learned a great deal from that there was also something to be learned from breaking in and leaving it, which is what the

administration did in libya. you know, we have got to -- we are in it. obviously the footprint is majorly different. to a very small degree it's being taken on right now. patience and persistence is warranted. >> you did the impossible, negotiated a bipartisan bill they got through vetoproof numbers to provide for congressional review. now, at the end you support a resolution and were unable to get a vote on that. looking back, did you achieve what you hope to achieve when you devise that the? >> so, you have to remember, none of us had any idea, most of us are negotiated this bill had no idea what the agreement was going to say. if you look at where we have

been in the united states, the executive branch has really consumed power away from the legislative branch, and this was eroded over time. it was an effort to bring power back. the present decided he would negotiate an executive agreement. for those of you don't do this on a daily basis, that means that he can decide and it does not have the force of power after he leaves, but that is the way most presidents are doing things now. therethere is a 2nd step call the congressional executive agreement which does become law. many presence of moving away from treaties. in this case present was going to get straight to the un security council without congressional approval because congress had played such a role. we passed for tranches of sanctions that many people

with the most crippling sanctions. and so because we had played that role i was able to convince thankfully people on the other side of the aisle that it was appropriate for the sanctions were relieved that it was appropriate for us to be able to at least have a vote of approval or disapproval but to see the agreement and let it lay before congress. yes. we achieved a step in the legislative branch beginning to take back power. the americanthe american people understand this agreement probably more than any agreement that is taking place in modern times. 21 percent of the people in our country approve of it. the fact is, we understand it. i know this is a long-winded answer, but now the agreement is going to take place. the other pieces give

congress a role in oversight. if you look at north korea, no one paid any attention. this agreement gives us the president to certify that iran is in compliance. there are a whole host of documents that must be given to us on a six-month basis. keeps us in this. >> unfortunately we are out of time. thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause] ♪ >> please welcome deputy national security advisor and the atlantic. [applause] ♪ >> good morning. good morning, everyone.

i have always wanted to get you on the couch. >> psychoanalyze. >> thank you for doing this. i would love to get up to 30,000 feet as quickly as possible. the morning and the previous week, russia has engaged in airstrikes against what it says are isys targets. in the last week we have seen russia form an alliance with our ally in iraq, iran, our target, syria. there is a feeling in republican circles and a lot of foreign-policy elite circles in washington that putin is the activist in the middle east, your boss is withdrawing as quickly as he can with possible dire consequences. tell us that thinking in the

white house right now about what you are doing and more to the.what you are not doing. >> first of all, with respect to what bush is doing, they are not forming anything knew in terms of an alliance. theythey had a decades long relationship with the government of syria, they've had a long-standing relationship with the government of iran. those are the partners in the region. the fact of the matter is there former client has been seeing his state authority collapsed around him and russia has been supporting him. for we are seeing is actuation and the notion that russia would want to go after i saw something that we could work with. any nation almost a job with the coalition with the welcome. and the main determining factors that they understand that there has to be a

political resolution. otherwise is not going to stop. except now come in which he is still the leader of the country which means quickly, , what president obama has been very deliberate about in the middle east, we ought to take a core interest. denying terrorist safe havens, protecting our allies and partners but we have to recognize that there are not military solutions and not us imposed military solutions or russia imposed on these problems. >> isn't one american core interest what is doing in syria. >> again, they had a base. this is not new. a way to think that this is

everyone is looking at him as if this is some offense of maneuver. they had bases in syria for a long time. itit has been collapsing. he is trying to prop it up. that is hardly someone is in a strong position. the same thing he is facing in the ukraine. that collapsed. now they are trying to grab a piece of ukraine and ukrainian people are rejecting.rejecting. this is not someone operating from a position of strength for someone who sees two of his principal partners in the world and a lot of trouble. >> why is it being interpreted as we are on the back foot a little bit rather than russia and this alliance that it has built? >> i would rather be us than

russia. we are expanding our footprint in the world and reaching into places like asia and africa and the america in knew ways. the russian economy is hollowing out. the reason why is for too long the way in which foreign-policy is reviewed in the city is number one you show strength through show of military force, and if we are not somehow filling certain vacuums with american military power that we are not serious but not only is that not good in terms of resource allocation risk to troops comeau we don't think there is a military person it could be. >> like the world to when. who wouldn't? everyone focuses. but we cannot continue to be in the cycle were all of our resource allocations is trying to fix fundamentally

broken society in the middle east and you have aa big world out there we have an enormous interest. that is going to matter a lot more to the american people in the 21st century than the middle east. again, i think there is a certain mentality that every problem in the middle east, every problem is a nail and we only have a hammer. yes, the military has to be a part of it. >> do you think we are paying a price for an action? but we did not engage, when isys was not what it is today obviously. >> well, again, the question is what are the options available? the fact of the matter is every time the president looked at this we did not see a viable military option that could resolve the situation in syria.

and so you could have taken action earlier, but that does not mean this would not have the same fundamental conflicts we have essentially a sectarian war taking place, the sunni majority, other minority populations who are concerned, external actors were arming proxies, and the notion that airstrikes or support for one opposition group was going to eliminate those factors i don't think one out. always stressed our partners is there has to be a political combination, and without that there is not stability. >> you would rather see us on stay in power then see isys margin to damascus? >> we can call it --dash. look, the.you made is he is thes

conflict, the one who started dropping barrel bombs and brutalizing his people. >> with a lot of help from iran. >> has blood in particular. and the fact of the matter is, it's not just a matter of we object to him because of values. we certainly do. just from a realist perspective how will you restore civility with the guy who has lost control of his country? one interesting thing, he is not really gone after him. he has preferred to brutalize the broader population. >> in his best interest. >> and the fact is this kind of nihilism that we see in parts of syria, clearly his actions have helped foreign

fighters, violent jihadists to come. our messages there is no outcome that is truly stable if he still in charge of the country. that can be a managed process. has to be implemented over time, but is kind of that process. >> two quick questions. how important is you think putin is in the world? how much does president obama not like? what is on -- like the pope? >> i don'ti don't think there's any way i can answer that. >> try. >> make-believe you're out here. >> good.

look, in terms of their personal relationship he is what you see. when they sit down together and talk on the phone it's not like they are getting into arguments. they are disagreeing with one another and having straightforward conversations. in terms of his role in the world, when russia -- >> in many ways the 1st cold war president. >> i think when russia works with us on international problems it is easier to resolve them. for instance, russia worked with us on the iran deal. theythey were basically in lockstep with us throughout the negotiations except for

one of two issues which was enormously helpful in accomplishing what we believe is a very successful deal represents a ran from getting nuclear weapons. on syria russia has not worked with us and it has been more difficult to solve the challenge because of the influence they had over aside. so i think the way the president views this is, and this is what his speech was about, the more russia invest itself and essentially an international system, easier it is frustrating as our interest in particular areas where we overlap with the russians. in terms of the threat that they pose,, like i said, this is not a country that is resurgent that will take over a vast sphere of influence. the places they are operating, the notion that russia is having to try to assert itself in eastern ukraine having completely lost the hearts and minds of the people the rest of the

country again is an offense of maneuver and has strategic context. it's a violation of international law. putin is pushing these boundaries and undermining the rules that govern the international system. he gets away with that without paying a price. other people look at the think they could to. the sanctions we are imposing, number one obviously to help resolve the situation for the ukrainian people, but to buttress the international system and not let those type of actions go without consequences. last week, i mean, this mass focus which i completely understand given what he is doing. but i think china will play a more significant role in the 21st century much is

lost. rush inlost. russia and the middle east a kind of the touchdowns a foreign-policy. we think that is incredibly important but there's a big world out there. >> we are limited in time. you have given me a way to transit to a broader question.a broader question. they're coming to the end of the obama presidency. we are beginning to see patterns and what one might call and obama doctrine obviously to your critics, obama doctrine aversion to the use of force, things like that. from your perspective, and i ask you you as a leader inside the white house of the open to cuba, talk about if you can the white house approach to this idea that you take one of the goals of the administration take adversaries if you had to

name the obama doctrine with that. so it's up to sing the united states to be a leader going forward. .. >> with iran we successfully

prevent them from getting weapons and avoid war -- >> we left iraq too early and bad actors. the president learned that you can't get out out, you can't leave no matter what you try to do. >> one can argue going into iraq and invading the country and eliminating appear -- [inaudible] >> well, this was a pretty big pile. [laughter] >> the point i make sheer that there's an agency assigned to the united states in these matters that we have to be realistic about, you know, ten thousand troops in iraq, which is what the potential option was on the table with no legal protections because iraqi government wasn't going to support it. the notion that that would have

made all these people in iraq not get along and not have isil emerge out of ashes of al-qaeda and iraq, which is basically the same organization, how would they have made the iraqi people resolve their differences? how would they have make secretary leader and thousand troops make bashar al-assad not brutalize people. it's just such a simplistic notion, that if we have a number of troops somewhere those places are going to be -- we have to figure out how to train better partners, frankly, to do that on the ground with us, but again, all the united states is doing in foreign policy, the obama is

often, whatever the worst place in the world that day, it's our foreign policy. we did it, not bashar al-assad. it's a very difficult and complicated war right now. by theway, i think -- the way, it's going to be like that for a while in the middle east. we cannot allow that to detour us from the fourth point that i was going to make which is we need to refocus in the asian pacific. these are merging regions, we are trying to consolidate democratic progress. potential significant markets. >> all you can do is disaster, mitigation and asia is where the

positive opportunities lie for american in the future? >> we certainly have to mitigate threats in the middle east. we have interest there, we have partners there that we would like to see stronger, israel first and foremost. we would like to see a resolution to the underlying conflicts taking place in the middle east. but i do think that if there's a certain component of american policy that's going to have to be mitigation, we try the project of building, you know, democracy there. we cannot determine four people by force how their societies are going to be organized. we can provide incentives and disincentives and unless we realize that, we are going to find ourselves repeating a lot

of errors that will be very costly. >> thank you very much, i appreciate it. thank you. [applause] >> now from the washington ideas festival here on c-span2. mitt romney was interviewed by a writer from the atlantic magazine, the former massachusetts governor talked about the iran deal, state of republican party and why he thinks he lost the 2012 presidential election. ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> you get the couch. all right. governor romney, thank you for joining us, i'm hoping we can do politics and a little policy in the course that we had with you and i would like to start with a state of race on the republican

side, if you don't mind. you know, ronald regan had 11th amendment -- >> that has gone. >> yeah. what do you make of the tone of this campaign and the amount of name calling, much of it emanating from donald trump? >> i think mrs. trump's entry to the race, he said it yesterday, that some of the things he said about candidates have been childish. i think that would be a fair characterization coming from him. i think for a long time the other candidates ignore it and not respond, i think they found that did not help them and so they are coming back strong and they did that fairly well. i think that's helped them. i think it's unfortunate to have had the kind of personal attack that we've seen in the process

but i think the commitment was lost and it made it harder. one of the things that we are seeing is really the top candidates on the republican side have zero government experience whatever and you talked about how valuable it would be to have a governor as president of the united states. we've seen two governors drop out so far, is that concerning to you? >> well, we've had -- it's been a while. we had some people that didn't have extensive government experience, washington experience as presidents before. eisenhower comes to mind and myself, business experience for preparation for government service, but surely having had some experience with the legislature and executive branch and so forth would be of value. i wouldn't disqualify someone

that hasn't served in washington or state. we have two brackets in our party. there's a lot of attention given to the bracket but you have going to see one or two people emerge on the other side and ultimately a race from one from each. >> you're comparing donald trump to eisenhower? >> the parallel does not immediately jump to mind, but that said you don't have to have washington or government experience to serve as a president. >> one areas where donald trump has been getting a lot of attraction is criticism and and

-- how serious a problem do you think it is? do you see candidates saying things or not saying as a consequence of superpacs? >> i think we have a mess. prior to president obama people were living by federal limits and accepting federal matching dollars and the system was balanced between the two parties. the president brushed aside the federal spending limits and john mccain raise millions.

a superpac that works on behalf of a campaign taking unlimited amounts of money. this is a real mesh, you have a superpac that's going to run ads potentially the candidate would never run him or herself and yet the candidate is going to get blamed for those ads. it's just a mess. we have to rethink how we are going to do this but the superpac phenomena and contribution to superpacs have change it had dynamic in such a way that we have to rethink finance. >> do you think there's active leadership between the republican party and democratic that would be reaching some sort of new -- >> the impact of superpacs are going to be felt more than this year, after 2016 there will be interest on both parties to say, okay, how do we adjust this. >> just ask the open-ended

question, you experienced politics from the inside and your hear our politics is broken and something going fundamentally wrong with the way we run our campaigns and choose our leaders, is there anything else you would point to? do you agree with the diagnosis, first of all? >> kind of half truths and untruths, leveled back and forth have been part of the process. i thought it was interesting that former president bill clinton said that his wife's e-mail troubles were the only fault of the media and the opposition party. i thought who else would it be the fault of, this is how it works. and so i don't know that -- >> the media didn't put the server in her house in the first place. >> there was action on her

action. the attention has been brought from opposition part and media. i don't know that we have a lot of concern that is we have primaries and debates. i like the fact that many my party we have a lot of candidates running and visibility to alternative use. the democratic party has mistaken to not given more visibility. but i think one of the reasons you're seeing as much anger as you're seeing in the voting public is the sense that nothing is happening in washington, and that goes back in part to some of the rules in the senate. we have the filibuster rule, rule. i think it makes sense for the senate leadership to consider a

modified filibuster rule, which is if the white house and the senate are in different hands democrat/republican, then perhaps you don't have the filibuster rule and you allow to go to the house in majority. that would be the case for and not for others. i think there's the sense, that gosh, nothing is happening and in part that relates to the fact that bills don't get to the president's desk and i would like to see more bills in the president's desk and let them veto them. >> i would like to return to the question about this president and the next president should do . you said you do have a lot of candidates in your party are ready and it's been a really kickoff in this race, you have

been careful to say that you won't endorse yet, but will you support donald trump if he's the nominee in the end? >> i will support the republican nominee. i don't think it's going to be donald trump. >> why not? [laughter] >> my party has historically nominated someone who is a mainstreamed conservative and someone who has the foundation of foreign policy that gives people confidence that they can guide the ship of state in troubled waters. mr. trump over the weekend, i think on 60 minutes said that he thought it would be a good idea to let isis take over syria and we pick up the pieces. i thought that was absurd and outrageous. >> you say the process results in nomination of mainstreamed

conservative, aren't you concerned that the process actually may produce a mainstream conservative but that person does not look like a mainstream conservative anymore because they've been pulled so far to the right, do you agree that that's the dynamic that any candidate in this race is facing now? >> you know, that's been described in both political processes. i look at some of the main running, chris christie, marco marco rubio, jeb bush, fiorina and, you know, i think each of them has staked outertory, which -- out territory.

i think we will win the general election because we have strong and capable people as the one i mentioned. >> is there any chance you may still get? >> no. i made the decision. >> let me shift to foreign policy, if i may. we have been talking a lot about syria and isis this morning. colin powell said that multiple wars in the last 15 years is that we often will go in to libya, iraq and act without any understanding of what's going to come next, and he said that in syria we need to focus on isis and the notion of removing assad is really secondary to that. it should be the focus of our policy. i wonder what you think.

what is the way forward there? >> let me step back, and i will --i will get to the answer to your question. i am going to step back. what i found that the president has consistently painted himself in a corner and now what would you do, when you paipted yourself in that kind of corner many times the options are pretty limited, embassador ford which was embassador in syria for a numbers years said we have no good options, they're not the kind of options now that they were three and a half years ago. even secretary clinton three and a half years ago we should arm them, train them and support them and help them defeat assad. we did not do that. we also should have had in place the status and forces agreement in iraq. we did not do that. as a result of those two bad decisions, we have isis.

although the president said assad must go, the combination has made it difficult to accomplish. mutual objectives, we are in a difficult position right now. i think the president has been a foreign policy disaster, you may love the president for a lot of reasons, the results very terribly disappointing and on foreign policy disaster. he layed what it was in cairo and basically a policy of the america pulling back from world leadership and that happened by the recent relations with russia, we're going to give you more flexibility after the election, criticizing israel, walking back from the red line in syria, we are going to pivot to asia and not doing so, and so the right answer for syria and the rest of the world is first

for american to standby its word. when we say we are going to do something, we do it. we are not going to shrink our military. third, we are going to exert leadership not just military leadership but economic leadership. we are going to be a leader in the world stage again. whether you agree with the policies of george w. bush and some of the mistakes he made are well known now, we at least believed that america should be leader and took action as a leader. this president has not. if we are going to be successful in syria, we have to be leader there and around the world. in terms of syria, at this stage you have to concentrate in eliminating isis and that means using our resources do so. you don't let the russians tell us we can't fly over syria. we are going to eliminate isis and that's our first priority.

at the same time -- >> boots on the ground in syria? >> i think we all hope it doesn't mean boots on ground. you don't go announce to the world, we are going to get rid of isis but we are not going to do certain things. we will do whatever it takes. if we can't get the support from turkey, the nation, saudi arabia and others to actually put boots in the ground sufficient to get rid of isis, then we will put boots on the ground or additional support there. we have to eliminate isis and isolate assad and ultimately assad will go too. the president said that correctly, we need to get rid of assad. russia complicates things right now. they have outgained us once again. we cannot allow ourselves to be gettered from the task at hand which is to defeat isis and replace assad. >> a number of republican candidates said the right thing

for the next president to do is to tear up the agreement on the first day in office, do you agree with that? >> well, it's a a lousy agreement but iran given the green light to develop weapon in ten years, i'm planning on living alive in ten years, my kids are and grand kids are, a nuclear iran is unacceptable to us and this agreement, i think, is inappropriate in that it allows to maintain nuclear capacity, to keep the technology in place, and to have have an inspection regime that frankly is insufficient. we'll see how the inspections go and presuming as i do that we will be frustrating from the process, i'd walk away from the agreement and put much tougher

sanctions in the regime. >> why would they be more restrained 10-15 years from now then when the agreement runs its course than today? >> it gives enormous funding, which it will be able to use in ten years, secondly, nuclear technology foreign or elsewhere so advances nuclear capabilities, which is something that i would not have continue. >> you provided assessment of the -- of this presidency in foreign affairs. we're in the seventh year, we're kind of entering legacy evaluation period. and i wonder what you think the legacy of this president will be in domestic policy. >> disappointing also. i mean, you go back to denver

and the convention speech and the elevated nature we are going to unite the nation. he has been divisive. poverty is at an all-time high, generational poverty which could have been dealt with, which has not been, education system continues to fail a huge number of peoples in intercities and also not competitively in education. relative to other nations deteriorated. our military has been devastated in many respects, the -- the debt has doubled, so you say what are the bright spots? that's pretty bad. >> what are the good things? >> the recession is over, but then again, all recessions end.

we didn't expect it to go on forever. the federal reserve has continued to keep their pedal to the metal for a long, long time. we don't know what the consequence would be of that long-term. the recession ended. he called have -- could have made things worst. america is virtually on the verge of energy independence. i don't think he had anything to do that, positive or negative would be health care, rate of health care inflation has slowed down, that's good news. more to go. i think obama care, there's pros and cons, people who have preexisting conditions can get insurance, more people are ensured. the cons are a lot of the people that are insured just went under

medicaid which is expensive program. people were promised think could keep their insurance if they liked it, that promise was broken, and premiums have gone to the roof for a lot of people. so domestically not much of a record, internationally devastating foreign policy. look around the world. ukraine, china in the south china sea, north korea, iran now having capacity to have more money to support terrorism, ten-year path for nuclear weapon . jerusalem and israel, attacking our friends in israel has not led to the breakthrough the president hoped for. libya has been devastated series

of events. >> quickly, are you saying we are better off than without it? >> there's pros and cons, i would have seen eliminated with something that does a better job making sure that preexisting conditions are covered and that the price of insurance doesn't go through the roof, i would like to see far more emphasis on personal savings account and the mandated coverage, specific treatments that are mandated in the comprehensive plans, i would like to see a lot of those taken out. >> is there anything that you can point that you see as a good thing for america. [laughter] >> give me some time but the answer is yes. i mean, the president has tried up some front seat. i'm a bit at a loss here. i mentioned the recovery, we have gotten out --

>> but you said he had nothing to do. >> he could have made it worse. he got out -- on poverty, education, the deficit, race relations, these major issues, there hasn't been problems. health inflation rates has slowed down, that's positive. >> last question for you, i wonder -- there's been so much analysis as to what happened in 2012 and presumably you've given it some thought. >> oh, not, not at all. >> why do you think you last? >> i'm reminded of the quote and when it was all over all my life i wanted to run for president in the worst way and that's just

what i did. [laughter] >> you know, i go back and i wish i could do it again, i mean, you learn -- >> you can. >> you learn from your experience but we made that decision, but you learn from your experience. there's some things that i would do differently, but clearly one of the things we have to do differently as a party and -- and i think -- i think the rhetoric on the part of some has been unfortunate. what we have to do as a party is do a better job connecting with minority voters to convince them that the reason we are conservative is we believe principles will help minority families and get out of poverty and have a better future. let me make this really clear. the reason i'm republican and conservative is i'm absolutely convinced without any question on my mind that policies of my

party are most designed and most effective in helping people get out of poverty and helping middle-income families have a better future, higher wages, and more take-home pay and a brighter future. i'm absolutely convinced of that. i'm happy to sit that argue with anybody that would like to do. i have to go to a college this afternoon and make that pitch. the democratic policies are associated with a big heart but they haven't helped. one of the challenges that i had as a candidate is i would talk about growth and gdp and small business without making the connection which i understood and many in my party immediately think of but people at large may not think of which is why i'm interested in small business and business formation and gdp growth and all those things, is because those things if they're working properly create more jobs when there's competition for more employees wages go up

and middle-income families and poor families do better. it's the only way i know to help middle-income families have wages rise. they don't have a real income increase unless there are more jobs and real competition bidding up the real price of labor, and so that is something i didn't communicate well enough and we have to do particularly with the minority community, our policies are designed to give your kids better education, to get families out of poverty, to create more jobs so there's better wages and conditions for people who are working, that's why we believe in what we believe. i think we can do that. i think we can get minority populations to support our party, i didn't do