right now is a much more sophisticated conservative legal movement nominating area myers illustrates that. it used to be that the technology and the internet explains this but there is a big factor but basically we know what we are doing is not something the conservatives will accept any more. >> i would say very briefly a world where john roberts is a very different from where we are today. . .

and it is the most pro-abortion decision. and it is a similar mood that is so wrong decided. but it is an effort by donald trump to draw a different line from what he was trying to draw up. >> but you think it would be the lowercase not the new work case where. >> but i think touching on of political reality so i do is think abortion is a hot-button issue through discourse and that has nothing to do with the constitution. >> yesterday's t6 gave a

speech at the federalist society that he thought to be agenda setting for what supreme court should be looking at in the interest of the court dominated by the justices might want to address. but he seems to think that first amendment values are under attack. . .

which is to say after a second trump nomination might take a different view of things. >> well yes i might well. i think we are seeing faultlines that he perceived. i think these are some issues that are very divisive and the more conservatives you have on the court the more likely to get a consensus contrary to the

courthouse. >> even before the last 10 months, the first amendment was very entrenched in and not obvious flashpoint for the roberts court. we have seen a number of cases where the court was not fighting for it and was invested in integrating the first amendment against legislation like the animal cruelty laws in the stephen's case come the continuing effort by congress to get legislatures to legislate around child pornography so if the question is speech it's not obvious to me that more nominees of the ilk of trump or samuel alito will move the needle that radically but the other side is religion. i think that is where there is a real potential ground shift in a court where john roberts is the center seat and where i think the missouri case of the

courthouse this term is a very small and modest flashpoint compared to the tension between the -- so i think that could be a very big sensitive topic in the coming years. >> we will turn to your questions in just a second. let me ask one more follow-up question along those lines. so we talked about the eight-member court in the number of times it was deadlocked and not a particularly large number but they did issue some quite muddled decisions and one of them -- well even by their standards and i'm thinking in particular of the case sometimes called the rules court case where there was a clash between the regulations under the affordable care act guaranteeing free gift coverage to women and religiously-based groups objecting to that on religious grounds and the court said why don't you guys go and figure that out?

it struck the lack of family court mediator might do in an established democracy. what becomes of those kinds of clashes even this year and next year? >> well in terms of the obamacare regulations i would hope that those controversies or crew quickly mooted. it's hard to see it in any other way but i would think that in relatively quick order the new administration would eliminate the requirement of listing the source of the conflict. >> and i'm going to be fascinated have the trump administration handles the aca. i don't think it will be as easy as candidate trump but it would be and i think even if they find a way around the dispute over the exception for religious non-profits there will be other litigation.

i don't think the supreme court is in the last of the aca. >> agreed. this has been a lively discussion, very easy to moderate. but we'd love to get some questions from all of you. here comes the microphone back there. >> i'd like to hear your opinion on several retired supreme court justices that are out there and confirmed. would the president have the chance to actively take the bench again and but that require the senate to take any action just to hear your thoughts on that. >> we have i guess three justices now who have hired, i forget now the specific, they are still kind of senior status. they are still able to say this lower court judges justice

o'connor and justice souter. no they cannot be redesignated as supreme court justices. they resign the office and that office is filled so you'd have to go through the whole process again. >> at the risk of being -- for a moment i do think congress could by statute provide that in the event of a lack of a full bench a retired sort of statutorily retired supreme court justice by designation to provide which is how number of supreme court's filled open seats either with retired or lower court judges. i don't think they would have to be reconfirmed from the post of retired justice. congress would have to authorize them to do it. >> do you think congress could

do that with respect to already retired justices or would that change be effective only with respect to those appointed to the office of justice later on? >> imagine the constitutional argument and that constitutional arguments differing in those two cases. my own personal view is that would be within congress's power to still provide it but i think we agree that this is a holy academic question. it is true that among the many reforms that have been discussed in the supreme court having nothing to do with politics at the moment one of the objectives has been four cases that actually been in recusal providing mechanism for someone to provide a vote. i think that's a conversation worth having although not right now because of the political impossibility. >> you would want to do it behind the veil of ignorance or something because all three of the potential, all three of the

retirees are moderate to left. i've also heard supreme court justices say in private at the same the constitution there shall be one supreme court in this sounds like it would be different iterations of the supreme court. >> maybe. it's the same debate about whether the urt could be allowed to -- the court actually ask for one justice. when we have emergency applications for so-called data docket so the common view was not open and shut on this question but i think there's more room than we might think in a different world in a different time. >> other questions? yes, please. >> hi. this has been beyond fascinating and stimulating.

it seems to me that the lobby is the same concerns we have with the deadlock and who has the power with judicial nominations for the circuit court and the justice court. do you think a beer for presidency or a fourth-year would have no justices have all confirmed? >> of course in. that could happen and that hasn't happened but there has been a slowdown in the last year of the president's term and thus they indicated earlier only with real consensus picks or surrenders getting confirmed especially after some point in the late spring or early summer. >> i'd do think it's an election-year mentality and is not limited to judicial

nominations. the exact argument that majority leader for connell would not consider passing a use of force authorization for isis even though there's obviously a rich debate on that question. and you know this separation of powers worries about a world in which ordinary -- are suspended by default because in an election year opposed to the amuf case it was not. there's a larger conversation that hopefully we will keep having about why the eighth year but two two-term president should be any different and not just judicial nominations and i worry when congress passes last legislation and does less work in the eighth year for presidency might feel duty bound to exercise their powers without congress and to thereby actually

arrogate power that might be in health and long-term. >> if we could have a president in his or her eighth year of office hasn't lost the senate and the house it would be easier. >> yes or no. i don't think this is the last time we'll have a president in his fourth or eighth year that has a congress in the way that the political process has worked historically. presidents lose even midterms. does that mean that president should have a year and a half to govern and the rest are just hope for the best? i'm a little more naïvely optimistic. >> might not the constitutional structures suggest the political branches can be held politically accountable by the voters who at least in theory might have been unhappy about the senate republican strategy? i would love to hear your views but it doesn't seem to me the republicans paid a political price for what at the outs he dashed outside seemed seen by

bold and controversial strategy. >> i can speak from experience that i have with acquaintances who voted for donald trump so we because of the supreme court and had that not been opened to them they may not have voted or voted for somebody else. >> a permanent benefit. >> indeed but that's inevitable. i think that's natural and this is why mitch mcconnell is disconnected by conservatives for holding his ground and again i just want try come if we try to take the long view which is something we become allergic to doing this down the long view is less disposed towards obstructionism at in a policy insofar as. >> is seems that the selection has dispelled any fear of obstruction going forward so maybe it's good.

>> if chuck schumer does come out and say i'm going going to did not give consent for every single thing that happens in the senate and why my going to do it? not because i've concerned about policies but because it's fair play. >> while you criticize that? >> there are sorts of political constraints on how senators acting youth seem to be operating in this realm of logic divorce from political reality. it's a good thing the framers understood that of course there will be political pressures on senators and representatives and they are shaped by it. senator schumer is not going to do that or he will pay the price for a pithy decided you want to take that gamble bunnies ready to face the voters. i've made clear from the beginning that is perfectly fine for folks to offer criticisms and whether or not i agree with them of what republicans did on

the garland's nomination. i have spent a lot of time criticizing law professors and others who claim that there is some sort of constitutional duty on the part of the senate. folks making the argument that i don't think they can -- given their past record on things actually believe and does not pass the laugh test project never criticize anyone for making political arguments against the republican point. that's exactly what we have ought to be debating in the political realm. what is the responsible course of conduct and what isn't? you indicated earlier that you thought if i heard you correctly the democrats would have been rewarded if they had taken the same course of conduct and of course i think democrats would have been forced to take the same course that but they might

well a bin punished for doing so. what we have in this election is opportunity for the people to speak their voices and i think that's a good thing. >> other questions? right here. >> hi. in the event of two trump nominees on the court if he could talk a little bit more, those of you about this hypothetical paradigm shift in regards to administrative law and sort of put them that are the corollary i'm envisioning may be a scenario where president trump wants to push through certain initiatives on immigration policy that congress isn't supportive of and how this hypothetical court will respond to certain executive orders involving that type of an issue? >> look i agree with what steve

had to say earlier about possible changes over the longer term in administrative law. i think it's very difficult to discern with respect to any of the candidates on the list and where they will be on these complicated administrative law issues. i do have every hope and i think every confidence that none of these folks would change their views to accommodate a particular president's views on a particular issue. if anything chief justice roberts has been critical of the courts more deferential administrative law questions. there is a tension between president trump who wants to wield his executive power and a court that is nervous about -- i think it would be a very easy consensus with the democrat

appointed on the court to use constraints by been certified to reign in perceived access by president trump and that's one area where we could see it ideologic way. >> i want to go back to the separation of powers for a minute. you said he would not be bothered if the senate extended the blockade passed in 2019. do you believe the senate theoretically doesn't have to act on any nominee ever and if so how does that not conflict with article iii that there shall be a supreme court? >> that's an interesting question. i don't think you would present a constitutional crisis over an extended period of time.

does the president have any obligation to nominate a supreme court justice, let me affect question. the clause says the president shall nominate with the advisor consent of the senate shall appoint a whole range of officers. for some reason that for show is imposing an application to nominate folks for all these vacancies. that's a kasem president obama has been grossly in violation of the constitutional duty by failing to -- it's far more plausible as one scholar argues to understand the show clause from setting up out government operates in the first place and explained who shall nominate? the president, not the senate. look, if president washington had never nominated anyone to the supreme court and the supreme court had never gotten

up and running i think that would the one question that could be very difficult to defend. where we are now i don't think a president would have an altercation to make a nomination. i don't think the senate would have an outfit asian to confirm any particular nominee. the president generally speaking doesn't have an incentive to nominate to fill vacancies so the very fact we have that incentive makes a gratuitous to be obligatory. >> federal law currently provides that for purposes of the supreme court a quorum of justices and it's an interesting question whether in a scenario in which the number of actual justices fell below six.

the justices by themselves believe that was unconstitutional. i will say i think they are question highlights something i was trying to get back at the beginning of session which is i think it is possible that you could have a constitutional prerogative exercised in this case not exercised in a way that actually violates constitutional norms. and the answer at the end of the day is because constitutional violation in someone could walk into the court the answers to constitutional crisis because two institutions try to stick to their perceived understanding of their own power having engaged in digital destruction. that is not a lawsuit but it's a basis for the destruction of the supreme court as a power and we are not there.

>> imagine if a elena kagan was the last just justice they could be confirmed to the supreme court because the politics of congress. >> unfortunately we have these things called elections to make sure that never happens. >> we also had an election in 2012 and 2014 that should have had consequences that apparently didn't matter either. >> my point is i think we are in agreement steve and that at some point under certain hypotheticals one could envision a point where we say yes there's a constitutional crisis in and the court being able to act. it's nonetheless a crisis. again our system of elections conditions senators and presidents not to act in such a

way to provoke back and we are so far from that that i think the hypotheticals should understand where we are. >> i think folks looking for elections last week the victory for mitch mcconnell and where these attacks can be awarded in demographic patterns have changed in a way where one party is going to be assured relative objectivity for some period of time i can see this is a powerful and useful precedent. the bottom line here is that divided government will be paralyzed. >> let me illustrate why i think that's overstated. the argument that senate republicans made is let's have the election come. let's keep this open forever.

c-net let's keep it open until 2018 midterm? >> i think it's highly implausible. one stray comment by one senator. i think you are misstating what they said. if anyone took a position certainly there is no consensus among republican senators and it's hard for me to imagine knowing the politics that anyone would say okay no matter who president-elect hillary nominates to the court we will not have hearings and we will not have up or down votes. even if they say that it's a game of chicken. it's a game of negotiation. this is politics. don't take these statements as though this is something that is iron cast and they are not going to budge from that and not pay a political price. >> other questions? we have a few minutes left. we have answered everything.

>> we are on the precipice of an abyss. >> this is in sight. >> mike stern, thank you for this very interesting discussion. it seems to me that the two of you agree on one thing which is that we have a serious problem with the eroding distinction between law and politics. the only question now i guess is which one of you will give them so we can have that problem? b my question is since i don't think that's going to happen is there any way to solve this problem of reestablishing, which i agree with you is a problem and i might tend to agree with one side more than the other for the cause of it but it seems to me we are probably not going to solve it through one side giving

up so is there another way of addressing it? >> i think the underlying cause of this deep division over the role of the court, i said three weeks ago when i was pessimistic about what would happen in the elections that the only way this impasse gets resolved is for one side to crush the other and i was anticipating that my side would get crushed. the only way this ever gets resolved is when one side crushes the other. if steve wants us to and he should be cheering her liberal justices to retire and be replaced. and we have a majority for decades going forward. >> it is true i spent more times in the 10 day thinking about how the more horrible things are in the next four years the better

the things are going to be that that -- and it does seem very real. i think that they are right, there are two possible ways we resolved the problem. one is that members of congress start acting like institutionally responsible citizens. that's not going to happen. i aspire to that happening. i is fired to world where an old episode the new democrat comes the house and says where are the republicans come any to meet the enemy and they say the republicans are the opposition. those days are gone. i aspire to those days and i wish we could get those days back, that would be nice. failing that the solution is to normalize the court nominations. i have not always been a fan but i've come around in the last year to proposals by folks like professor harrison who basic we has nine justices serving 18

year terms words just understood that every two years the president's going to be able to pursue a nomination which understands the senate confirms at least is is a sufficiently moderate nominee in that situation and therefore there is no gratuity of time on who dies when, and there is a stable process. that won't solve everything because of obstructionism but i think it would be harder to be obstructionist in a situation where there's an understanding as opposed to the fortuitousness it wouldn't be so be so to say it's election year so therefore we are going to stop. i will say i don't know that waiting for all to burn down is the right way to solve the problem. i think we -- it took the supreme court a long time to recover from the damage brought to its by the 1860s.

the next crisis was fdr's court packing plan. i'm not sanguine about his prospects going forward. >> do you think hearing the proposal would require constitutional amendment? >> there's a debate among the crazy liberal law professors is added for for two. i will say i will align myself with the camp that would not require an amendment as long as you keep justices and their carrying out some kind of duty and receiving a salary for the rest of their nationalized. >> it can be applied to justices. >> i'm not sure about that but i will say it's not going to happen ever anyway. the weirdest thing about federal court the weirdest thing about teaching it as many of the most interesting questions never happen. that's a good thing and i think we are heading into a world than

the -- laughing at any in the back. we should be happy with the fact that this never happened and i worry we are owing to be having more of these questions raise that have to be resolved now. >> is your view that crazy liberal law professors are a redundancy? >> there are some crazy conservator one. stu: . i do not include everyone. that is a restrep have -- restrictive, not redundant. i don't see how we ever get to adopting a proposal like the one steve recommends which i think has something to say for it as farsi is farsi and intended consequences of what that would be. >> i'm sorry to say we are at a time. this is the super lively discussion. please thank the panel. congres.

[video clip] >> congressman elect paul mitchell joins us, from michigan's 10th district, a republican sailing in the shoes of congresswoman candice miller. does it give you extra insight into the orientation process? >> i am not sure about that, but they are big shoes to fill. she has been a big leader in

congress. >> what did you do before you came to congress? workforce 35 years in development, helping adults who needed to retrain for jobs. decided ton 2011 and do more to serve. >> how do you feel from going ceo of a company where you get to run things to now being in this legislative body, one of 435. >> a good ceo works with the people around them to develop the best ideas. you can issue orders all you want. you may not get them done. but with everyone committed to one plan, you can move things forward. i think the same approach works for congress. see if we can get a consensus that moves the ball forward. i learned there are few perfect solutions. but no decision is a decision. make a decision. . >> as you go through the orientation process, what sticks

out to you? >> i think listening to the speaker, kevin mccarthy, talking about the responsibility we have. i got a text message from kevin about recognizing that serving in congress is a rare opportunity and a huge opportunity. very few people get to do this. and to root -- and to treat that with respect and honor. >> there is a debate about how long members of congress should stay in d.c. or if they shared get a house in the city. how are you dealing with that? , two children,y still in school. so i will go back and forth. week all be here about a month, so they can get some experience in washington. but my home is in michigan. we have 50 acres of chickens and goats. i cannot just moved to

washington. that is not represent the district well. >> there are long-time members who think washington experience is the way you build contestants -- consensus, get to know fellow representatives. >> i think there can be both. dinners will be with members. it is not as if you neglect those. you just remember homebase is home base. the people who elected me are from michigan. my family will be there. i will be sure not to lose track of that. sometimes it can be overwhelming . >> what committees do you want to work on? >> as you know, that is not a decision you make. i hope to work on transportation and infrastructure. the other is education and workforce. i spent my entire career doing that. that is what i hope to d congre,

thank you very much. >> "washington journal" continues. now isoining us republican congressman tom cole of oklahoma, a member of the appropriations and budget committees, as well as deputy whip.

he is here to talk about the election of donald trump and key issues in the lame-duck session and where the gop stands to expand next congress. thank you for joining us. guest: great to be here. before we get to our discussion and measures and and the budget, some breaking news here. has beenan mike pompeo tapped as cia director. he reportedly accepted that post . as well as senator jeff sessions being chosen at the next attorney general. this being reported by the "washington post." what is your reaction? .uest: excellent i know jeff well. background foric this. i can never quite remember, but he was either number one in is graduating class at west point

and number two at harvard, but it may have been the other way around. he is a successful business person in wichita and sits on the intelligence committee now in the house. i cannot think of anyone with a better background. senator sessions i have known for a lot of years. not as well as mike, because we serving thein -- same body. he was the first senator to endorse president-elect trump. i am sure that was helpful in getting his name to the top. but again, this is a guy with a lifelong career in law enforcement. i have every reason to believe he will do a good job. yesterday, vice president-elect mike pence was meeting with members of congress. what was said during that meeting? guest: it was a wonderful meeting. years in the2

house. i served 10 of those years with him. how upbeat ite was. particularly, a sweet moment for speaker ryan. president-elect pence were very close, personal friends. so we had a very good discussion. not a lot of specifics. but just the nature and wished -- in which the tradition would operate. he introduced key staffers, people we all knew, when he was in the united states congress. we had a round of good meetings. he is a known thing here -- figure. trump is not well known by a lot of members. he had not been active in republican politics before. but mike has. not only is just a member, but he was chair of our conference, the fourth ranking position in our leadership. he was also a very successful

governor in indiana. and interestingly did not endorse mr. cruz but -- did not endorse mr. tromp, but mr. cruz. i like the fact that trump reached for someone who had not been for him in the beginning. but we know that mike knows the hill, knows the players on the hill on both sides. he will probably be a very consequential vice president in terms of the president's domestic policy. host: had he spoke with the president-elect? guest: i have not. no need for him to call me. i like the job i have. [laughter] host: moving on, do you have any concerns about steve bannon? do not know him. i just operate by the assumption any president deserves to pick their own staff. at the end of the day, the tone

of any administration is set by the president. that has been true with every presidency i have seen. i do not worry about it much. it will work out. if this is somebody the president-elect thinks will help him govern subtly -- successfully. during the meeting with mike pence, did he discuss any of his priorities? did you tell them any of your legislative priorities? well, his priorities are whatever the president-elect's priorities are. aggressive 100 and 200 days, which is being put into discussion with the incoming administration. it is easy to see, there is no question there will be major tax legislation. to repeal andfort

replace obama. i expect there will probably be --uccessful effort to list list the sequester on american military. the it is early days. you have to give the legislative leadership and the leadership of the new administration, most of which is still yet to be determined, an opportunity to lay out their plans. we did talk about the lame-duck and what we want to converse there, though. host: -- and what we want to accomplish there, though. host: we are talking with republican congressman tom cole. bernard calling in from north carolina on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. the last eight years -- hello? guest: we lost you there for a second.

caller: yes. glad to get this opportunity to speak to you. my problem the last eight years is we have had, the truck drivers, have not been paid. we have been paid, but even paid now, we are getting the rate from the 1970's. and as far as the cost of kids some of thelege, interest rates now -- they pay a certain amount? and then parents get the bill and have to pay it all. or double and a half. what are the plans for these? wages forterms for truck drivers, i cannot give you

anything specific. i do know there will be an effort across the board to regular industries and make sure we are not making it more difficult for people to be productive. in terms of college, it is a problem. i think you put your finger on something extremely difficult. when you see young people graduating and owing tens of thousands of dollars, you wonder how they will ever get that paid off and be able to move forward with their own lives. part of that is driven -- most stateis driven at the level. colleges and universities are largely financed i state governments. but there is a big federal proponent in we have tried to steadily increase pell grants, scholarships for students under a certain income level. but there is a problem, like we see with medical rates. college tuition has been growing at around twice the rate of

inflation. i suspect you will see efforts to change the pell grant program, make sure the interest rates, down. we used to do a lot of this privately. we could've had a lower interest rate, had we remain that way. we changed it at the beginning of the obama years. again, i think it will get a long, hard look. let's talk about the republican caucus, the freedom caucus and other republican members. in the "new york times," there was a piece that said donald s victory could defend the gop caucus. she writes the daily errors aftermath of donald j. trump's the divide. erased

republicans are now rushing to lists.f their wish and you said "it has been roses and sunshine." [laughter] now reporters like me have written about the divisions between the freedom caucus and speaker rise in -- and speaker ryan paid has i really been erased? guest: maybe not a race but certainly softened. it will be a different world for most members. only about 60 of the 240 republican members of congress have ever served with a republican president and republican senate. it will frankly be easier to unify behind the agenda. these are still independent and principled members, but i think

they will like a lot of what is there, and a lot of frustration in the caucus has been when we get things to the president's desk, like obamacare's the keystone pipeline, they get vetoed. now they will be signed. but we still have to get through the senate, which will be challenging, given the nature and rules of the senate. i think people know a lot rides on president trump being successful. i think there is a strong desire to make sure he is. that does not mean there will not be differences, but for the most part, at least in the opening session of congress, probably the president, like most presidents before him, can rely on unified support from his party. host: we are joined by congressman tom cole. viewers can join the conversation. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. on our independent line now, we have jim from maine. .aller: good morning just one comment. i am glad to see donald trump unorthodoxself and cabinet so far. two things i would like you to comment on. one is donald trump, moving forward with domestic spending, that will be hard for some republicans to get behind, especially talking about a $1 trillion if a structure -- infrastructure plan. back militaryg operations overseas. the other thing is regarding the press, with what was revealed with wikileaks regarding 70

members of the press being an extension of the political campaign, that was scary. these networks became an extension of the clinton campaign. that was alarming. it does not say much to being the free press and being the government watchdog. how can you trust the press nowadays when these people are writing stories slanted towards one particular person? host: let's let the congressman respond. guest: infrastructure, i think you make an important point. we have seen proposals of maybe $1 trillion worth of spending over a decade. there is no question the country could use that kind of investment, but the problem is paying for it. inre is about $2 trillion profits stranded overseas that american companies will not bring back, because they have been taxed over there. and when they come home, they are fully taxed over here.

and we have a tax code that encourages major companies to the united states. that has to change. that is something republicans and democrats have talked about together. you may actually get bipartisanship in that. some of that revenue could be used in a public-private infrastructure bank to finance some of these needs. the question you raised about the press is interesting, but the press is not monolithic. while you may have individual reporters or commentators that have particular points of view, prettyrience is they are skeptical of everybody. certainly of anyone with power. it has served us pretty well. i would feel better if there was more ideological diversity, if you will, in the press. because it is pretty evident that it slants pretty liberal. by a margin of eight to one, according to some surveys, that

journalists favored secretary clinton. 88% of the american people thought the coverage was unfair, unfairly skewed towards her. with thatoters agreed conservative critique. there's always some introspection after these elections. i would hope there is some introspection in the press as well. but at the end of the day, you still have the opportunity to express your own points of view. i do not think we lack in diverse city in commentary. but individual organs probably need to think we never had any in thevailing coverage newspaper or their own network. that is sometimes by design, we have networks that leaned ideologically, but it is always wise to have a dissenting point of view or check or something else.

that is something the press has to puzzle through itself. host: let's talk about the spending bill. a stopgap measure is set to be taken up by congress instead of an omnibus, according to bloomberg. house appropriations committee ambers had fought to complete current year package and preserve the work already done on getting bipartisan agreements for spending preferences. they also argued that leaving funding decisions unresolved would needlessly add to a large 's firstitem for trump 100 days. into next yearay will reignite be battle in congress over whether or not to cut congressional areas spending -- congressional spending by $30

billion. are you concerned about potential problems with putting off the discussion of an omnibus? guest: i am very concerned. this is one where i was on the losing side of the debate, to be honest. we could and should finish up all of our work and provide stability for the incoming administration to write the budget for the following year, which it is required to do by the middle of february. now, it will be impossible. it should focus on getting its people in place, then have a supreme court fight, a debt ceiling issue pop up in march. and getting spending done. --would have been a good day good thing. i disagree with the decision, but i except that it was made. because i think this was preeminently the call of whoever be.president-elect would if secretary clinton did not want to finish up things and tod her party, "i want you

stall it," it would have been. that would have been her right. i would have argued for either her or mr. trump -- you have plenty on your plate, and i promise you this will be more difficult than you think. we were pretty close. it was actually much easier to pass an omnibus this year. a lot of these policy riders you referred to really had to do with efforts to block executive order's or rules by the current administration. now.is all moved -- moot so you really just have spending decisions to make. providing the government with certainty is important. people in these specific agencies need to know what their budget is. there are some things you cannot do when you are operating on a continuing resolution as opposed -- and a budget that has been enacted in the past.

we will put together -- and that process is already underway -- a bill that would take us through march 31. it will have an always -- anomalies, where you make adjustments to try to not adversely impact the military, to make sure agencies can make timely and responsible decisions. but again, that is a decision the incoming administration made. they deserve a chance to try to get it done their way. they will be complex and make things more difficult. host: we are joined by republican conga been tom cole from oklahoma. discussing the budget process and the incoming white house administration. catherine is calling in from taxes on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i have three things and it quick question to say. first, i did not vote for obama, i votedhe was black,

for him because he would make changes in the immigration law. that was never addressed. he dropped the ball on so many things. it was ridiculous. i get a lot of flak, because i am a black woman in america. and i see that people reject trump because he does not pay taxes, he has raked the country, but i think the illegal immigrants have rate the country. aid.take all of our social and when they get their money, they send it back to mexico. so they have raped his country more than donald trump pay what he is doing is he has to start somewhere. he will not be a perfect president, just as obama will not. and i catch a lot of flak opposing a lot of things that obama supporter. so in your opinion, do you back trump the way some of the black

americans here do on illegal immigration issues? guest: i embrace more border security. that is one of the top agenda items, probably. i think that is something democrats and republicans can agree on. usually, the more difficult part comes on what to do with people already in the country. everyone wants secure borders. in democratic position general is we need one comprehensive bill that addresses everything. i do not think that was ever possible. so you take the areas in which you agree and make progress. we agree on border security, so that ought to happen and ought to happen quickly. i think once the american people think they are american -- they are american borders are secure and they have a say in who comes in and for how long, they are usually pretty generous.

we take more legal immigrants than almost every country in the world combined. it is not as if we are not willing to have people who want to come and work hard and be part of our system, but you cannot have everyone come will y-nilly with no security check and no thought about what does this do to our own citizens in disruptions this will do to our business. but we are securing the border. the countrything has not done. in my view, democrats have not worried about solving this too much because it is to their advantage to ignore this. president bush and president obama would have signed anything a democratic congress would have passed. the last two years of president bush's demonstration and the

opening two years of president obama's administration. yet none of it was passed. none of it was brought to the floor. and the administration, which promised when google was running in 2008, that he will have an immigration bill on the floor in 100 days. we are still -- we are now in the eighth year of his presidency, and that will never showed up. floor,t obamacare on the the stimulus on the floor, dodd-frank -- a lot things they wanted to pass. but i question how sincere or intense the desire was to actually deal with administration in this administration. trump has said he will and he better. he made that a hallmark. i think you will certainly see border security as an early initiative of president-elect trump. host: do you think he will be able to work bipartisanly? guest: i think you campaigned i do think -- i do not think my

friends one open security. to they are on the hook legalize everyone here. is pretty tempered. he talked about security. talked about something all americans agreed on. if you are a criminal in the country, got a record, we do not want you to stay. doing this you morning? guest: doing great. -- you ain't ent

going to be too happy with me. i want to ask you about you want away with obamacare. ill you please tell the american people hr knows that to replace g obamacare with. on't give the rhetoric and let the moderator pull it up and let read it.can people guest: i would go to better way dot com. and replacement would look like. the highlights. element couple necessary obamacare that ought to be capped. 80 of peep toll keep their children on their own years of age.l 26 the other is frankly in the obamacare, writing another bill on native american healthcare, indian healthcare improvement act. it had nothing to do with obamacare. it was placed in obamacare by

to vote for the bill. that in itself ought to be it's a d and protected, good piece of legislation. so there are several things we kept. excuse me, it would be added, would be things like healthcare plans, that let's small businesses combine and frankly then buy kind of price advantage large companies have. insurance o sell across state borders, right now ou're limited in every state and we don't have a free national market. would argue medical liability reform tis one of the big cost drivers in healthcare ought to component of this. i would like to see more in the plans. healthcare savings the idea, have more choices, ore competition and let individuals actually have a igger role in dictating what their healthcare plan would be.

finally, i would say, pre-existing conditions is big issue here. and one of the republican proposals has been to create are called high-risk pools, funded largely by the overnment, so insurance companies can be compensated in these cases, but the individual at a reasonable rate. i don't pretend to be an expert the althcare, i'm on appropriations committee, not ways and means or energy and congress wrshgs this will be written. think it again, has been a key republican promise, republicans said frankly none of them so voted for obamacare, repealing it is not a big surprise, but the replacement ees will take a while to put together. basic principles of it are out to he internet, pretty easy find. host: let's talk about resident-elect trump's other plans and how they -- what they will cost. it oday's "u.s.a. today," says federal reserve chair,

janet yellin warned congress on big government spending similar to president-elect donald trump's proposals would fuel inflation and swell the national debt, trump's victory has not altered the fed's plan to raise interest rates next month. policies could force the central bank to reassess its outlook. yellen says the massive government outlays would drive inflation as employers bid up wages to attract limited pool of workers. yellen says the long-run deficit mind, the e kept in national debt, she noted, is 77% product , domestic adding "there is not a lot of fiscal space should a shock to occur," are you concerned about the price tag and what that might mean? concerned. it would be nicer if we heard yellen when president

bama drove the deficit to $1.4 trillion. we cut it roughly in half the last five years with the republican congress. and i think the basic point is rue, we are live nothing low inflationary era and frankly president obama had the benefit compliant fed and keeping interest rates very low, masked the ly seriously of the deficit he was running up, he was able to do it with cheap money. that will probably not be true for the next president, i do rate we will have a increase in december, increasing the deficit because cost of willwing money goes up, it roughly double by moving it up a percent. but, you know, i think the bigger issue and frankly i would of both the clinton campaign and the trump campaign this and frankly very critical of current administration. deficit is ing the

spending on entitlements. medicare, medicaid, social constitute ether roughly well over 60% of all federal spending. you throw in interest on the debt and food stamps, you're about 70%. you don't have plans to reform in those areas, then any ly you don't have serious deficit reduction plan. with ally have a bill democrat john delaney, from maryland, excellent member of would on social reagany, do what ronald did with o'neil, set up a would be 7-6. obviously that would be republicans. have to have nine votes to report out reform plan. pretty good r reform plans out there developed, but congress never them f.nerve to vote on we pass this legislation, the commission would produce a plan, bitart san within a year and

congress would have to vote up amendment within 60 days. i think the next president will save nique opportunity to social security, that is not a bad thing, it's a popular and very successful program. needs adjustments simply because the baby boomers are longer thand living any previous generation. now that i'm 67, i think that is thing, it does mean you have to change the funding mechanism for these otherwise, that is what is bankrupting the government and people want to focus on and i agree that there certainly ways to and but the big thing is the big thing and the big things are entitlement programs this administration refuse to address them, frankly the to one is going to have address them or you're going to be trying to run fere-election now with rising deficit. host: another point about the

deficit, mcginnis, who has been guest on this show and broke own both secretary clinton's and now president-elect donald trump's plan and said mr. trump's would have bigger impact on the deficit in poelitico she there is risk we will see on-slot of deficit finance cuts, s, tax infrastructure spending, more on stimulus, the name of in reality balloan the debt. -- here a concern that guest: certainly is on my part. maya very well and has educating bution to the american public about this threat tochlt be fair this, is donald trump's fault, he hadn't been in office, it was president obama that doubled the in eight years from 10 to 20 trillion dollars and it a republican congress that

on ed putting the breakos that. the deficit between 5 and 600 dollars was 1.4 trillion and the deficit went up every had a at the president democratic congress, didn't begin to come down until he got really had cans who backbone. maya's point is a good one, so yours, you can't, now that you got a republican, say happy again.e here unless we move ahead and address entitlement spending then i some of these things, which i agree with, i agree with infrastructure, we have cut back dangerously on defense in a very uncertain world, but you pay for them. to me, the best way to do that is through quicker economic hope you'll be able to stimulate, we're not growing very fast. deal , you will have to with entitlements. if a republican congress fails criticisms these

will be fair and probably come through. host: okay. john is calling from big ohio, on the republican line. john, you are on with tom cole.n caller: thank you for your time today, folks, i've got two sir.tions, i'll go off sxheer let you answer them. is on the protection act that was introduced into congress not too long ago, i wonder if you were familiar with knew if it would be brought up now that we have a republican president? and two, you talked a lot about obamacare. understand that you a tponed the cadillac tax, separately, but hurting eally what is premiums and our

ability to for the state of ohio to -- be quiet -- it hurts our ability to get insurance to the state of ohio because it was the state of ohio taxes s of dollars in that were going to be added to the budget, their budget. host: okay. caller: i'll get off here, thank you. guest: i'm not familiar with the and protection act. i'm sure, like a lot, honestly won't get dealt with between now end of the year because there are only two legislative eeks left after thanksgiving, assuming congress stays on schedule. so there will be important happens, the continuing resolution itself, is an es act, which effort to streamline regulation research and new drugs coming on, inject intoing things

ke cure for cancer and andalzheimer's, other pieces of legislation, as well. something called water resources act.opment very bipartisan and popular. think those are things most likely to get done in the shortrun n. terms of the tax, i think that probably will there will be an rid of it, t certainly to postpone it again. this is something republicans feel strongly about. something a lot of democrats oppose, as well, this as really pretty bipartisan when it was done. nobody likes taxing healthcare labor ce and a lot of unions and republican employee negotiated reasonably good healthcare plans that would be "taxed" under they are ax fist excessive. some way s been

employers and states have chosen to compensate employees, give not good insurance, that is a taxable benefit in the federal code. buck t more bang for the by doing that. there is a lot of interesting conomic debate about whether that is right or wrong. i think probably mostly academic. you're not going to get republican congress raising taxes on people's healthcare i don't think the democrats are either. work through repealing obamacare. you repeal it, need for additional revenue is not there. earlier, we a point are running deficit, so you have to replace theay money built in we expect by lowering cost on the government, so it didn't need additional revenue or by making the economy grow faster. everybody wants to grow faster, generates a lot more in the way of revenue, not to mention job opportunity for peep will. kenneth from arkansas on

the democratic line. you are on with congressman tom cole. yes, sir, i have a question i want to ask you and i have a statement i want to put with this. want to know if you the democratic coalition with the tuesday morning learning that bannone broke campaign finance laws, i want to state it for you so you understand what i'm talking about. according to the records, 950,000 dollars paid to bannon's the ny over the course of campaign pie pro-trump super pac, make america number one. it is against campaign finance laws for super pacs to the tly correlate with campaign they support. host: all right. respond.t congressman guest: i'm not familiar with it, i never met mr. bannon and this i heard of this particular charge. gain, anybody violating

campaign laws, it does happen from time to time and sometimes inadvertently. we've made the whole process so omplex, honestly, people sometimes get in trouble not meaning to. is avaded, that is wrong. you shouldn't be coordinating, happened, i expect the appropriate action to be made by law enforcement. give people the benefit of a doubt, wait and see happens, but something wrong is done, it ought to be exposed and prosecuted. host: mariah from wisconsin on the republican line. marrie.rning, caller: good morning. adhere to the to hold on legislative no rules the making for administrative agencies until in? next president comes guest: we're going to try. the president and these agencies are within their rights to do

this, it is not a good practice rules and a bunch of leave stink bombs, if you will, for the next administration. i don't think the bush white did that frankly to president obama, i would hope obama white house and administration doesn't do that trump.oming president we passed legislation that would repeal thoseuickly rules and there's also existing allows congress to go back 60 legislative days any regulation that's happened near the end of an administration. incoming sly, the administration has to be willing to sign something, in this case, don't think that is going to be a problem. i think we're in a good position of last-minute regulation and president-elect trump made it clear he will executive orders and rules passed during the obama administration. that is a good thing and

congress is going to be very cooperative in that effort. republican ght, congressman >> washington journal continues. host: joining us this charles chamberlain, executive director of democracy for america. he is here to talk about where the democratic party goes. whether the party needs to adjust its messaging and platform and do a better job of reaching out to voters. thank you so much for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: obama speaking after the election said democrats can take a little bit of time to weep and then they need to regroup and start organizing again. do you agree? guest: absolutely. we are seeing that across the country. lots of people immediately were in shock and very upset. at the same time, what we're seeing is a surge of interesting

, being active in doing what they can to stop the worst of the trump agenda, and continue to move forward on the back of the democratic agenda. host: what is the democratic agenda echo -- democratic agenda? do the democrats need to do the same sort of autopsy that the republicans did? guest: the clinton campaign in the way the democratic establishment put us into a situation where our nominee was one of the least popular candidates that we have ever had for president. that is an important thing for us to be looking at. how did we end up choosing that? i don't think that our message is broken when it comes to the populist message that was led by bernie sanders, elizabeth warren. income inequality, trump would not been in able -- would not of been able to use sex --

sexism, racism. i don't think we need to fix the message that we need to fix the messengers in some cases. host: we are talking with charles campbell and from the moxie for america -- from democracy for america. taking a look at congress for a --ent, democratic leaders leader nancy pelosi is facing a challenge from tim ryan. d support him? -- do you support him? guest: i support the concept for us to be looking at what our options are, how to change things. i am to that's i'm excited about the dnc chair race.

helping to figure out who is going to lead the party. i like the fact there is discussion going on. -- tim ryan, i am not sure he is the right person to replace nancy pelosi. if it is between him and nancy, i would support nancy. someone from the progressive wing, someone more reflective of the democratic this constituency across america, then i could see support and someone else. host: on the senate side, charles schumer assuming the lead role in that chamber. what do you think of that decision? what are your expectations about his leadership? guest: chuck is a competent leader. as someone -- chuck is a complicated leader. hasweakness is the way he represented wall street and the big donors.

that is not great for the democrats. the washington chosen wall street supporting candidates lost. the people who want our women of color and said like california .nd nevada it is really important as we look to the future to be thinking about we are winning by fighting all three. chuck schumer is not a fantastic choice. what is good about chuck schumer is he is somebody that listens to the people. he is movable. when he is wrong, he listens. on the iran deal, when at first he was against the deal. at the end, he did not organize extensively against it. host: one person that does have a new leadership role is independent senator bernie sanders. a recent candidate for president for the democrat. let's take a look at what he said thursday at a christian

science monitor breakfast here in washington when asked about the state of the democratic party. >> i think it is time for soul-searching within the democratic party. the evidence is pretty clear that when you lose the white house in a campaign against a gentleman who i believe will enter the white house as the least popular candidate in the history of this country. when you lose the senate, the house, two thirds of state governments and governors chairs in this country, when you have legislature,es of it is time for the democratic party to reassess what it stands for. day,nk at the end of the the democratic party has got to make a fundamental decision and the ghost back -- it goes back

to it a song of woody guthrie. which side are you on? view, not possible to be a candidate of corporate america, not possible to be a candidate of the insurance companies on wall street, naked -- not take huge amounts from special interests and then say i am going to champion the needs of a declining that class. i'm going to champion the needs of the workplace people. i don't think you can do that. i think you have got to make a decision as to which side you're on. at a time when the middle class is shrinking, we've got 43 million people living in poverty. we've got moms who cannot afford childcare. when you have got millions of people getting ripped off by the pharmaceutical industry. we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health

care to all people is a right. the only major country not to provide paid family and medical leave. when we have more income and wealth inequality than any other major country. it is time for the democratic party to say we are going to stand with the working families. where taking on wall street and insurance companies. host: do you think the democratic party's aggressive enough? guest: i think what bernie sanders just said is 100% correct. we cannot be the party of corporations and other working people at the same time. a big mistake our party made starting during the bill clinton presidency was getting too close to the corporations. we willthe position of just work with the better corporations. we will work with starbucks and google instead of halliburton and lockheed martin. is corporations are necessary in america, but they

do not need parties representing them in congress. real people actually need a party that fights for them. when i was growing up, the democratic party was for poor and working people and the republicans were for the rich and corporations. we need to go back to that. that is when the democratic party was at its best. fighting for people. making so people have wages they can live off of. able to afford medical expenses and rent. be. is the party we used to too often, it does not seem that is the party we are left with. carol fromve massachusetts calling on our democratic line. you are on with charles chamberlain. caller: i wish people would remember that in the 1950's, we were a very prosperous country. there was far less income inequality. a 90% tax bracket.

that meant a small, top amount of what very, very rich people made was taxable at 90%. amount of what they were making was taxed at 75%. and it broke on down. so we have to remember that. i want to point out that elections when deceive and and razzle-dazzle people.

are,ore ignorant voters the more likely they will be to vote for republicans -- host: let's give charles chamberlain a chance to respond. guest: i absolutely agree one of the problems we have in this country is the fact that the middle class and the poor share -- anerwhelming overwhelming burden of taxes. when you have corporations like general election or have super rich people like donald trump not paying any taxes, it is no wonder why we have high deficits. and we wonder why we can fund the programs like rebuilding infrastructure, paying for police and fire. all of these things are at risk when we do not actually have people paying their fair share of taxes. so we need to continue to look at the tax code and make sure that we hold rich people and corporations to the same

standards we hold the middle class and the rest of america, and force them to pay taxes. because that is how it is fair. that is how we make this civilization and this government work for everyone instead of just the top 1%. host: all right, caller from new jersey on our republican line. caller: good morning. i have a few comments. my first is about hillary clinton. her assistant, huma abedin, was a member of muslim brotherhood youth organization. the entire family is a member of muslim brotherhood. and through huma, they would have access to all white house secret documents. that is one point. my other point is if the democratic party once to change

direction, they should change -- to changents direction, they should change their policies -- host: i will let charles chamberlain respond. guest: i am not sure of anything is correct,out huma but the bottom line is america is a big country. he can have a lot of different kinds of people in it that believe different beliefs. is committedt huma to trying to make the world and america a bigger place, -- a better place, which is what clinton was fighting for. when it comes to democrats and the future, we need to look to the people who won. across the board, the democrats that won were the ones that took on wall street, stood up for working-class americans across the country across all genders, religions, ethnicities.

when we fight for actual americans, that is when we win. that is like when we saw kamala harris win in colorado -- in why we saw but it is patrick murphy lose in florida. because they were, basically, wall street shells. the ones that want over the ones willing to fight for working class people against places like wall street. co has a piece called "revenge of the rural voter." it says that the rural voter voted overwhelmingly for donald trump. have democrats lost the ability to match with rural voters? guest: i think the clinton wing of the party had that problem. when the person at the top of the to get has trouble connecting with people in rural communities, we have to look out why was that?

the bottom line is the reason withs we are too in bed corporations. that needs to stop. if we have any chance to win rural voters back, it is because we had to fight for them. host: mark is calling from philadelphia on our democratic line. caller: morning. i want to say one i went to the polls this year, what i noticed one,he lack of millennials, two, african-americans, and three, hispanic americans. and i came out in 2008 2012, there were a lot of them. this time, i could count them on one hand. we democrats lost this election because we were not able to millennials, young african-americans, and young hispanic americans. another thing i could not yet over was the fact that trump got

more hispanic american votes then romney. how do you explain that? tim kaine as vp candidate, maybe we should have had congressman gutierrez from illinois. texas.y clay from maybe these groups i mentioned out, you needome an african-american or hispanic american on the ticket. do democrats need more diversity in their candidates? guest: absolutely. if you look at the wins we had, they came from people of colored across the country, especially women of colored. there will be a fantastic new congressman -- congresswoman from washington. and all of the senate candidates i have been mentioning are women

of colored. we need to look about and these are people more reflective of the country we live in as a whole. and they know they have the life experience, the ability to speak to the needs of people across this country in a way that cannot be done by the same old politics of the typical white guy democrat or republican out there. one of the things -- the caller talked about the fact some people did not show up. for example, bernie sanders' campaign was overwhelmed with millennials. what they were told by the democratic establishment was to sit down and shut up. they were told to fall in line, that they were naive, stupid. without did was at the end of the primary, we were not able to unite them into the party to support our nominee. because they were mistreated consistently throughout the primary. that is probert -- that is part of the problem of what happened.

in the race for the dnc chair, i will ask the candidates what they will do to rebuild the party, clean house, get rid of the people who told them to sit down and shut up, and how to expand the reach of people of caller -- people of color. about the racek for dnc. we have howard dean, founder of democracy for america. also keith. who are you supporting and why? for america, we were founded by howard dean. governor dean was a fantastic chair. he led us to major victories. a huge part of that was building on a 50 state strategy. democrats used to fight everywhere. we believe in that. in fact, we did that campaign. we work with that and are probably the first pac in history to kick our chair out to lead another organization.

we love howard dean. i am sure if he were to get it, he would be fantastic. but we are not taking a position in this race yet. part of a problem in what happened in this primary is people in a back room in washington, d.c. decided who our nominee would reap. they pushed all of the other candidates out and said we just want to have this candidate. that is a problem. our leaders need to be decided by the grassroots. we are waiting to hear from our members. fantastic.on is my understanding is he is running on many other things that howard dean men on before. a 50 state strategy. he is also talking about things like bringing more millennials houselking about cleaning where it is appropriate. and let's be honest -- keith ellison's, more reflective of the democratic constituency and the life experience that comes with that. and i question can someone who

supported hillary clinton, especially aggressively, lead the party forward? i think the fact that keith ellison supported bernie sanders very hard puts them in a special position. our: allen is calling in on independent line. caller: yes. i have a comment on both the democratic and republican party. i have a feeling they put the party above the country and constituents. some of the laws passed has long-range effects. but because of their mistakes or interest in just winning, i think it creates a problem for later on. a good example is a program in california. they stopped it because they say

it is taking jobs away from california and local citizens. farmers,lt, all of the produces rotting in the fields. because of that, the government looked the other way, allowing illegal immigrants to come over to work on the field. before, they applied to come over and work. they had to calm -- go back. we will let you respond to that. guest: we have a problem in american government now, which is way too much of our politics is run by corporations that care more about the bottom line then about the american people. that is what corporations should do.

their whole thing is about making profit. they are not necessarily out there to do good, though some of them are and maybe more should the. the bottom line is -- and maybe more should the -- be. bottom line is they should not run the parties. one of the things we have to party ishe democratic to step away from th corporations. we need to fight for the people. this is part of what made bernie sanders' message so exciting. he understood pharmaceutical company should not decide health care policy. the tobacco industry should not decide what is appropriate for the food and drug administration. climate change should not be run by big oil and those who want to frack. these decisions and the powers and laws we make and the parties that defend them have to be driven by the people. level, argue on some

that is what people thought they were getting when they were supporting donald trump. that was part of that populist rhetoric that caught on, was this leave that somehow you would not be owned. i think that is probably not owned by donald trump. he is a corporate person himself who has not paid taxes in 19 years -- we think, unless we ever see his returns. but that is part of the message that worked. the reason is that americans note -- know corporations have too much power. the democratic party needs to make sure that people can see they are working better for working-class people. grassrootse lack of ofanizing, or sufficient mac grasses organizing -- or insufficient grassroot organization, this piece says

-- have the financial backing of 4 million donors and, incredibly for a presidential campaign, was in the black to the tune of $80 million in the bank. as obama turned this over to the democratic party, no organization had a more sensitive apparatus for listening to, organizing, and developing policies tuned to its base. what is your reaction to that? guest: that is 100% correct. unfortunately, it it is not easy to change from a campaign into an organization. we know that. democracy for america is one of the first organizations that happen that way. we were founded by governor howard dean and sounded out of

his losing campaign for president in 2004. to workd to continue together. we may be incredible change of going from campaign to year-round organization. that is why we are still here and bigger and stronger than we have ever been. but that is hard. it does not surprise me that barack, who went on to go and had to leave the country, had his organization effective. that said, let's not undercut what they were able to do. we passed health care for the first time, health care reforms, in 30 years. while it was certainly an imperfect product, we also covered more than 30 million americans with health care and made it so pre-existing conditions -- and it was portable. there were a number of different things that were a benefit to the system. that would not have passed if we ad not have things like o of

out there. glenn -- gwen is calling from a ground -- akron. i have always been a volunteer. calledhe elections, i our democratic party, asked about the policy -- they gave me a name. i asked if i could have a number appear they said i had to go online. i do not go online. i am a volunteer. i have done it for years. i think will we had was a lot of educated souls who thought they knew everything about how to push the voters. did not vote in 2010. we got gerrymandered. democratic party

stepped in and helped us with something. they did not have a plan yet, so let's wait until a president that is really good, in, and then the republicans run rampant. everywhere you go, there were trump signs. i am very discouraged, but i keep thinking we have to keep this up to you tell me how we will keep it up if we do not allow everyone in the country. guest: i definitely think this election is we had an extremely arrogant democratic party establishment. they thought they knew best and relied on things like tv ads to run their campaign rather than the face-to-face power of people talking to each other and organizing. i think too often, there were places around this country, like your place, where you were not

even able to volunteer. you cannot find the office. you could not go door to door and talk to other democrats and tell them why it was important to vote. or non-democrats, to get them to vote. there was in some places. but it is scary when i hear things like this. that someone from ohio was not able to do it, a place that was clearly a battleground. that is a serious problem and one of the reasons i am looking to who will run the dnc as we move forward. the 50 state strategy of fighting everywhere and standing up for democratic values in every district across this country is critical for us winning in the future. we need to make it so people like you can volunteer when they want to volunteer, offline. host: allen is calling in from washington on our republican line. good morning. it is not the corporations. the problem with the democratic

party and obama is they started backing all of the criminals. matter,ked black lives they let criminals tear up the towns of st. louis and ferguson and baltimore. they love them all of get in. they are all for the illegal immigrants. you cannot have a party that is for the criminals. and you look at who we let loose out of the jails. always worried about how many of them they let out, not worried about the towns they went back to. that is all they cared about. host: let's let charles chamberlain respond. guest: the idea that black lives matter is filled with criminals is a guarantee of the reality is what we are looking at here is a grassroots organization --

organizing of people fighting for what they really believe and need. these are good citizens who believe they are being held down , that we have no police accountability. that if please do something, if they murder a constituent, they always get off. they do not even get tried. we do not even have a fair moment in court to actually see what they did. things are decided internally or behind closed doors. black lives matter has been for ages in what they have -- has in protestings and drawing attention. if it were not for black lives matter, we would not have seen videos that have proven police misconduct across the country. i also want to point out the movement for black lives is also about criminal justice reform. it is about the fact that right now, people go to jail -- you

are liable to go to jail longer if your skin color is different. the classic example -- cocaine is a short sentence, but crack cocaine, you could be sentenced for decades. blacke difference is people or white people or people of color. thes an example of how criminal justice system has held significant portions of our country down. what is fantastic is black lives matter is exposing these issues, showing that we have a country that has a problem with toom much white supremacy, that is built into the structure and fabric of how we hold people accountable, to the way in which we do our policing work. to the way in which we do everything across the board. we need to look deep and hard at ourselves as a country and need to decide are we a country that

is filled with immigrants, not just white people. americans, muslim americans, latinos across this country, and they are every bit a part of the fabric of our country, and they have to be included and not held back. so i am thankful for black lives matter. they are not supporting criminals, they are supporting america. host: eugene robertson and "the washington post" has a piece fromdemocrats have learned the gop. he made several points, including one of which says a democratic rebound has to begin with the basics. getting people who agree with you to vote. less than 60% of those eligible to cast ballots bother to do so. conservatives who say this is "a center-right nation" may be right in terms of who votes, but

they are wrong in terms of who could vote. polls show the country favors democrat over republican positions on most issues. ?hat kept people from guest: votingguest: he is 100% right. when you look at polling, the things democrats fight for, it does not matter whether you are a democrat, independent, or republican. the vast majority of all three support expanding social security. they are not interested in destroying or cutting it. paul ryan is talking about potentially destroying medicare. the real it he is democrats, republicans, and independents all fundamentally agree that medicare should be improved and not destroyed. across the board, americans agree with democrat. the problem is we have a turnout problem. i think it is because we have a lack