342,000 cases of domestic violence in this country every year? and i asked him recast him to ensure that he reexamines the effectiveness of policies in this area because of the cost of human misery on the victim's? >> he will be pair acknowledging that the home secretary has led the way, and this government led by the leader of the house has a record in taking on domestic violence by funding centers for women throughout the rest of the country. that is of vital public expenditure, but we believe it is important for the health of this country and we will and -- continue to support that measure to help women in our country. the prime minister talked about policies going into the european elections tomorrow. can he confirm that the labour

government, 700,000 companies, work with the european union, that 3 million jobs relate to the european union, and that 60% of our trade is with the european union? which party goes to the elections tomorrow with the better record? >> the manufacturers' a suspicion has said that they about to reduce our interest in europe. they cannot talk to the german chancellor or the french president or people in spain or portugal -- it is only -- she said she would not offer the hand of friendship to those opposed to the lisbon tree -- treaty. only the check form supports it. more from the british house of commons can be seen on c- span2, and each sunday night at 9:00 p.m

>> coming up next, a couple of forums on the future of conservative politics. then from minnesota, oral argument on the election recount the queen nor coleman and al franken. after that, a debate between candidates for president in iran. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," michael crittenden discusses the obama administration's approach to executive pay. the president and ceo of the alliance of automobile manufacturers talks about federal assistance to the auto industry and the government's 60% stake in general motors. stephen aftergood looks at the possibility of a center to speed

up the classification of government documents. >> with a federally men -- with the federally mandated transition to digital television, we will get a look at how viewers have been prepared for that change. monday night at 8:00 eastern, "the communicators," on c-span2. a discussion on how to build on the progressive movement during the obama administration. now, a portion of the discussion. this is 45 minutes. >> at the same time, we see moments where the nomination of sonia sotomayor, the failure of the ability to close guantanamo, there is a far right-wing voice

that is loud and effective, despite the fact that ostensibly they are out of power. thinking about this panel, and thinking about where will future attacks come from, what will we see from the right and how we fight it, i am not sure we know exactly. the story about obama's responsibility for all these financial failings is a little scary. what is also clear is that the right right now has very little in the way of real solutions to everyday people problems that they can attach to their brand that they can't sell. in the absence of that, what they sell very well, things that speak to people on a certain level. if they are not prepared themselves, they can get swept up in that and it can be

effective. i think several things contribute to those ideas moving people in a way that they shouldn't. first is that i think so many people, especially who are not on the right, who are not a part of church communities are not involved in ongoing, trusted conversations where they can react naturally in a positive way. when you don't have that, a lot of the things that come to the right makes sense. an argument you can buy and have little else to put up against it. second, we have a mainstream media, its attempt to be going out of its way, is willing to take anything the right gives them. it suddenly becomes reasonable enough to repeat.

that is another problem. third, we have legislatures who i think, many of them have a hard time, even when the facts are on their side to have the gumption to stand up and say here we are, here is what is true. this is a sizable landscape. the one i have worked on is creating these communities of interest where people are pulled into an ongoing conversation. we saw with the obama campaign, we saw it with others who were doing massive organizing during that campaign. you had people moving in a direction, in conversation together.

when things came out of right field, there were in fact days when they were negative, there was the ability to counter them. that -- we are in a different place now. it wasn't just york white progressives, a member of move on, it was people of every color, age, a diversity. there is a reality to folks going back to their everyday lives. one can only sustain that kind of energy so long. and i think we really do lack the kind of sustained basis for people to engage with each a, to be in conversations about political speak that is truly relevant. part of the challenge is in

doing that. you saw during the campaign, positive messaging, specific steps people can make to make a difference. we were able to neutralize attacks from the right. what i am really interested in, and part of what excites me about doing the work i am doing is we have black folks, brown folks, mothers, people who find themselves involved in particular issues. these are folks who can mobilize the presidential campaign. for folks to recognize, realize legislative change, real change, it will require a lot of folks being in ongoing conversations.

that is part of why this organizing work that goes beyond what will do is important. another effect aside from being a force that can lobby, together, if you have all these folks mobilize, it becomes an antidote to the craziness that will come out of left field. the judge sotomayor nomination comes up again. she is latina, she is puerto rican. shia acknowledges that. she is a sheep. -- she is a she. there has not been an anticipated response that says okay, we have white men who have

a certain experience, if you look at what previous justices have said, they acknowledge their thinking on some level. we get hit from the right, the some of the folks that could be the most vocal are simply not at the table. a big part of countering the right, when they come with this far-reaching, non fact race rhetoric is having folks mobilize or already in conversation when they can understand it and respond to it. even more interesting is, it is one thing to hear the media come get a message come and be prepared to say i know what that is. it is another to be a part of a network of people, on-line

networks and offline networks. people have conversations with others to trust them. the ability to diffuse a message from the right, i can send e- mail to others. there are others who may disagree with me. i still have the opportunity to be engaged. in part, i think it is about people being organized and in certain conversations to diffuse what comes from the right. i also think, the progress of blog is fair has done a good thing. to point out that by hearing this main message, you are doing a public this service. that has happened to some degree. finally i think, at the end of

the day we can help boasted -- bolster our elected officials. i think of the landscape is pretty big. i think the threats are very real. at the end of the day, if you believe, as i believe that with the far right has going for it is not of substance. it is about taking folks who are on some level, vulnerable when it comes to understanding what is possible and what is not possible. understand what a real threat

looks like. if we give people a way to be in continuous conversation, we can help safeguard against that. [applause] >> i am rick perlstein. the last time i was at this conference, it was called take back america. this time it is called this -- america's future now. the reason is because we took back america. would you please give yourself a proverbial hand?

i study the right for a living. i am riding a three-volume trilogy, the rise of the right. what i am writing about is the evolution and the construction of threat really seem to be by the 1990's and after 9/11, a smoothly functioning, coordinated, a conservative republican, machine. it has given me a certain perspective to understanding am looking and how that machine suddenly it does not seem so smoothly functioning anymore. writing about the campaigns for america's future, i remember three particular movements in which i saw things happening on the right, and ways that i had never quite seen before once the conservative movement came to maturity. maturity. the first one

one of the speakers -- i went to the convention in 2004 at madison square garden. it was an amazing show. it almost made you want to vote for george bush. i saw the 2000 and on tv. it almost made me want to vote for george bush. i wanted a beautiful, free, multi-cultural country as well. it looked like it was produced on the fly by a different group of people. i remember one of the speakers talking about trial lawyers. suddenly he had to stop because he got a standing ovation. i note trial lawyers are supposed to be evil monsters who take money out of hard working people's pockets. in america know why these people are giving

trial lawyers standing ovations. if they know anything at all about trial lawyers, they know these are the people who protect us from corporate malfeasance. these guys really don't know how to speak american any more. they are losing their touch. another movement and the command convention, sarah palin speech, we were going to solve all our energy problems by drilling on the continental shelf. one of the speakers mentioned that and suddenly, the entire audience in the convention hall breaks into a chance, drill, baby drill. i know americans had no idea what that was about. it is only because i was born in 1969 -- i know that supposedly or if it did happen, when

writers rioted. they yelled burn, burn -- baby burn. a symbol of insurgency out of control. they were claiming this kind of insurgency for themselves in the form of calling for more offshore drilling for mobil and exxon. it speaks to one of the themes in my book, that the conservatives have enormous capital from the social struggles of the '60s. americans have reasonable doubts about what those struggles meant. that might have made sense in 1970. these gestures all have a half life. every year, half of their efficacy passes away. they are not speaking american. once the nomination happen, and

john mccain got it, republicans like to say the only win elections by being conservative. they always win presidential elections by appearing to be magnanimous, a kinder gentler america, to thousand points of light. it is never, i will shrink government and stopped work. -- stop war. it is a different part of the republican machine. it is what they say to each other. i talk radio hosts in cincinnati warm up the crowd at a john mccain event. he spoke the dreaded name barack hussain obama. that particular week in the

campaign, the pundits had decided this was beyond the pale. calling him by his middle name was not correct. they took john mccain to task. john mccain said, i don't know this guy. he is just some guy from cincinnati. the next morning, this talk show host bill cunningham was on the today show saying what does he mean he has never met me? i met him three or four times. they told me to warm up the crowd. i knew it. i knew that the machine had developed some serious operating efficiencies. the conservative movement works in a very integrated way. people knew what was being set off stage. suddenly, you have to talk about trust.

the power of people testing each other, and being able to struggle and sacrifice together, and maybe even be willing to step aside cannot put aside one's ego for the sake of a greater cause. conservatives don't have that anymore. this guy, bill cunningham, was no longer willing to fall on his sword and take a bullet on behalf of the cause that he believes to be greater than himself. we see the machine that has ground down in a way that is quite extraordinary. let me conclude with something i find amazing. grover norquist, we all know is the conservative movement's old dog, one of the organizers, one of the guys who through the red

meat. my goal is to make government so small that we can drown in a bathtub. that is a very famous ". as we convene here today in california, in sacramento, arnold schwarzenegger is getting ready to pass a budget that will cut its essential government services in a way an american state hasn't seen in this century. cutting health, people will see what is life for the great progressive welfare state was light. he is literally fulfilling grover norquist ambition. what do the conservatives think about this? arnold schwarzenegger has the wrong ideas about what parts of our bodies are supposed to rub up against each other. he has the wrong ideas about what you are supposed to say

about global warming. he doesn't follow the ritual of rush limbaugh. he is concerned -- considered a traitor to the conservative movement. it used to be that these people could meshed together. they used to be able to read this intricate tapestry and make it seem seamless and whole. now, the holes are out -- abound. what do they have to do? one of the things i have learned in the past year from watching barack obama is the importance of leadership. i don't think i really understood this. the republican party will not trust one to the other, until there is a leader who could bring these people together. i don't think they are in a position to do this.

people succeeded so well building that machine. they paid lots of money and got lots of attention. all the people who are running the party will keep on doing what they are doing. they don't have any incentive to change rush limbaugh does not have any incentive to change. he has a 50 million cut -- $50 million contract. one of the things we now from our sessions with our therapist, is that strategy's we used to make sense of our lives when we are children in one environment doesn't always work in another environment. that is just a natural fact of life. conditions change. the world has changed. the republican party has to change with it.

there will be a period of infighting until they can mend the machine and pull together a functioning, coherent machine again. [applause] we set the tables on what i hope we will have an exciting conversation. speakers and questioners, please set up. >> i wanted to ask a question or pose a situation that i think we are in that connects some of what mr. frank was sane -- saying. the current economic crisis should be the opportunity to rein in the power that finance

capital has over our government. as you were saying, the personnel in the administration seems to indicate that will not happen. you were saying that one of your big three was campaign finance reform as a way of breaking that. my question is, is there really no opportunity in your mind to shrink the size of the financial sector, and introduce stronger forms of regulation to curb their forms of power now? if you have any comments in lacking in that greater opportunity, is there a path for getting campaign finance reform on the agenda? >> i think things will have to

break a lot more than they are broken now, before people are ready to make that change. you don't get that kind of change until people are pushed to it. >> you should all read the wall street journal, every wednesday i comment on this subject of the role of wall street and the american economy, how these people have been the vanguard of the economy for decades, not forever, but for a long time. they basically ran it off a cliff. what they want now is just to go back to the status quo. put all the pieces back together again, i don't want people to

think that i am too pessimistic about obama. president obama said in in an interview with the new york times, obama basically said that we cannot continue down the path that we have been going. wall street cannot be the people running the entire economy. we can never go back to that situation. he singled out in particular the financial industry's compensation practices. when i went to college in the 1980's, i guess i was kind of stupid. i went on to study history. i got a ph.d. in history. all of the other kids that i knew went on to go work for wall street. that was so obviously what the writing on the wall was telling you. this was the future. these guys were pulling down fantastic sums until about eight

months ago. i agree with the president that we cannot go back to that. these people can't just be taking the loot of the world and making the decisions for the economy, because they make idiotic decisions. i want to refer you to paul krugman. the line that he repeats, we have to make things boring again. that is right. >> that will not happen until we get campaign finance reform. that is probably every -- prerequisite. >> i think there has to be other routes, because this is a comparative thing. one of the things that fascinates me about the whole financial services boom is the sociology of it.

why is it that people around obama see these individual with this background and skills that are the only people who have the skills to be trusted to handle these questions? i do not have an answer to that. i think that presuming to obama means what he says, and i think he does, he needs to be thinking about how to really we've a tightly wound fabric, in which people in the financial service sectors have seized all levers of not only government, the economy and the whole incentive structure, but more profitable to rent money to people who could not afford to pay it back, then it was that was a choice. these