have recovery later this year. >> what did you learn today? >> what did i learn today? i was a little bit in trade, but i do not want to hold him to too high of a standard because he is not their health care expert, but on the question of the public plan, he certainly spoke much more in the direction of something along the lines of medicare. i do not know if that is what he intended to say necessarily because, yes, most people would say that medicare is a behemoth government insurance program for millions of individuals. it happens to be popular with those individuals, but it is very much a government-run system. >> my guess is he was probably a little out of his death on that question because if you talk to other people in the administration about, really, what do you mean about a public plan, the president, as ceci

noted, has been republicavery p. what austan came back to is the same thing that a lot of care officials have been coming back to is that we want to build the lower cost, expand coverage, give people which was of doctors and was of plans. that is the bottom line, if they get something that they can label as meeting those criteria, public plan or no, i suspect it will be happy to send that to the rose garden. >> thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> you bet, happy holiday. >> these places remind me of modern cathedrals that donors would build wings on hoping they would go to heaven. >> walter kirn, princeton, class

of 1983, would like to see a few changes to the higher education system. >> i think that princeton philosophy should be on the web. i think that is one of the concentrated islands of talent and wealth -- that these wonderfully concentrated islands of talent and wealth should be opened up to the larger society and not hawkish lee kept separate, which they still are, and i cannot understand why. >> the education of an overachiever on q&a tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. you can also listen on xm satellite radio or download it as a c-span podcast. >> this week on prime minister's questions, prime minister gordon brown discusses government spending and job losses. also, the unrest and reactions by iranok following prime minister's questions. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the first five months of the obama presidency is the subject at this panel. david brooks, margaret carlson and linda wertheimer spoke. >> good evening, and welcome to "obama and the challenge of expectations: a look at the president's first six months." i am the director for a plant media, which is proud to be a co-sponsor of this event this week with the aspen institute. we have a great and multitudinous panel with us here tonight. we ended up in the brady bunch size range at one point today. it look like we were moving toward the john and cake + 8, but we have managed to stop at a

more manageable number. we would like to give assent of what we are talking about tonight and then plunge right in. on my far right, fred wertheimer, founder of democracy 21 and before that, the longtime president of common cause. beside him, professor charles o. whitley, a professor of law at harvard law school, was a student have included a a one barack obama. laura carlson is the editor ed bloomberg news. linda wertheimer -- and yes, there is a relation -- senior and national correspondent for npr and before that, the longtime host for all things considered. david brooks, to her left, is a columnist for the "new york times" and those of you on the quad will note each of their two sons working on their curveballs. we are what you try to work

through with this panel some of the different aspect on the earlier stages of the obama presidency, we have learned about him, what are some of the successes he has had so far, some of the problems that may be looming out there for him. i'm going to turn it over to you for questions for awhile and then we will bring it back up here on the end and we will ask the panelists some lightning questions and i will try very hard to will do to one word answers for a few final thoughts. but let me start with a broad question these have been very event fall a few months -- a very eventful first few months. rolling out since ronald reagan's first two months have we seen so many -- so much activity on so many fronts, domestic and foreign. of all of the activity that the obama administration has undertaken here in its first month, when you look across the board both at the specific policy choices and the broader

decisions in terms of governing strategy and men in our relations with the world, of all these decisions, which you think have been the most consequential? what has obama done so far that is most likely to shape the rest of his presidency and the way that americans judge him in 2012? i will start with linda. >> i think that the president house, as you said, been moving on so many fronts and it is very difficult to evaluate yet what he has accomplished. because, nothing is done. however, i think if i were going to single out one thing that he has done that very much impressed me, it would be the cairo speech. piracy. i am out of my turf on the. i spend a lot of my time on domestic and policy. listening to him talk about the cultural heritage of the muslim people talking about the

tremendous library and his constant references to the holy koran, i do not think i heard an american politician repeatedly called the holy book of muslims. he even talked about the first muslim member of congress of being sworn in by placing his hand on the holy koran that was in thomas of jefferson's personal collection. i think that is reaching out, combined with who he is and what he is, that he is a black man with a heritage that touches on muslims. that is one of the most extraordinary moments of the administration. who knows whether it will end of the civilian. nobody would of been quite able to see this. >> to me, beyond all the

national security and terrorism response, the most important thing that happened was the appointment of hillary clinton as secretary of state. it took a lot of courage and confidence. it made it clear that he was very serious about terrorism and global issues. i see that appointment as an extraordinary vote of confidence. i thought that was a decision that will go down as we look at the conversation about iran and north korea and palestinian issues. >> i think in terms of the big change that the president committed to, the single most important thing he has done in the first six months is go after

everything at once early on. i think that decision may well shape the extent to which she is able to bring about the kind of structural social changes that he really promised during his campaign and during his early days. the president is at his height of strength in his first year. it can continue, but it tends to dissipate. he is at the ultimate point of his power and his public support. he has an absolutely unique situation in congress. that 60 of the vote he got today is a magic vote. it is not simply an abstract 50 votes break a filibuster. this is the first time in 30 years that either party has had

60 votes in the senate. the senate has been absolutely tied up in knots for years now. this is because of filibusters, the threat of filibusters, and the use of the threat of filibusters, to require 60 votes to pass the bills. it has been impossible to function there. the president now has an opportunity to enact his change. the 60 votes is the money needs to pass legislation. you will see the battles go on between the moderate democrats and the liberal democrats. senator mcconnell who is the master of stopping things has really lost his power. when you combine that with a substantial majority in the house of representatives led by a speaker who i believe is the most effective, skilled, and top

speaker i have seen in 40 years of working in washington and a very strong leadership and enough votes to carry legislation, you absolutely have a unique opportunity for big time change that i do not think we have seen in quite some time. i think it going for it now, that your decision, could be the biggest decision they make. >> some of the things i would have chosen are gone. that was hillary. i would put hillary clinton into a characteristic that i have seen no drama obama. it is an ability to change course, the change of mind, without a lot of drama to it. he does go on to another day without a lot of fuss. for hillary clinton, it looked huge. then it just works and the criticism died down. he got off tom-so very quickly

without seeming to be disloyal -- tom dachelle with testing to be disloyal. he changed on the torture photos. that pass by without a lot of fuss. he may drop the public auctioning -- option health care, which i think is a terrible idea. his personality, he does not about the character very much. he seems to be an integrated personality. he seems to be seamlessly in the same way without creating these firestorms that bill clinton would have. in the clinton administration, you would see the number of people boxes for people who have

the last war. obama is very curious. it does not go on forever. it is making them fast and furious. some of them might be wrong to ban on their point of view. there is an approach that he has that he showed during the campaign. he never got mad for instance. we all wanted him to get mad. many of us did. not davis. [laughter] that is a good segue. david, who is well sourced in the white house, he refers to the president as a senior administration official. [laughter]

>> i think it is self confidence. a world leader came three big country and all the journalists. they said what is obama like. they said they'd never seen a leader so self assured. i come to think that obama -- the word obama will denote self- confidence. someone has so many obama's, etc those have a good size and that said. said. they -- the good thing is that they take your criticism with a degree of the equanimity. the obama people call when you disagree with them and they say, we like you, we admire you, it is so sad that you are a complete and total loser.

[laughter] the other positive thing is his ability to hire heller clinton and get this cavalcade of brains in the administration. my joke is that because of all of the harbour people, of we are attacked during a harvard/yale game, we are screwed. [laughter] the people that can rise in his administration are the people who can dominate the table with sheer brilliance like larry summers, richard holbrooke, peter orszag. those people really dominate. that is a positive side in the debate. the negative side of self- confidence is, to me, the decision to do everything at once with a people. they had to do it by handing off a lot of power to capitol hill, which i think led to a lot of mishmash of mediocre policies when they could have had clear and may be more ambitious policies. the money is just out of control. it started under bush. i completely admit to that.

in 2019, the national debt will have doubled. the interest on the debt will be $819 billion a year under obama is a budget. there is just no way that is ok. he talks agreed game about control, but my fear if you control 60 votes, you control the house. you are insane if you try to cut people off or make tough choices. the 60 votes is a paradoxical measure. i care most about health care costs. >> there have been -- we are seeing certain characteristic elements in government strategy at home and those abroad. one has alluded to that he has showed a willingness across the board to show that congress is handling the details. and a panel last week that was talking up the climate change bill. i asked, did the minister is a

we must have this or that. they said, no, they let us define what to be a majority position in the house. i asked harry reid this a few weeks earlier. he said barack obama has never said of an " i must have this or that." is it shrewder to passive? >> i think it is a necessity. that institution is an impossible place to navigate. the democrats take the republicans. the republicans hate the democrats. the senate takes the house. the house aides the senate. we learned a powerful lesson. as a matter of reality, you do have to let the people with expertise up their do their

thing. it does get messy. you do get the opportunity at the end of the process when you are in a conference to go to the things that really matter. i think they have enormous expertise. they are doing that record of i agree with david on the financing. at some point, obama will have to strongly pipit and focus on the deficit question and on a spending question. he has to try to get the other stuff done first if he is going to get it done and did the does not deal, he is not one to end of successful the long term. >> what is the cause that you see? >> i believe in a strong executive. people in the executive branch of any party to make coherent policies based on things, which i think is a coherent way to

make policies. you need compromise. if the handover to quickly to congress, yet five and a defect people with their own interests and all they do -- you have 535 people with their own interests and all they do is just try to get across the passing line. you get things which can pass which were not coherent. if you are trying to create systems, it is a complicated issue. you need pieces that will actually fit together. and do not think it is the way to go. >> if you send the completed bill to congress, you are looking at six weeks of headlines of obama loses a key portion -- it is chopped apart on the hill, anyway. the way the congress works

lately is that the house and in the senate are totally at odds, democrats and republicans. when you get the document into congress -- that is what the president has it. it may not be the best way to do it. until we get many picture -- mini-of the thin air, it is not filled with people who have safe seats. there is no way that you can handle them. that is one way. we watched bill clinton do it another way. he is channeling ronald reagan to me. ronald reagan calls everybody

and says, let it that top down. let simplify. barack obama cause everybody in and says, we care about covering everybody. he has a few things he cares about. they know what they are. the congress knows. >> has he gone too far? >> he insists on getting said the in october on health care, he is likely to end up with half a load. if he had his way about it, he would have a single payer system. the. option plan was already -- the public option plan was there and now he is talking about the co- op plan. interning so much over to congress -- in turning so much over to congress, i think he is

going to end up with a lot of compromises and want to get something through and it will happen, because congress -- more than half of it was the insurance companies. this is the absolute worst you can have. >> we will come back to health care. you look at him and look at the way he is approaching this. is this characteristic of the way you see that he approaches the world? when harry reid says that he is never said i must have this, does that surprise you? >> not at all. when the ball being the first african american presidents, that is an ambitious chalice. students do not think they are the stars of harvard, they think they are the smartest in the universe.

his are the dealt with that to a different point of view. he is going to be very patient about these things and ultimately not do what we saw with any administration. it is not be perfect. it cannot be universal. but it'll pass. he has accomplished a lot in his first year. he is not even been here six months. he has a vision of what it is going to look like. as you think about the inauguration in 2013 -- we are

watching north korea. he goes to venezuela. he went to cairo and he talked about supporting israel and the right for help in the state. that has not been done. he is both the benefits and burden of eight years of a bush. -- of a bush. people expect him to change the world over night. >> let me go back to something that people have touched on. one of the aspects of this strategy is a willingness to move away from positions that he took in the campaign has not inconsiderable ones. he wants to reduce carbon emissions. he accepted a house approach

that gives away 85%. he opposed an individual mandate, and is now accepting it as the cornerstone of a deal. he opposed the idea of eliminating the pollution that prevents the taxation of health and play -- employer provided health care. now he said he may do some of the. is this sensible flexibility or is he going to far and too casually renouncing conditions? >> welcome to american politics. this is not unusual. i think there is some danger in it. he seems quite self assured in the notion that he can do this and then explain it to people. some of these things you have to

do. it is just a reality. so far, the public is still very strongly with them. sooner or later, you start to really anger advocacy groups that are part of your constituency. it is a balancing act. he seems to be pretty skillful at balancing, but there is a risk involved here. >> the can we all get along the works better at the harvard law review than it does with congress. he gives up to much brown in the beginning by the ground in the beginning by turning over how a bill will look and by signaling ahead of time there should be "i must have th's."

he got zero votes. i would rather international be the moderator then our congress. >> we just become totally unused to the idea of compromise in congress. congress is that total war. the previous president's attitude were so on come from -- uncompromising that you cannot necessarily take that at the highest good. we had back in the republican party, back when the great plains liberals with the boat

with the republican sometimes into the democrats other times, those people a gun from congress. we are seeing something we have not seen in a long time. it is a look right. >> here is another aspect. democrats are euphoric. they have never had the power in a long time to change. the senators to know what to give it to the president. the house on what to give it to the president. they have been sitting around for a bought -- for a lot of the clinton administration not being able to pass a single piece of legislation. legislation. >> democrats are working >> although i think they have done better with obama than they did with clinton. you saw the crossfire, sometimes, like on the klein

bill, for example. you had members on the left voting against it and members on the right voting against it. this kind of thing on the climate change looks like the kind of thing they might have lost under clinton. >> this was told to me by someone under the obama and ministration who also worked in the clinton administration. the city -- clinton would make 16 calls to chairman in an afternoon and he had great conversations. the problem is, his position on costing would be 180 degrees from col #one. and he was amazed when he went to congress that bush never made the calls. bill frist and those people never had conversations with bush. that is why they rolled him on issue after issue, especially on the spending issues. i think that obama has very good relationships with capitol hill, but i would say that, especially on the stimulus package, he left it to them. >> you alluded to a little bit

earlier in a more negative light, but discerning, there has been a lot of effort by this president at reaching out and try to splinter the business community. i was a couple of weeks ago in the rose garden where he was surrounded by the president of 10 major auto companies, including eight that he does not own. [laughter] who agreed to read -- to raise fuel economy standards, basically, signaling a truce in what has been a 20-year war in washington on this cat and trade bill. there was enough support in washington that it was neutral. there were several utilities that supported it. similarly on health care, to this point, the health insurance industry and certainly farma have been more supportive than not. . . there are plenty of opponents.

the ama is very skeptical of health care. they are peeling off a significant slice of the community. is this shrewd or is he giving away too much in substance to earn his political support? earn his political support? >> i think that on he is looking at a confluence of events which give him an opportunity. i think that it is not so much that he seeks to splinter as that he sees possibilities. he sees vulnerabilities and openings. he big businesses that are having a hard time supporting health care, it opens the possibility that they may not be totally opposed to health care a different way. the extraordinary way the economy is sinking has meant that all kinds of american people are not willing to pay the prices for energy that they

have been paying. there is the economy that created a situation that has given him some opportunity. he is looking at them. i do not see why he would not do that. >> one thing is chicago. i covered chicago. i was there when he was there. a cover the washington ways. chicago politics has two geographic sections. one is the lakefront, liberal, educated, and obama is of that. then there is the the blues and old said track. -- old side track that is very un ideological. there are a bunch of interests and if you are a leader, where is mind? you helped everybody m

helpedine. i think he -- you help everybody get mine. the question is, what do they need? that is the principal side of obama which was lost in the campaign. it is the key to why this administration is so efficient. >> it may be signaled by a b appointing a rahm emanuel of staff. you would not do that if you are not planning to govern in that way. several things that he is conceding too much. >> he is respecting and reaching out to businesses. unlike congress, business seems to think that he means business. they want to compromise with him. that is good. they are only going to go so far, but you get what you have so far and you are headed the game. >> he will face a choice on

something like the public funding. there are many degrees you can go and they areor me supportive than not. on cap and trade, they had to make a lot of concessions to keep utility on board. some of the oil companies as well. do you think he can see -- can it conceded too much on these grounds? >> and some time, you have to have time pass on sending as important health care. somebody is going to suffer here. you have yours and you have yours. i'm going to have mine. mine is that cannot do this without the essence of this. the insurance companies are going to suffer. are they going to can see it?

are they going to go down? are they going to cooperate? that is where you have to have a core principle and what you believe in. >> one theory that helps is the inverse of what you are describing. everybody is going to take a nick to get it done. nobody will have an artery/. >> except for future generations. >> maybe not. the big question that we will not of the answer is the one you raised. are they going to take on entitlements and medicare? if they do not, they are not going to be able to deal with the finances of the country. if they do, they have the capacity to do it. it is the thing that has the representatives hating most. it they run every two years. i do not write off the possibility that he will take it

on once they get there. finances are the allocated. >> they are talking about six and a billion dollars in medicare savings over the next decade. that is now not allocated toward reducing the deficit but reallocated to paying for a new entitlement under health care. it makes you wonder if medicare is the long term solution. an awful lot of this is going to be channeled to paying for something else. where you go to do with the deficit numbers that you read? >> i am such a single issue fanatic on this. the things that they are talking about, you know more about health care than i did, they are talking out this med

pack. that is an existing organization. it is an impressive organization. maybe they would grant them a fair bit of power to potentially dry line. it would not be the most democratic organization, but it might be effective. >> can make one point about bipartisanship? i work for a liberal republican in the 1960's. i spent my career working for non-partisan organizations on the organizing principle of putting together a bipartisan coalitions through legislative battles. i would say that the bipartisanship, if you are talking about significant numbers of republicans, is a false title today. it is not possible. the republican party has over

the years become increasingly conservative. there are no liberal republicans. there are a handful of moderate republicans left compared with 15 years ago. you cannot do this. what you can do and what has been done, they picked up three republican votes on the stimulus package and that won it for them. on the global warming battle, and they picked up eight republican votes and if they have lost eight of them or four of them, they would have lost it. >> i am the most liberal republican on earth. [laughter] i hate to the stimulus package. when you look at congress, you have a gang of 14, of 10. it is possible if you pass a legislation in the right way.

i agree with you in the house. there are like eight moderates. >> clearly, there have been few republicans crossing over on this vote. is that more a function and who is left? the members of both the house and senate are concentrated. is it a function of what obama is trying to do and the way he is doing it? >> i think that in 1974, when every democrat who could lose -- every republican who could lose lost, yet a very concentrated essence of republicans. that was all you have. that is what you have now. it is not that small. it is from people who do not care or are bothered by

opposition. and they are not bothered by constituents to be there. it is a structural question. i have no idea how you could go to the states and say, let's consider iowa, which does not draw a business based on how they vote, but simply on not dividing towns and how many are in each one. that is all they do. i asked one guy what do you do, demographic maps? he said, no. he uses grand mcnally. >> but meeting is out of domestic policy and talked about national security. we have not been on senger initial comment. one -- since your initial comment.

he has renounced the policy. he is a closer than people anticipated. when you look overall at the approach that he is taking, how do you -- what seems to be the unifying theme and where he is trying to take this? >> he is relentlessly optimistic in addressing the issue of terrorism. i like that. i take it is a bold statement about closing guantanamo was important. saying we would not torture is significant. the problem with guantanamo now exemplifies that we make a promise you cannot keep, you need to rethink whether guantanamo needs to be closed. i say that because you cannot have this present of all people who is a libertarian -- he

people detained without charging them. that cannot happen. that is wrong. i say that with great pain to think that we need to have to address that issue with this administration. at the same time, there is a plausible solution to guantanamo. one of the things that we are missing is to think about the fact that they send a group of federal judges, republicans and democrats, down to guantanamo and try them there. forget about moving the will to iowa or kansas. go to guantanamo. the judges are going to make sure the people who are guilty or convicted, for innocents are released. all the politics are out of it. that is one of the untested ideas. that has been out to the box.

i hope to see the attorney general and white house support this. we have to find a plan. what he has done -- now we are talking about a strategy without the details. that is very problematic. >> this is an area which has a fortune on the left and a certain amount of praise from conservatives. is he finding a middle ground on this? >> he said several times that when he looks of the idea foreign-policy he looks at george h. a w. bush. it is a foreign policy that a lot of democrats and republicans can now embrace. he is a big position with afghanistan. that was a called a divided people with in the it ministration quite seriously. i happen to be over there. the thing that kept hearing from

people on the ground, from the military, who a lot of which had surged in iraq, and their general view was we like the afghans better than the rockies and we are more hopeful about afghanistan. they said it will take a long time, but if we are here, we can really make this work. that was not an easy call to make. joe biden opposed it. he made that call. it was basically the situation of the bush strategy that was left on the table. it was the right call. i have lost track of who belongs to what, but that was an impressive decision. it goes along with the cairo speech. >> on not succumbing to pressure, to do what anybody wanted to do thanks to the twittering, we

were all iranians that week and wanted him to do something, and you know he must have wanted to, but he resisted, both republicans and democrats on the issue, which showed a lot of restraint on afghanistan. when obama was a candidate, he said things that he was able to just switch on and change. afghanistan was one. you are so right. someone who has obama's enter a lawyer and his philosophy cannot hold people indefinitely, no hot matter how horrible they are, so he will have to find his way out of that one. he would truffe fewer troops or slowly. now we will see how it works. -- he withdrew fewer troops more slowly. now we will see how it works.

>> part of the difficulty for the president on iran seems to be that he was reluctant to do were say anything that would preempt or foreclose the possibility of going back later and having the engagement and negotiations and that he clearly has the cornerstone of this politics. some conservative critics were putting him in a no-win situation. if he did not speak out, he would be pushed into saying things that would make it unlikely that to go back and negotiate with them, which they opposed sending in the first place. when you look at the way the iranian government has handled the situation, do you believe it will be possible for him to seriously pursue the strategy of engagement and negotiation that is been hoping to undertake or is that one to be very difficult now after everything that happened? >> it to be very difficult. it was going to be difficult

anyway to have a conversation of any sort with ahmadinejad. this is going to be a long ride, this one. i think that he is going to simply have to wait to see if ahmadinejad secures his power. at that time, the only choice will be to try to go in and talk to him. it does not seem to me that iraq is subtle. it is still boiling. i'm sorry, iran, is still boiling. we might as well wait. i do not see there is a thing to be gained by doing anything else. >> the uprising would have undercut did paraguay. >> he would of been painting target on the backs of all of the opponent.

>> i think he was fine. i have been in a couple of riot situations. when you are on the ground, the u.s. is very far away and does not matter. the people focus very much on the near term matters. i do not know -- the one thing i would say, the obama administration is learning, as many are learning, that we go into government, the one thing you learn is that the military people are much more impressive than you thought they were unintelligible know a lot less than you thought. -- and the intelligence people know a lot less than you thought. [laughter] >> the one thing i think we have learned, we saw ahmadinejad with his black job a puppet out here. there is not much -- with his whack job puppet out here.

there is not much different. >> i do not know how publicly it will be. i think we are going to have to make some decisions about iran in the long term. i think we will pursue it. we will figure out a way to do it that does not look bad and that is not publicly undermine. i do not know that we will go back and say we will never talk to them again. >> will this empower those were critical of that approach? would narrow the space on which obama can operate it? you can imagine the arguments of talking to to run -- pteron -- tehran. >> the illusion of power is power in washington. the illusion of non-power is

non-power. while obama is widely respected and supported in the country, i think he is going to have a flexibility and leeway. i think when it starts to turn, then those kind of paths start to make you believe. >> does anyone actually think the talks will lead anywhere? >> israel is in the center of this. you have to try to negotiate with iran. it is of strategic importance with israel. there sears a worried about what iran will do, even the threat. -- they are seriously worried about what iran will do, even just the threat. the same thing happened at tiananmen square. what we see on television is not a sign of real change.

it is completely different in a week. no demonstrations, in illinois. if it done something else and had people murdered and tortured, imagine what that would have done. talking about foreign policy. the president with the most important decision with the powers of somalia. but today with the pirates of somalia. he asked what they should do. military leaders to take them out and return our captured americans. they did that. people applauded that, but rush limbaugh said that of barack obama killed these black men. >> of the workforce. >> he never said a mission accomplished. the military takes credit. >> i would like to soon bring in

the audience for questions. there is a great program -- they pulled 19,000 people and several dozen countries today. cumulatively 61% of those polled said they trusted obama to do the right thing and foreign affairs, these are in many countries. you were talking about friends and family. it raises the question if you have a president who right now has this kind of credibility and has exacted hope around the world, what does that tangibly translate into, if anything, and turns of advancing america's placement in view world? >> first of all, and this trip to europe, it was important

that he said that i'm not the world leader but a world partner. it is going to use the number, he has to say he is a partner. he is not one to tell the rest of the world what to do. you cannot use this as a championship thing. and bush, we said, well, we are behind you. his ratings were off the charts. that was until we saw how we implement the idea of protecting us in fighting terrorism. the poll was important, but i would not give much credence to a. there is the can do about it until the dollar is stronger, and the economy is better. this until we can keep career from nuclear bombs and iran from attacking israel. those are all the things the need to happen that the foreign- policy has to be. he needs to have patience to make sure he does not move too quickly.

>> any other thoughts to that before we go to the audience? >> it is a diverse assortment all across europe and middle east. >> sarah palin? [laughter] >> the country she could see from our house she did well with. [laughter] >> we have a microphone there. we have a question over here. . . the congress and the details of the legislation are important parts of that. i would be interested in comments on the role of rahm emanuel. it is hard for me to believe that he did not speak.

also, david, about a month ago where he laid out the president's legislative strategy which included setting the table, and finally, waiting till the night before legislation had to be past when the administration brought its power to bear. those two thoughts suggest to me that the president or the administration is perhaps more significantly involved and influencing legislation than the panel -- then the panel generally gave the impression. >> i would just say that when you are looking at the house of representatives and leaving the details of the house of representatives, you are leaving them ultimately to the speaker, who is, if anything, to the left of obama and who is going to be much more tough-minded from a liberal standpoint on these policies. terms of the house you're on health

issues like health care or global warming, you're really ceding a lot oftry. >> let me tell my rahm stories. he is a great man. he is central to everything. we knew him, us who covered him as a political animal, he has quite substantive moves. and the joke that obama tells about him is rahm lost his middle finger in a deli accident and obama jokes when rahm lost his middle finger, he was rendered mute. the other joke is that he cares a lot about american education and he is afraid american high school students are cursing at a fourth grade level. [laughter] so he is central. and the final thing i say on the influence and the strategy of settling everything in conference is an intelligent

strategy if they can pull it off. i would say how much influence they had, if you interview people on capitol hill and you ask how much -- first of all, the white house doesn't come up that much when they're describing how policies are evolving. if you ask them how much the white house has influenced them, they say not all that much. >> i would add one point. rahm has been quoted as saying, "the unnegotiable principal in all of these debates is success. that isn't a cynical argument. it's a larger view of how you governor. it reflects how you stay in power in the country is you say over crofere over the instruments of governance. you move as far as you can in the direction you want to go while maintaining as broad a coalition as possible. if you govern in a way that creates a backlash and allows the other guys to come back in power in two or four years and undo what you have done, you

haven't done very much. the bush national security policies would be a reflection of that. i think they are very conscious of what the market will bear in a broad sense. their fundamental gamble is the country will accept more government activism than in your clinton. they are trying to move forward on a lot of fronts. in a way that does appeal to the business community or some republican governors or a few in the house. obama had this very unusual moment at a press conference earlier this year where he gave a closing statement which i had never seen in a press conference. it was about the importance of persistence and i think that is very much their view of governance. the key so changing the country is maintaining country of the rudder and everything is calibrated with that in mind. yes. >> i would like to pick up on a couple of the themes that the panel was discussing.

one of them a little implicit and that is you began to discuss the congress is that you shifted sometimes in the dynamics of the congress to the dynamics of the business commute and implicitly the lobbies. in that there is the notion to which mr. obama addressed himself in the election that, in fact, our congress is a combination of the people who are elected by the people they select to elect them and influenced to an extraordinary and unfortunate degree by lobbying and the force of money and politics. and the second point was the analogy to ronald reagan who in my view struck me as just having turned the tables on liberalism by describing welfare and working people who, teachers, as the enemies of the government. here obama came along in the election and really went after lobbyists and the force of lobbyists and the force of pressure of

now we see him struggling with some of the policies. health care is one of the primary subject in your discussion. the lobbyists are all over npr. the other day they turn the camera around and instead of taking the picture of the members who were on the panel, it took a picture of the audience, and an organization with which i am associated i asked them to identify all the lobbyists. is the president, as part of his -- giving up on the opportunity to do what reagan did and is turning the tables on and asking the american people what they really want, the insurance companies and the ama? compared the congress unfavorably to hugo chavez earlier.

i want to take that back. but linda was talking about the congress with nostalgia for the ronald reagan congress that you bring up. at least that house doesn't exist. it's gone. and so to that extent, that's why i seem much more of a hard-liner than i actually am because i just don't know how much you can work with these people given the way they are elected and how extreme they are and seven for a moderate, you can't find one. you can find shifting alliances in the senate. now you have 60 democrats, you don't necessarily have 60 votes. you got to reach over sometimes and find the three senators or the gang of 14 or whomever you can to put some things together. in the how's it is hopeful. >> >> in the back there.

as someone who gets a lot of news from the internet and from cable television -- >> my condolences. [laughter] >> it seems as though we're seeing a lot more what i would generically call hate speech or at least a lack of civility and a lot of edgy type of vocabulary and behavior and we see these food fights all the time on the various cable networks. i was wondering if, from your perspective as insiders that actually deal with the political process and the people behind it on a day-to-day basis, if this filters down to the places where decisions are actually being made on capitol hill and into the white house or is this predominantly a media phenomenon that is produced because of the desire for circuses and a lot of action? >> good question. >> i would say it started -- i don't know if it's where it started, but it certainly is prevalent on capitol hill.

i used to go to these things where a foundation used to take members of the house to the greenbrier hotel in west virginia. the idea was to get them together with their families. they can share four days together and actually get to know one another. it was like junior high, all the republicans were over here and all the democrats would sit over here. the highlight was my son sang at care okay night, with 149 members of congress seeing "new york, new york" drunk wearing fallic plan hats. that moment of the session is going down the hallway one afternoon, there was a woman weeping in the hallway. at one of the breakout sessions, she was so viciously assaulted, she left in tears. that was called an civility summit. there is team spirit and

harshness. the manners of the place. i'm sure we all find that when you go to lunch or interview him, you walk away thinking reasonable in private. >> throw out a couple thoughts. one as david was suggesting, the level of partyline voting, republicans voting with republicans, democrats voting with democrats against the other side is at the highest since the levels of the 20th century. we're the most partisan era measured that way since the 1890's and the 1900's. second, the phenomenon you're describing, i think the part of it is that is worry some in the political world is the idea of this information ghettos where more and more of the electorate certainly is hearing thing that reinforces their point of view. conservatives watching fox, liberals putting on msnbc or whatever. they do worry about that. having said that, the white house view is that most of this cable food fight is just sheer circuses.

it's about ratings. there is still a kind of a persuadeable middle in america that you can reach. the reality is that each part -- we have gone through in a book i call "the great sorting out," each party coalition is moreo emergency news. there are more that are liberals and moderates and called themselves republicans and few conservatives that call themselves democrats. each party is coherent. it's reflected on capitol hill. having said that, there is still a piece that is out there, and the white house believes you can reach that and that you largely reach it through the mass media or he wouldn't spent so much time having brian williams following him around or charles gibson having him answers questioning. karl rove said there was no middle in american flicks and it was about activating your base. obama doesn't believe that. they believe that you have to do both things at once. enthousands your base but reach out to voters beyond that.

one of the ways that you do that is through a broad mass media that goes beyond the food fight. >> thinking partisanship and getting along is that the civility seminar, they live in a civility seminar. obama instructs people never to insult anybody and never to slam the door and never to put the phone down. i don't know that rahm abides by that completely, but there is that effort. it comes through to reporters and everyone else. >> i just wonder about -- there is a few people under 50 that think they were in the good old days when all democrats and republicans got along and we had a great society. i don't think that happened. in fact, president johnson in the 1960's said when he passed all this civil rights legislation, "we have lost the south." and the democrat party did lose the south in the 1960's and with a little bit from clinton here and there, little bit from carter, but they really didn't change it. i say that because i think

there is another phenomenon going on here in terms of politics. i don't buy that the went party as a party is more conservative other than rhetoric. i think it's the same party. i think that the independents have moved away from the democratic party and the republican party and they are the party that decides who is going to become elected. and the war became the divisivive in 2006. obama had the benefit that the house changed. john says i'm going to call you a lot now, i had the power to convene a hearing. i didn't think about that. he never had the power for decades to convene a hearing. the republicans are right if they're republicans to resist everything obama does. why? they lost florida. they lost north carolina. they lost virginia. and the worry has to be if we don't fight this guy every single step in 2012, we might lose louisiana, we might lose georgia or south carolina.

the whole idea is that the red state-blue state issue is interesting, but i also think that even our country would not want a 70% party. i think you're going to see a turn in the 2010 elections. we'll lose illinois, you heard that first here, right? you'll see a turn because people like a balanced government and we can't tie too much to one party being too much to the left, one party too far to the right. i think the public is just independent and they're trying to figure out who can lead that. >> the dangerous thing is they never gave us an exit time here, so we have been pressing your indulgence and keeping you for quite a while. we'll take one more question from the audience right up here in the middle and then we'll do the lightning round with the panel and then i'll let you go on for the night. are there prizes? >> only depending on how you do. >> i hate to switch it to economics, but let's talk about general motors. are the taxpayers ever going to

get their money back? is obama ever going to let go? is the company going to succeed or fail? >> would you like that one. >> i wrote a column about it. >> i guess the people i interviewed who were there said the problem with general motors was the culture, the culture of general motors, which involves the executives, it involves the unions and everything else. and their fear was the administration changed one guy at the top, but essentially the culture is intact. and these are patterns, unconscious patterns of behavior that have been involved in that organization for a long, long time, and their fear was the government was sort of stuck in the middle paying for the future of general motors, but not really either intervening or getting out. sort of just stuck in the middle, being halfway in but not all the way to change the culture or just not getting out

and letting it go. so i think they were extremely mystic about general motors changing -- pessimistic about general motors changing. >> i'm going to answer a series of quick questions to get you out the door and i'll hold you to one-word answers. >> can i cheat. >> it's possible. i'll start with frarninge and david. >> my answer is 30%. >> question one -- will president obama sign legislation that moves the nation substantially in the direction of universal health care by 2010? >> yes. >> no. >> he'll find legislation, it might not necessarily move us there. >> thank you, charles. >> will he sign, by 2010, will he sign legislation that imposes mandatory reductions in carbon emissions. >> no. >> i don't know. no. >> no. >> yes.

>> maybe. [laughter] >> maybe is one word. will he follow through on his promise to close guantanamo by next january? >> by next january? >> by next january. that's what he said. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> wow, uniform. will democrats gain or lose seats in the house in the election of 2010? >> lose. >> gain. >> lose. >> gain. >> lose. [laughter] >> that was a clear message. >> will they gain or lose seats in the senate in the election of 2010? >> gain. >> lose. >> lose. >> gain. >> gain. >> gain. >> one year from today will barack obama's approval rating sill exceed 55%? >> yes. >> i think so, yes. >> yes. but policies, no, way down. >> policies, no. >> yes, yes. >> yes. >> one year from now who will

be considered the republican frontrunner for 2012 presidential election? >> mark sanford. [laughter] >> it could be mrs. sanford, actually. >> romney. >> romney. >> crist. >> well, they're dropping like flies. >> how about it will not be sarah palin. >> romney. >> romney. >> finally, what single issue will be the biggest hurdle or challenge to barack obama's re-election? >> money. >> deficits. >> he has that horrible reagan choice. where he is going to get the money. spending. >> spending. >> money. >> the economy. >> all right. there we have it.

we have you all on the record. maybe we can bring them all back next year. thank yoall for sticking it out with us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] fax yesterday, to celebrate the fourth of july, president obama hosted a reception at the white house for about 1200 servicemen and their families. the president's remarks last about 12 minutes. >> joined by members of the army, marines, air force, navy, and coast guard. [applause]

>> welcome to the white house. happy fourth of july. michelle and i are honored and proud to have you here on the fourth, and we are humbled to be joined up here by heroes, men and women who went beyond the call of duty in battle, some selflessly risking their lives again and again so that others might live. true to form, they, like all of you, say they were just doing their job. that is what makes you the best of us. that is why we simply wanted to say thank you to each and every one of you for your extraordinary service to our country. we are joined in that sentiment by vice president joe biden, who is marking independence day with troops in iraq, and joe biden is spending it with military families in germany.

there is one girl in particular who is thrilled that all of you are here, and that is malia obama, because this happens to be her birthday as well. [applause] when she was younger, i used to say that all these fireworks were for her. i am not sure she still buys that, but even if this backyard is a little bit unique, are gathering tonight is not so different from gatherings that have taken place all across the country, in parks and fields and backyards all across america. in small towns and big cities, folks are firing up rules, laughing with family and friends, and laying on a blanket in preparation for the big show. there are reliving the simple, unmistakable joys of being an american. but i suspect they are also taking some time to reflect on the nature of what it means to be an american, to give thanks

for the extraordinary blessings that we enjoy coming to celebrate and of holding the ideas and values that have invigorated and sustained this democracy and made a lasting beacon for all of the world. just imagine the extraordinary audacity it took 233 years ago for a group of patriots to cast off the title of subject for citizen and put ideas to paper that were as simple as the war revolutionary, that we are equal, that we are free, that we can pursue our full measure of happiness and make of our lives what we will. in retrospect, it seems that -- it is fair to say that even the framers of that declaration would be astonished to see the results of their improbable experiments, and nation of commerce that let future revolutions in industry and

information, a nation of discovery that blaze a trail west, cure disease and put a man on the moon, a nation of progress that strives perpetually to protect itself, and a nation of hope that has again and again inspired people the world over to reach for the same freedoms we hold so dear. in each and every moment, generations of brave and selfless men and women like those standing alongside me have defended those freedoms and serve our country with honor, waging war so that we might know peace, breaking hardship so we might no opportunity, and sometimes paying the ultimate price so we might know freedom. you are the latest, strongest link in that unbroken chain that stretches back to the continental army. you are the heirs of that legacy of proud men and women who strained to hold together a young union, who rolled back the creeping tide of tyranny, who

stood post through long, twilight struggle, who have taken on the terror and extremism that threatens the world stability. because of your brave efforts, american troops this week transferred control of all iraqi cities and towns in iraq's government to iraqi security forces, because of what you did. [applause] because of the courage in capability and commitment of every single american who has served in iraq, a sovereign and united iraq is taking control of its own destiny. iraq's future now rests in the hands of its own people. this extraordinary accomplishment -- we know this transition will not be without problems. there will be difficult days ahead. that is why we will remain a strong partner to the iraqi people on behalf of their security and prosperity. i want to say this to all of you. you have done everything that has been asked to be.

the united states of america is proud of you. i am proud to be a commander in chief. that is why this for the july army knew my pledge to each and everyone of you -- this fourth of july i renew my pledge to each and everyone of you. you will always have that equipment and support any to get the job done. your families will always be a priority of michelle and mine and remain in our hearts and on our minds. when our service members to return home, it will be to an america that always welcomes them home with the care that they were promised. it is, after all, your service, the service of generations of service -- of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsman that makes our annual celebration of this day possible. it is your service that proves that our founding ideals remain just as powerful and alive in our third century as a nation as they did on that first for the july.

is your service that guarantees that the united states of america shall forever remain the last, best hope on earth. so happy fourth of july, everybody. right now the marine band will pay tribute to your service with a few songs that i think you know. [applause] ♪

♪ [pyalinlaying "anchors aweigh]

♪

♪ [applause] ♪

>> happy fourth of july, everybody. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪

[applause] >> you guys have fun. >> nice to see you guys. are you having fun?

♪ ♪

>> happy fourth, guys. god bless you. are you guys having fun? god bless you. you have beautiful daughters. girls -- you cannot beat them. happy fourth of july.

♪ [country music playing]

♪ >> tomorrow, on "washington journal, david drucker looks at the congressional week ahead. helle dale discusses russia relations and president obama strip to russia, and henry waxman talks about his book the waxman report, how congress really works. "washington journal," live it 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. >> coming up next, it is "q&a" with author walter kirn, and then prime minister gordon brown at the british house of commons. then