been put in jeopardy by the decision this week of the learning and skills council not to fund the expansion of the national start college in my constituency? would the prime minister agree to meet a delegation of the disabled students and the principles of the college and myself to discuss the unique situation and see if there's a solution to this problem? >> i have to say, we have set aside $2 -- we have set aside 2.3 billion for this spending review, we put an additional 300 million into that in the budget. i will ask, this comes under expenditure on colleges and it needs money that would have to be provided by the government. i'm saying to the gentleman that i'll get the further education colleges minister to meet him about this, but we have put 300 million pounds extra into the investment in capital buildings strult of the budget. -- as a result of the budget.

>> each week, the house of commons is in -- each week the house of commons is in question, we air prime minister's questions, live on c-span2 and again sunday nights on c-span at 9:00 eastern and pacific. at c-span.org you can find a video archive of past prime minister's questions and links to the house of commons and prime minister's websites. >> coming up next a look at barack obama's first five months as president. also the president's fourth of july remarks. later on "q & a," walter kirn talks about his new book, "lost in the meritocracy: the undereducation of an overachiever." president obama departs tonight

for a week-long overseas step with stops in russia, italy and ghana. here's a look at some highlights on monday and tuesday, the president will be in moscow, meeting with president medvedev, the prime minister and former president gorbachev. wednesday and thursday he'll be in roam and have meetings with the pope and others. saturday he'll be in ghana with meetings on the economy. check our website for more details on his trip and updates on his stops. >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> private citizens. >> i don't know. i think some of it is government raised. >> not public. >> probably donations. >> i want to say from me, from my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded?

30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> the first five months of the obama presidency is the subject of this panel at the aspen ideas festival. charles ogle tree, one of president obama's law school professors spoke. this lasts about an hour and 10 minutes. >> good evening, welcome to our festival. i represent atlantic media, proud to be a co-spon or of this event. we have a great and multitudes now panel with us tonight. we ended up in the brady bunch size range at one point today it looked like we were heading more

to the neighborhood of "jon and kate plus eight" but we managed to stop at a more manageable number. i want to introduce everybody real quick and then kind of give you a sense of what we're going to talk about tonight, kind of an order of battle, and then plunge in. on my far right, fred worth himmer, founder of democracy 21 and long manufacture time president of common cause. beside him, professor choorls ogle tree, whose students have included one barack obama, who we've heard more of since. margaret carlson is a columnist at bloomberg news. linda worthheimer, senior correspondent at npr and long-time host of "all things considered." david brooks is a columnist for "the new york times" and those of you out on the quad will note

his two sons working on their curveballs. i'm going to try to work through this panel some of the different aspects of the early stages of the obama presidency, what we've learned about him, what are the successes he's had so far, what are some of the problems looming out there for him, then we'll turn it over to you for questions for a while and bring it back up here at the end and i'll ask the panelists some lightning round questions, i'll try to hold you to one-word answers for a few final thoughts before we go out the door. let me start with a broad question. these have been a very eventful first few months of the presidency, probably not since ronald reagan or even franklin roosevelt, have we seen so much activity on so many fronts, domestic and foreign. out of all the decisions and activities the obama administration has undertaken,

when you look across the board at the specific policy choices and the broader decisions such as the way they're managing our relations with the world, out of all these decisions which do you think have been the most consequential? what has obama done so far to shape the presidency and the way americans judge him in 2012? linda, can i start with you? what do you think? >> i thinks that the president has -- as you said, he's moving on so many fronts, it's difficult to evaluate yet what he has accomplished because nothing is done. however, i think if i were going to put -- to single out one thing he's done that very much impressed me, it would be the cairo speech. i'm way out of my turf on that i spend a lot of time on domestic politics, foreign policy is not my area, but listening to him

talk about the cultural heritage of the muslim people talking about the tremendous libraries, he is -- his constant references to the holy koran, i don't think i've heard an american politician repeatedly call the holy book of the muslim faith the holy koran. he even talked about the first muslim member of congress being sworn in by placing his hand on the holy koran that was in thomas jefferson's personal collection. so i think that that reaching out, combined with who he is, what he is, that he's a black man with a heritage that touches on the muslim faith, that it seems to me was one of the most extraordinary moments of the -- of his administration so far. now who knows, you know, whether it will end up being

significant, but i don't think anybody would have been quite able to reach out as he was. >> professor? >> to me, it was -- this might surprise people, beyond the national security and terrorism responses, i think the most important thing that happened was the appointment of hillary clinton as secretary of state. took a lot of courage and reflected his own confidence in the team that would make a big difference. it made it clear he's serious about terrorism and global issues. i see that appointment as doris kearns goodwin talks ability in her book "team of rivals" as an extraordinary vote of confidence in senator clinton's ability to lead the issue but also that he's in charge. i think that decision is one that will go down, as we look at conversations about iran and north korea and palestinian issues that her appointment was quite significant. >> 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 he's able to bring about the kind of structural social change that he really promised during his campaign and during his early days. for the following reasons. the president is at his height of strength in his first year. it can continue, but it tends to dissipate. but he is at the ultimate point of his power and his public support and he has an absolutely unique situation in the congress. that 60th vote he got today is a magic vote. it's not -- it's not simply an abstract 60 votes to 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 because of filibusters, the threat of filibusters, the use of the threat of filibusters to require 60 votes to pass bills. it has been impossible to function there. the president now has an opportunity to really enact change and the 60 votes is not what he needs to pass legislation, so you'll see the battles go on between the moderate democrats and the liberal democrats. but 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 toughest speaker i've seen in 40 years of working in washington, and very strong leadership and enough votes to carry major legislation, you absolutely have a unique opportunity for big-time change that i don't think we've seen in some time. so i think going for it now, that strategic decision could be the biggest decision they made. >> margaret, what's most consequential for you? >> some of the things i would have chosen are gone. like hillary. but i would put hillary into a characteristic that i've seen in no drama obama, which is an ability to change course, change tack, change his mind without a lot of drama to it and just go on to another day without a lot of fust -- hillary clinton, it

looked huge, then it just worked and the criticism died down. he got off tom daschle very quickly without seeming to be disloyal, but pragmatic, because it came after tim guy for the and you only get one pass. got out of that quickly. he changed on the torture photos. that seems to have passed by without a lot of fuss. he dropped the public option in health care which i think is a terrible idea, i don't think you should touch health care unless you're going to do something fundamental, you'll just end up covering more people and spending more money without fixing the problem. his personality, he doesn't step out of character very much. he seems to be an integrated personality that takes things almost seamlessly all in the same way without creating the fire storms that, for instance, bill clinton would have in his

decision making is a little different. in the clinton administration, you would see the number of pizza boxes were equal to the number of people who seemed to have the last word on making a decision because the meetings until midnight. unlike bush and clinton, obama seems to take in all the information, he's very curious, but it doesn't run on forever and the decisions get made and he's making them fast and furious. some of them might be wrong, depending on your point of view, but there's an approach he has that he showed during the campaign under a lot of criticism, he never got mad. remember, we all wanted him to get mad. not david, but many of us. >> i saw the mad. >> good. that's a good segue, david. david, who is so well sourced in the white house that he refers to the president as a senior

administration official. >> let me see if he's calling. i -- i think it's self-to confident to do everything at once. the world leader came through and saw obama and then a bunch of journalists, we said, what was obama like? he said, i've never seen a lead sore self-assured. i think in the language, obama will denote self-confidence. so and so has 100 obamas, somebody else has 80 obamas. the good side to that is because they know they're so much smarter than you are, they take your criticism with a degree of exwhat anymority don't. the bush administration, after you criticize them, they call you and say, you're a complete and total loser. my the obama people call you and

say, we like you, it's so sad you're a complete and total loser. the other positive thing is his ability to hire hillary clinton and get this cavalcade of brains. if we're attacked by terrorists in the harvard-yale game we're screwed, they'll all be out in new haven. but they do have this intellectual superpower and the people who can rise in this administration are thee the people who can dominate a table with sheer brilliance. like peter or s.a.g., so those people -- orr s.a.g., is those people. the negative side to self-confidence is the decision to do everything at once, with eight people. so they had to hand off a lot of power to capitol hill, which led to a mishmash of mediocre policies and second and finally,

it's just the money. i'm -- the money is just out of control. it started under bush, i completely grant you that, but in 2019, the national debt will have doubled, the payment on interest on the debt will be $819 billion a year, under obama's budget, which is conservative. there's no way that's sustainable. 4e talked a great game about cost control, but my fear and this gets back to the 60 votes point if you control 60 votes and the house, you are insane if you try to cut people off and cut benefits if you try to make tough choices. so to me, the 60 votes is a paradoxical negative. >> we're seeing certain characteristic elements of this governing strategy, bolt at home and abroad. one of them is what david alluded to, he's shown a willingness to let congress handle the details, letting a

lot of lee way, i did a panel last week with ed marquis about the climate change bill in washington. i asked him, did the administration say to you, i must have this, we must have that? and he said, no. they let us find the waterline. what was -- what would be a majority position in the house and obviously they got there, barely. i asked harry reid in a panel a few weeks earlier he said barack obama has never said to him the words, i must have this or that. is this shrewd? or is it too passive? >> i think it's a necessity. that institution is an impossible place to navigate. the democrats hate the republicans, the republicans hate the democrats, the senate hates the house, the house hates the senate. it is extremely difficult. we learned a pretty powerful lesson by the way the clintons

handled health care. i think as a matter of reality, you do have to let the people with expertise up there do their thing. and it does get messy. you do get the opportunity at the end of the process when you're in conference to go for the things that really matter. i think they've got enormous expertise in congress. i think they're doing that right. i'm just on one point, david, i agree with david on the finances. i think at some point, opaw ma will have to strongly pivot and focus on the deficit question and on the spending question. but i think he's got to try to get the other stuff done first if he's going to get it done and if he doesn't deal with the deficit stuff, he's not going to end up very successful in the long-term. >> david, what's the cost that you see in this deference to congress? >> well, i'm a hamiltonian, i believe in the strong executive.

i think people in the executive branch of any party make coherent policies based on think tank wonkry, which i think is a coherent way to make compromise. if you hand it over too quickly to congress, you've got 535 people with their own interest they cobble together 500 or at least 300 specific local interests, shove them all together in 2,000-page bills and just try to get across the passage line. so you get things which can pass, which were not coherent systems to work. if you're trying to create systems which will work on incredibly complicated issues like health care and energy, you need pieces that fit together that takes somebody thinking it through. but to cobble it through, i don't think that's the way it goes. >> but on the other hand, if you send a completed, well thought out bill to congress, then you're looking at six weeks of headlines of obama loses key

portion of -- you know, it gets chopped apart on the hill anyway. the way the congress works lately is that the house and senate are totally at odds, the democrats and republicans as fred said -- fred and i agree on some things, when you get -- get your ideas to get a document into congress, that's where the president once again has something to say. i think it may not be the paradigm. it may not be the best way to do it. but until and unless we can somehow manufacturer out of, you know, thin air, a congress that is not filled with people who have safe seats, there is just really no way, it seems to me, that you can handle this. >> other than what he's doing. >> that's one way. we watched bill clinton do it

another way. it seems to me he's channeling ronald reagan to some extent. ronald reagan calls everybody in and he says, boys, let's get that top rate down. let's simplify and get the top rate down. barack obama calls everybody in, i'm pretty sure he doesn't say boy, but he says, you know we care about covering everybody. and i -- you know, he has a few things he cares about. they know what they are. the congress knows what they are. >> has he gone too far? >> yes. >> you think so? >> especially on health care, if he insists on getting something in october, he's likely to end up with half a loaf. he -- obama once said, if i had my way about it, i would have a single payer system. the public option, the public plan was already a compromise and now he's talking about maybe the co-op plan or something. so by turning so much over to congress and doing it as a way

of not stumbling over hillary care, so let's let them do it, let's -- let us not be out front on this, i think he's going to end up with lots of compromises, he gets something through so the worst parts will happen because congress, half of it, more than half of it, wants to protect the insurance companies. you might get the coverage on this side, but not the cost savings on the other which is the absolute worst you can have. >> we'll come back to the policy of health care. professor, you look at him and the way he's approaching this, is this characteristic of the way you see he approaches the world? when harry reid says, he's never said to me, i must have this, does that surprise you? >> not at all. barack has always been strategic. i don't think he's taken on too much or deferred too often. when you think about being the first african american president of the harvard law review, it's an ambitious students, they

don't just think they're the smartest students at harvard, they think they're the smartest students in the universe. he's already dealt with that. in terms of his strategy of being deferential, this is a strategy where he's hearing congress saying we're twice as old as you and twice as smart as you. they're half right. you've got to figure that out. he understands that. my sense is that he's going to be patient about these things and ultimately not do what we saw with any administration, have health care fail. it will pass. it won't be perfect, it won't be universal, the way we'd like to see it, but it'll pass. he's going to accomplish a lot in this first year. he hasn't been there six months yet, but the reality is he has a vision of what it's going to look like and as we think about the inauguration in 2013, i guess that's presumptive, right,

but it'll happen. but the idea is that seeing this president not now, but a year or year and a half from now with this economy, with these wars, with the problems he inherited and how much he's tackled and changed it, we're talking to iran in some respects, we're watching north korea. he goes to venezuela, people say, oh my god, chavez gave him a book. he went to cairo and talked about supporting israel and the right to a palestinian state that hasn't been done. he has both the benefit and burden of eight years of bush. people say, this is easy, look what we've done for eight years. but it's hard because people expect him to change the world overnight. >> let me go back to something that several people touched on. one of the other aspects of this governing strategy we've seen is the willingness to move away from positions he took in the campaign, and not inconsiderable ones. in the campaign he wanted to

auction all of the credit under a cap and trade system for reducing carbon emissions. he accepted a house approach that gives away, allocates 85% of them. he opposed an individual mandate, he's now accepting it as the cornerstone of a deal in how to extend coverage in return for the insurance industry accepting fundamental reform. he opposed as a candidate thed in of eliminating the excuse of employer-providing health care, but now he's saying he might accept some of that. when you add this up, is this sensible flexibility or is he going too far and sort of, too casually renouncing position he is took in the campaign? >> welcome to american politics. this is not unusual. i think there is some danger in it. i mean, he seems quite self-assured in the notion that he can do this and then explain

it to people and satisfy people. some of these things you have to do. it's just reality. so far, the public in general terms is still very strongly with him. but sooner or later, sometime sooner, you start to really anger advocacy groups that are part of your constituency, so it's kind of a balancing act. he seems to be pretty skillful at balancing acts, but there is a risk -- there's a risk involved here. >> i think, you know, the can't we all get along, works better at the harvard law review, with hugo chavez, in the cairo speech than it does with congress. he gives up too much ground in the beginning both by turning over how a bill is going to look and how bisignaling ahead of time, no, i -- no i must haves.

there should be i must haves. clearly, he raised bipartisanship to this very high goal and he got zero votes. the party of no wasn't going to go there with him. i would rather have him internationally be the accommodater than with our particular congress. >> i think we just become totally unused to the idea of compromise in this country. there is -- the congress is totally -- total war in the congress and the previous president added on a whole range of subjects were so uncompromising, i think you just can't necessarily take that as the highest good. we had a -- we had back in the dear dead days when, you know, the republican party was apt to

discuss issues and come to terms with the democrats. back when the great plains liberals would vote with the republicans sometimes and with the democrats other times. those people are gone from the congress. and i think we're just -- we're seeing something we haven't seen for a long time. doesn't look right, but you know, you -- >> another part of the past six years as well, it's not being critical of the republicans, but the democrats are euphoric, they have never in a long time had the power to change. so the senators don't want to give it to the president, the house doesn't want to give it to the president and there's no cooperation. they really do -- they've been sitting around much of the clinton administration, all of the bush administration, they can't pass a single piece of legislation. >> i would say the democrats on the hill, david, i think you'd agree, are working bet we are obama in the first period of unified control than they did with clinton in the first period of unified control. >> clinton said, i want it this

way. >> you see the left-right divide, which helped precipitate the debacle of 1994. this vote this week on the climate change looked like the kind of thing they might have lost under clinton. >> i have one quick story which i think is germane, it may not be, but this was told to me by somebody in the obama administration who also worked in the clinton administration. clinton would make 16 calls to chairmen in an afternoon, he had great conversations but his position was 180 degrees than it was. he was amazed when he went to congress that bush never made the calls. so bill frist and those people never had conversations with bush. that's why they loathed him on issue after issue, especially the spending issue. i think obama does have good relationships on capitol hill, but i would say it's because on the stimulus package he let them

write it. >> i want to see what we're seeing as characteristic of the governing strategy, you alluded to it earlier in a more negative light, but certainly there's been a lot of effort by this president at reaching out and trying to splinter the business community. a couple of weeks ago, i was at an event in the rose garden, he was surrounded by the presidents of 10 major auto companies, including eight he doesn't own -- who agreed to raise fuel economy standards, basically, signaling a truce in what's been a 20-year war in washington. on this cap and trade bill, there was enough support from the utility industry that the main trade association was neutral. there were several utilities who supported it. . the health rance co. to this point have been more supportive than not.

the question is -- 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 some bills, 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 are more 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 oba 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 general view was we like the afghans and the ngo community, which was very positive, they said they would take some time, but we have to do some real nation- building. that was not an easy call to make. and joe biden opposed it. but he made that call, and it was the bush strategy that had been left on the table, and it was the right call, and it was a pure evidence-based call. i have lost track of what foreign-policy somebody belongs in. along with the congress speech, it goes. -- the cairo speech.

>> to do what anybody would want to do -- you know, thanks to the twitter, twittering, we were all iranians that we, and you know that at least he wanted to, but he resisted but democrats and republicans on this issue, which showed a lot of restraint. when obama was a candidate, he said he was able to just switch on and change, afghanistan being one. the one he was not was guantánamo, and you are so right. somebody who has got obama's inner philosophy cannot hold people in definitely no matter how horrible they are, so you are going to have to find his way out of that, and on iraq, removing troops more slowly. now, we are going to see how

that works, and if it does not work, what is he going to do? we will be out on a certain date, or is he going to adjust something and rise above his stated view on this subject? 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. . .

believing what rahm emanuel did, and also, the column about one month ago, where he laid out about the president's legislative strategy, which included setting the table and finally waiting for the night before legislation had to be passed, when the administration brought its power to bear. those two thoughts at least suggest to me that the president and the administration is, perhaps, more significantly involved and more significantly influence in the legislation and then the panel gave the impression. -- the legislation than the panel gave the impression. >> you are leaving and 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

neutral stand point on these policies, so i do not think in terms of the house, on issues like health care or global warming, you are really see it in a whole lot of territory. -- you are really ceding a whole lot of territory. >> it is central to everything, including the middle east, everything. 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 you shifted sometimes in the dynamics of the congress to the so i think in that, there is the notion which mr. obama addressed himself in the election that, in fact, our nation is the combination of the people who are elected by the people they selected to let them, and they can influence to an extraordinary or unfortunate degree by lobbying and the force of money in politics, and the second point was the analogy to ronald reagan, who in my view struck me as having just turned the tables on liberalism by describing working people, particularly teachers, as the enemy of the government.

so hear obama came along in the election, and he really went after lobbyists -- so here obama came along. now, we see him with some of the policies. healthcare has been its primary subject -- has been his primary subject in which lobbyists -- the other day, turning the camera around, and instead of taking pictures of the panel, he took a picture of the audience, an organization with which i am associated has now asked them to identify all of the lobbyists and who hired them in order to influence that debate. the president as part of his get along, golan, is he giving up too early, turning the tables and targeting the influence there's peer -- influencers and

the ama and -- 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 more ho 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 fm 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 you all for sticking it out with us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> this is c-span, public affairs programming courtesy of

americans companies. -- america's cable companies. coming up, walter kirn, and later, on "prime minister's questions," prime minister gordon brown talks about unemployment. congress returns next week from their july 4 recess with lots of business to complete before leaving again for their august recess. the house returns at 2:00 p.m. eastern on tuesday. on their agenda, agriculture spending including mandatory programs, such as food stamps and farm subsidies. also, a bill to expand small- business innovation. see that live on c-span. and the senate is back to resume work on spending for 2010 with votes on amendments scheduled to begin at 5:30. once that is complete, they will

move to homeland security spending for 2010. on the floor, they will be continuing to work up the health care bill, and al franken is scheduled to meet with senator harry reid. live coverage always on c-span2. >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> private benefactors. >> i do not know. >> i think some of it is government raised. >> it is not public. >> probably donations. >> i want to sit by me, from tax dollars. >> how is c-span's funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies a founded as a public service. no government mandates, no government money. >> yesterday to celebrate the fourth of july, president obama gave remarks that last about 10 minutes. >> and first lady michelle

obama, he joined by members of the army, marines, navy, air force, and coast guard -- lady michelle obama, joined by members. >> welcome to the white house. [applause] and 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 while selflessly risking their lives again and 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, and that is why we simply want to say thank you to each

and everyone of you for your extraordinary service to our country we are joined in that sentiment by vice president joe biden, who, as many of you know, is marking independent state with troops in iraq, and another by the end -- biden. there is another person in particular do is throw that all of you are here, and that happens to be malia obama, because this happens to be her birthday, as well. when she was younger, i used to send all of these fireworks were for her. -- i used to say that. i am not sure she still buys that, but even if this backyard is a little bit unique, and gathering tonight is not so different from gatherings taking place all across the country in fields and backyards all across america, in small towns and big cities. folks are firing up the gir --

firing up grills. but i suspect they're also taking their time to reflect on the unique nature of what it means to be an american. to give thanks for the extreme their blessings that we enjoy, to celebrate and uphold the ideas and values that have been vigorous and sustained this democracy and made a lasting beacon for all of the world. -- and made into a lasting begin. -- made it the lasting begin -- begin -- beacon. we are equal, we are free, and we can pursue our full measure of happiness and make of our lives what we will. in retrospect, it seems inevitable, but i think it's fair to say that even the

framers of that declaration, especially the framers of that declaration, would be astonished to see the results of their improbable experiments, a nation of commerce that led future revolutions in industry and information, a nation of discovery that blaze the trail west, tears disease, and put a man on the moon, and 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. each and every moment, generations of brave and selfless men and women, like those standing alongside me, have depended those freedoms -- defended those freedoms and served our country with honor, waging war so that we may no peace, bringing hardship so we may no opportunity, sometimes paying the ultimate price so that we  may no freedom. you are the latest, strongest

link in an 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 the young union, who rolled back the creeping tiger tyranny, who stood post of through a long twilight struggle, who have taken on the terror and extremism that threatens the world stability, and because of your brave efforts, american troops this week transferred control, all iraqi cities and towns in iraq's government to the iraqi security forces. because of what you did. [applause] because the courage and capability and commitment of every single american who saul -- be worked there. iraq now rests and enhance of its own people.

we know this transition will not be without problems. we know that there'll be difficult days ahead, and that is why we will remain a strong partner to the iraqi people on behalf of their security and prosperity, but i want to say this to all of you. you have done all that has been asked of you. the united states of america is proud of you. i am proud to be your commander in chief, and that is what this fourth of july, i renew my pledge to each and everyone knew that as long as i have that in measurable honor, you'll always have the equipment and support you need to get the job done. your family's always be a priority of michelle's and mind and remain on our hearts and our minds, and when our service members to return, it will be to an american who always welcomes them home with the care that they were promised. it is, after all, your service, the service of generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen,

marines, and coast guard that makes our annual celebration of the state 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 fourth of july, and it is your service that guarantees that the united states of america shot forever remain the last, best hope on earth, so happy fourth of july, everybody. right now, the marine band is going to pay tribute to your service with a few songs that i think you know. [cheers and applause] ♪

♪

♪

♪ ♪ [applause]

♪ >> happy fourth of july, everybody. god bless you, and god bless america. thank you. i appreciate it. thank you.

[cheers and applause] ♪ >> thanks everything you're doing. >> happy birthday.

>> president obama departs tonight for a weeklong overseas trip with stops in russia, italy, and gonna. here is a look at some of the trips highlights -- italy, and ghana. he will meet with medvedev, putin, and others. the present will be in italy from wednesday until friday for the g8 summit, which will include meetings with representatives from china and the pope. and ghana will be the last stop with a series of meetings on democracy. check our website for a latest on the president's trip anna

update of the c-span coverage. -- and an update of our c-span coverage. up next on "q&a," walter kirn. and then, on "prime minister's questions," prime minister gordon brown talks about spending and unemployment. and later, talking about the pakistan military. >> how is c-span funded? >> in the u.s. government. >> i do not know. i think some of it is government raised. >> it is not public funding. >> i want to say from me, from my tax dollars. >> how is c-span's funded? 30 years