officer. secondly, you have to take into account, the future of social security -- that there has been a tremendous demise of the ability for people to have a retirement plans through corporations or through their own efforts. many have been terminated. the stock market is so volatile. contrary to the normal things, you should consider raising the social security benefits for the average worker. you should rates of up to 70%. it would not cost that much. i hope you would think of these things and not think about the negative terms concerning the mix of volatility. think more positively of what will be accomplished. >> 41% signedto 7% i think i'm not the one who made -- 41% -

70% i did not make the most provocative suggestion here. but seriously, many have a different range of views. . . >> this is something that i should have mentioned, as well, and that is a factor.

as one(%?ájjju about social security. thank you very, very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for joining us today. i will report back when i get to cambridge that you have made your teachers at mit and harvard proud with using posterior's ratios in answering a question from the media. we will try our level best to write the kind of working papers that you and your staff will find productive and useful in the future. i believe we will take a brief break and return to the regularly scheduled program. we will be rejoined very soon greet think you all. [applause] [no audio]

[no audio] host: caller>> we will take youo portsmouth, new hampshire, portsmouth high-school. president barack obama and the first of three town meetings on health care. that is live on c-span. >> disease. i have never spoken about this publicly before. i chose to speak out today because this issue is so important to remain silent. [applause]

i have the virus but,wz not the disease. the disease is horrible. i watched my ex-husband died from it. at any moment, this virus could explode. i live with hope, being my only health plan. president barack obama ran on a platform of change and hope. he has been good to his word. now, he has taken on the fight to ensure all us. the enemies of health reform have circled the wagons, filled the airwaves with misinformation. president barack obama meets each and every one of us to stand up and demand health care reform. [applause]

and now, with my heart just bursting with pride that my country made the right choice and planted myself to do whatever it takes, watching the grace with which this man handles the very tough issues, it is my sincere pleasure to introduce our president, barack obama. [applause]

[applause] q& [applause] >> hello, portsmouth. thank you. thank you. thank you, so much. thank you but everybody had a seat. thank you. oh, i love you back. [laughter] it is great to be back in portsmouth [applause] it is great to be back in new hampshire. i have to say that most of my memories of this state are cold.

[laughter] it is good to be here in august. [laughter] there are a couple of people that want with knowledge who are here today, special guests. first of all, i want to thank principal jeffrey collins and the staff here at the school. [applause] he is our host for the day. your outstanding governor, john lynch is here. [applause] and his wonderful wife, susan lynch is here, the first lady of new hampshire. [applause] your united states senator, doing a great job, judy shaheen is here. [applause] the governor of the great state of maine and we are glad he is here in new hampshire today, john baldacci is here.

[applause] two of my favorite people, they are just taking congress by storm, outstanding work, paul hodes, carol shea porter, [applause] give them a big round of applause] we also have your own mayor, tom parini is here. where is he? there he is. [applause] now, i want to thank, more than anybody, laurie for the introduction and sharing the story with the rest of us. thank you, laurie. [applause] her story is the same kind of story that i have read letters, i have heard in town hall meetings just like this one for

the past five years. in fact, some of you were in those town hall meetings as i was traveling throughout new hampshire. it is the story of hard-working americans who are held hostage by health insurance companies that deny them coverage or drop their coverage or charge fees they cannot afford for care that they desperately need. i believe it is wrong. it is bankrupting families and businesses and that is why we are going to pass health insurance reform in 2009. [applause] now, this is obviously a tough time for families in new hampshire and across america. six months ago, we were in the middle of the worst recession of our lifetimes. i want you to remember what things were like in january and

february. we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month. economists of all stripes feared a second coming of the great depression. that was only six months ago. that is why we acted as fast as we could to pass a recovery act that would stop the freefall. i want to make sure everybody understands what we did. 1/3 of the money and recovery act but to tax cuts that have already started showing up in the paychecks of about 500,000 working families in new hampshire. [applause] 500,000 families in new hampshire. we also cut taxes for small businesses on the investments they make and over 300 new venture small businesses have qualified for new loans backed by the recovery act. now, that was 1/3 of the recover at. another 1/3 of the money and

recovery act is for emergency relief for folks who have borne the brunt of this recession. we have extended unemployment benefits for 20,000 new hampshire residents. [applause] we have made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who rely on cobra while they are looking for work. [applause] and four states that were facing a historic budget shortfalls, we provided assistance that has saved the jobs of tens of thousands of workers who provide essential services like teachers and police officers. [applause] it has prevented a lot of painful cuts in the state but also a lot of painful state and local tax increases. the last 1/3 of the recovery act is for investments that are putting people back to work for these are jobs refurbishing

bridges and pavement on i-95, or jobs at the community health centers here in portsmouth. it will be able to add nurses and extend hours and serve up to 500 new patients. these are good jobs, doing the work american he's done for it by the way, most of the work is being done by private, local businesses because that is how we will grow this economy again. there is no doubt that the recovery act has helped put the brakes on this recession. we saw last friday, the job picture is beginning to turn. we are starting to see signs that business investment is coming back. but that does not mean we're out of the was and you know that. it does not mean we can sit back and do nothing while so many families are still struggling. because even before this recession hit, we have an economy that was working pretty well for the wealthiest americans. it was working pretty well for wall street bankers. it was working pretty well for

big corporations but it was not working so well for everybody else. it was an economy of bubbles and busts. we cannot go back to the kind of economy. if we want this country to succeed in the 21st century and if we want our children to succeed in the 21st century, then we will have to take the steps necessary to lay a new foundation for economic growth. we need to build an economy that works for everybody and not just some people. [applause] health insurance reform is one of those pillars that we need to build up that new foundation. i don't have to explain to you that nearly 46 million americans do not have health insurance coverage today. in the wealthiest nation on

earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage. they are just vulnerable if something happens. they will go bankrupt or they will market the care they need. it is just as important that we accomplish health insurance reform for the americans who do have health insurance. [applause] because right now we have a health care system that too often works better for the insurance industry than it does for the american people. we have to change that. [applause] let me just start by setting the record straight on a few things i have been hearing. [laughter] about reform. under the reform we are proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. if you like your health care

plan, you can keep your health care plan. you will not be waiting in any lines. this is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. i do not believe anyone should be in charge of your health insurance decisions but you and your doctor. [applause] i do not think government bureaucrats should be meddling but also don't buy insurance company bureaucrats should be meddling. that is the health-care system i believe in. [applause] we just heard from laurie about how she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her because of her medical condition. she is not alone. a recent report actually shows that in the past three years, over 12 million americans were discriminated against by insurance companies because of a

pre-existing condition. either the insurance company refused to cover the person or they drop their coverage when they got sick and needed it most or they refused to cover a specific colmes or condition or they charged higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs. no one holds these come -- companies accountable for these practices. i have to say, this is personal or laurie but it is personal for me. i talked about this when i was campaigning in new hampshire. i will never forget my own mother as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about whether her entrance would refuse to pay for her treatment. by the way, this was because the insurance company was arguing that somehow, she should have known that she had cancer when she took her new job, even though it had not been diagnosed. if it can happen to her, it can happen to anyone of us. i have heard from some americans

who have the same words. one woman testified that the insurance company would not cover her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5-years old. about that project covers a lot of stuff. [laughter] they will only cover your skin. [laughter] dermatology is covered but nothing else. [laughter] another loss is covered and a look chemotherapy because gallstones were discovered when he applied for insurance. that is wrong. that will change when we pass health care reform. that will be a priority. [applause] under the reform we are

proposing, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage because of a person's medical history, period. they will not be able to drop your coverage if you get sick. [applause] they will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it. [applause] your health insurance should be there for you when it counts. not just when you are paying premiums but when you actually get sick. it will be when we pass this plan. [applause] when we pass health insurance reform, insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or lifetime. we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-

of-pocket expenses because no one in america should go broke because they get sick. [applause] finally, this is important -- we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopy iies. [applause] because there is no reason why we should not be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. that makes sense. it saves lives. it also saves money. we need to save money in this health care system. this is what reform is about. for all the chatter and yelling and shouting and the noise, what you need to know is this -- if you do not have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform.

[applause] if you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. we will do this without adding to our deficit over the next decade. it will largely be by cutting out the waste and insurance company give boys and medicare that are not making any of our seniors healthy. [laughter] right. [laughter] before i start taking questions, let me say that there has been a long and vigorous debate about this. that is how should they. -- it should be. that is where america is about. that is what we have a democracy. i do hope that we will talk with each other and not over each other. [applause]

because one of the objectives of democracy and debate is that we start refining our own abuse because maybe other people have different perspectives and things we did not think of. where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that has actually been proposed [applause] ] the way politics works sometimes is that people want to keep things the way they are will try to scare the heck out of folks and they will create boogeyman that are not real. so, this is an important and complicated issue that deserves serious debate and we have months to go before we're done and years after that to phase in

all these reforms and get them right. despite all the hand-wringing pundits and the best efforts of those who are profiting from the status quo, we are closer to achieving health insurance reform and we have ever been. we have the american nurses association supporting it. we have the american medical association on board. [applause] america's doctors and nurses know firsthand how badly we need reform. we have broad agreement on congress on about 80% of what we want to do. we have a degree from drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. we can cut the doughnut hole in half if we pass reform. [applause] we have the aarp because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. [applause]

but let's face it, now is the hard part. history is clear -- every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interest groups fight back with everything they had. they use their inference. the use their political allies to scare and mislead the american4xt. they start running ads. this is what they always do. we cannot let them do it again. not this time. not now. [applause] because for all the scare tactics out there, what is truly scary, what is truly risky, is if we do nothing. if we let this moment pass, if we keep the system the way it is now, we will continue to seek 14,000 americans lose their health insurance every day. your premiums will continue to skyrocket. they have gone up three times faster than your wages and they will keep on going up.

our deficit will continue to grow because medicare and medicaid are on an unsustainable path. medicare is slated to go into the red in about 8-10 years. if i was a senior citizen, what i would be worried about is medicare starting to run out of money. insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against people for the simple crime of being sick. that is not a future a lot for my children. it is not a future i want for the united states of america. new hampshire, i was up here campaigning along time. [laughter] a lot of you guys came to my town hall events and some of you voted for me as some of you didn't. here is one thing i have to say -- i never said this would be easy. and never said change would be easy. if it were easy, it would have

already been done. change is hard. it does not start in washington. it begins in places like portsmouth with people like lowry, who have the courage to share their stories and fight for something better. that is what we need to do right now and i need your help. if you want a health care system that works for the american people, as well support for the insurance companies, i need your help. knocking on doors, talking to neighbors, spread the facts, let's get this done. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. [applause] thank you. i remember that. a buddy have a seat. this is the fun part.

first of all, by the way, let's back the ban. i did not to the band over here. thank you, banned. [applause] great job. here is how we will do this. we do a lot of town hall meetings in new hampshire so everybody knows the basic outline of this thing. if you have a question, raise your hand. there are people with microphones in the audience. i will try to go girl-boy, girl- boy, to make sure it is fair. if i hear only from people who agree with me, i will actively asked some folks who are concerned about health care, give them a chance to ask their questions because we have to make sure we get out some of the debates and concerns people have carried some of them are legitimate.

i will get through as many questions as i can bear it if you can keep your question or  thei will try to keep my answers oral different breed. -- relatively brief. we will go around the room and i will start with this gentleman, right here. please introduce yourself, if you don't mind. >> thank you, mr. president. welcome to portsmouth in new hampshire. -peter schmidt. i'm a state representative from over. i'm a senior citizen. i have a wonderful government- run health care plan called medicare. i like it. it is affordable. it is reasonable. nobody tells me what i need to do. i just go to my doctor and possible and i get care. one of the things you have been doing in your campaign to change the situation is u.s. been striving for bipartisanship. i think that is a wonderful idea. my question is -- if the republicans actively refused to

participate in a reasonable way with reasonable proposals, isn't it time to say, "we will pass with the american people need and what they want without the republicans?" >> let me make a couple points -- first of all, you make a point about medicare that is important. i have been getting a lot of letters, pro and con, for health care reform. one letter i received recently, i woman was very excited about the plant. she said she did not want government-run health care. she did not want me meddling in the private market place and keep your hands up my medicare. [laughter] true story. and so, i think it is important for, particularly seniors who currently receive medicare, to understand that if we are able

to get something right, like medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role, not the dominant role, but a role in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance. [applause] under our proposal, the majority of americans will still get their health care from private insurers. all we want to do is make sure that private insurers are treating you fairly so that you are not buying something where you fail to read the fine print and the next thing you know, when you get sick, you have no coverage. we want to make sure that everybody has options. there has been talk about a public auction. this is where a lot of the idea of government takeover of health care comes from. all we want to do is set up a set of options so that if you do not have health insurance or you

are underinsured, you can have the same deal that members of congress have, which is, they can look at a menu of options, an exchange, but it is a menu of different health care plans, and you'll be able to select the one that suits your family best and i do think that having a public auction as part of that would keep the insurance companies on must. if they have a public plan out there that they have to compete against, as long as it is it is not being subsidized by taxpayers, that will give you some sense of a good bargain for basic health care. [applause] i think that there are some of my republican friends on capitol hill who are sincerely trying to figurqcx out if they can't finda health care bill that works. chuck grassley of iowa, mike

enzie of wyoming, olympia snowe from maine -- i like olympia, too. they are diligently working to see if they can come up with a plan that could get both republican and democratic support. i have to tell you, when i listen to folks like lori and families across america who are getting pounded by the current health-care system and when i look at the federal budget and realize that if we do not control costs on health care, there is no way for us to close the budget deficit. it will just keep on skyrocketing. when i look at those two things, i say we have to get it done. my hope is that we can do it in a bipartisan fashion. the most important thing is

getting it done for the american people. all right. [applause] this young lady, right here. all right, this young lady, right here. she is still enjoying her summer. when you go back to school? >> i go back to school september 3. >> september 3, ok. what is your name? >> julia hall from northern massachusetts. >> nice to meet you, julia. >> as i was walking in, i saw many signs outside saying mean things about reforming health care. how do kids know it is true and why do people want a new system -- why don't people want in a system that helps more of us? >> i have seen some of the sides. [laughter] let me just be specific about some things i have been hearing lately.

we need to dispose of these things. the rumor that has been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the house of representatives voted for death pounds that will -- panels that will pull the plug on grandma because we have decided that it is too expensive to let her live anymore. and there are some variations on this team. -- theme. this arose out of a provision out of one of the house bills that allowed medicare to reimburse people for consultations about and applied care and setting up living wills and the availability of hospice, etc.

the intention of members of congress was to give people more information so they could handle issues of and of life care when they are ready, on their own terms. it was not forcing anybody to do anything very this is where the rumor come from, i guess. the irony is that one of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a republican, then house member, named johnny isaacson, that sense of the thought this would expand people's options. somehow it has gotten spun into this idea of death panels. i am not in favor of that. i want to clear the air here. in fairness, the underlying argument has to be addressed. that is people's concern that if we are reforming the health-care

system, to make it more efficient, which i think we have to do, the concern is that somehow that will mean rationing of care. somehow, some government bureaucrat will be saying, "you cannot have a procedure because some bean counter decides this is not a good way to use l health care dollars." this is a legitimate concern. i want to address this. we do think that systems like medicare are very inefficient, right now. but it has nothing to do, at the moment, with issues of benefits. the inefficiencies all come from things like paying $177 billion to insurance companies in subsidies for something called medicare advantage that is not compatible bed so insurance companies get $177 billion of

taxpayer money to provide services that medicare already provides. it does not result in better health care for seniors. it is a giveaway of $177 billion. but about what we could do with $177 billion. over 10 years. that is not a good use of money. i would rather spend that money on making sure that lori can have coverage and making sure that people who do not have health insurance can get subsidies, rather than subsidize insurance companies. [applause] another way of putting this is, right now, insurance companies are rationing care. they are basically telling you what is covered and what is not. they are telling you that they will cover one drug or another. you can have one procedure or

another. why is it that people would prefer having insurance companies make those decisions rather than medical experts and doctors figuring out what are good deals for care and providing that information to you as a consumer and your doctor so you could make good decisions? i want to be very clear about this. i recognize there is an underlying fear that people somehow will medicare they need. you will have, not only the care you need, but the care that, right now, is being denied to you, only if we get health care reform. that is what we're fighting for. [applause] all right. the german back here with the baseball -- the gentleman back here with a baseball cap. >> good morning -- good

afternoon, mr. president. in reference to what you just said, i am presently under the new hampshire medicaid system. i have to take a drug takelipitor. they said they will not cover this even though i had been on that bill for 10 years. i had to go through two different trials of other kinds of drugs before it was finally determined that i could go back on the lip-itor through the new hampshire medicaid system. the medicaid bed you guys are administering and you are telling me is good but i am dealing with the same thing and you are telling the insurance companies are doing. thank you. >> that is a legitimate point. i don't know all details. they probably want you to be generic, is that right? it turned out you did not have a good as good a reaction under

the generic as the brand name and put you back on the brand name, is that what happens? right. there may be, in nine out of 10 cases, the generic might work as well or better than the brand name. we don't want to just subsidize the drug companies if you have one that works just as well as another. the important thing about the story that you just told me is that once it was determined that, in fact, you needed the brennan, you were able to get it. -- brand name, you were able to get there will be instances where, if there is strong scientific evidence that the generic and brand-name work just as well, and the brand name cost twice as much, that the taxpayer should try to get the best deal

possible as long as if it turns out that the generic does not work as well, you are able to get the brand name. the basic principle that we want to set up here is that if you are in private insurance, your private insurance can do whatever it wants. if you're under a government program, then it makes sense for us to make sure we're getting the best deal possible and not just giving drug makers or insurers more money than they should be getting but ultimately, you get the best care based on what the doctor says. it sounds like that is essentially what happened. it may be that it was not as efficient or a smooth as it should then but that result is actually good one. you think about all the situations where a generic action would have worked. one of the things i want to do is to speed up generics getting introduced to the marketplace. right now, drug companies --

[applause] right now, drug companies are fighting so that they can keep essentially their patents on their brand name drugs all lot longer. if we can make those patents a little shorter, generics, market sooner and you as consumers will save money. all right? that was an excellent question, thank you. it is a young woman's turn for a or a lady's turn. right here. yes, you. >> good afternoon, mr. president. i and. jackie fromwells, maine. i am presently on medicare and i have a supplement. if something happens to my husband, i lose the supplement for a -- supplement. i have had a lot of procedures.

how will medicare, under the new proposal, help people who will need things like this? >> first of all, another myth that we have been hearing about is this notion that somehow we will be cutting medicare benefits. we're not. the aarp would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining medicare. i just want seniors to be clear about this. if you look at the pollling, it looks like seniors are most concerned about medicare. they have medicare and it is hard for people on medicare because the supplements and all the other costs out of pocket that they are still playing. i want to assure that we are talking -- not talking about cutting medicare benefits.

we are talking about making medicare more efficient, eliminating the insurance subsidies, working with hospitals so that they are changing some of the reimbursement practices. right now, hospitals are not penalized if there are constantly admission rates for patients that have gone through the hospital. if you go to a car company or an auto shop, and you say you want your car repaired, you get your car repaired. if two weeks later, it is broken down again, if you take it back, hopefully, they will not charge again for repairing a car. you want them to do it correctly the first time. too often, we're not seeing the best practices in some of these hospitals to prevent people from being readmitted. that cost a lot of money. those of the kind of changes we're talking about. in terms of savings for you as a

medicare recipient, the biggest one is on prescription drugs. the prescription drug companies have already said that they would be willing to put up $80 billion in rebates for prescription drugs as part of a health care reform package. we may be able to get even more than that. think about it -- when the prescription drug plan was passed, medicare part b, they decided they would not negotiate for the cheapest price on drugs. as a consequence, seniors are way over paying. there is that big doughnut hole that forces them to go out of pocket. you say you take a lot of medications. that means that dole is something that is looming out there for you. if we can cut the dome of coal in half, that is money directly out of your pocket. that is one the reasons why aarp is supported. they see this as a way potentially saving seniors a lot

of money on prescription drugs. ok? all right. the german right here in the white shirt. -- the gentleman right here in the white shirt. >> good afternoon, mr. president. my name is ben hirshenson and i am a republican very i don't know what i'm doing here, but i am here. [laughter] >> we are happy to have you. >> mr. president, you've been quoted over the years, when grace center and even before then, that you were essentially a supporter of universal health plan. i am beginning to say you are changing that. do you honestly believe that? that is my concern for it i medicare but i still worry that if we go to a public auction period, that the private companies, the insurance

companies, who can compete with the government? nobody do you still support a universal plan or are you open to the private industry still being maintained? >> i think that is an excellent question. i appreciate the chance to respond. first of all, i want to make a distinction between a universal plan versus a single-payer plan. those are two different things. a single-payer plan would be a plan like medicare for all or the kind of plan they have in canada, basically, government is the only person -- is the only entity that pays all health care. herrity as a government-paid-for plant fo. in some countries, the hospitals are owned by the arm but the

point is, the government pays for everything. that is like medicare for all. that is a single-payer plan. i have not said that i was a single-payer supporters because, frankly, historical we have had an employer-based system in this country with private insurers and for us to transition to a system like that, i believe would be too disruptive. what would end up happening would be that many people who have the employer-based health- care would suddenly find themselves dropped and it would have to go into an entirely new system that has not been fully set up yet. i would be concerned about the potential destructiveness of that kind of transition. all right? i am not promoting a single- payer plan. i am promoting a plan that will assure that every single person is able to get health insurance at an affordable price and that if they have health insurance, they are getting a good deal

from the insurance companies. that is what i am fighting for. [applause] the way we have approached it is that if you have health care under a private plan, if your employer provides health care or you buy your own health care and you're happy with it, you will not have to change. what we're saying is that if you don't have health care, then you'll be able to go to an exchange, similar to the menu of options that i used to have as a member congress, and i can look and see what are these various private health-care plans offering, what is a good deal, and i will be able to buy insurance from that exchange. because it is a big pool, i will be able to drive down the cost. i would get a better deal than if i was getting insurance on my

own. this is true for small businesses, as well. many small businesses and the paying more than large businesses per person for health care because they have no bargaining power. they have no leverage. we want small businesses to be able to buy into this big pool, ok? the only thing i have said is that having a public auction in that menu would provide competition for insurance companies to keep them honest. i recognize that you raise a legitimate concern. people wonder how a private company can compete against the government. my answer is, that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain and if the public auction has to be self-sustaining, meaning taxpayers are not subsidizing it but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of

doctors, just like any other private insurers would do, then i think private insurers should be able to compete. they do it all the time. if you think about it, ups and fedex are doing just fine. they are. it is the post of is that is always having problems. -- post office that is always having problems. you have private insurers right now who are out theremgp competg effectively, even though many people get their care through medicare or medicaid or the va. there's nothing a battle about destroying the private marketplace as long as a it is not set up where the government is being subsidized by the taxpayers so that even if they are not providing a good deal, we keep having to pony out more

money. i have already said that that cannot be the with the public option is set up. it has to be self-sustaining. does that answer your question? ok, thank you. [applause] [no audiright there, go ahead. >> thank you. hello, mr. president. my name is namebecher from portsmouth and i have taught at the high school for 27 years. >> congratulations. [applause] what do you teach? >> i teach english and journalism. >> excellent. >> thank you. in those 37 years, i have been lucky to have held good health care coverage. my concern is for those who do not. my question is that if every american who needed it had access to good mental health care, what do you think the impact would be on our society?

[applause] >> mental health has always been undervalued in the health insurance market. what we now know is that somebody who has severe depression, has a more debilitating and dangerous illness than somebody who has a broken leg. nobody argues that a broken leg is covered. severe depression, an unfortunate, sometimes is not, even under existing insurance policies. i have been a strong believer in mental health parity, recognizing that those are serious illnesses. [applause] i would like to see a mental health component as part of a

package that people are covered under, under our plan. ok? all right. this gentleman, right here. he is coming with the microphone. >> hello mr. president. i am from stratham, new hampshire. there is a lot of misinformation about how we will pay for this health care plan. i'm wondering how we will do this without raising taxes in the middle class because i do not want the burden on my parents. i am also a college student. >> they already have enough problems paying a college tuition. [laughter] >> exactly. also, i am looking toward my future with career options and opportunities. i do not want inflation to skyrocket by adding this to the national debt. i'm wondering how we can avoid both those areas? >> that is a request in. [applause] -- as a great question.

first of all, i said i will not sell -- sign a bill that adds to the deficit or the national debt. this will have to be paid for. that, by the way, is in contrast to the prescription drug bill that was passed that cost hundreds of billions of dollars by the previous administration and previous congress that was not paid for at all. it was a major contributor to our current national debt. that is why, you will forgive me if sometimes i chuckle a little bit when i hear all these folks saying," 0, big spending obama. " i am proposing something that will be paid for and they signed into law something that was not and have no problem with it. it is the same people. it is the same folks. they say with a straight face how we have to be fiscally

responsible. [applause] having said that, paying for it is not simple. i don't want to pretend that it is. by definition, if we are helping people who currently do not have health insurance, that will cost some money. it has been estimated to cost somewhere between $800,000,000,000.10 dollars trillion over 10 years. it is important that we're talking about over 10 years. sometimes, the number of trillions get thrown out there and everybody thinks is $1 trillion per year. it is about $100 billion per year to cover everybody and to implement some of the insurance reforms we're talking about. about 2/3 of those costs, we can cover by eliminating the inefficiencies that i already mentioned.

i already talked about $177 billion worth of subsidies to the insurance companies. let's take that money. let's put that in the kitty. there are about $600 billion over 10 years that can be saved without cutting that that's for people who are currently receiving medicare. they make -- that makes the system more efficient over time. that still leaves anywhere from $300 billion to $400 billion over 10 years or $40 billion per year. that has to be paid for. we will need new sources of revenue to pay for it. i have made a proposal that would, i want to be very clear, a proposal, my preferred approach, would have been to take people like myself, who make more than $250,000 per year and limit the itemized deductions that we can take to

the same level as middle-class folks can take. right now, the average person, the average middle-class family, they are in the 28% tax bracket. they, basically, can't take a deduction that is about 28%. since i am in a much higher tax bracket, i can take a much bigger deduction. as a consequence, if i give a charitable gift, i get a bigger break from uncle sam than you do. i have said that was just even that out. that would raise sufficient money. that was my preferred way of paying for it. members of congress have had different ideas. we are still exploring these ideas. by the time that we actually have a bill that is reconciled between house and senate and is voted on, it will be very clear

what those ideas are. my belief is that it should not burden people who make $250,000 a year or less. that is the commitment i made. that is the pledge i made when i was running in new hampshire, folks. i do not want people saying that i am pulling the bait and switch. i said very specifically that i think we should roll back the bush tax cut. we should use them to pay for health insurance. that is what i am intending to do. all right? ok. i have only time for a couple more questions. somebody here who has a concern about health care that has not been raised? or is skeptical and suspicious and wants to make sure -- i don't want people thinking that i have a bunch of plants im here. i have one right here.

i'll ask the guy with two hands up because he must have a burning question. all right. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. president. i have worked in the medical field for about 18 years. i have seen a lot of changes over those 18 years. i currently work here at the high school as a para- professional. i am from portsmouth and enter. -- new hampshire. i have a question about the universal insurance program. if i understand you correctly, you seek to cover 50 million new people over and above the amount of people that are currently getting health care at this moment. >> i want to be honest here -- there are about 46 million people who are uninsured. under the proposals we have, even if you have an individual mandate, probably only about 38

million. somewhere in that ballpark. >> i'm off a little bit. >> i want to make sure i was not overselling my plan. >> is ok. [laughter] >> she's ok. >> he winked at me. my concern is for where we will get the doctors and nurses to cover these. right now, i know that people are not going to school to become teachers to teach the nursing staff. doctors are -- have huge capacity and are leading private practice to go to administer the positions because of the caseload they are being made to hold. i really do feel that there will be more demand with the universal health care and no edit supply.

i also understand that it will be taken from medicare, about $500 billion. correct me if i am wrong. >> i just said that. . >> already mentioned we would be taking savings out of medicare that are currently going to ensure its subsidies, so that is absolutely true. i want to be clear again, seniors who are listening here, at this does not affect your

benefits. this is not money going to you to pay for your benefits, it is subsidizing folks who don't need it. point number two, in terms of these expert help panels, this goes to the point about death panels. this is what folks are calling them. the idea is actually pretty straightforward, which is if we have a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations, and find ways to reduce the number of tests that people take. these are not going to be forced on people but they will help guide the delivery system works, so that you are getting

higher quality care. it turns out that higher quality care actually costs less. let me take the example of testing. right now a lot of medicare patients -- you have something wrong with the of the might you go to your doctor and the doctor checks up on you. maybe he it ministers a test -- he administers the test and now the doctor says you have to go to the specialist. the specialist does not have the first test so he does his own test, then maybe when you go to the hospital you have to take a third test. each time tax payers under medicare are paying for that test, so for a panel of experts to say why don't we have all the specialists and the doctors

communicating after the first test, and let's have electronic medical records so that we can forward the results of the first test sue the others -- results of the first test to the others? that is a sensible thing to do. if high and a consumer and i know that i am overpaying -- if i in a consumer and i am over paying $6,000, i would want the best deal, but for some reason in health care we continue to put up with getting a bad deal. we pay $6,000 more than any it danced country and we are not healthier for it. $6,000 more per person per year. there has to be a lot of waste in the system. the idea is to have doctors, nurses, medical experts look for it. the last question you ask is important, and i don't have a

simple solution. if you look at the makeup of the medical profession right now, we have constant nurse suveges -- constant nursing shortages. primary-care physicians, family physicians should be the front lines of the medical profession in encouraging prevention and wellness. [applause] but the problem is that primary care physicians make a lot less money than specialists, and nurse practitioners, too. indeed nurses have a whole other issue which is the fact that not only are nurses not paid as well, but you also have nursing professors paid worse than nurses. as a consequence, you do not

have enough professors to teach nursing. that is why you have a shortage of nurses. we will be taking steps as part of reform to deal with expanding primary-care physicians and are nursing core. on the doctor's front, one of the things we can do is to reimburse doctors who are providing preventive care and not just the surgeon who provides care after somebody is sick. nothing against surgeons, i don't want to be getting letters from surgeons. i am. dising -- i am not dissing surgeons. let's take the example of diabetes, a disease that is skyrocketing partly because of obesity, partly because it is not treated as effectively as it could be. if we paid -- if a family care

physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modified diet, monitress whether they are taking their medications correctly, they might get reimbursed a bit, but if that same diabetic gets their foot amputated, that is $30,000 the surgeon is reimbursed. why not make sure we are also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation? that will save us money. [applause] but changing reimbursement rates will help. the other thing that will help is paying for medical education for those willing to go into primary care, and that is something we already started to

do under the recovery act. we want to do more of that under health-care reform. last question right here. this is a skeptic, right? >> i am a skeptic. thank you for coming to portsmouth. i am from new hampshire. i am one of the people that turned myself in on the white house web page for being a skeptic of this bill. >> before you answer this question just because you refer to it, can i say this is another example of how the media ends up just completely distorting what has taken place. what we have said is that if somebody has -- if you get an e- mail from somebody that says obama terrorists creating a debt panel, forward us the e- mail -- obama is creating a test panel, forward this to us and we will address it. this is being portrayed as obama

collecting an enemies list. here i am trying to be responsive to questions that are being raised out there. >> and appreciated. [applause] >> i just want to be clear that all we're doing is try to answer questions. >> i know in the white house the stand which you are on is often referred to as the bully pulpit. why have you not used it to chastise congress for having teo systems of health care? one for all of us and one for them? -- for having two systems of health care? >> first of all, if we do not have health care reform, the gap between what congress gets and ordinary americans get will continue to be as wide as it is right now. car i caol or paul would deny that they had a good deal. -- i do not think carol or paul

would deny they don't have a good deal. their deal is no better than the janitor who cleans their offices, because they are part of a federal health-care employee plan. it is a huge pool, so you have millions of people part of it, which means they have enormous leverage with the insurance companies. they can negotiate the same way that a big fortune 500 company can negotiate, and that drives down their costs. they get a better deal. what happens is those members of congress, and the same situation when i was a senator, at the beginning of the year i could look at a menu of a variety of different options, most of them private plans. they could beat not-for-profit, bluecross blueshield , they would have these plans and we would select which one works

best for us, but there were certain requirements. if you wanted to sell insurance to federal employees you had to do certain things. you could not exclude for pre- existing conditions, there were a lot of rules that had been negotiated by the government for those workers. guess what? that is exactly what we want to do with health care reform. we want to make sure that you -- [applause] we want to make sure that you are getting that same option. that is what the hell the change is all about, is that you, like a member of congress, can choose the plan that is right for you. if you have health care that you like, you do not have to use it. for awhile, my wife worked at the university of chicago hospital. she really liked her coverage that she was getting through that, so i did not have to use

the federal employee plan, but i had that option available. the same is true for you. nobody will force you to be part of that plan, but if you say this is a good deal and i have more leverage because maybe i am a small business or maybe i am like ,ori and -- i am like lori and nobody will take me because i have a pre-existing condition, why would i not take advantage of that? there are legitimate concerns about the cost, so i understand if you just think no matter how good the program as, you don't think we should be paying at all for additional people to be covered, then you will probably be against health care reform and i cannot persuade you. there are legitimate concerns about the public option. i understand some people think that if you set up that

ifoption, it will drive private insurance out. i think that is a legitimate concern. but i want everybody to understand the status quo is not working for you. [applause] the status quo is not working for you. and if we can set up a system, which i believe we can, that gives you options just like congress, that gives a little bit of help to people who are currently working hard but do not have health care insurance on the job, and if we can make sure that all of you who have insurance, which is probably 80% or 9%, that he will not be dropped because of a pre- existing condition or because you change your job. you will get what you paid for,

he will not find out when you are sick that you got cheated. he will not hit of a lifetime cap or you thought you are paying for insurance, but suddenly you are paying out of pocket and bankrupting yourself. if we can set up a system that gives you some security, that is worth a lot. this is the best chance we have ever had to do that, but we will have to come together to make it happen. i am confident we can do so but i will need your help new hampshire. thank you very much. god bless you. [applause] [applause] [applause] ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[applause] [applause] ♪ ♪ fo♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> president obama wrapping up

his town hall meeting, the first of three he will host this week. coming out this friday in montana, and saturday in colorado. ♪ ♪ ♪ tonight we will bring you another town hall meeting from senator cardin. we will show all of it to you

tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. this morning on "washington journal," we talked to the assistant managing editor of the "wall street journal." he joined us for about a half hour. host: who is winning the health care debate? guest: that is a good question. i think you could make a good argument that nobody is winning the health care debate. it has morphed in the last month that it is hard to know. i think the white house is not winning, but that does not mean they are losing the health-care debate, if i can draw a fine line. what has happened is there has been a enough opposition to the plan that the house drum up. there is no barack obama health care plan, there is a bill in the house and another in the senate. somewhere in there are the things that the white house wants to have accomplished. i think what the opposition over the past month has done is make

everyone realize that what comes out of congress will be smaller, less expensive and probably less expansive than where the house democrats started, but that does not mean nothing will happen. there is still a good chance something will happen toward the end of the year. we are likely to end up with something more incremental rather than sweeping, but i am not sure that is a bad thing for anybody. host: i know we are in the midst of this debate right now on health care. you have been a longtime observer of this town. once we get into a debate like this, is it important who is running -- winning, is it important scores points? what happens in september? guest: it is important in this town because we like to keep the score of every inning. but i was reminded today that in an epic battle in 1986 over tax reform that have been just over there in the capital, the idea

of a big tax reform bill which then administration of ronald reagan pushed and both partisan congress said they wanted to have happen, was near death numerous times before in the end a bill was produced. so you have to be careful not to call these games to early and not to get to we caught up in who is up and down the middle of the game. i think what matters in the white house is to get a bill done in each house and get to conference where i think at that point, the president and the white house will really exert influence. that is when you will see what the bottom line is, what president obama will live with and what does he think is not acceptable. we do not know right now because we're in a shocking position. if you get a bill -- then i think you'll find of a the end product will look like. host: when is the last time you saw members of congress having the reaction at town hall meetings that you have seen this time? guest: in a way, never. because there has never been an attempt to use town hall

meetings to make a point quite the way it is being done right now. i think there have been occasions -- and i think there is a comparison to be drawn to the 1993-1994 health care debate. that may be the last time you had so many people engaged also many friends. and maybe that health care is a topic that does that to this country. there is an agreement that everybody shares to some degree or another that the current system does not work very well. that the system is too clunky, too expensive, and too frustrating. but there is not really consensus as to what to do about that. people forget that when the bush administration tried to push health savings accounts, an idea on the opposite side of the political spectrum, in some ways, they found lots of opposition there is so every idea encounters resistance because this is a very personal topic. host: in your column in "the wall street journal," it tied to the bailout assistance -- you

tied to the bailout assistance. guest: to some extent it is not about health care, it is about something broader. what is the role of a government in the american economy and in the american society? i think to some extent, that is the issue that is on the table, and a very emotional subject because of all that happened in the last year. because we have been in a deep recession, we have seen the government intrude into the private economy in ways that scares some people. the government bailed out the financial and industry, and as a result, the merged logic majority takeover -- stakeholder of aig and citibank. it bailed out the housing industry, bail out all the makers and as a result is the majority shareholder in chrysler and have a big stake in gm. so the issue in the background is, how much government activity should there be in the private economy. as a result of that, the

question of whether there should be a public auction, a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers has become a centerpiece of the debate and it really was not the centerpiece before this year and a campaign last year was barely discussed. but now because of this public awareness that the government is taking on new roles in the economy, the question of whether it have on 244 now will go too far and health care has become a very big subject and one white house has to deal with and one that has given the republicans' opening for people who are nervous about that. host: the numbers on the screen, in case you want to call in. c-spanwj, is our twitter address. rick santorum, in a fund-raising letter for the rnc, said he is comparing 2010 to 1994. for republicans -- good year for republicans. guest: you know, some people are starting to see that. if you look at the poll that we

at "the wall street journal" did two weeks ago with nbc news, you are starting to see a real weakening in democrats' numbers. i can see why senator rick santorum will start to move to that conclusion. you have people trusting democrats less on things like candle in the deficit, on taxes. congress is job approval is not great, has not been great. and congress is run by the democrats. point to the potential for a good republican year next year. on top of all that, you have the obvious fact that democrats have more seats to defend than they used to, so they are more vulnerable to losing seats. my cautionary note would be that the economy seems to be stabilizing, may be turning around. you don't know how the health debate will turn out and you never know what surprises are

out there. the political picture in august of 2009 could look vastly different by december of 2009, which is to say is a long game and we are only in the early innings, but right now it looks like republicans have some things to smile about. host: one more thing, hillary clinton yesterday in the condo. i just went to show the video and get your response. >> people heard about the chinese contracts in this country. the interference from the world bank against this contract, what does mr. clinton think through the mouth of mrs. clinton and what does [unintelligible] think on this situation? thank you very much.

>> you want me to tell you what my husband thinks? my husband is not the secretary of state, i am. if you ask my opinion i will tell you my opinion. i will not be channeling my husband. guest: i guess my reaction is i cannot really blame her. she is the secretary of state. the question i think i heard people speculate is something was lost in translation. that is what the question was and not -- was not intended to ask. i do not think she should be speaking for bill clinton. she is probably entitled to respond as secretary of state. if she had it to do over again, she may be a, shecooler, but it is a -- she may have been a big cooler. t. caller: good morning.

everything but host -- the guest just said. first of all, the republican party action and makes up maybe 20% to 30% of the whole population and that is pretty much all you have. we are the baby -- baby boomers, too. we are not afraid of government. we know that we control the government or we are the government. let me give you an example. we know that tort reform does not work. all tort reform does is cap what victims can receive if there is an incident between them and the doctor. we know that savings accounts will not reduce medical costs because -- are you going to get part of the surgery this and next year because you used up all of your savings account? it does not do anything to reduce medical costs. we do know that manacle costs as it stands, we will not be able

to -- i have insurance myself and every year i pay more money for less services. host: what did you hear? guest: as i said, when i mentioned health savings accounts, and is the perfect illustration, that i did not fly. it was no more popular during the bush era than the health care bills discuss now are for exactly the reasons the caller cited. this is why health care is a difficult topic. none of the solutions are perfectly satisfactory to everybody. which may be the best argument for changing the system because if everyone is unhappy with some aspects of it, it is probably right for reform, the question is how you do it. on the broader question of where democrats danvers republicans, we ask a question in our poll two weeks ago, what do you want the outcome of the election of 2010 to bay ridge, was controlled by democrats or republicans? democrats are still ahead by a few points in our poll on the

question. republicans have come even in some other polls. i think the point is democrats were way ahead on that question just a few months ago. it has clearly been a closing of the gap. but as i said, it is early, it is a long way to go. i do not think we know yet the key variable in the 2010 election. just what the economy is going to feel like to the average voter. host: for nancy pelosi and harry reid to write the word un- american instead of off-the- cuff speech in that, what does is say to you? guest: i am surprised they used the term. i think that is probably -- it pleases the democratic base, it is probably politically very risky to say that because clearly there is some organization behind the town hall meetings, but there is clearly also some gentleman -- genuine sentiment there. you have people showing up to voice their opinion, and whether it is an organized activity or not, it is an american activity.

i would have thought they would probably steer clear of those types of terms and try to stay above it. it will be interesting to see what happens when president obama has his own town hall meeting today and see what kind of reaction he gets. host: austin, colorado. republican. caller: my question has to do with more of the deficit that is going to accelerate with the government-run health care. we are approaching the $12.10 trillion deficit in october, and there is a price tag between 800 billion up to $1.20 trillion from a few months ago. with the increasing unemployment rate, the numbers will be more. is this exactly the most appropriate time to go into government-run health care program? and what will the actual price tag be? host: that is the topic of your august 7 column. guest: i think the deficit is a

big issue obviously, and one that is getting bigger over time. it is actually having a political impact, not an abstract notion appeared i think the connection between health care and deficit is important both in practical terms and political terms. because of the exact sentence the reader -- excuse me, the listener just expressed. the administration is and has to be very careful to say whatever health bill is passed will have to pay for itself, and other words, will not add to the deficit. people are skeptical about this. but the ultimate bill is going to be in the $900 billion range probably over 10 years. what the white house has to be able to say to people, and what president obama has to say, is this will not add to the deficit, which is already going to be $1.20 trillion this year. mammoth numbers. health care may require

additional taxes. it certainly will require cuts in medicare fees. but a political matter cannot be seen as -- it is a big enough problem. even if that is the case, there is the question of how we deal with the deficit. how do we deal with the $1.80 trillion deficit this year and a $1.40 trillion next year. even if we manage to come up with a health over all that does not add to that, we still have a substantial problem. that will be a big topic of debate for the next two or three years. host: bob is a democrat from california. caller: thank you. in the late 1980's i created the first competitive analysis program that actually compared one health plan to another, it does not matter who issued it, there were 04 -- over a thousand

there nobody knew how to make sense of them or compare them to each other. basically group certificates, group insurance, isn't portable, they are subject to cancellation by the employer, or the carrier on a selective basis. they require you to be employed full time to secure coverage under them. they could force you through their conversion trap, the policy the carrier increases premiums on from 100 percent or 500% or more. that triggers, when you are no longer a full time employees, and no longer to work because you are disabled -- host: what would you like to see done? caller: at the time, the best health plan in the nation was issued by reserve life, an individual policy, it was

unlimited in coverage, paid anywhere in the world. customary and reasonable expenses for whatever happens to you. individual plants are portable, not subject to individual firm of rate increases for employers wins. they are not subject to cobra -- they don't have conversion plans. so therefore, individual plans cover those long-term catastrophic conditions like transplants. host: that is what you would like to see done nationally? caller: there is no reason to have a group health plan. guest: well, you know, it is an interesting argument because it really sort of illustrate what the white house wanted to start referring to this as health insurance reform -- insurance reform as much as health reform.

because the issues really start with health insurance. -- the health insurance system, which is kind of an anachronism. it is and employer-based system that may or may not be relevant in the 21st century, may or may not work in the 21st century. the interesting point the caller argue, he is making the case some of the opposite of what others think, that you have to be able to pull people in the insurance market to be able to have economies of scale to be able to hold down the cost, the bookmaking individuals than for themselves is a difficult thing in that market because individuals will have to bother on policies inevitably end up paying more than people part of a group. in any case, i think the argument that health insurance needs to be portable -- which is to say, as you move from job to job, or in and out of the employment force, people will increasingly need to carry it with them, pick and as the retailer to people individual needs, there is consensus -- and

it has to be tailored to people's individual needs. this is why much of the debate is really about health insurance. host: wouldn't -- it would seem an employer like gm or news corp. or whoever would like to get rid of their health-care expenses. is that a fair statement? guest: i think there is an inclination among employers, particularly auto makers, who realized that have saddled themselves with enormous long- term costs by providing health coverage and very expensive coverage to not just employees but retirees. they would like a way out. on the other hand, i think one of the reasons why employer- sponsored is the norm in this country because they use it as a way to attract workers, to keep skilled people. there is still that in polls in the workplace. there is also the realization -- and the health debate is bringing this to the fore as well -- that even if employers are not the providers of health insurance in the first

instances, they are going to be the pairs one way or the other. for that they are not providing health insurance in any form, -- employers don't get off the hook here. i think the question is it is there a more important way to write health insurance -- then to but the entire burden of not just paying for but on the backs of employers. host: will you send a reporter to send -- cover the president's town hall? guest: we tend to go with the president when he is on the road, and particularly when he is doing important speaking agent. this one of not just important, but interesting. host: it will be live on c-span at 1:00 p.m. this afternoon. live town hall. missouri, barbour, republican appeared on the co -- missouri, barbara, republican. caller: hello. i have an opinion about health care but that is not what i want to talk about.

i want to talk about the town hall meetings. i think i am more distressed than i have ever been concerning the people that we hear from like you on " wall street journal" and what have you have completely forgotten that the town hall, from the beginning of our republic, the town hall is where we go to discuss differences and grievances and to get new law is enacted. the town hall belongs to the people. and that is not coming across. it just distresses me. it goes -- host: have you attended one this month? caller: i haven't. i'm 75. but i sure watched them on television, every channel, not just one. but it distresses me what they

are doing with the town hall meetings. guest: i certainly agree that people -- as i said, i think it is questionable that you should call these things un american-, that is what happens in a democracy and i think it is totally acceptable and in many ways commendable that people show up to say what they think. that is what town hall meeting are about. i think it has become controversial because of the tactics, and not because of the fact that people showing up in voicing their opinion. the caller is absolutely right, that is the point. host: senator ben cardin held one last night. we will show it to you tonight at 8:00 p.m. there is some video from last night's town hall meeting. you can see people they're ready to question him and there were protesters out front. you will see that tonight at

8:00 p.m. eastern. wisconsin, you are on the line. caller: good morning. host: we are listening. caller: i have a couple of comments. first of all, a town hall meetings have a lack of the court and it is un-american in the sense that some people are interfering with others. -- there is a lack of decorum. secondly, my sister had two health problems 10 years apart and they had to declare bankruptcy twice, so something needs to be done. they will be retiring soon, and they have nothing to retire with. they will be on government system. insurance companies say they have to be competition. that would make the price go

down for insurance come up but where was the competition before when it was an open market? -- the price go down for insurance, but where was the competition before? how will they get this competition now? guest: it is a useful reminder that the one thing everybody agrees on in the health-care debate is the system is too expensive and getting more so at a rapid rate. the amount of money the country spends on health care is increasing at an alarming rate. one of the goals of health care reform, which is lost in the debate at the moment, is to do something to bring down health-. not just individuals but, frankly, the federal government. the biggest source of the deficits we were talking about and the biggest long-term threat to fiscal balance in the government's books is health care costs. so, what ever happens, there has to be some attempt made to hold

down costs within the system as a whole. both sides agreed that when you do health careeform and you have not done something to keep the cost down, you fail to individuals and with the government has to do to take care of itself. host: how much reaction did you get to yesterday's "the wall street journal" article about the taliban winning. guest: not a fair amount, but i think but person saying that is the commander of the troops in afghanistan. in truth he has been saying similar things, that trend lines were going in the wrong direction. i think americans a sort of sense that. pin we are eight years into this effort in afghanistan and the sense that we are going to have to start over again tells people that things are not going well. i think what has changed is a new aggressive effort by the u.s., and the thing what general

mcchrystal was saying in that interview is that the talegrand is gaining ground and in a sense winning, but we have an opportunity to turn around. and actually think new tactics in afghanistan and a fairly new and i think surprisingly aggressive strategy by the government of pakistan is the taliban and al qaeda elements that sit on that side of the border, feeding into the nflict into afghanistan, both positive signs. i think it is going to be a while yet in both places but i think if you look at things in the ground in afghanistan and pakistan this summer and say those are encouraging signs host: mississippi. democrat. only a few minutes left. caller: i would urge people if they get the things out of their ears when it concerns democrats trying to tell them about the plan, they will learn something and they would not be so confused about the issue. if we don't do something now, if

the republicans happen to get back in office, in control in 2010, we are going to be in the same situation that we are in now, complaining about health care. guest: i think there is some wisdom in that comment, that is what i still think something will likely happen this year. i don't think people go to the end of the and say, did we have this debate and do nothing again? if democrats have to do something all by themselves and if it is only an incremental start to the changing, i still think that is the more likely outcome then nothing happening at all. i think it is important for the democrats to do something for their own political reasons, but it is also probably the case where if you can start with something smaller and more incremental, i think everyone -- i think that is the most likely outcome. host: last call. staff from indianapolis. republican. caller: you touched upon something that i was a little

concerned about, and you were talking about over the last year how the landscape of what kind of the role the government plays in our lives has changed. my question would be, as the government takes over the banks, or some of the banks, and they took over some of the production lines, when they moved into health care, there really aren't any financial intermediaries -- intermediaries left. so the disbursement of capital is sort of really 100% there. -- there is. i want to know what kind of role you think, private equity, private capital, influence and the markets, and i would just hang up and listen. guest: it is a good question. the thing to keep in mind is that the government in health care system now is a pair.

it pays the bills. it does not actually run the system. i think that is more likely outcome of any kind of government intervention in health care. the government pays the bills for medicare, but it does not administer the health care. i don't think in our country and our society, that is likely to change. even the prescription drug benefit added a couple of years ago, government is administering the program, paying the benefits, but it is not dispersing the drugs. that is done by private companies. this is more of a question of who is paying for the health care and how than who is administering the health care. i think in that sense it is different than the government running amtrak or running to the extent it is in charge temporarily. this is different, it is host: thank you for spending time with us.

>> every morning this month, "washington journal" talks live with authors about their new releases. our guests include tr reid, dan balz. he will take your calls this friday morning on c-span. >> in under 10 minutes we will take you live to the national press club from the ambassador of georgia. he will be talking about the russian-georgia war. that is coming up live at 3:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, a town hall meeting on healthcare. senator ben carton held this last night in maryland. we will show all of it tonight. -- senator ben cardin held this town hall meeting last night. we will show you a preview now.

>> they need tax money. you realize how big the industry is? >> do you want to have medicare when you retire? your parents have medicare. >> i see people die. there is a 10% chance to live. don't anybody tell me a system that i know about.

>> my wife was [unintelligible] >> if they voted, anybody who tried to get rid of the health- care system -- >> right now in germany, france, the english have a hard time because more than one-third of their population work in the health-care system there. that is a very large proportion. it is hard to make changes. france is working to get rid of it now, germany is. and in canada, i forget his name who originated the idea of how they were going to bring in and instituted to canada is now an opponent of it because it has also [unintelligible]

five months you wait. >> the latest polls came out that a majority of canadians, which is much higher than in america, are happy with their health care system. cracks that is not what i heard. -- >> that is not what i heard. >> insurance companies make a profit by denying your claims. what we want? >> healthcare. >> when do we want it? >> now. >> say no to government health

care. >> obama is the president. who are you? >> i am a veteran. [unintelligible] [unintelligible] [unintelligible] >> read the bill!

>> this is the line for health care. >> who is going to pay? who is going to pay? who is going to pay? >> [unintelligible] you deserve health care. you deserve health care. >> would you please specify which article and section the

united states constitution gives the congress the right to forcibly interfere with my right to contract my own health care? [applause] [applause] >> article 1. >> you will see all of the senator cardin's town hall meeting tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. he was with us late last week on "washington journal" to talk about health care. here is some of what he had to say. caller: in getting out your

message last night, what are you going to do to try to curb the destructive mob-type incursions that are happening at your town hall meetings? it seems like the message will be lost in the shuffle with all the disruptive behavior going on. the next thing is as far as the health care reform is concerned, we desperately need this. my personal views are unless we have universal health care, i don't think on a global basis we will ever be able to compete with other countries in the marketplace. however, that is not practical, it will not happen, but the,optio -- but --option -- the public's option is needed. my question is will you please

do what we sent you guys to washington to do and not allow the private interests to sway you to the point of diluting the as to where it turns out to be not reform. i am begging you. thank you very much and have a great day. host: i think most members of congress believe this is our moment to try to correct the health care system of this country. we know it will not be easy and there are a lot of special interests that have a vested interest, but this is such an important issue that we want to make sure we are getting it right. . information out to people of our states. we want them to understand what is in the bill. we are not trying to persuade them that we should do it this way or that way. we want everyone operating under the same set of facts. if we do nothing, then we do know one thing -- health care costs will continue to consume a greater percentage of our economy, more people will be

without health insurance, entering our health care system entering our health care system in a more expensive way, the hidden tax we all pay for those in my state, $11,000 a year, will continue to grow. those who have insurance pay $11,000 extra for those who do not. those costs will continue to grow. we want to get this right. it is not an easy issue to deal with. we want to make sure that people understand what is in the bill. we want to make sure the people have a right to continue the private coverage and nature is affordable in the future. host: how about her comment about the protests at the meetings? guest: we expect that. this is a democracy and people have the right to be heard. we hope people are respectful and allow other people to be heard as well. i expect to listen to marylanders during the recess i hope people listen so that they can get the facts. the purpose of a town hall meeting is to

>> we're going to take you live now to the national press club in washington to hear from the 2 kutelia, the georgia and passenger -- batu kutelia, the georgian ambassador. this is expected to run about an hour. live coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. thank you very much for coming. welcome to the national press club. my name is peter hickman, a former u.s. information agency for our foreign service officer. however, have never been fortunate enough to be stationed in this speakers country.

before introducing our newsmaker, i would like to make the usual announcements. this newsmaker will be recorded and club members can access the audio through the glove website. they are supposed to know how to do that. others can buy a copy of the city from the broadcast operation center, which if you want to do that the number is 202-662-7510 or the website is boc@press.org. please turn off any self phones -- any cell phones or ipod, but there is, whatever. please sign in, or sign out. the news maker, as you know, is the ambassador of the republic of georgia.

[speaking georgian] batu kutelia. i was trying to say welcome in jordan, but i think and when to pass on that. [speaking georgian] is that right? i also want to welcome back to the national press club the person who suggested ended most of the work in this arrangement with ambassador kutelia. [unintelligible] i will not take up any more of his speaking time by telling you what you can read, but let me just mention a couple of the highlights he is a doctor at the georgian technical university.

he has held several senior positions in the georgian ministry of foreign affairs and defense and was deputy chief of the embassy of georgia in the uk. and he has been georgia's ambassador to theç u.s., canada and mexico since october of 2008. ambassador kutelia is going to give us an update on georgia one year and four days after the war with russia. rhetoric has flared as russia and gauges and provocation and propaganda as it did a year ago. after he speaks he will take questions. when you do have a question, we will call on you in turns. we will give priority to club members and members of the media carrigan -- a of the media. and finally, if you have not already signed in, please do so as to leave.

ambassador? >> thank you very much. thank you for the introduction. and thanks, all of you, for coming and showing interest in the issues that are happening in georgia. the university -- the anniversary of the jordan war and the cease-fire provides an excellent opportunity for all of us to highlight -- of the georgian war and the cease-fire provides an excellent opportunity for all of us to highlight the situation that we are facing and also to mark their responses to the challenges. as you remember, -- as we remember the war, we remember those who sacrificed. we remember many braved georgians who gave their lives for the independence of the country and remember the innocence in those -- of those

in south ossetia who perished. and of course, we remember the journalist who died, was sacrificed their lives in performing their duty. [unintelligible] they both paris trying to do a job we embrace, risking their lives to provide the rest of the world with the real -- they both perished trying to do a job we embrace, rivkin last read the rest of the world with the reality of the situation. i would like to use this opportunity to thank you all for showing constant interest in georgia and our right towards building a democratic state. since gaining independence, we are facing numerous challenges

and our responses toward these challenges was quite restrained faltful and this was due to external pressures. we're still looking forward to these opportunities, and i can give you a number of examples in opposing this pressure. there was an energy embargo and we managed to transform this challenge and to the opportunity of the strategic energy partnership of the region. there was an economic embargo and we transformed it into new opportunities for the georgian economy to diversify markets. iwe were countering it with the economic assistance and the building of the infrastructure as a follow-up of the successful pressure, last year we had to face a major existential threat

and it was a direct invasion by russian military force. as a result of the war, we had many thousands of georgians killed and tens of thousands of displaced from their homes in at least 25% of georgian territory. 10,000 russians still remain in the occupied territories and there was destroyed infrastructure, etc. due to the international involvement, we managed to achieve a cease-fire. it was a ceasefire agreement, but russia is the 046 in complying with the terms of the august -- russia is 0-6 and comply with the terms of the august cease-fire. and as i said, 10,000 troops remain in abkhazia.

we see the foreign military base has been constructed and is still developing. russia continues to deny the european union commission to grant them access to the occupied territories. ças a result, there are more russian troops on the ground and simply the fact that [unintelligible] we're working to develop new

mechanisms of peaceful territorial integrity of georgia and the restoration of the justice, but we are still facing daily provocations on the ground and even in cyberspace, which is continuing today. because of this continued aggression, we have more policeman killed and more law enforcement killed after the cease-fire then during the war itself. this is very alarming and we have had more than 150 different types of incidents, explosions, and terrorist attacks with improvised explosive devices. but what is our response to all of this? our response is simple, but powerful. it is a more democratic progress. georgia has deepened

relationships with our partners, in particular, our strategic partner the united states. the relationships are growing stronger and the government of georgia is grateful for the strong expression of support for georgians the sovereignty and integrity by president obama during his visit and on a number of other occasions, and vice president biden recently. georgia is grateful for the contribution of $1 billion in assistance to help us replace infrastructure and provide basic social conditions for those who have been ethnically displaced from their houses. georgia recognizes that there is more to do as it makes its way toward democracy and fully committed itself to that challenge. on july 12, president saakashvili announced sweeping

reforms with unprecedented accountability. this includes expanding opposition, changing amar bouncing power between the executive and legislative branch. all of these are commitments, but these are not just commitments made, but they have definite time lines and most of them -- these reforms will be fulfilled during a one-year time frame from now. georgia which is to promote the unification of the country's with tangible steps. first and foremost, we will provide conditions with russia's

compliance to the agreement signed one year ago. thank you and i will take questions. >> i was wondering [inaudible] who fired the first shot? and it was explained that there was a provocation and complication. the europeans get their gas

supply from russia. this is not the only place where there is a problem. but this is the one that erupted. how do you now look at idèt, at what exactly you could have done, should have done and what bat from irruption? -- not from erection? -- eruption? how are you when to handle it in the future? -- how are you going to handle it in the future? >> thank you for the question. this is a most important question. i think scholars have answered

thisç question, who shot the first during the georgian- prussian war. my response to this is, it depends on what you call the first shot, whether it was august 7, 2000 -- 2008 or august of 2007 when they dropped a bomb near a civilian village or even during the 1990's when the same ethnic cleansing happened when the russians introduced their forces on the ground and we had civilians died on the ground. but going to exactly that time when georgia and russia started last year, it was an invasion of georgian territory. i think it is obvious that it was clearly labeled like this. the u.s. president obama also made the comment that it was an

invasion of georgian territory georgia has a right to self- defense provided by the u.n. truckcharter article 51 we havee right to defend our citizens who have been constantly bombed up to the week of august the seventh. it was a painful decision, but we have made this decision to defend our country, to defend the civilian population from the invading force. going to the lessons learned, that is very important and we are working very closely and intensely with our partners about the, and lessons learned from this. we clearly can identify that notwithstanding the threats and also anticipations that the crisis might interrupt -- might erupt into something more dangerous than before, it was

clear that international units on the ground at that time were not enough. today, there is an international mechanism on the ground, although we appreciate the advice and the presence on the ground, but still, we think there needs to be something to prevent such type of development in the future. that is why we are asking for international attention and more practicality on the ground. >> another question. the georgia learn the lesson that if it goes in the military fight with russia, you can have statements from the west. the west will not come on the ground to fight on your behalf?

like the nato bomb in serbia. has george r. realized this -- has georgia realized this, or is it expecting some on the ground? >> where gorda is seeking is to have the capability to defend itself, to have the possibility to exercise the right to choose any alliances it wants to join and to provide long-lasting security for the country. what will be this arrangement in the future will be a bilateral relationship with our partners. in the meantime, we wish to have the chance to defend ourselves. it is our responsibility to defend ourselves and to engage on the ground in the process. we see as the only deterrent in the future if someone -- if

russia again in gates, to engage the georgian military. -- if russia again in fayed, to engage the georgian military. >> it is the intention of georgia to join nato. nato is not offer one and one for all, as it once was. we can see that in afghanistan, for example will this not just be a provocation to russia and a rather pointless alliance for georgia? >> doretta's choice to be a member of nato or any other organization is georgia's sole right and this is based on the will of the nation of georgia. 77% of the nation of georgia voted for this. this decision is irreversible and it is our priority.

and even all of the major political forces signed an agreement that notwithstanding whoever will be in power -- and this was signed into parliament -- they will pursue this angle. this is irreversible. we think is quite misleading if you follow the judgment whether it is a provocation to russia or not. çsecurity and stability of georgia should be in the interest of all our neighbors. besides this, georgia is a country with quite an important political location we are also a contributor. even today, not being a member of the alliance, georgia has heavily contributed to global peace and security. just recently we announced that a georgian contingent will join

the afghanistan operation. and we are resuming our presence with up to 600 troops. >> i am the political editor with human events, news weekly. my question is twofold. the president uses the ", "with interest." does this leave you order government in tbilisi to believe that they are trying to use south insets yet to expand into the caucasus further and, in essence, revive the former russian empire? my second question is, during a recent interview with the former

speaker of the georgian parliament and the head of the democratic movement of georgia, she made some serious charges against your president saying that democracy had diminished under him, that that judiciary was not free and that police were used to intimidate his opponents. this all began with his reelection in 2008 and has continued. do you have a response? >> thank you very much. but questions are very important. the first, we think that's in the 21st century such a notion has a right to exist. of course, every country has its own interests, but there are civilized ways to promote your interests in any area you want. that is not the military needs and it is unacceptable. -- military means and is not

acceptable. president obama traveled to the russian federation and this is the notion that we accept and that is right. we think that we can promote peace and stability in the region respecting international law and the sovereignty and integrity of countries. this is the only way we can coexist on this globe. your next question about the democratic processes in georgia, georgia is a young democracy and we have a lot of challenges, as i said. we have challenges in the fourth ring and domestic challenges. in georgia's political system is moving along quite strongly and notwithstanding problems, we are working with our partners to overcome these problems. everybody acknowledges that in the last three years, georgia

has made a significant move from a failed state to the young developing democracy with a developing economy with a liberal environment. therefore, i think the most important -- i think it most important for us to keep this case because one of the key elements for providing this security universally for our country is democratization. and that is why we are being a democratic country and partnering with those around the globe who share the same ideas we do. just to follow on the concrete elements of the democratization and processes going on, there have been a number of initiatives. there was a three month long public rally on the street with different political elements and it was extremely --

>> [inaudible] >> no, this year. and it was a extremely restrained reaction from the government. and because of this we have the democratic process of a transforming country doing more reforms. now we have opposition parties joined the government together in drafting a new constitution, new electoral code, and we have seen how the opposition leaders sitting in the national security council together with the government and making decisions on the fate of the future of our country and its security. this democratic system in georgia has evolved and we are one step higher than we were one year ago. and we haveç time lines to implement these reforms. when you're after, we can see together -- and one year after,

we can see together the movement we will make for that time friend. >> there are reports about hostility against georgia in out project and to stop a sacha -- in abkhazia and south cassette yet -- ossettia. how do the people of that region react toward drug? -- toward georgia? >> before answering your question i will tell you that i am from abkhazia. we as citizens believe it is our basic right to make our toregacs where we live and how we live in our country.

but in answer to your question, we believe we have to provide an environment for people to express freely their opposition and for this, we need to provide basic security in that environment and refugees and displaced people need to be returned to their own homes we have to let them make their own decisions. this is the democratic way of governing the country. that is what we are for. but unfortunately right now, new orders have been built by russia. these territories have been ethnically cleansed. there is no way right now to provide a real answer or a real solution to the problem. but once with the international

community, which will create the conditions and these people can return to their homes, then they should have the right to exercise their basic human rights. >> i was wondering how much the american president advises to the georgian forces. when i was in tbilisi a few years ago, i was taken by the training of the georgian forces. is that still going on? >> we have been working in cooperation with the united states and there have been successful projects connected together. one of them was the southern georgian troops deployed in operation iraqi freedom. there were a number of trainers who provided this assistance to georgian forces who have

georgian troops for the iraqi operation of that time to provide the possibility to be fully interoperable and to successfully fulfilled the mission. we have other omissions now on our agenda and, of course, -- other missions now on our agenda and, of course, there is the necessity to provide some pre deployment training or some additional assistance. according to the programs we are running in different stages, there are a different number of advisers helping georgian forces to be modern according to international standards. >> [inaudible] georgia was helping chechen refugees in the gorge. is that still alive issue -- a live issue? >> there is no single case in

that particular area in georgia. it is one of the nicest geographer go places and tourist destinations today. >> thank you, peter. mr. ambassador, you have used repeatedly today a term that is very provocative, "ethnic cleansing." for most of us here it brings up memories of milosevic and the balkans and the terrible events of a decade ago. are you saying that the medvedev government is overseen precisely the same thing towards native jordan is in south ossetia -- native georgians in south as such have? the other thing is the possible overthrow of the government in tbilisi. i know the president putin has said that president saakashvili should be hanged the way that

americans hanged saddam hussein. that is an exact quote. >> i will not speculate what the intentions are, but i would just repeat what the highest çpoliticians in the russian federation said, as you call it. the manly said their aim was to get rid regime in georgia. that is what they said, so we have no reason to suspect that it was not true. fortunately, they could not succeed. and they will never succeed with the type of endeavors. to the question of ethnic cleansing, yes, you are right that ethnic cleansing is a very dangerous and peculiar terminology. i am not an international lawyer because under international law there are specific descriptions of ethnic cleansing and it requires international documents.

but i can state the facts. the facts are also mentioned by a number of international organizations. these facts are that there are hundreds of burned and torch outhouses, tens of thousands of ethnic georgians removed from the territory, and statements from the regime in the separatist territories saying they have done it because they do not want to let jordan's return any more. in effect, these effects are ethnic cleansing purit. we have been asked to gather to make a proper assessment within the past year. without making a proper assessment it would be difficult to pursue legally those who committed these crimes.

>> i was wondering, how our relations with the obama administration compared to the bush administration? during the invasion it was the end of the bush administration. >> georgian-american relations are constantly go up in an evolving year after year. every next administration is making more and more steps because we are trying and our cooperation is based on the common values we share. right now, georgia and american partnership is not just a label, but it is content. we have a strategic partnership signed and we are working for economic, social and people to people relations.

it is important to note that a contract was signed in the last month of the previous administration. the previous administration embraced this document and made profound steps to provide a lot of commitment. these partnerships -- this partnership is developing and we have already laid down quite a significant progress. >> in the orthodox church in georgia and the orthodox church in russia, is their strength of fraternity there? >> the orthodox church plays a significant role in georgia in the social life and the religious life because it is the predominant religion in georgia. and as you know, russia offers the same thing in their country. there are lines of communication between these two churches.

we hope they will help us to remove all of the differences. at some point, i'm sure we will remove these differences between our countries. but the important thing is that we have to work in this direction and we have to make clear that nobody ever thinks in the future using military force against our nation. >> i will just get back to this paper that you have handed out. there is one line that actually is very true, most people have spoken to it. it is a chronic political term in georgia [unintelligible]

there is something internally. one of our neighboring countries, not russia, told me a few months ago not to be quoted, but he said, if they really push for democracy, if they see democracy growing, our hands will get strengthened to help them. but there is a lack of democracy in practice. i know it is a very difficult question for you. >> there are no difficult questions. it is a very different -- easy question. çi see the with the georgian government had a protest on the streets while they had the full right -- capability to express their opinion on the streets. how the government made no problem for them.

and there are opposition parties sitting together with the government not working on the new electoral code and the constitution, or sitting in the national security council. i think that is a practical demonstration that georgian democracy works. the georgian democracy is quite young and, of course, we have our challenges. the good side of the story is that we admit our problems and we work with our friends how to deal with these problems. therefore, i think this is the best demonstration that democracy is there and thit is developing. democracy is not a state that you can achieve once and everything is ok. it is the constant striving to perfection. that is our agenda and we think this is the only possibility for the georgian state to survive in

these problematic periods for our country. >> you state your met -- would you stake your demands on russia, in summation? would you expect them to withdraw farther north, that is, they should give up control of abkhazia and south but said gossetia. what happens to north of ossetia ? >> what we expect from russia is to withdraw from jordan territories, to respect george as territorial -- from jordan territories, to respect george as territorial -- georgian

territories, to respect georgia 's territorial sovereignty. collect any more questions? -- >> any more questions? >> [inaudible] what should we be looking for? and if we go to georgia outside tbilisi, where should we go, as tourists? but there are many places to see in georgia, but the best -- >> there are many places to see in georgia, but the best places to see [unintelligible] >> thank you very much.

>> sunday, a contributing editor and columnist for "newsweek" magazine on his series, "against the odds" which profiles of people overcoming obstacles in life. q&a, sunday night on c-span. >> house c-span funded? >> donations. >> federal funds. >> private contributions. >> honestly, i do not know. >> commercials. >> advertisements. >> something from the government. >> house c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a private initiative, no

government mandates, no government money. >> during the august congressional recess, lawmakers have been hearing from constituents about health care legislation. c-span is covering a number of these town halls and we at one for you tonight with democratic senator ben pardon from maryland. he hosted a town hall last night outside baltimore. we will show to you tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. now, author and columnist ann coulter shares her thoughts on the political landscape. it is from the young america's foundation. this runs just over an hour.

>> hi, everyone. the boy, have we got a finale for you. who is excited for ann coulter? [applause] i am an intern with the young america's foundation. when america's foundation is the premier organization by educated students on the principles of limited government, individual liberty, a strong national defense and the traditional boundaries. for more information, please call 1-800-usa-1776 or visit our web site sitewww.yaf.org. what do barack obama and ann coulter have in common? nothing, thank god. [applause] ann coulter is now the author of

seven best-selling books and i'm sure there will be many more to come. ms. calder is a connecticut native and graduated with honors from cornell university. and no, mr. olbermann, not the same school you attended. [applause] she then went on to practice law in new york city and even work for the senate judiciary committee. the conservative group is so lucky to have such an intelligent, articulate, and not to mention extremely good- looking woman fighting alongside us. she is also a woman who truly needs no introduction. with that being said, will turn the microphone over to the person you have all been waiting for, ms. ann coulter. [applause] >> thank you. thank you.

thank you, your very kind. thank you. thank you. i want to thank you for bringing me here and sending me to many of your colleges. college speeches are a lot of fun. i would also like to thank the pharmaceutical industry for putting together a fake audience for me of such attractive people. very well-dressed only seven -- very well-dressed. in only seven months, obama has driven the unemployment numbers up to the highest they have been in a quarter-century. because of the way they keep the unemployment numbers, by some measures, unemployment is has it's been since the great depression. or as economists are now calling

it, the first great depression. president obama not only wants to be the first black president, he wants to be the only black president. on the bright side, obama has proved that regardless of race, color, national origin, any dollar it can grow up to the white house chief of staff. -- any ballerina can grow up to the white house chief of staff. he has already reduced to gridlock and red tape the diet -- by not requiring members of congress to read legislation before voting on it. that has release moved things through. obama misspoke when he said there be no lobbyists in his administration. i am fairly certain that he meant to say that there would only be lobbyists in his administration. he cemented his reputation as the first to the president by

making its cutting edge joke about the special olympics. you think he would be more sensitive to that with joe biden as his vice president. [applause] he also showed us what he meant by the first post-racial president by racially profiling an irish cop as stupid. you cannot ask for more perfect illustration in my last book. the black president of the united states attacking a powerless white cop for arresting a black harvard professor in a city with a black mayor, located in a state with a black governor. everybody wants to be a victim. by which i mean perpetrator. liberals have perfected the art of playing victim in order to impress others.

because of entomology is all liberal fake out, you can never figure out what the victim is, at what the offense is, unless you know who did what to whom and whose side the most powerful people in america will take. lifetime, tv for women, a movie about the incident. take the middle name. of no particular interest to me. when republicans nominated a vice-presidential candidate with the middle candidatedanforth in 1988, they were accused of being deliberately provocative and obtuse. there was a snippy column at the time saying, bush should have asked him what his middle name is. by nominating a vice presidential candidate named j.

danforth quayle, republicans were blind -- as much as it sounded like a pompous rich banker, is he a black sharecropper? as i recall, he is a yale man. only liberals can walk around in their yales letters with names like kelvin marshall and claimed to be offended by the name danforth. bill clinton, whose middle name was jefferson, should have had a mistress who was black. we know how wrong that was, she was jewish. speaking of middle names, that reinforced negative stereotypes -- when the democrats nominated a candidate with a middle name

hussein reiterate house of they are on terror? i think it would. when republicans run a name that that is funny to democrats, it shows the obtuseness and defensiveness of republicans. when democrats run a middle name that is funny to republicans, is a hate crime to mention it. they spout out j. danforth quayle as if it was the unspeakable horrors -- like the time he hit a double bogey. at least when republicans said hussein, we were laughing. democrats are the victims, republicans are the oppressors. they are either victims of the middle name danforth, are there offended because we find the middle name hussein hilarious. he was offended first wins.

liberals are always offended. the marines official model is first to fight. the liberals unofficial model is first to be offended. the media has gone from being offended at bush for breathing to being offended that the tiniest criticism of their darling obama. it is good to see them be transitioning into their aggressive watchdog role cents obama has become president. overnight, they went from being the people's watchdogs to being the government's guard dog. except keith olbermann who is government's lapdog. time magazine compared obama to jesus christ. they do know who jesuses. -- who jesus is. [applause]

of course, as leader of the 12 apostles, even jesus had more executive experience than obama did. [applause] under obama, they would be the 12 redemption czars. they really did compared obama to jesus christ, which marks the first time the mainstream media was not worried about offending muslims. it is not carpenters, it is plumber's they hate. the jesus analogy first ran na "time at" magazine cover story by nancy gives. -- first ran in a "time" magazine cover story. if you are born out of scraps of history and hope. -- few are born out of scraps of

history and hope. translation, democrats finally won an election. to be fair, democrats or winning an election, like the virgin birth, was something of a miracle. having pulled off their mediocre 53% to 46% victory, they cannot stop boasting about their new baby boy. on thursday, obama took his first step. and on friday, he nominated rahm emanuel, isn't he adorable? this morning during that time, i could have sworn he used his first word, entitlement. we got it on video. rahm emanuel proves right there that he is not jesus. with jesus have a plate with damian? the mainstream media also proclaims that he is the incarnate spirit of abraham lincoln. that was the end of obama's

honeymoon with the press, he is no wonder jesus, he is lankan. how many times did lincoln vote present? obama voted present more than 100 times. the only time he wasn't present was when the jeremiah was giving a hate filled sermon. diddling can do blow mostly in high school, or did he wait until college -- did lincoln do blow mostly in high school, or did he wait until college? [applause] they ought to start treating and the way they treated george bush. that is how the media treated like gen. -- lincoln. his critics compared him to an aide, called him an illiterate baboon, if only al sharpton were around, we would have known he was a victim of racism.

our fiercely independent media has produced dozens of news stories on obama's amazing likeness to abraham lincoln. they're both from illinois, geniuses, great dancers, make their own clothes. back in illinois, they're still talking about the fist balled mary todd and lincoln shared the night he wrapped up the nomination -- fist bump mary todd and lincoln share of the night he wrapped up the nomination. lincoln put rivals on his cabinet. i'm not sure reaching out and buying their entire cabinet at fire sale prices constitutes reaching out to rivals. i guess it has a nicer ring to it then reaching out to backscatter -- backstabbers.

obama is the person most likely to have poison put in his coffee by hillary, but only because bill stopped eating and drinking around hillary along time ago. liberal victim ology toward the nation's enemy has gotten tricky now that obama is the commander in chief. since national security became his problem, obama is not in such a rush to shut down guantanamo and pull the troops out of iraq. wasn't guantanamo going to be shut down and troops on the day after the inauguration, or my thinking of a different black president? democrat's hysteria over guantanamo was a phony fraud just like their hysteria over his middle name. his middle name. only drama queens on campuses and msnbc, the official network of from a queens are upset about

guantanamo. you remember guantanamo, the all-inclusive tropical resort for terrorist to live in and of a democratic president comes in. gwenn "newsweek" ran a completely false story about a koran being flushed down the toilet by an interrogator at guantanamo, they reacted by engaging in murderous violence in afghanistan and elsewhere. by contrast, my first reaction was, they have got flushing toilets in guantanamo? what happened to latrines'? [laughter] let's just hope that at least those of heinous -- that they are those heinous, low flow toilets that cannot fudge anything. but because of the false story, we also found out that far from desecrating the koran, our intent -- interrogators are required to wear plastic gloves

when handling the koran so as not to upset the little infidels' by putting their paws on it. if only barnes and noble treated my last book with that sort of care. [applause] the savages at guantanamo are entitled to eight hours of sleep per night, three square meals per day, and two hours of recreation. they cannot be woken 4 interrogations'. they cannot be put in cold rooms. they cannot have their mail opened. i have been treated worse at a holiday inn express. [laughter] tammie least bank on the door at 6:00 a.m. and shout out, "made service." . . this %2@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

terrorists that would slit your throat are treated better than throat are treated better than your if you are flying to kansas to seek granma. back away from the moisturizer. you with the bottled water, hands up were i can see them. they don't even feed us on planes anymore. to get a good meal, you have to go to guantanamo. throughout the bush administration, the media showed us that most of the detainees were harmless little lambs on the basis of zero actual information. the new york times said, and an editorial, many of them, perhaps the majority committed minor offenses if any. if memory serves, the following week editorial saying minipigs, perhaps a majority, have the ability to fly. this is the same new york times

that assuring us that stockholders have nothing to worry about. since obama became president, a flurry of articles about how a lot of the detainees at guantanamo are really dangerous. an article shows that obama advisers are looking for congress to pass legislation so that some of the detainees can be held indefinitely, which presents the problem of where to house them. i know, how about guantanamo? for seven long years, democrats have been hysterical about guantanamo. they huff and puff about the poor little darlings without consequence. but now it's obama's problem, and he is keeping them there. the only bone he is throwing to his crazy based is to claiming that dunking a terrorist had in water constitutes torture. putting a caterpillar it in a

terrorist cell constitute torture. i first had about the caterpillar torture. i assumed they had these big trucks that were chasing the terrorists. but no, they were talking about a little furry worm children play with. i guess they have gone so fat, they can't even now running at caterpillar -- outruna caterpillar. according to msnbc, water boarding was not a war crime for which the japanese were prosecuted after world war one or two as you hear all the time , they were apparently reading "little women" and not war books. water boarding would have been a good day and a japanese pow camp. one was to fill the prisoner's

stomach with water. the stomach was extended, they would take a huge stake, and pound on the stomach until the prisoner threw up. or they would stick a stake in the prisoner's knows, break the nose, pour water into his mouth until he drowned, or to water board the prisoners with salt water, causing the prisoner to die. it was water boarding + killing the prisoner. that was a war crime, not water boarding. [applause] meanwhile, the alleged torture at guantanamo committed by the bush administration consists of things like failing to put on plastic gloves before handling the quran, for getting top honor a serbian national holiday. obama has not made any changes,

or as yet iraq, but he does denounce the same policies, making his policies -- is foreign policy is about the same as his position on gay marriage. denounced bush for having the same policy. even was supposed to be wonderfully knew about obama, his message of hope and change are just the same old political cliches. what most people said is, is it for -- is fresh, its new, but is it substantive? i have been hearing speeches since i was 9 years old. as he runs for president on hope and change, bringing people together, has anybody ever run a presidential campaign on despair, the status quo, driving people apart? i mean, other than ralph nader. [applause]

the big mantra of the obama campaign was change. there were a few campaign quotes. i think the hundred change is so great that people want something new. people are going to vote for change. i think we will win this election if we talk about bringing real change to america. the primary issue in this campaign is the economy and the desire for change. those are all campaign quotes, but not from the obama campaign. those are from the clinton campaign in 1992. his signature line was, i still believe that a place called hope. i think we all know where clinton goes a place called hope is -- clinton's place called hope is. [applause] any place where hillary isn't. they finally won a presidential election after 12 years after clinton's last election.

they are proclaiming the end of the republican party. i would not be hanging out the mission accomplished sign just yet. besides obama having lower public approval ratings that even president carter at this stage in his administration, look at how obama 1. -- obama won. he had the european union and abroad on his side. in a poll in germany, 80% of germans said they supported obama. we all know how infallible the germans are at picking great leaders. [applause] meanwhile, obama was running against john mccain. it is amazing mccain lost by only seven points and not 75 points. beating john mccain is the equivalent of george foreman, in his prime, beating helen thomas

in a twelfth round technical knockout. come to think of it, i would pay good money to see that. i just hope republicans are to this insufferable every time we win an election. i do not think we are, and i think we will be able to test that theory and about 16 months. [applause] the last time the democrats were so cocksure of their eternal dominance was in 1964 when lyndon johnson beat barry goldwater in a massive landslide. you think 28 states is impressive. lbj 144 states. you remember the success lbj was. let's review his accomplishments. he started the war on poverty 40

years ago, and we're still waiting for an exit strategy on that quagmire. liberals, how exactly would you define victory and war on poverty? i only ask because that was your big showstopper of a question with iraq. president johnson escalated the war in vietnam to prove that democrats could fight. thousands of american men died to prove democrats could be trusted with national security. no wonder the term johnson-esque never caught on except in the adult film industry. it is interesting that obama's admirers keep comparing him to abraham lincoln and ronald reagan. they apparently can't find a democrat president worthy of being compared to. [applause] the 1964 landslide for johnson

was not only the last high water mark of the democrats, it was virtually the last mark they left on history. if you don't count stains. between lbj's alexian and obama's victory this last november, the democrats have been able to trick the american people into giving them a majority of their votes only one other time. in 1976, following watergate when carter beat nixon. think of that. it was after watergate, after nixon does it -- resigned in disgrace. icarter could only win by 51% of the votes. that is almost as pathetic getting 53% of the vote running

against john mccain. jimmy carter has become the template for all americans of what a rotten president is. carter's presidency is like a fairy tale, even people who were alive know the horror and tragedy of the carter years. republican presidents always look better in the, if history, and democratic presidents always look worse. to summarize, the last time democrats to get a majority of americans to vote for them was when a green leisure suits ran -- were in. i do not think you should add nancy pelosi and harry reid's faces on mount rushmore. liberals may see obama's presidency as the second coming, but given his policies, i would not count on a second term coming. [applause]

thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. your very well dressed. now the fun starts. we have questions. you are already lined up. >> my name is courtney, and i am from the community college outside of box build tennessee. what is your next book, and as a going to be as good as your last book? >> they're all my children. i think they are also good. the next book is top-secret for now. i have to observe democrats a little bit longer. >> thank you. >> i go to college in arizona.

in light of the recent battle tail light at the white house, if americans dismiss this, you think the current administration has the potential to overthrow our democracy? i am not seeing much difference between our government asking its citizens to report fission material -- fishy material and the nazi party asking people to turn into those who oppose them. >> i would not worry about that with obama's public approval ratings. i thought it would take a year for the president -- for americans to turn against the president. a lot of people did not pay attention to politics. in reagan's first year, unemployment was high, but he would put policies in place to lead a the economy coming back. americans are naturally optimistic people. i thought it would be one year. the big gm takeover, the

bailout, the favors to government insiders and relatives of nancy pelosi and john murtha, these town hall meetings and the tea bag parties, the public approval ratings, it is really great. i am proud and i guess -- i also thought it would be harder to explain to americans the free-market in an area where they have not experienced it before. it is basically socials right now. we have medicare and medicaid. there are veteran hospitals, three services at hospitals. we have the government controlling or creating an incentive so that most people get health care from their employers. if you do not really have a choice. usually i am explaining what

should be done in health care to americans. i feel like i've tried to explain to an old soviet woman how she is going to get bread if the government does not provide it. americans are smarter than elected republicans are. they understand what should be done. [applause] >> i am from the university of north carolina. i wondered how you felt about sarah palin its resignation in where you see her career going from here? going? >> her resignation made perfect sense. she explained it. she can either respond to her admirers norbert detractors, her hand is tied behind her back as a governor. she has these endless ethics complaints being filed against her which is a specialty of the left. every right winger you know is

defending themselves against frivolous ethics charges, compliance with government agencies. they can do it endlessly with sarah palin, and she could not go out and write a book to make money so she could at least pay the lawyers to deal with it. she had $500,000 in debt. the lieutenant governor was a total right winger. she left them in good hands. not literally ge tores, but speak and write. she has an innate political talent that i have not seen since reagan. she obviously needs to do some work. who knows, we will see what happens. i love her. it i wrote it right up for her in "time" magazine as one of the most influential people. i suspect that despite our most ardent desire is, she may not want to run. she may want to take a break for

a bit. she is running -- she is young enough, she can run in 20 years. >> thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you so much for being here. i cannot imagine a much better way to wrap up a week like this. >> thank you. >> you have your enemies and those who try to disrupt your appearances and cut down your message whenever you speak. how'd you put that aside and continue to do what you do? >> is a lot of fun. don't make me out to be a martyr. there is not much more fun than 80 liberals on college campuses -- idiot liberals on college campuses. the first part of the book, i describe the college speeches which is something that is contrary to my expectations. at the very good schools, you

know, the ivy league's and the equivalent, and the southern schools, even if the audience was against me, they would politely listen to the speech and challenge me during question and answer. the bush leagues schools, and the more bush league they are, the more violent they are. they can formulate a question. they're bright kids, but you're dealing with a lot of people who probably should not be in college at all. [applause] but by professors who probably shouldn't be in college at all. [applause] as silly as henry louis gates is, he has a lot smarter than churchill. you have the idiots led by the idiots, and when a conservative

comes on campus, they can spend weeks thinking of a question, and all they can think of is, you are a fascist. i spoke at columbia a few months ago, and liberals were fantastic. they thanked me for speaking and tried to come up with clever arguments. they're bright kids. that is always lots and lots of fun. will campbell, things are not going to well in afghanistan for our troops. i was wondering if you could touch on that, what you think the current administration should do in afghanistan. >> i am glad you asked that, because it allows me to make an important point. the problem with obama is not just that he's liberal, is that he has a politically correct president. why are we increasing troops in afghanistan rather than iraq, we are spending -- and not even increasing troops, but keeping the war focus in iraq.

iraq is good for us. it is a good terrain for us. the crazies running across the border, but turning iraq into the may actions that is good for america. afghanistan is not such a good battlefield for us. why was it his pledge to pull out of iraq and move into afghanistan? it does not make any sense from a military standpoint, but it does make sense if -- i have to please these crazies in my base your insisting we pull out of iraq and that kind of forgot about afghanistan. i know we have to fight the war someplace. i do not think it is the best strategy to move from a country that is good for us militarily to a country that is not. god bless the troops, they will do a great job i'm sure. why not give them the better battlefield. it is political correctness dictating. like johnson going to war in vietnam because he didn't want

democrats to be seen as weak on national security, that is not a good reason to fight a war. [applause] >> i am from the university of central florida in orlando. i was waiting for my plane and reading your book, the woman next to me says, you know if you're conservative and you are young, you have no heart. i said, as a conservative, i've never promoted chemist -- genocide among all unborn children or promote population control. >> are you sure she wasn't a liberal and wasn't just being sarcastic? >> she had a greenpeace sweater. >> huh. i fly a lot. airports are like book signings for me. he did not get the private

planes, bloomberg, all the liberals. i did not run into them, and i did not run into the homeless brigades being brought in by acorn, they are not flying any place. you run into people with jobs and families. >> my question was, as a young conservative, what can we do to maybe become a writer like you that really provokes thought? some of your books are really made me want to be more involved in a conservative movement. and what is your opinion on law school? >> do not go to law school. encourage the liberals to go to law school. it is a total waste. [applause] unless you're going to be a scumbag trial lawyer like john edwards, you're not going to make that much money because it

is all tied to billable hours. the causeway to much trouble. unless you really want to practice wantthey cause -- they cause way too much trouble. unless you really want to practice law. i don't know what else to do -- there are a lot of jobs out there. i asked my successful friends and their '30's and 40's, did you know this is what you're going to be doing? they all said, i did not know this job existed. just because you're afraid and don't know what to do when you graduate from college, don't make the mistake of going to law school. what was the first one? >> how do i become a writer like you? >> i went to law school. [laughter] we had a failure in the oval office, so little worked out.

-- it all worked out. i would encourage you to run for office and make money somehow. get kicked around, find out you're good at, make money. [applause] i was just talking about this with the editors of human events last night. the peculiar thing about the conservatives or consertive movement's in america right now -- we have the talkers, the tv writers, the movement -- a the best conservative organizations. we are a little shy on our topnotch politicians. i think we could bulk of that area little more. i would not want to run for office, but if any of you think you have the slightest desire to run for office, i wish you would. >> thank you. [applause]

>> hello, eva. >> i wanted to know your thoughts on obamacare, and astroturfing these town hall meetings. >> it does fulfill my aphorism that you know what liberals are up to buy what they accuse you of. oh gosh, we have a lot of evidence on that. there is one guy, sean traglia, who was written up in "the wall street journal" who slipped after the campaign finance law was signed by bush and after it was upheld by the supreme court -- treglia, he worked for pew, and he said this is a left-wing foundations.

but with john, we take him out. he is on tape saying it. people are calling for campaign finance reform. and yet, politicians were fooled into believing it. i was just talking earlier at the bush league schools, and by the way, the worst ones that i do not think i was -- some schools are especially bad at turning out little monsters. in this particular case, they weren't even students, because they were standing in the back screaming their heads off with the most vulgar things i have ever heard. i can't even repeat them to my friends. there were a lot of cops there. there were struggles, and you get the cops out of the room. the cop arrested some of them and later told my bodyguard, which i need on college campuses

because they are such little peaceful darlings, he told the cop he wasn't a student because somebody paid him to disrupt an ann coulter speech. i wanted to sue just to find out. who is paying and to disrupt my speech? that is fact no. 2. we know that acorn, and a lot of the crazy things they're pushing are not supported by the public. we will give them a box lunch and say, stand outside and protests. i believe astroturf, and a favorable way, was a phrase invented by david axelrod. this was a specialty of the left. you can clearly see from the videos that are presented on liberal media sites -- you can see they are obviously -- for

one thing, there are a lot old people. they're concerned with what obama is going to do with health care, and they ought to be concerned with what obama will do with health care. that will be cost savings. and health care, leading us straight in the health care. all we need is a free market. for health insurance, and for doctors. .

capitalism has produced the most amazing goods and services. you do not remember, but it was not that long ago. you were kids. a self on was the size of this podium, and it was like having a limousine, just a totally exotic thing. do that with health care so that we choose with their own dollars to five doctors, to pay for their services the way we pay for the -- the way we paid for and own hair to get done. they go to see a doctor with eight years of training and schooling and they are indignant

and they have more than a $20 copiague. you have to brushed that aside. most importantly, by health insurance on a free-market. you get insurance for a car, in case to get in an accident. you cannot buy a program and the federal put all the requirement on its. a health insurance companies cannot sell you insurance if they're going to ensure you against cancer and heart disease. it has to ensure you against having it recovered memory. ing a recovered memory that your father raped you when you were an infant, or marriage counseling. if you are pretty sure your father did not rape you, you can skip those health care plans. you can skip the health care plans with acupuncture and

aromatherapy. it is almost like having insurance for your house. you have insurance in case of a flood or fire. this is a perfect example where the federal government does have a right under the constitution, under the interstate commerce clause, the states are not allowing insurance companies to sell the insurance that people want, or would want if they pay for it themselves. to have a free market in health insurance and medical care, and you will see costs come down and more cures being invented. it will be a wonderful thing, and you will not wait so long. [applause] >> there was a summarize asia george bush's foreign policy, to which i agree with every word.

what is the correct thing to do with iraq? you have any opinions on the british conservative party? >> i did not think that was a southern accent. [laughter] i know absolutely nothing about your country except that i like tony blair. it's not really like the current die. -- the current die. all i know is that he supported the war in iraq. need to know more about him? as an american, that is all i really cared about, and he was rock-solid on the war in iraq. i must say, until 9/11, and the invention of the airplane, i tended to agree much more -- with the ron paul, pat buchanan isolationist view. i do not want to be the world's

police. i do not think we should be busting up every ball -- every bar room fight. in bosnia, i do not know how else to deal with the threat of international terrorism without giving democracy a foothold in the middle east. these arab countries, a lot of these countries in the middle east, the muslim countries are ruled by dictators and they tell people the reason your living in dirt is because of israel and the great satan. it is hard to say that already right now when you have -- thomas friedman admitted a few weeks ago, he said all the lebanese kept coming up to him and said this never would have happened without iraq. it was american liberals nowhere near 11 on. the same thing for enthusiasm

with freedom and iran. -- nowhere near lebanon. in addition to the fact that i do not understand the position that when we are attacked, just strike back at the people who hit us. the people who hit us are sleeping under a camel at night. they are being funded by state sponsors who are hiding their involvement. it is not like japan flying in with planes with the japanese flag on it. taking out the occasional terrorist camp, where as george bush said, i am not just going to issue of a missile to hit the rear end of a camel. you really do have to remake the middle east in some ways. that does not mean we have to go into country after country, but wow, iraq was a good start. [applause]

very aggressive right wingers there, but they are well dressed. it is a well-dressed, of britain's. -- a well-dressed mob of britons. >> i am wondering if you would shed some light on the issue. >> the perfect illustration of my book, where the powerful people are attacking the white working class, and acting like he is oppressing them somehow. what disturbs me about it, even now, the beer summit, and the media completely forgets about it. they would not have forgotten about it if they had been able to find one black mark against sergeant rally. -- sergeant crowley. he was like the cop chosen by

god. how many cops in america have given mouth to mouth resuscitation to a famous black athlete? how many cups have never been accused, falsely or otherwise, of some act of racial profiling or racism? if they had found that in his background, if he had at one blemish, he would be mark fuhrman. the same thing was done to him. just buy a roll of the dice in this case, the race mongers, desperate to create their imanuel holstein of the month and claim this happens all the time, i am sorry you did not get it in this case, and now we are all supposed to shut up about it. as long as they brought it up, it is worth mentioning that as far as i can remember, almost everyone of these cases of police racism or racial profiling is the act of overt

racism in america, they are almost always hoaxes. is it an epidemic? i go on for pages of all the of fake incidents of alleged racism. often they are white liberals who are so desperate to be victims. there was that woman in claremont college who totally, coincidentally taught courses on tolerance. she was not black or jewish or herself. i think she was converting, in hopes of becoming a victim of anti-semitism some day. she was going to teach a class on the pervasiveness of racism and anti-semitism. she came out in her car had been vandalized. for the next couple of weeks, the campus was an uproar.

may daschle news, and you see her in these photos -- it made national news. five minutes of investigation, and the cops find witnesses saying she did it herself. they wondered why this woman was paying this on her car. she admitted. but you get cases like that of lot, so maybe instead of looking at the epidemic of racial profiling, we should be looking at the epidemic of people making false accusations of racism. like i say, i did not bring up the crowley case, they brought it up. >> i am from hillsdale college. in 2001, you wrote an article warning republicans to be

careful not to try to govern an act -- in act conservative principles and policies according to democratic and progressive methods. i believe that is the general import of it. next i am not sure i remember that column. that does not sound like me. that sells like the opposite of me. you remind me why this is the opposite of me. one additional point on the astroturf thing is, i kind of wish they were astroturfers out there, and i wish republicans would hire homeless people to come in in protest healthcare, because the one thing i keep saying is, liberals will never learn by example. not until -- take for example, sexual harassment. how many ceo's have had to pay millions of dollars because they call their secretary honey.

then we have a president who is not only a sexual harasser, apparently a racist, engaging in indecent exposure, and we think suddenly may be the set -- sexual harassment laws have gone too far. you have to do the same thing to them that they do to us. >> i do not mean we should not use facebook and the marketing methods and political techniques. >> no, i mean the same dirty tricks. i will give you another one. i think the supreme court, just for a gag, for like a month, we need to get five justices to start engaging in judicial activism on the right. the new york times keep trying to confuse this issue. judicial activism is when the supreme court overrules congress or state legislature. that is not judicial activism.

if congress passes a law saying we just banned free speech, then of course the supreme court reads the constitution and says oh, there's a provision on free- speech. judicial activism is a hallucinating when you read the constitution. i am thinking we get five supreme court justices to start engaging in some real conservative activism, and that is, they will look at the numbers and the emanations and discover the right to a flat tax. they will discover the real right to bear arms, and i mean nuclear arms. and just for laughs, i think the right to free champagne for blondes. the liberals was suddenly acknowledge what judicial activism is and they will stop

doing it. you got me totally wrong. >> i do not mean political techniques, but progresses and conservatives -- i made a mistake by mentioning democrats. perhaps in the last several years, we have this tendency to save the world according to our own kind of republican ideas, instead of handing out entitlement plans and welfare to write all these past wrongs, we took the laudable, free-market theory and such and fell into the trap of pushing them with the federal government. we ended up with the fed guaranteeing fannie mae and freddie mac a bailout in october, which bush and administration supported. it has gotten worse since then,

and as far as social conservatives go, we move away from the referendum. we got the harriet miers nomination. >> the crowd is getting restless. >> maybe we need to investigate whether we have not kind of lost our allegiance to republicans. >> i got the question. this is why i am pleading with you all to run for office. make money now so you can run for office when you are old enough, young man. you are very attractive. i think you would make a fine candidate. we are not very happy with republicans. i will be another a prism. there are a lot of bad republicans. there are no good democrats.

i do not think we have to worry very much about the obama administration. i have been my usual pollyanna self since the night of obama's election. every time a republican has lost, even with bob dole or whomever, i w i just thought i am sick of apologizing for these republicans. what has happened historically is that it is a conservative country. you see there are a lot more republicans. 38% will call themselves conservatives. the more the republican party is identified as the conservative party, the more support we have -- we will have.

what happens is you have eight or 12 year dominance by republicans, and then jimmy carter for four years and that americans realize that is why we were voting for republicans. and then people think, let's get the democrats a try. how bad can it be? if you get clinton and then you have the first republican congress. then you get clinton, and two years later you have the first republican congress in 40 years. clinton could only operate for his first two years. i think we are seeing the same thing with obama now. if there's a huge republican revolution next year, it could be the best thing that happened to obama. he did the republican congress, and he is completely constrained from covering the way he and his advisor and like him to, he could end up like bill clinton.

he could call himself a democrat, but it would basically be republican governors, and then we will have peace and prosperity. [applause] >> we want to thank you for your column this week. i know you are probably not surprised that bill clinton came back from north korea with two women, but i was hoping you could talk about the clintons' involvement in the obama administration. >> who knows what these democrats? i tend to think that not only do clinton and gore still hate each other's guts, but the clintons paid obama scuds. they are much better at working those things out. mccain could not even though a few short months of the campaign without attacking his own vast presidential candidate, and then

immediately after the campaign. if all you want is power, he is here to put personal hatred aside. >> i am really excited to go back to my campus this august, because we are winning. we are winning on cap and trade and on health care. there is one thing i am a little bit concerned about what i've been up -- talking to everyone here at the conference this week, which has been great. it is the obama birthers, and he nailed with that comment you had. i was hoping that since you are here and you have everyone's attention, if you could just tackle it for us, because there still some people i hear it were still a little bit concerned about the issue. >> for one thing, a lot of the

birther business was started by leftwingers like this guy larry johnson. a lot of this, they have more crazy people than we do, so they were the ones behind a lot of where was he born, where was he born? "american spectator" specifically looked into it during the campaign. sweetness and light, which is like the right wing snopes looked into it and found out this is typical of a live bird was from hawaii. during those announcements and local newspaper -- live a birth was from a white. now they are changing the argument. -- was from hawaii. they are changing the argument,

anticipating that will finally get the famed long form of birth certificate. they are saying they believe he was born here, but we think he is hiding something because he will not release the birth certificate. the reasons -- a lot of normal, people are asking why he does not release it. hospitals do not want to release the long for birth certificate, for the same reason we watch a movie on tv, the phone number is always 555. the reason all law and order addresses are those that would be in the middle of the east river. you do not release private information. that is why you do not get along formed russian ticket. that is the way fanatics are.

maybe he was born in hawaii but he has a different father. that is something to brag about. my father left me and went back to kenya. maybe he will release it at some point. if the long for his release, that will not end it. -- if the long form is released. why is this fun for liberals? because they are the ones who are always behind conspiracy theories. this finally gives them a chance to say right-wingers are conspiracy theorist, too. as i point out, we are not. no conservatives whose name you have heard of is promoting this. if you have not read my column, among the points was, after

michael more puts out his conspiracy theory which claims that the bush family, that they secretly spirited bin laden out of the country after 9/11, this is all in his movie. it was a glittering premiere here in washington. there were half a dozen democratic senators attending, the head of the democratic national committee at the time not only attended, but he came out and set i agree, after seeing that movie. we went to war over oil in afghanistan. that had nothing to do with 9/11. we do not have the crazies that have on their side, which is why i think so many of those people who are hysterical that are not

even conservatives to begin with. [applause] >> put those dvd's away if you have them here at the conference. >> one thing that came out of the 2008 campaign is that we know you can make prophesies that no one will listen to, doom and gloom if we nominate the wrong candidate. is there anyone you want to warn us away from nominating at this point? >> pretty much anyone i can think of. that kind of leaves me stuck for who we will run. we have a lot of good congressman, and i hope they will run for governor, because you cannot run a congressman. we have a lot of good ones, but they cannot run from the house. i found that out, to my

disappointment, with duncan hunter. the need to be governors or senators, though generally, senators have a tough time of it. the executive experience is considered advantageous. do not run mccain again. i am not really wild about any of them. we will see. we have time. will any of you be 35 in a few years? >> i go to drake university. my question is, and know you said you would never consider running for office, but i think he would be an awesome candidate. are there any particular women that you foresee stepping up in the next four, a, 12, years and

may be running for president and being a good contender? >> like a certain next governor of alaska? why, i hope so. i just told all of you to run for office even though i do not want to run for office, but that is why you need to. i did not really follow politicians that closely. i know that sounds odd, since i write about politics, but i really do not. i love michelle bachman and sarah palin. who else? kelly in conway, you think of the ones you see on tv. that is why we need more of our best people running for office. it is not that bad.

>> i am from the university of kentucky. thank you for being here with us. you are critical of john mccain. we do not rather see him in office now than barack obama? >> uh-uh, i am having a lot of fun. i will concede your point of socialist health care goes through and cap and trade goes through, but with those pharmaceutical companies funding of the grass-roots groups, i think we can stop them both. i think real grass-roots feeling is going to stop both cap and trade, but i do not see a lot going through on healthcare. i am impressed and proud of how smart the american people are being on that.

>> i attend the university of connecticut. i wanted to get your quick opinion on with such a large federal deficit growing, how congress and the president and the next years will attack medicare and medicaid and more poorly, so security pickett's another big talking point on health care these days is how stupid these republicans are saying they do not want government run health care, but they like medicare. bernard madoff's investors like that to for a while. that is what medicare is. they have little ious posin. that is why it is silly for someone who is going to spend the way obama is to say don't worry, i will not touch the

income of anyone making less than 200 bp thousand dollars a year. you cannot possibly fund the government' from the income of people making more than 200 pp thousand dollars a year. -- 250,000 dollars. that is just a secret way of taxing us without us writing a check to the government. if your money buys half as much as it did yesterday or a year ago, you have taken half of our money. like i say, you have to grandfather people in, slowly cut it back, raised the age for medicare, but what it means is to go to just the welfare system. three things i think we should

do with health care, allowed competition in health care insurance, competition in choosing doctors and pay for doctors the way you pay for a haircut and your computer care, and set up basically it welfare clinics by most hospitals in america, so you do not have illegal immigrants and welfare recipients clogging of our emergency rooms. >> i would just like to thank everyone here for giving us such a wonderful week. in less than a year's time, we will have a conservative government in the united kingdom. that means will have a government in the united kingdom that is diametrically opposed to the u.s. president.

>> it also means we will have a place to flee to, so thank you. [applause] >> i think we should oppose barack obama, and the view that is met in the conservative party is mainly that we do not want to ignore the president of the united states, which makes me think i am in the wrong building. but just wondered if you thought but just wondered if you thought we could >> issing that will endear you in the hearts of most americans reject icings that will endear you in the hearts of most americans. -- i think that will endear you in the hearts of most americans. by the way, he decided acknowledge the special relationships. those that do acknowledge i--