conference report that was published on monday. >> mark pritchard. >> the first duty of any government is to keep our nation safe. given the tens of thousands of abuses of tourist visas, work visas and other visas, how confident is the prime minister that he has a firm grip on this nation's national security? >> at every point we try to be as vigilant as possible in the way we run the services that are necessary for our national security. immediately after the detroit attempted bomb on christmas day, it was for us also to make sure that our security arrangements for people coming into the country were satisfactory, and i ordered a review of those arrangements, as i told the house last week. equally, we also decided that the coordination of our different services is an important issue, and, facing new technology and new methods being used by terrorist groups, we had to do more to ensure the

full coordination of all our services to deal with potential incidents. that is another set of work that has been put in motion. so at all times we seek to be vigilant. i have to say to him that the introduction of biometric visas and then of the e-borders system will be of great benefit to us in being able to identify people coming into and going out of the country, and i hope there will be all-party support for that. >> alun michael. >> employment in the public sector is very important to the economy of wales, and cuts in the short term would impede the recovery of the private sector. has my right honorable friend made an assessment of the difference between the impact of the tough but long-term approach he is taking and of the precipitate, immediate, and unplanned cuts that are demanded by the leader of the opposition? >> i can say from the work that has been done that if we had pursued the same policies as in the 1980's and the 1990's, 1.7 million fewer people would be employed today.

it is because we took action to help young people into work and to help small businesses that the unemployment claimant count, which was 10% or higher in some of the recessions of the 1980's and 1990's, has remained half that today, and we are determined to do still more to help young people into work and those adults who are looking for work. the difference is this -- when it came to the recession, other parties were prepared to walk by on the other side, but we decided to act. >> dr. andrew murrison. >> what is the prime minister's attitude to the current situation in the western sahara? >> [laughter] >> i am thinking of all the issues that he wishes me to talk about in relation to the western sahara. the one thing that i have been worried about is the growth of ethnic violence in these areas. the one thing that we have tried to do is increase -- indeed, double -- our aid to these areas, and the one thing

that we have been worried about is the growth of terrorist groups in these areas. that is why we are taking the action that is necessary to dissuade people from terrorism. i have had numerous conversations with leaders in these areas. if he wishes to direct me to a specific point, i will take it up. >> andrew mackinlay. >> does the prime minister recall in september 2008 acclaiming the success of the 16 air assault brigade and 2,000 british soldiers in delivering to the kajaki dam a turbine? will he tell the house why that turbine, which cost lives, has not been installed? who makes these important military so-called strategic decisions? the turbine was delivered at a high price and has not been installed. >> order. we have got the thrust of it. prime minister.

>> i have investigated the issue. rightly, it is asked of us why the turbine is not working when it was delivered at great cost in terms of lives and effort. other sources of power have been found for the areas that were supposed to be served, but it is still our intention that that turbine be used to create the power that is necessary for the economic advance that is possible. >> bob spink. >> essex teenage tearaways are being sent to a sensitive residential area in castle point by essex county council without any consultation whatsoever. they are terrorizing residents, elderly frail people, and businesses with extreme bad behavior. does he agree that people should always be properly consulted, and that the location of those establishments should be sensitively and carefully considered? essex county council should be ashamed of putting it -- >> we have got the thrust of it. i am grateful to the honorable gentleman.

prime minister. >> no one should be expected to suffer from antisocial behavior. that is why we have created neighborhood policing units that have a responsibility for dealing with antisocial behavior as well as with crime. it is also why we are targeting families such as those that he mentions, whose lives are so chaotic that they are disrupting the lives of people around them. no pensioner, in particular, should be expected to suffer from that. that is why next month we will be announcing new measures to help people who are victims of antisocial behavior, so that we can get quick action to them as well as deal with the problems at source. i hope he can be assured that we are taking the action that is necessary, but recognize that this is a problem for many people in the country. >> charlotte atkins. >> today's stunning results in the schools in staffordshire, moorlands demonstrate 10 years of remarkable achievement and a decade of investment in dilapidated schools transforming them into modern learning centers for the whole community. why is it that the hardworking students and the efforts of school staff, head teachers and

governors are constantly talked down by the opposition? >> they can try and shout down good news, but we will tell people. ten or 12 years ago there were 1,600 underperforming schools in our country when we came to power. today the figure announced is less than 250. this is a huge change that is being met by the national educational challenge. we should continue to ensure that by 2011 there is not one underperforming school in our country. we ought to offer the best education to every child. even if conservative members sneer, we will continue to finance the education of every young person in this country. >> christopher chope. >> thank you, mr. speaker, for playing extra time. can i ask the prime minister what he is doing to prevent the population of this country from reaching 70 million? >> we have introduced the points system for immigration.

the points system is working because where we need no unskilled workers and need workers who have specialist skills but not other workers with skills, they will not now be invited into the country. of course, when people come into the country, they must have a contribution to make to this country. the points system is ensuring that net migration is falling. it is also ensuring that where we do not need workers to come into the country, they do not come in. mr. speaker: order. >> each week the house of commons is in the sessions, we air prime minister's questions. live on c-span2 at 7:00 a.m. eastern, and then they began on sunday. at c-span.org, you can pop -- and find the video archive of past prime ministers questions.

>> you can watch prime minister's questions live from the house of commons this wednesday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. up next on c-span, president obama campaigning from the massachusetts senate. after that, a political roundtable on other political news. and later, another chance to see q&a with fred grandy. president obama travel to boston to campaign for u.s. senate candidate mark the coakle -- martha coakley.

from northeastern university, this is about half an hour. >> thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody, thank you.

fired up. fired up. first of all, i'm going to let michelle know that you sang her happy birthday. she will be pleased to know. i love you back. you know i do. let me begin by thanking liz for the wonderful introduction, where did she go? there she is. give her a big round of applause. nice job. i told her on the way i hear, you're going to be great. she said, i am going to rock the house.

she did. i want northeastern. -- i want to thank in northeastern -- thank you, northeastern. the president and his lovely wife, thank you so much for the hospitality. i want to thank the boston mayor who is in the house. the governor, the ball patrick -- deval patrick. the great senior senator from this -- i know where we are. massachusetts. john kerry.

i want to thank the kennedy and the entire kennedy family. they have been great friends for so long. to all the of standing members of congress who are in the house today, thank you and we are so thankful to the pastor for reminding us once again of the incredible obligations that we have to help the people of haiti in this time of extraordinary difficulty. it is good to be back in boston. i love this town. i spent three years here stuck in the library trying to

graduate. but i still had a little fun. [unintelligible] i have a good time in worcester too. i came back here years ago and gave a little speech that turned out pretty well. something about boston folks have always been good to me. even though i've got to say that i was going to wear my white sox jacket today. come on now. you want the guy that is loyal to his home town. but i love boston. [unintelligible] and today i have come to talk

about one thing. i have come to talk about tuesday. on tuesday, you have unique and special responsibility to fill the senate seat that you sent ted kennedy to fill for nearly 47 years. and i'm here to tell you that the person for that job is your attorney general, martha coakley. now there has been a lot said in this race about how it is not the kennedy seat. it is the people seat. let me tell you the first person

who would agree it with that -- who would agree with that -- ted kennedy. the only thing he loved more than the people of this commonwealth was serving the people of this commonwealth. he waged a personal battle on behalf of every single one of you. even if you do not know, for seniors living on fixed income, families struggling to get health care for their children, for students the dream of a college education -- he fought for the working men and women whether they were teachers or longshoremen. ted kennedy was always on your side. and so many of the battles that led to this commonwealth and this nation forward. martha knows the struggles that

massachusetts working families face because she has lived those struggles. those stories are her story. you heard her. she was raised one of five kids, her father had a small business. her mother was a homemaker. she worked her way up. she became a lawyer not to cash yen but to get hard working people a fair shake. she became a lawyer to fight for families, like the one that she grew up in, families who are the backbone of this commonwealth and of this nation. and that is what she has done. look at her record. as a prosecutor, she took on cases most of us don't even want to think about. putting murderers and child abusers away. as attorney general, she took on wall street and recovered

millions for the massachusetts taxpayers. took on predatory lenders that are taking advantage of massachusetts families. she went after big insurance companies that misled people into buying coverage only to deny it when they got sick. she went after big polluters to put the help of your family at risk. time and again martha has taken on the same systems for the hard-working middle-class families. [unintelligible] that is the kind of leader that the people of massachusetts need now more than ever. you need somebody -- [unintelligible] you need somebody in -- that is

all right. no, we are doing ok. no, no, no. we are ok. >> marked up! -- martha, martha, martha! >> i could not -- >> martha, martha, martha, martha, martha!

[unintelligible] >> we are doing fine. now listen. [unintelligible] [applause] >> now where were we? all right, let's go, everybody. now listen. [unintelligible] now more than ever -- that is all right. hold up, everybody, hold up. now all more than ever, you do

not need just another politician who talks the talk. and you don't need people yelling at each other. right now what we need is somebody who was got a proven track record, a leader who has walked the walk, somebody has fought for the people of massachusetts every single day. because i do not need to tell you we are in tough times right now. we're still dealing with an economic crisis unlike any that we have seen since the great depression. it has done a lot of damage to so many people. even before that storm hit, with its full fury, massachusetts families were weathering talk difficult times, working harder and harder just to keep up. the people are frustrated and they are angry and they have every right to be. i understand. because progress is slow and no matter how much progress we

make, it cannot come fast enough for the people who need help right now, today. [applause] but here is the thing. you know how politics are. at times like this, there are always some who are eager to exploit that pain in anger to score few political points per -- that pain and anger to score a few political points. the best way to solve this is to demonize others, and unfortunately we are seeing some of that politics in massachusetts today. now i have heard about some of the ads that martha's opponent has ran. he is driving his truck around the commonwealth. [laughter] and he says that he gets it,

that he fights for you, that he will be an independent voice. and i do not know him. he may -- and may be a perfectly nice guy. i do not know his record but i do not know whether he has been fighting for you up until now. >> no! >> but here is what i do know. i want a senator who scored to put the interest of the working folks all across massachusetts first, at a party, ahead of special interest, and here's what i know -- martha has done so. she has a track record of doing so. i know -- i know -- i know that there are things on which she and i disagree. i respect her for that. she does not just call herself

independent, she has the character to be independent. so i hear her opponent is calling himself an independent. what you have got to look under the hood. what you learn makes you wonder. as a legislator, he voted with republicans 96% of the time. it's hard to suggest that he is going to be significantly independent from the republican agenda. when you listen closely to what he has been saying, it is very clear that he is going to do exactly the same thing in washington. so, look, forget the ads. everybody can run a slight gap. forget the truck. every vatican by a truck. -- everyone can buy a truck. here's what you need to ask yourself on tuesday -- when the

chips are down, when the tough votes come, on all the fights that mattered to middle-class families across this commonwealth, who is going to be on your side? >> martha! >> that is what this race on tuesday is all about. because it is easy to say you are independent and you're going to bring people together in all of that stuff, until you actually have to do it. when the vote comes on energy, when there is a choice between standing with big oil or fighting for the clean energy jobs of the future, whose side are you going to be on? >> martha! >> when there is a choice between giving tax breaks to the wealthiest few and that corporations that ship them

overseas, or giving them to the middle class, who is going to be on your side? >> martha! >> you will hear a lot about taxes. last year i kept a campaign promise to cut taxes for 95% of working americans. i cut taxes. and these members of congress right here voted to cut taxes here in the commonwealth, not just for individuals but for small businesses. we cut taxes for middle-class families. that was part of the recovery act. now you better check under the hood, because from what i say, marthas opponent would have voted against those tax cuts. when it comes to taking on the worst practices of an insurance industry that routinely denies the american people that care that they need, and leaves too

many families one serious illness away from bankruptcy, he was going to >> be on your side > martha! >> you know that she will be because she always has. who is going to be on your side? we learn the answer to that one this week. keep in mind, democrats in congress have voted for tax cuts for the middle class families and businesses. now what we're proposing is to make sure that taxpayers get their money back from the rescue that we engage stand at the beginning of this year, thanks to the regulatory policies of the previous of ministration. and so we asked her opponent

what he is going to do. he decided to parked his truck on wall street. [laughter] not it was short tax >> that safe wall street banks from their own recklessness. keeping them from collapsing and dragging our entire economy down. but today those same banks are making billions in profit and are on track to hand out more bonuses than ever before, while the american people are still in the world of hurt. with ads recovered most of your money already. but i don't think most of your money is good enough. we want all of our money back. we're going to hold them accountable. that is why i proposed a new fee on the largest financial firms, to pay the american people back

for saving their skin. but instead of taking the side of working families in massachusetts, her opponent is already walking in lockstep with the washington republicans, defending the same fat cats who are getting rewarded for their failure. there is a big difference here, giving you a sense of who the respected -- the respective opponents are going to be fighting for, despite the truck, martha will make sure that you get your money back. she has got your back. her opponent has got wall street's back. let me be clear, bankers do not need another vote in the united states senate. they have got plenty. where's yours? that is the question. and it would not be just any vote, but on many of the major questions of our day, a lot of these measures are going to rest

on one vote in the united states senate. that is what the opponents of progress have been pouring money into the commonwealth in hopes of promoting gridlock in failure to keep things just as they are. i would think long and hard about getting into that trap with martha's opponent. it might take you where you want to go. and where we do not want to go right now was backwards to the same politics that got us into this mess into the -- in the first place, when we started making progress cleaning it up. massachusetts, we have had one year to make up for eight . it has not been quick or easy,

but we have begun to deliver on the change that you voted for. think about this -- some of these members that i just talked about, what we have done just over the last several months, we've started to see the economy growing again, given tax cuts this fall businesses, forcing banks to start lending again and not just worry about profits. we made sure the police officers and teachers, critical workers across this commonwealth, have not been laid off. but we've got so much more work to do. so many families are out there hurting. i get 10 letters out of the 40,000 that i receive every single day, i selected to hand out to read every night. they are heartbreaking. people talking about losing their jobs and their homes. .

was that there were going to be some who stood on the sidelines who were protectors of the big

banks and insurance companies and big drug companies who would say you know what, we can take advantage of this crisis. it's going to be so bad, even though we helped initiate these policies, there is going to be a slight of hand here because we're going to let democrats take the responsibilities. we're going to let them make the tough choices. we can tap into that anger and that frustration. it's the oldest play in the book. but everybody here knows that the choices that have to be made in order to get this economy moving, to make sure that people are actually working in jobs that pay a living wage that we have a green energy economy that is freeing independence on foreign oil, that young people can actually afford to go to college and look forward to graduating to careers that are building this country, that those things aren't going to happen overnight and they're not going to be easy, but we

sure aren't going to get there if we look backwards and try to reinstitute the same failed policies that we have had over the past decade. that's not going to work. we have been there. we have done that. what martha's opponent is preaching, we have already tried, and it didn't work. so understand what's at stake here, massachusetts. it's whether we're going forward or going backwards. it's whether we're going to have a future where everybody gets a shot in this society, not just the privileged few. if you were fired up in the last election, i knew you more fired up in this election. i need you out there working just as hard right now in those final days. i need you knocking on doors. i need you making phone calls. i need you talking to your friends and your neighbors and telling them what's at stake on tuesday, that everything vote matters, that every voice

matters. and if you do that, if you do that, if you are willing not only to cast your vote for martha coakley, but if you're willing to get out the vote for martha coakley, then you won't just win this election, you will carry on the best poured-looking values of this commonwealth and send a leader to washington who is going to work tirelessly every single day to turn this economy around and move this country forward and keep the american dream alive for all time. that is what martha coakley is about. and we need you! we need you on tuesday! thank you very much, boston. thank you very much. [cheers and applause]

♪ ♪

>> massachusetts democratic senate candidate martha coakley's opponent in tuesday's special election is republican state senator scott brown. he also held a rally this afternoon in boston. to find out more, visit his website at brown for u.s. senate.com. and we continue to look at tuesday's special senate election in massachusetts and other political news of the week. this is from "washington journal." tablet to all of our podcast, including q&a and after word spread it is free and available from the apps store. washington journal continues. host: our sunday round table

with karen finney and kevin madden. we were talking about massachusetts politics. what is happening? guest: democrats took for granted they were going to win this one and they are coming out in force. they had about 2200 volunteers on the ground yesterday and knocked on doors and were running phone banks. they raised about $1 million in 24 hours so now the machine is turning itself on and pulling it out. they may have missed the signal that we saw and it may be a marker of this season which is that people do not want to be told who they are supposed to vote for. there is a strong anti- establishment sentiment. it is not partisan. it is a mood in the country and for coakley to be presented as a shoo in, was wrong. guest: if you look at the

elections in new jersey and virginia this year, those were bellwethers for what was going to happen throughout 2010. this is the first race of 2010. karen is right, there is a very strong anti-incumbency disillusionment with washington now. it has to do with a washington that is in partisan, chaotic, and is not a solution-oriented. instead, boaters are determined to send a message to washington and send a message to incumbents karen and i were talking earlier. republicans have a lot to learn from this because we should not confuse this with a new real support for republicans, necessarily, but we happen to be the alternative now. that is what a -- that is what is driving scott brown. he is a vehicle to send a message to washington host:

there was one ad that has been getting a lot of attention as one of the reasons why scott brown could break through to the voters. let's show it to our audience >> the billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen, will have the media and permanent benefits to our economy. >> every dollar relief from taxationhat is invested will help create new job and a new salary. these new jobs and new sellers can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanded american economy. i'm scott brown and i approved this message. host: kevin madden, effective? guest: very effective. people remember the kennedy legacy as being allied with middle-class sentiment, middle- class frustration and anxiety. the tone and tenor as well as the specifics in that ad help

scott brown successfully connected with the voters. john f. kennedy when he was elected president in 1960 was a revolutionary figure. he was someone was going to usher in a new level of optimism and a new effort to challenge the status quo. i think that was something that's got brown tapped into. guest: part of the people are frustrated and it was being called the kennedy seat. this ad broke through. i do think that it is also ironic that you have republicans trying to recast themselves as populists on the side of middle class, hard-working americans when it was a republican president and republican- controlled congress that passed tax cuts that favor the wealthy over the middle class. there is a lot of irony going on here. guest: president kennedy was a

tax cutter. guest: i would remind you that the economic situation we find ourselves in was one that we were left with by a republican president rid our president is trying to do the best he can. it is ironic that you have a republican running as a populist, breaking through on a middle-class message when it has been republican policies that have hurt the middle class. guest: one of the mistakes that attorney general coakley made was that she tried to make this a referendum on the past. fundamentally, these contests are exactly that, they are contests about where you go for the future, making a choice of vision for moving ahead. i think that was a mistake she made was trying to make this about the past instead of scott brown tapping into voter desire to see washington changed. guest: kevin and i agree on many

things. in 2006, one of the things that was said was that democrats have been given an opportunity to earn people's trust. ike leggett is exactly that. we have to take that opportunity and shave off -- i think we have to do exactly that. we have to take that opportunity. the parties to come together and present a stronger revision. .

you got to frankly be on the blogs, on the web reaching out to people wherever you can because it's so fractured how people get their information. >> oftentimes as a communicator, you have to make sure that the grassroots people are carrying that exact same message to voters. one of the things that we have noticed in the last couple years is that the electorate has become, it's very parties patry in nature. it's like the "american idol" electorate. they like to know they have ownership in the outcome. so you have to sort of insent violation many voters to feel that it's their vote that is going to help you win. it's a lot like in movie promotions, people are more inclined to go see a movie because they heard their neighbor say that the movie was really good a lot of that has found its way into campaigning as well. host: we'll take your phone

calls. as always, send us a twitter comment at twitter.com or send us an email. we'll get to your calls in just a moment. this is from the "new york post" calling senator gillibrand a puppet senator. harold ford is seriously looking at the senate seat. guest: well, i think the puppet charge comes from -- i notice that the "washington post" or the "new york post," or as my brother calls it, the new york truth. he is a conservative. the photo with chuck schumer. he figures so prominently in new york politics. one of the reasons that kirsten gillibrand is the senator and was appointed by the governor is because he was chuck schumer's choice. he lobbied very hard for her. he cleared out a lot of folks

that were interested in running in the primary that are in the new york delegation, karen maloney and steve israel from long island being the other. and he also has a vast fundraising network that is helping support kirsten gillibrand. as far as harold folder's can't dassey. it is interesting to see somebody who just a few years ago to the people of tennessee saying that he deserved six years in the senate now making the case to the people of new york. make the same case in new york to the people. he has stumbled out of the gate because in "the new york times" profile, he talked about new york as if it were only the five boroughs. i suggested this to my hometown into yonkers and he will find out who will become increasingly lesser known all the way up to

places like clinton and erie counties. guest: that reflects her strength. she was a congressman from the upper, middle part of new york state. one of the things i find a little offensive about some of the characterizations of her as a puppet is a they are little sexist. it undermines her records and things she accomplished on her own. she is popular upstate which is a key to winning new york. you have to show strength -- rochester, buffalo, some of those other counties upstate. she has been popular. she came to the senate in a precarious way, to put it mildly. but she has done a good job. given this anti-establishment and anti-incumbency attitude of their it is not bad to have howard their testing waters so

voters in new york the of feel like it is a foregone conclusion to have gillibrand as their candidate. i don't think he will run. if you do the market will see that she is quite popular. doing so would not be worth the damage it could do in a primary. host: we're joined from north carolina caller: i hope i'm not cut off. i wanted to tell karen that i believe you are the weakest democratic representative. you always a agree with what republicans say. the problem is republicans have lied about what is in the healthcare bill. including c-span. one is the last time that c- span challenged the president to debate issues host: are in error jill, we did not send a letter to the president, but rather to the house and senate

leadership. we asked them to open up the proceedings to be shown on tv. caller: ok, republicans don't want health care, just like they don't to help people in haiti. no republican represent them has spoken out to help people in in haiti. rush limbaugh and others have, to state they are against helping people in haiti. there were two polls, one from south boston showing her a couple of points ahead, another showing her 15 or 20 points ahead. you are only discussing the when the shows a couple of points ahead. it is typical. it is an orchestrated movement to bring down obama. i wish we had democratic strategists with a backbone to stand up and fight for the president. let me tell you, there are

plenty of americans out there who are for the president is doing in healthcare bill. host: [unintelligible] guest: maybe people need to see the green room conversations where karen finney destroys my argument. guest: i just want to make one point. one of the things somber tone we have these opportunities for discussion -- i absolutely am a very strong democrat. we just discussed that i feel strongly republicans have not done a good job for middle-class americans. where there is agreement we need to be able to discuss that. we're not credible if we only take talking points. we should be able to say when we have done well or mistakes. it is the same when republicans have done something right. if people want a true analysis,

we have to be credible. i try not to make it into just these either/or arguments, but to get to real issues. host: here is a message from twitter. guest: maybe she should look at the town hall with lugou dobbs. guest: karen finney is a worthy foe. host: the unwary. they're coming after you next. [laughter] host: let's go to mark from cape cod, independent line. caller: good morning. this collection on tuesday is scott brown huge. we -- he was out doing a tour yesterday. i could literally hear him from

1 mile away. you'd think that it was a ball game. host: you are calling on the independent line. are you truly an independent voter? caller: yes. unlike the other caller, i think that people are dissatisfied with the democratic party totally dropping the ball on this. deval is not like much for massachusetts and with coakley going hand-in-hand i think people really to give for granted. even until yesterday i don't think that coakley thinks it is really important. she seems only meet in december. -- meek and somber. i think that scott brown is a steamroller here. it will be a message. i don't know who i will vote

for. the one thing i did not like about scott brown during the debate -- he seemed a little condescending. maybe a little overbearing. i did not personally like it. other than that he has run a great campaign. he deserves to win, but coakley does not. come to find other issues from north adams and i did not even know that. host: ok. guest: i were to some notes here. i think that the caller makes a good point. it is always troubling and karen would agree -- going into the last 72 hours contending that enthusiasm gap. the last few days and this week

and have shown that the republican campaign scott brown's campaign, is very confident, aggressive, going on the offense. coakley's campaign has been flailing. it is never a good sign. what mark saw in massachusetts is an enthusiasm gap which is hard to overcome in the last few days. as an independent voter, that is one of the things as republicans we do seek. an incredible opportunity that many independents lining with republican sentiment against spending and deficits and the washington status quo. we are beginning to return once again, republicans, to the mantle of being the reform and ideas party. democrats are starting to be seen as defenders of the status quo. lastly, attributes the matter so much in campaigns. mark pointed out that he felt

she was from wisconsin, someone who is not him. that is a fundamental question -- does this candidate understand the problems, anxieties of people like me? scott brown is winning that race right now. with a very strong indicator of white coakley got herself into this problem. host: this reporter says amidst the ceaseless campaign commercials at the brown campaign is managed with overriding cheerfulness. coakley by contrast is attacking so relentlessly that they risked undermining her own support. at what point do negative ads hurt yourself? guest: there is always a fine line. you are trying to define yourself and your bottom. you generally define your point with mostly negative that spring and she is obviously running from behind a little. but i think enthusiasm is ginger.

the democratic machine is turning itself arm. he got the benefit. when you are behind you can go one of two boys. you can go-to catch up, or stay positive. clearly he has done some very smart things. he has done a good job of positioning himself and tapping into the anchor people feel -- anger people feel. as democrats we are the party in power, the establishment, whether or not that is a fair moniker. i think we are undoing the policies of the last eight years -- but it does not matter. it is always a better position to be challenging the status quo at a time like this. host: one of the problems of the negative ads is your fingers are on the crime scene. early on let surrogates define your opponent and paint them

negatively early on and then make your closing argument. host: this is the one-year anniversary of barack obama being sworn in. here is a headline from the paper -- the magazine. guest: that has been the central charge, if not one of frustration that many republicans have had. that there is a cult of personality around president obama that has helped to build him up. he has really never been about substance, but mostly about style. that he has never had the scrutiny many other candidates have had that whwho ascended toe presidency. i have not read the article, but that is a frustration out there. guest: one of the things about president obama important to remember -- is trying to do things differently.

will obama change washington, or washington change obama? that is always the question. people were so excited when year-ago -- one year ago when he became president and they want change. unfortunately, it has been harder to make a check and then he would of expected or like to bring up some of it will bear out in the 2010 elections. he came to the presidency at a time when it any one of the issues he is dealing with on his plate our presidency-defining issue. the economy, afghanistan, iraq -- the charges with global warming and the environment. these are all such meaty issues. he is trying to do things differently. i thought of it will be effective or successful, but i hope so. it is what he campaigned on.

we have so many polling mechanisms and pick everything apart. i do we don't get a chance to take a step back and look at what is really going on. we or so in the minutia of the day to day and up and down. host: a new poll out there, the from page of "the post" -- showing disappointment. john writes that you're into is presidency obama faces the polarizing bashan and soured public assessments of his efforts to change washington. guest: that is where i would disagree with karen's >> he said he was going to

change washington and he has not. he xively cynical, he has immediately every time he has faced a challenge or a bump in the road, he has become very partisan and he has become -- and he has looked back rather than being someone who is visionary and together and bringing together, he has done exactly the opposite. it happened with the stimulus bill and health care. the american public had very high expectations. those high expectations were driven by and large part by president obama himself. the obama brand was this unified partisan brand about the man that could change washington. because he made it about one person and the challenges are so great, he essentially overpromised and underdelivered. >> obviously i disagree. when you have a close -- republicans in congress who

made it very clear from day one that their objective was to destroy the obama presidency, and they have consistently time and time and time again stood in the way of progress and said no and not been willing to be a loyal opposition party and come to the table with ideas. be all opposition party and come to the table with table-- instead from the beginning it was about republicans figuring out the best strategy to take down obama. at first there were concerned because his poll numbers were so high. then they felt they found an opening with healthcare be in their waterloo. congress bears some responsibility. republicans have abdicated their responsibility with healthcare reform. republicans never did care about passing health care reform. if they had it would have come to the table with real ideas and the beginning, not waited until the end to say they need more

time or needed chance to read it and throwing out ideas that would not move the ball down the field to solve the problem. guest: let we disagree with you and the previous caller who said the republicans do not care about health care reform. i don't know anyone on capitol hill who does not want reform but the differences are on the fundamentals and that the specifics. we have a vision and said the democrats. the president had an incredible reservoir of goodwill with the public. the public essentially gave him a mandate to help to change washington. as soon as the process had a bump, as it always does on capitol hill, he returned reflexively partisan as did his party. the reason health care has had so many problems is because within the democratic caucus they have a hard time convincing

moderates that the trillion dollar plan is the way to go. i do not agree with the assertion that republicans do not care. if anything it encourages more rhetorical extremes by both parties. guest: i don't think republicans made clear that it was a party, but wanted to use health care as an imperative against the president as a party. there is a difference in priorities. guest: voters increasingly think that you have a $1 trillion healthcare bill with very little reform and it. host: pete, albany georg, georg. caller: good morning. you may delete laid all the responsibility at the feet of the republicans. it was bill clinton. he laid the groundwork for this

whole thing to emanate. you are for getting chris dodd and barney frank and the great work at freddie and fannie. then you act as though americans are against the average person when the democrats do all they can to drive up energy costs from drilling for oil to creating new nuclear facilities. they have always been against that and it is causing middle- class people to pay more for every good that they buy. how can you make the statement and have the republican ignore it? republicans were single-handedly the cause for the financial breakdown? when you had democrats urging no-money down home loans. they were responsible for things you neglect to mention. it amazes me you could think that the democratic party had no cause in a financial meltdown. guest: well, in the interest of

full disclosure of have clients and the financial services industry, however, i disagree and that i laid all of the feet of the gop. i did say was republican policies like the bush wealthy tax cut that were harmful to the middle class. the financial meltdown has a lot of dirty hands. members of congress quite frankly are using will street as a whipping post. a lot of the same members helped to repeal these measures. i hope as we get through this process by phil a., we learn more not only about what was happening at the banks, but also what congress and the fed were and were not doing. where were the regulation, were they being enforced properly? i think we will find there are a lot of people who are to blame

and have some fault. i hope this process in the senate and then through a conference committee, and again with this commission, hope to get to the bottom of what really happened to make sure it does not happen again. i always thought the idea of too big to fail seemed ridiculous. it is true that president bush signed the tarp plan. that is not me lang it at the feet of republicans. that is a fact. on issues like energy president obama has showed leadership on green jobs and alternative energy. president bush did not pursue that interest over his eight years. he privatized social security, but did not make any inroads on alternative energy, not only for the cost issue, but now we're bogged down with iraq and afghanistan we have national

security issues at stake. host: here is the front page with the new politician in office. it gives republicans reason to celebrate across the country. guest: his campaign served as a template for republicans going forward. he was focused on economic issues. he had an optimistic message. his message focus also on non- traditional republican issues. what republicans learned from that particular campaign is one we focus on our core fundamental values, beliefs and take that message and make it an argument about substance rather than volume to an electorate increasingly center-right, and

take the arguments many would say are conservative but make, them into a big make that we could win elections. the guys up in boston right now have taken heed. you are seeing a play out similarly there. guest: then again, the other thing republicans candidates did most is not to cast themselves as republican establishment. sarah palin did not go to campaign for them. they refused other republican incumbents campaigning for them. they did not focus on an attack obama. but in virginia they tried to tie christi to national democrats. they understood this was an anti-establishment of. time to be seen as an

independent republican -- whether that is true remains to be seen. mcdonnell actually praised obama as a couple of stops. he was very smart and reached out to the african-american and hispanic communities. that is not something traditionally done. he did not necessarily pick up support, but repressed turnout for christie. guest: it also appealed to those in the middle. host: our guests are still with us until the top of the hour. xm radio and also c-span radio available. here's a comment by twitter.

laverne from san antonio on the democrats' line. caller: i have been watching the show for a long time. the young man from georgia was talking about the cost of energy and what he sees as the president not been willing to look at energy. let's look at change. tell us what was going on in the closed door meetings. i am sick of these polls. no one has ever asked what i thought. greta was on one day talking about how 60% americans were against the healthcare bill. how can the number of people speak for me?

look at the money spent every day on these wars. iraqi here. the majority of those fighting this work our national guard and reserve this. the american people have no idea about the cost of this war. not only now what it is, but in the very near future. guest: i agree with the caller. in some ways in 2008 i thought it was one of the untold stories, not only for the brave men and women overseas, but when they come home the cost to them and their families in terms of of their injuries many of which

will require long-term care. we heard stories about parents coming out of retirement to help support perhaps a son or daughter coming home injured. the ripple effects will something we will learn about four years and years to come. there have been studies, particularly with the multiple deployments on the children. suicide rates in divorce rates are up. there is a mental health component. there is a health-care component, but also what are we doing to help them when they return home to reintegrate? we're not talking about it enough. host: let's turn to haiti in this miami paper. help on the horizon. now is the chance to get it right. here are some comments from

former presidents clinton and bush. >> there is an unbelievable spirit among the haitian people. while the earthquake destroyed a lot it did not destroy their spring of the people of haiti will recover and rebuild and as they do they know there will have a friend in the u.s. >> it is still one of the most remarkable, unique places i have ever been. they can escape their history and build a better future if we do our part. host: kevin madden, as you saw -- guest: it was an extraordinary message to the world about collective efforts by americans to happen this time of need. it echoes another importer and point that this is not the time for partisanship, but for everyone to come together to

help. it is also an important lesson about the u.s. efforts in development to run the web. i work with a lot of groups in my private sector job who are concerned with development s to the importance of helping them to build an for structures so they are more stable population, that and around the world with developing nations. i hate to view it as an "opportunity" but americans will see it as a chance to improve our image around the world as guest: i mean it's just an incredible story. when you watch it on television, you can't fully grasp the full devastation

story after story. i think it's always in a time like this, important for the american people that at the highest levels of leadership in our country, we can come together. despite our disagreements that when it's really important we come together. frankly, that is why folks have been disappointed to see some of the criticism from republicans around some of the things that president obama has done with regard to security. i would like to see more republicans calling out for aid to haiti, but the most important thing is to see two former presidents, three presidents, two former presidents coming together and i thought president bush was great yesterday. i laughed out loud when he  said, you know, send cash. that was his blunt, direct style. guest: his direct blunt style. guest: in this case, he is right. they need money. the one thing about haiti and i

agree with kevin about developments and the moment concerning development -- i hope that we learn from this opportunity as to what we can do in the future to get resources to people. it is frustrating to hear stories again as we did after hurricane katrina, 9/11, when you have the outpouring of support, but they cannot get it to people. host: from the atlanta paper they write that the red cross received $45 million within three hours, $5 million came from those using cell phones. guest: it is a testament to how technology is helping to connect with people around the world, similarly disposed towards helping. it is also a sign we need to continue to look for ways to streamline bureaucracy to be

more effective. host: kevin madden, a republican strategist, former communications director for mitt romney. karen finney the work for john edwards in it 2004. under a contributor to msnbc. dean joins us from san diego. caller: good morning. i'm a disabled veteran. the young lady sitting there, was wondering whether washington would change of, or obama will change washington -- i think that washington will change obama. i'm disappointed. we're all christians. but only god knows who is christian and who is not. republicans when they were in office put this country in the worst situation that we could be

in. this guy sitting there talking, he realizes what the republicans did to this country. how in the world can you sit there with a straight face it and say what you say? i told people that obama would get some jobs in hear. the republicans -- the republicans did not do a day's work since they were in office. we are paying them some $100,000 per year to a creek. how many jobs did the republicans make? not one. guest: i think that he is emblematic of many people's an ger out there when they look at washington as a dysfunctional entity good with democrats and

republicans. as a political strategist a think both karen are aware that the american public has increasingly desired fast results. it is one of the down sides of technology. people are looking for the instant reaction and also for the instant solution. dean's point also, the public is increasingly tilted by president obama's having over-promised and under-delivered -- feeling increasingly jilted. he has become as partisan and as interested in instant political gratification as washington always has been. host: did it you wanted to

respond? guest: no, obviously i disagree. president obama has a lot on his plate and is trying to take us through as much as the can as quickly as he can. here's the trick -- we know that change takes time. we also know that the electorate is months ahead of us. they it change more quickly than we can deliver it. guest: they are beginning to vote every day rather than once per year. guest: yes. we do not yet know what the real story of this presidency is. it has only been one year. people do have high expectations because they have been suffering for a very long time. you cannot underestimate when it has been bad for a long time that over time there really wears people down in some fundamental ways. i am glad the president will focus on jobs and the economy

this month. elections are basically about jobs at the end of the day. host: with regard to haiti, this comment by twitter -- let's get to david on the republican line from virginia. caller: good morning. it shows the state of the country's psychology when the lady is the one getting hammered and not the gentleman. secondly, it is true. it is true that she has taken the brunt of the calls this morning. what part in the massachusetts election the as the out of control corruption play in washington? there are sleazy deals, kickbacks, the louisiana purchase -- what just happened

with the union? the people despise this congress. the face of congress is harry reid and nancy pelosi, and i wonder what part that plays in this massachusetts contest? thank you both for your comments. guest: one thing i have said publicly time and again, i cannot imagine if i were someone who have lost my job, were working two, trying to keep my family together, and i turn on the television to see both republicans and democrats fighting like teenagers. i would also be pretty angry. i don't blame the american people for being angry. that is why i say president obama is trying to do something differently, but cannot do it on his own. in general, i have heard that congress has become increasingly partisan. senators kennedy and mccain have

said they're used to be more camaraderie. you new and hung out with one another. now it feels much more antagonistic. as the party in power we will take the brunt of that. that is okay. we are tough and can take it. i wish we could have really fundamental change in congress along with the change in the white house so we can release the what would happen. host: the interim senator from massachusetts will join us over the next hour. guest: karen makes a great point. there is a column from the boston globe today where she talks about how this anger is at a beacon hill washington and effectiveness. joan's pont was that coakley has become the incumbent, is the face of incumbency that also includes the very unpopular

deval patrick and the unpopular massachusetts state house. many voters both democrats and independents are crossing over to support our a republican in a traditionally democratic state. people want to send a message to both institutions. established institutions are under assault. host: today, running scared, running hard -- this headline. democrats and republicans are both driven by the idea that scott brown could win. paul, westminster, md.. caller: i am calling at least partially in rebuttal to someone who called earlier. i'm calling on the democratic line. i have been a republican since far back and voted for gerald ford, ronald reagan, bush i. i got so disgusted with the party.

one of the things was that this cannot constantly the right wing talk shows -- clinton did not repeal glass-steagall. the bill was introduced by the republicans and every single republican voted to repeal it. amazingly enough they voted as a bloc. the next thing after bush was elected that they did was the bankruptcy reform act. it was meant to help the credit card companies. then they went to reconciliation to pass the budget. and it has been going on and on like that and i would like your comments. guest: i think the caller, he felt like he had left the party -- the party had left him. that is something republicans need to be mindful of, and i

think that we are. in 2006/08 we were no longer the party associated with reform and ideas. to reconnect with the dispirited base, we have to get them back and re-fashion ourselves around ideas in reform. i don't know the history of the glass-steagall act as well. my understanding is that then- president clinton signed it and bears as much responsibility as those who passed it on capitol hill. i did not know the point about the credit card fees. guest: have you looked at your credit card bill lately? guest: believe me. as you ask your wife -- i'm just kidding. she knows more about the credit card bill then i do. host: this is an editorial

cartoon. it is from the boulder daily camera in colorado, the google search engine and behind it a tank similar to tenement square, listed chinese.cyberattacks. guest: this is one of the more interesting stories going on and if he had not happened we would be digging in deeper. this transformative power of technology. we saw that earlier with iran where by twitter and online people could it out the real story. the chinese government has been afraid of that for some time. frankly, it appears abused -- google, and hacked in. they had actually used it to go after people they see as enemies

of the state. it is a fascinating discussion we will have about what that means. what google should or should not do. at the end of the day, i find it fascinating and inspiring that people are going to change this world. technology is another tool, like the printing press. information is power. host: google says they will leave china. is that a political ploy in terms of a threat they not carry out, or are they serious? guest: it might be designed to gain leverage. but karen is right that information and technology are so powerful. it has to do with people's self- interest whether in china or here. they will do what they can to protect their own personal freedoms. they will find in their quest

for information and freedom -- it is insatiable. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a discussion on president obama's fees on banks that receive tarp money with steve bartlett and a look at how al qaeda recruits young people with colonel venhaus. and a dispute between google and china. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. up next on c-span, q & a with fred grandy, former congressman and co-host of a morning radio