center brings thousands of students to washington d.c. to experience the workings of our government first hand. this weekend they will discuss politics, government, and their futures, tonight at 8 on c-span. . . will likely be sworn in in the week ahead. joining us on "newsmakers" on this sunday is the chair of the republican senatorial campaign committee, senator john cornyn. in the walter is with us as well as recliick klein and amy walter. has scott brown's win h elped you? you? guest: it has energized people across the country. not just republicans. we saw his broad appeal to democrats and independents. it has energized a lot of people

and given them hope they can take their country back against what they see as -- washington, d.c. with a tin ear, having too many meetings behind closed doors.. do not have any announcements in terms of new recruits, but we already had some great recruits. i have to tell you there are more common in the days ahead. host: can you tell us the states to watch? guest: we will get more contested primaries in a number of states, possibly in arkansas, possibly in nevada. there is no specific announcements but i think everyone needs to keep their eye on what is happening, because there are a lot more people interested in seeking opportunity for november, 2010. guest: just picking up on them for a second, that there seems to be very few holes left.

you have been doing a recording for scored -- for quite some time. -- doing recruiting for quite some time. the one place it where there seems to be an opening is new york. are we going to see someone in york? is it the tacky? -- is it pataki? guest: i think we will see some more republican candidates. rudy giuliani and governor pataki kept others on the sidelines. the governor has not renounced his intention jet. i am hoping he will consider that. new york is a tough race for republicans. it is a blues state.

it will cost a lot of money for the candidate and potentially for party committees to help those candidates. i am still looking if anybody -- if anybody is watching and is from new york and wants to run for u.s. senate as a republican, i am all ears. host: indiana, wisconsin. guest: i have spoken to both of those chairman and they are both thinking about it. -- both of those gentlemen in their row thinking about it. it is not easy. it is tough on your family, a big sacrifice. i think people are sensing the call of duty in terms of the direction of the country and again, an opportunity to make a difference in washington. one of the things we saw in massachusetts is people reacting to the blacks of checks and balances here. -- the lack of checks and

balances here. guest: scott brown was raising $1 million a day by the end of the campaign. is any of that fund raising energy it washing over into 2010, the national party? guest: committees do not see the same thing that individual can it its due, in terms of excitement when it comes to fund raising, particularly on line. scott brown's campaign raised $2.6 million online in one day. there were people like me and others who were calling their supporters across the country and saying, here is a great opportunity. here is a web site you can send a donation in. help pull off the massachusetts miracle. guest: should we be thinking about the fact that we could see

a 50/50 senate in 2011? guest: are reluctant to mention numbers. what a difference a year makes in terms of the president's popularity and what has happened now in new jersey, virginia and now massachusetts. i think it is going to be a new year for us. i think we're going to have to rebuild the public confidence in the republican brand. i do not take what happened in massachusetts or virginia or new jersey as people embracing republicans. i think we will have to regain that. host: scott brown talked about bridging the partisan tibdivide . why is there such animosity?

guest: george bush talked about that too. i think everybody comes to washington but they find out it is easier said than done a lot -- a lot of it takes some restraint and a majority party. if they take the attitude is this president and the democratic majority has that we will do it our way and we do not need or what republican support, then you would see what will happen with the health care bill. you just got all 60 democrats in the senate to go along, and the majority in the house. they could still pass it on their own if they do not listen to the message. i think it will pay very dearly in november, 2010. i think the president said today, he called peter mcconnell and said let's talk about what you need. i think they would respond favorably.

most of us come to washington not to devote an on everything. will lead to make a positive difference -- and not vote no on everything. when he did not show openness to meeting in the middle, it makes it impossible for the minority to have impact. guest: health care is not dead? guest: there are a lot of people meeting behind closed doors of trying to find a way to jam this thing through, through reconciliation or some other sleight of hand. i think that is a mistake. if the president listened, and the democrat party leaders listened to what the voters are saying in massachusetts, which is similar to what they are saying across the country, there's a need to not like these secret, sweetheart deals, behind closed doors. we want something transparent. we want to be able to participate i think if they have responded in a positive way, then they could make a big

difference in terms of their own fortunes in 2010. guest: will scott brown become reliably republican votes? do you think you'll be someone that leader mcconnell can count on? he is not quite as conservative as some people think it, because of the wave of anger against health care. key is effectively prot -- is pro-choice. guest: i am delighted to have any republican senator. i think on the issues he campaigned on, there is broad support, not only across massachusetts but the country and within the republican party for strong national security, a strong fiscal responsibility, and one that says that we do not want and list spending which is going to hang around the necks of our children and grandchildren. those are very solid, republican center-right issues.

i think there are going to be issues that people differ on, and he will have to vote his conscience and his own state. that is to be expected. that is part of the difficulty of being the leader, counting of votes in figuring out on what discrete issues, is my caucus going to come down on? it remains to be seen exactly how he will glow. i think you will both the interests of the people of massachusetts -- in how he votes. guest: the talk right now that if democrats can parcel this big bill into smaller chunks, maybe get republicans on board. is that something you would be willing to support? guest: all along we have said that incremental approach, a step-by-step approach is something we would be much more receptive to. but i did not think you can salvage this big health care bill by trying to tweak it around the margins. there is so much a fundamentally

wrong with it, it raises premiums, taxes during a recession. it takes half a trillion dollars from medicare and -- to create another entitlement program. i think it is fundamentally flawed. there are things we can agree on -- insurance reform, making insurance more portable, dealing with pre-existing conditions. the focus needs to be on making health care more affordable. this bill made it more expensive. and crew government. -- and grew government. guest: you came out today to say that she will oppose ben bernanke for re-confirmation that the federal reserve. democrats are signaling that they have the votes. do you think that is the case? guest: i think that is a fluid thing. i know there are some democrats who have announced they are opposed to the nomination. the vote in the banking

committee was a divided vote. people are digesting what they have been told by the voters in massachusetts and how that taps into the national mood in their own prospects in 2010. i think what the voters have told us this week is that the truck -- they do not want the same old thing. they want a fresh start. there of people will listen. i think the federal reserve under ben bernanke, while he has done a lot to mitigate some of the crises we have had, i grant them that, they contributed to the crisis by the easy credit and the housing bubble that has helped precipitate this recession. they have not been transparent in terms of how they are spending taxpayer dollars, through tarp. with all due respect to ben bernanke, the public will want to see a fresh start. i think that is within the best interests of the federal reserve and this administration.

host: this is a guy that was appointed by george w. bush. what it -- what is it about him that you do not like? and who will replace them? guest: who is next if the ben bernanke? it is up to the president. we will take it one step at a time. i do not know who will be. i hope it would be someone who would not be a political figure, somebody committed to transparency and accountability for the federal reserve so the taxpayer can see how their money is being spent and be assured there are no winners and losers being picked based on political inclinations. is in every public officials, there are good things and bad the spirit i grant that he did a lot -- i grant that he did a lot. but just look at the troubled assets relief program. the latest report shows the 54

civil and criminal investigations under way into how tarp funds were being used for inappropriate purposes, fraud and the like. i worry because of lack of transparency and accountability that the public has simply lost confidence. when it comes to our economy, our fans -- financial markets, confidence is important. i think the good thing would be for ben bernanke to move on and have the president nominate somebody new. guest: the massachusetts election% as it did this. before that election, the assumption is that ben bernanke would be easily nominated. now he is not. these problems to talk about happened along time ago. was this a sudden change of heart for you? have you been thinking this all along? guest: i have been studying it. i wanted to make a responsible decision. this was a big decision.

i do factor in what we saw happen in massachusetts. i think it was a backlash against closed-door, secret deals. frankly, the way the fed has operated, the way the treasury has operated in response to this financial crisis has not been a model of transparency and economist sinews for homeowners -- used for homeowners, used for areas not intended when we voted on the tarp. there has been a sense we have been fooled once and we are not going to be fooled again. i think a fresh start would be very important. >> you mentioned the possibility of more competitive primaries. obviously, you have a couple to navigate in florida. are you concerned this is going to be tilting candidates to the

right? obviously, i candidate who can win in texas is different from one who can win in massachusetts. >> each state is going to have to make that choice. you mentioned florida. i would think all of us would listen and learn from what we hear voters telling us. we heard in new york the 23rd congressional district the people hates the idea of somebody being picked behind closed doors, and what do they do? they support a third-party candidate. we need to keep these debates and contests in the primary process, he let the strongest possible nominee we can in order to -- select the strongest possible nominee we can in order to win in november. i think we can do that. a lot of folks are as concerned

as i am or other republicans about what is happening in washington, and they want to change it. >> does that mean you do not in doris it anymore? -- do not endorse it anymore? >> i made that decision, and i am going to stick with it. primary voters are going to be the one to choose. the fact is some people have understood what an endorsement means. else. some have misunderstood what our endorsement means. it does not mean we will claw money into a contested primary there -- ploughing money into a contested primary. iguest: could that set up rubio to run as an independent or third-party? guest: no.

rubio is going to be running in the republican primary. i think his chances are better now than they have been at any point earlier. and i hope that all of our candidates when they run and the primary will commit to supporting the republican nominee whether they win or lose. we will see, but certainly, i think that is where they can have the biggest impact in the primary. and in the general election as a nominee. guest: i want to switch gears to the supreme court decision which had tremendous impact on you and your canada. -- your candidate. by letting unions directly contribute, it takes party committees like yours of the game. it takes the candidates out of it, too. are you worried that some much money gets flooded into the

system that you did not be, as important? guest: how will it affect the election? on the first part, i do not think there will be a lot of new money in the november elections, because we were flooded with money now. there were 13 different groups advertising in massachusetts and the canada did not have control over most of those. that is a real problem for the candidate, when third-party candidates come in. i do think the core's decision was correct in terms of the first amendment. we should not be about suppressing speech that we disagree with. it ought to be about free- speech and the debate of ideas in the court of public opinion. there will be a lot of for- profit corporations who are responsible to their

shareholders who will say, we do not think our money should be spent on candidates and political campaigns. we think it should be spent on improving our stock performance and growing our company. i think it is a mixed bag. . i do not think it is the end of civilization as we know it. i do not think it will have a huge impact. we have already seen an explosion of money in political campaigns or the last 10 years. -- over the last 10 years. the key is how to make it transparent and make it immediately available to voters and reporters and everybody online so people can be held responsible for their contributions, not suppress it? guest: the president has said they want to see some legislation. would you support that? there needs to be real transparency roles? guest: absolutely.

i think there needs to be real transparency for all political contributions. i think that is key. i think we found that campaign finance reform, when it comes to suppressing certain speech were certain actors, does not work very well because they will find some legal way, whether it is a 501 c 4 or some other way to make their views known. in a country like ours, that is a promise of freedom of speech and the press, we ought to welcome everybody to have something to say about matters of public interest, but it ought to be transparent. it ought to be reported on the internet. what is the interest of this particular speaker or actor? how do i factor that in my decision? host: valejo put a restriction

on how much you can individually contribute? guest: it makes it harder. there will be other people buying advertisements that will not be coordinated with the candidate. it diminishes the role of the parties to some extent, if instead of giving money to the pack or committee, you can buy the advertisements directly. that will change the dynamic. i think these are all possibilities. we cannot know exactly how this will manifest itself. i do not think this is the end of the world. nor do i think it is going to be disproportionately help republicans as opposed to democrats. i think free speech is a good thing. and we should welcome it and recognize that this experiment in trying to suppress certain speakers because of their legal

entity is a failure and inconsistent with the first amendment. guest: when you look at the make to voters in 2010, do you need a national message? this is what republicans would do if we were in power tomorrow. guest: i think the first thing that voters want to hear it is when scott brown said i will stop this health care bill that you hate. and the democrats seem to be determined to force the bill through, even though the voters hated it. they convinced themselves that later they would come to love it and reward them inñr the next election. that did not work too well in massachusetts. it will notw3 work too well elsewhere. i think republicans cannot just be against something. we have to be for something. i think we need to try to work harder to communicate what that is. that is what scott brown did

effectively in massachusetts. if you can get elected as a republican in massachusetts on national security, fiscal responsibility and stopping the washington takeovers, and massachusetts, you can get elected anywhere. guest: would be somethingç lika contract with america? guest:xd i think it is possible that something like that occurs. our house colleagues have talked about that. i am confident there will be worked done and the senate to come up with consensus that we can lay out for people and say, if you and trust us with the responsibility of governing, this is what our game plan would be. i think it is full disclosure. guest: one take away that democrats seem to have gotten is that is a -- it is a wake-up call. we can switch gears in time for the 2010 elections. when pat -- pathway they are

taking isfáçç the populist me. are you worried that they are trying to make the republicans the party of wall street and the party of the fat cats that needed to be the populists? guest: i think they are going to try something different because what they have been doing does not work. when the president announced a shared financial responsibility tax, the stock market plummeted by 200 points. host: a fee. guest: a fee. people areçç smart. they understand that hypertexts is in recession, evenzv if they are on on popularxd businesses worked their way down to the consumer and cost them more money. i think it will be interesting to see how the white house responds. they feel like they were caught napping in massachusetts. so they will tactically tried to

organize the response -- to make it more quickly. what they have missed that it was not their tactics, their communication strategy, it was their policy that was unpopular. i do not seet( any indication tt the president or democrats in congress are willing to listen to that message and it just. democrats have a chance to regroup? there is a school of thought that says, we took our lumps and 10 months before we might otherwise have. it woke us up and get our team on board. the white house is announcing the are retooling their campaign. -- tçhey are cole retooling thr campaign. guest: sure. o[[ok10 months is a long time.

november, 2008, until scott brown oppose the election, the landscape would change as much as it did. i think it is going to require something other than 18 here. they will have to listen and understand -- something other than aw3 tin ear. the public is saying that we want our representatives to represent us, not to tell us what is good for us and force things we do not like down our çthroats. that is not represented it democracy. u!if the democrats can make a çcorrection, there is plenty of time for them to comew3çó back. host: there will be a bipartisan commission. do you support the idea? well i have the teeth to cut the deficit? guest: i think that is a good start.

the commission is to report back before the 2010 election, not after. we need to deal with spending first before the commission looks at raising taxes in order to deal with the deficit. i think those are two things that could improve it and i think we will have a chance to vote are something that looks like that before long. host: do you support it? guest: i have a co-sponsor. i do not think this ought to be used as a means to raise taxes without cutting spending. that is my concern. we need to have the commission report back before theç 2010 election to promote greater accountability. it will make it more likely something will get done. guest: how you structure that? -- do you structure that? guest: i have co-sponsored the  because i believe you have to haveç everything on the tab. i do not want it to be used as

cover for raising taxes and not dealing with the reckless spending we see coming out of washington, d.c. it is a matter of priority is and how you sequence this. i would like to see us start with spending first. guest: we talked about this throughout the morning, but looking at the polling that was done in massachusetts after scott boehner of's win, suggests that even people who voted for him want to see him reach out and work with democrats. if democrats do as you suggested and they reach out, do you risk looking like the so- called party of no. ç if you do not reach back and shake hands? don't you have to do something with them if they ask? çguest: if it isw3 sincere, wee to meetç them halfway. we have seen some talk about it. i will tell you republicansç ae happy to work with democrats to try tou! find the battleground n important issues from health care to national-security -- --

find the middle ground on important issues from health care to national security. i think the press -- if the president would work with us, it would actually help his presidencyç to be more successful. he would have something he could point to as a success. as long as they persist in trying to do it my way or the highway and do it all by themselves, when it is unpopular as health care, it is an albatross. i think it would benefit both parties and benefit the american people for us to find common ground. guest: çósenator basically, they were told any of your ideas are unacceptable and all the public amendments before the two senate