party lines. there are some exceptions to that, but by and large the message was, we are going to do it ourselves and without you, and that led to the breakdown. >> it sure suggests there is no possibility. it seems we have got to this place where we are in a polarized position. >> i hope not, and i do not think so. all of us to run for reelection had better listen to what the voters are telling us. that is not what they want, and if we see something they do not like, they have the power to change it by electing someone different. i am an optimist by nature. i think if i did not see an opportunity to make things better, i would not want this job, but i do, and i am more

hopeful that this will actually occur -- maybe not immediately. republicans are going to continue to be a disadvantage minorities through 2010, but the pendulum does swing, and hopefully, we will be able to have more of a balanced by partisan result. we will have more of a balanced approach as a result. host: will you be in majority this time next year? guest: i think that would be a difficult thing to happen. 2010 as a tough year for us because there are 18 republicans, 18 democrats up. the political and far it looks positive for us. in 2012, there are only eight republicans up and democrats have the disadvantage. it is more likely in 2012 than in 2010. host: ben bernanke, what is your prediction? will he go down in defeat?

guest: i think it is fluid right now. i think there will be more senators who will speak up and say there will not support his re-confirmation for the reasons i said, that we need a fresh start. i think they can happen best with a new chairman. host: that sounds like he may be defeated. guest:ç i may be hedging my be. -- my bet. if people like me are coming to the conclusion they cannot support his confirmation, quiet predict i am not the only one. i think it makes it more likely that his re-nomination will fail. i cannot predict. guest: any major piece of legislation will pass this year? if you had to say there was one thing. guest: we could pass a common-

sense health bill throu. small-business health-insurance plans, medical liability reform, greater competition -- >> jobs bill? guest: that is what the voters are most concerned about. and what they see as job-killing policies coming out of washington, including this health bill. there is plenty of room for tax cuts on small businesses, incentives that will help them hire people again. i think we can find common ground there, if both sides can meet in the middle. host: senator john cornyn, application. >> "washington journal" continues. host:

>> thank you for being part of our sunday roundtable. table. guest: the supreme court, a terrible week for obama and not such a bad week for republicans. guest: it was a terrible week for progress in the country. host: this book, coming back as a part of the team, what does this signal? guest: that they are very worried. there's a chance that republicans could retake one of the houses of congress, which would be astonishing, given the fact that the voters killed them

in 2006, then did it again in 2008. the republican party at the end of the 2008 elections was completely obliterated. because of the missteps by the party, they are doing far, far better. it appears that they could gain a lot of seats. this is a huge a mission that there is a problem. guest: that is just about right. you are seeing more of a focus on the election. but there was for the first part of the administration was a tremendously inside focus on trying to get health care through, which essentially meant, in their minds, taking

the fight to anyone. you cannot win in politics unless there's a fight. they are understanding that, more and more. host: they had a super majority in the house and still could like it through. guest: there are a lot of reasons that that is the case. this is, increasingly, a parliamentary system. the degree to which filibuster has been implemented is a recent innovation. you also have a party in opposition with a smart political strategy, total opposition, viewing health care as his waterloo. at the same time that you have

this opposition, you have a strategy that took three months to bring republicans on board. if you get rid of those three months, we could pass health care and move on to something else. guest: that explanation leaves out the voters. we had a situation where the majority party in congress was representing a minority position in favor of the democratic health care plan. of all likens were representing the majority opinion, opposition. look at the polls if starting in august. -- republicans for representing the majority opinion, opposition. look at the polls starting in august. de 55% nationally, you had some

bipartisan support in the senate. -- 55% nationally, you that some bipartisan support in the san teh. guest: people that is approved of the president's handling or because the bill does not go far enough. there are people that believe in single payer. when you look at disapproval, you have to break out. what has happened this time has gone on, i agree, there is a chicken and egg question. when you talk to the people and look at the polling, what angered people more than anything is the process. people were not saying that they thought that some of this should be 300% -- guest: resumption on the bill was so difficult. it would have been easier if there was major public approval on this.

the problem is that people in their states opposed it and had to try to figure out some way to get to the party leadership, which can be hard to do. host: the day after the election last week, we have these comments from john boehner. >> the people from massachusetts -- these comments from president obama. >> the people from massachusetts spoke, that is the first point. no. 2, it is important to look at the substance of this package. for the american people to understand that a lot of the fear mongering around this bill is not true. i would advise attempting to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package

the parts that they refund. i will not get into legislative strategy. my job as president is to send a message in terms of where we need to go, not to navigate congress. identifying those core elements in this package, getting that done. host: when this administration for not to make the mistakes of the clinton administration, they may have made different mistakes but bigger ones? guest: the short answer is yes, right. there's this whole history of the clinton brand and his staff, a widely understood failure, they wrote this plan in secrecy and drought that on congress. so, the approach here was the

exact opposite. they are seeing some backlash against that. that being said, at a certain point you have to say to you could go back and say that certain strategies were not right, but in terms of what happened legislatively in this country, at a certain point second-guessing political strategy only takes you so far. guest: when hillary clinton talked about the democratic chairman of the finance committee speaking wisely, saying if you are going to do something this huge to the budget, it has got to be pretty big. she told him to shut up and get out of the way. which is true.

>> this bill was signed in by mitt romney, the hero of the conservative movement, scott brown. he refused to repudiate it at the state level, and forced it, and all he could come up with was a parochial concern that there was no reason to duplicated on another level. there was substantive policy of reach to the right, but a political refusal to go along. what do you do with that kind of opposition bella what does the republican party what? do they not care that health care is going up 10% every year? i do know >> you are nodding

your head -- i do not know. guest: you are nodding your head, suggesting that this could not be possible. guest: i would love to see everyone boating -- i would love to see everyone vote on banning preconditions. host: is that where we are heading? guest: here is why we are not. no one can vote on it individually, you would destroy the private health insurance industry. i am for a refund with that, there were the being destroyed. -- they are worthy of being destroyed. there's all of this head shaking

on the right, saying that we need to break it down into small parts. let's see how many republicans vote to destroy administration's. the point being that people want to say that this is complicated and the reason is because we're not just doing single payer, because the road -- the right would vote against that, but once you have this policy structure in place, you can add the attached. guest: you cannot do it without a mandate, without forcing people to purchase insurance, which is the crux of that. people do not like that idea. use all the polls from nevada -- use of calls from nevada. -- use all preview -- you solve

the polls from nevada. @@@@@@h'rr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dnr let me go back to one other issue, and we will continue the conversation. you had the result on tuesday, and then you had this announcement on thursday. >> right. >i am of two minds about it. issing said in the interim -- i seem to that in the interim it is disastrous -- in the interim

i think as last shrewsburythat with the obvious problem of money in politics. that is a move towards citizen- funded elections, subsidizing more speech rather than trying to restrict. guest: i am not an expert on this, but i do listen to some of them. 28 states holding 60% of the population already allow corporate and union expenditures in state races. .

>> let's go to carl. he is joining us from chicago. good morning. >> how are you doing? >> i have seen you on television. let's take this health-care thing.

one of their key things is, we have to have tort reform. but as one thing those those not work. -- that is one thing that does not work. the jobs did not come under george bush. a lot of things republicans want to offer have been tried and did not work. i looked and this president, and i am seeing, he is trying. we are not going to offer any saying.

>> let's get a response. hink has far as healthcare is concerned, the important thing is to try and make things better as apposed to fixing the whole thing. the republican plan - i think is analyzed by the cb o - the verdict is it could reduce healthcare costs for people currently insured. it would increase coverage by a tiny amount. i forget, like 3 million people. small number of people. and that it would make some things easier like healthcare more portable when you lose your job. as far as i understand. people are worried about three things. it's costing too much. they're worried they're not getting that there's a pre-existing condition or they're worried thought of not

getting it if they lose their job. can you make those better without blowing up the system and the answer i think is yes. >> i don't want to be purchased to purchase bad coverage. rather the government get me a job than healthcare. >> what byron said about the mandate. it's not a particularly popular idea and again, i don't like this device that's been instructed precise of not to blow up the system. everything was constructed around not blowing up the system so. you have widen bennett in the system. there's ways that people think it could have been superior. just have medicare for all which would be most simple. the bill you could probably write on one page. gn afraid of blowing up the system. so the catch-22 is in order not

to blow up the system you create a con structure that - well, 85 percent of them have healthcare now which they're reasonably satisfied with. >> that's the problem. same way if you came to me and said are you happy with the fire insurance on your house? >> i don't have a fire. i don't know. >> right. so your satisfied. >> the elderly are most apposed to this and they're actually the ones that have used it a most. >> but that's - who covers the elderly byron? >> medicare. >> yes! >> they all have supplemental. >> but the reason, what weaver seen with the remarkable dynamic is that the people that have government healthcare, the elderly are most concerned about the reform precise because they're happy.

>> because the president proposed to cut 1/2 billion dollars. it was the only way he could pay for example tending the coverage to people that don't want it. >> and individualism and freedom demagogues the cuts the heck out of melt care. they stood up and said read the republican party. our state ronald reagan said it would usher in the error of med sane. >> it was voted on with bipartisan support. i think there were only 30 democrats in the senate. >> tell me this. would you tell me today's republican party would vote for medicare would it not be in place right now. >> you honestly think it would get that many votes right now? >> but it also got a large number of votes in the house. >> the idea the republican party somehow put through it's

body in front of healthcare is not true. large numbers of republicans voted for it. >> but the conservative movement hated it. host: good morning on the republican line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. relation to your earlier question. pessimist or optimist. i'd like to say i'm extremely pessimistic and that has to do with both parties. although, i must admit the healthcare thing has made me more pest missic is if it ever passes. i think all the current problems will be solved one way or another. but what annoys me more than anything else and really depressed me is neither party will take up the two major things that will destroy the country if something isn't done about it. and that is the social security

and the medicare, which are both in hock for trillions of dollar overtime, and neither party will really turn around and - well what they consider to be any kind of a solution. one attempt was made in - not the last administration but the one before that. on social security and it was virtually ignored by everybody. and i'd like to know what these two people happen to think about this from both sides of the argument. because some things got to be done or 50 years from now we'll be a third rate country. >> byron york? >> i think he was referring to the bush social security plan. which the president pushed 2005. and de voi devoted an enormous

of time to it. some people think he was not paying attention to iraq enough at time because he was so obsessed with getting social security passed and never got to a vowel. democrats were absolutely apposed to it, and just - just wasn't going to happen. um... social security still is a problem, but i think in our system, it's very difficult to convince people that a problem is coming 30-years from now and we really have to act right now. it just never works out. >> hmm... i think chris hayes just handed byron york his walking papers. would republicans vote for medicare. hell no. >> look. if there's an enormous public approval for it. a party if it's not suicidal a party is not going to appose it

over time. if there's overwhelming public approval for a specific measure i don't republicans will be against it. >> we have that. public option has polled consistently and reliable as the most popular point of healthcare. guest: why do people not like this bill? you keep getting hung on people apposing the bill. guest: let's talk about it's a specific individual measure. in fact, there's a pole recently done. guest: you need to write a bill and debate it and see where the public is. the opposition was not all that big in april and march of last year. it got bigger after democrats finally wrote a bill - it's two thousand pages long and you can read it if you think the public option is great. write a bill and debate it and see where we stand.

guest: we passed a a bill in the public option. it's actually in the letter- >> the members of the house are running way from it now. host: chris hayes i want to get your reaction to the piece at the "washington post". it's on-line by the way. quote democratic cooners will say that martha coppely was a terrible candidate that even managed to disher chilling. true. but had obama and beats the seal of a man swooning only a year ago, something is going on beyond personality. your reaction? guest: that's right. she was a terrible candidate. it was. one way to think about this raise is that scott brown got - i think 50,000 more votes in massachusetts than john mccain got and martha cokely got 800 thousand than barack obama got.

what happened is a tremendous number of people that came out and voted for obama in 2008 stayed at home and didn't vote for martha. guest: and a significant number of people that voted for obama voted for brown. guest: there's 800,000 people and so some are sitting at home. the issue is there's tremendous frustration and discontent in the country. it's generalized and focused on the economy as it should be and there's a tremendous distrust of the country's elite. this i think is actually the core issue. we've witnessed in the last decade almost epidemic of elite failure. everyone running anything that is screwed up and it eroded the public's trust that the people

who are a top the commanding heights of the order to make the good decisions, are going to make decisions in their interest and that deep distrust is what we're seeing broadly across the country. guest: there's an effort now to explain the election in massachusetts as a vote on the economy. you said something like that and there's a front page story in the "washington post" saying cokelys l the poll, which was done with kaiser, says, in deciding your vote for the special election, how important was "blank, the number of"one issue was health care reform. -- and the number one issue was health care reform.

every election now is to some degree about the economy, so that was never do. number three is about the way washington works number six, the obama administration's policies on terrorism. as far as the failure, the most recent failures are the most important. maybe bush screwed up katrina in 2005, but now you have a system with the union deal, which is only way health care could be revived, which is the situation with the cadillac health care plans in which democrats are proposing to say if you have one of these expensive health care plans, you pay more in taxes -- taxes, unless you are in the unions. .

i was in massachusetts for a few days covering this and people were upset about the process and they felt the process reflected the content of the problem itself. they wouldn't have to cheat like this if there were not a problem with bill itself. >> maria from newport news with byron york of the washington exam peer in and your on the air. air. caller: i would just like to ask him about the supreme court decision. the way i see is that, i heard them say that there's been no change in states when corporations could donate to campaigns. on a state and local level it is very different. they can go straight to the candidate. they can go straight to the local government. they can go straight to the

state house. and make deals and get the legislation that they want for their corp. it wouldn't be in they - their best interest at that point. >> let me take her point. host: what does thursdays ruling mean for the political parties? guest: there have been rulings in the past in legislation in the past. various people including republicans predictd to kill the parties and the parties are not dead. i don't think it mean as huge amount for the parties. host: but if your running for office and you're not getting support and you have outside interest groups contributing or putting in advertising doesn't that adda whole new dynamic? guest: when you have two parties competing for the same

votes. >> you have anyone else? guest: it could happen but i think those are fairly unusual situations. you hey may have one in florida now when you have a sharply divided primary coming up. i think in general election, not that big of a deal. guest: i think you'll see an increase in independent expenditures and you'll see the balance tip towards republicans. what's interesting about this is we're essentially running a national percentage. one thing the caller made is a smart point. her point was. really, they're already so bought and sold at the local level. they don't need these corporation independent expenditures and i think one of the points to make here, the effect of the ruling the possibility has kind of an effect even if no money is spent

if your sitting across from the head of goldman and sachs and you're talking about some policy he doesn't like, the threat he can throw 2,000,000 dollars into ads late in the cycle hangs over the conversation now. guest: didn't he give a huge amount of money to obama. the strike to democrats strikes me unfounded. tim carnegie looks at shuck schumers campaign contributions and all of these big industries, shumer is either the leading or next leading recipient. guest: i don't want to partisanize about it. but in the aggregate yes. guest: corporations seem to

spread they're money around and most don't want to place all of their chips on one number. so the idea that this some how could be a gold rush for republicans and disaster for democrats even putting a side the fact this effects unions as well strikes me as not true. guest: i think it will be win intresting to say. country is good at purchases of democrating nominees if you did a pole of corporate titans, who they would rather see running the country it's going to be republicans pore often than not. whether that manifests in a tilt of money rule or not, but again we'll have to say. host: cq weekly. national journal all with mr. brown goes to washington writes about swearing in expected this

week and then the "new york times" reporting ben bernanke. the white house is more confident now he'll be reconfirmed. what's happening. guest: there was this enormous scare thrown into ben bernanke and the white house when a couple of democratic senators said that they wouldn't support him and there's been a couple of other - am i right? guest: and bernie sanders. >> right and there's a few republicans apposed to him. white house, this is basically seen as residual angl anger at bernanke's failure to see the financial crisis coming and spending too much attention on the banks and also to pooring billions of dollars in the economy. guest: market had it's biggest loss in a year.

guest: facing this the market had a terrible week. if ben bernanke were not reconfirmed, what effect would that have? i think it would be a terrible effect and i think republicans are thinking, they appointed ben bernanke and he's probably better than what republicans would get if obama were allowed to a point a new one. why not stick with him? host: jackie combs has a story in the "new york times" that there's been a lot of talk back and forth about the bipartisan commission to reduce the deficit. meeting last week to talk about this. senator supports the idea, white house saying there will be a vote on tuesday. if it doesn't pass then the president will a point a commission on it's own. guest: commission to deal with the budget deficit right now is like - you know - buying flood insurance when your house is on fire.

the notion that the problem the country is facing right now is a deficit, is draft and of course there's an ideological agenda to this to gut entitlement. the whole thing that's driving this train is that there's a certain vested interest inside washington. not out in the country that want to cut entitlements and pair back government and redistribute money from people that are - working people paying taxes into the hands of - you know wall street essentially. that's what the ideological agenda is here. >> this is a plan to set up a doom's day machine to do what congress won't do. they won't cut spending and they have a constitutional duty to collect money and spend money and they're trying get out of it. host: there's a difference what the senate would vote on verses the presidential commission

which has no authority whatsoever. guest: that's right. under the senate plan under conrad gray, the commission would come up with this budget measures of cuts and the congress would have an up or down vote on it. don't play it with, don't mess with any of the things. it's based on what they did with the military paces where they were having trouble, because they all have military bases in the districts and were having the trouble cutting them. so let's put the responsibility elsewhere where we don't have to do this. i don't know if it's constitutional but it's not in the spirit of what congress is supposed to do. host: mary from pine bluff, arkansas. byron york and chris hayes of the nation magazine. you're on the air. caller: yes, i think it's too much hoopla about that massachusetts election. that was just one seat.

and democrats still have the majority. and what they do with it is the most important thing. we all just need to forget that we're republicans and democrats. i'm saying we're all human beings. and we need to care about each other and pull together. to make this a better country and the republicans keep saying, if they care about the grandchildren and children, but they don't act like it because what happens effects their family members and friends also. because all of them don't have good health insurance and good jobs. they all need for what millions of people need. good health insurance and good jobs. host: thank you, mary. we'll get a response. guest: lot of hoop louisiana caller makes a good point.

democrats still have 59 votes. the thing that blew washington away was, combined the republican victories in the governors raises in virginia and new jersey this is a big deal and fact it happened in massachusetts which could be expected to re-elect a democrat, i think shocked everybody. they had only seen it coming for a few days and they they if it can happen in massachusetts it can happen anywhere. democrats again. all 435 members of the house have to be re-elected and a third of the senate has to be re-elected and they became extremely worried about the re-election process. >> your boss says if the democrats don't deliver the 2010 elections may snuff out any chance of reform. >> yeah, i think ultimately the state of the nation will be what drives the results this fall. and there's going to be changes

on the margin. in some ways what's frustrateing is that ship has sailed. and that - that would be what would be playing out in the economy through this fall so. any hopes of - you know, a huge spike in jobs, short of getting jobs package passed through congress which i think is absolutely necessary. but at this point, republicans have every incentive to not sign on. you know, it's much better for the republican party if unemployment is 12 percent than it is at 8%. i can't see republicans wanting to do anything to bring down unemployment. guest: based on an earlier comment. host: all the t.v. networks lean to the left except for fox and liberals complain. amazing. reaction to that? guest: what's the question. host: bias in the media. guest: certainly i think it's

there but there seems the public seems to be getting it about the obama program, so if every single member of the media including fox were dedicated to protecting obama the substance of what he's trying to do is the problem. the people do not like the healthcare plan, i think they were scared by the cap and trade plan passed by the house and not the senate and i think that they got a sense there was a sense of over reach on the part of the democrats and they could be concerned no matter what the media supports. host: part of the problem is they said they didn't effectively get the message out and mark nolen counted 158 interviews in his time in office. five formal news conferences. what is it that he didn't do that he should have done?

guest: i think there was too much focus. one, there was too much focus on the internal dynamics of the beltway jest to give this one passed. the president gave one speech on healthcare. host: townhall meetings. guest: yeah, but he had a year of this process playing out and then there's also a network devoted to - you know - destroying the president's agenda. god bless him for it but so there's a certain degree to which he's rolling a rock up a hill coming to getting message out. but frankly the problem is washington is broken. the government institutions are broken. instead of attempting to revise the rules of the game, they try to play in the rules of the game. the game is dysfunction. >> they into office wanting to do too too much. they passed this enormous @@@@@

he takes over chrysler and aig. he proposes the cap and trade plan. and he appears to be moving so fast on so many fronts, because he has these enormous democratic majorities. they wanted a large majority in the house and in the senate and a democratic president. but i think what he created in the public was in the sense that he was moving too fast on too many fronts. fronts and public message i think in terms of poles and three elections we've had has been slow down. it's not stop, it's not leave office.

it's just slow down. don't do everything. >> which is what curt victor writes about. out of work, out of sorts. he says high unemployment rates has angered the public and president. the new agenda is jobs, jobs, jobs. byron york of the washington examiner. chris hayes we welcome our audience watching overseas and the radio audience of xm channel 130 and our c-span audience as well. good morning. caller: good morning. as a republican, i certainly didn't support barack obama during the election but i understand and was hopeful about the message he talked about - the potent for reform and especially within the healthcare environment. represented some opportunity to improve things greatly, and fact of the matter is that in the

last year we've had to move from hope to reality. i'm kind of shocked that mr. hayes has said this is a center right plan. the public perception of a 2000 page bill is we do here about the louis vuit louisiana bills excessive focus on public and government run option components to this plan. and this is an environment that's spending trillions of dollars on numerous other politically motivated and - i think that congressional leadership has been able to spend the money of the people on these other important but extremely expensive plans. reality in healthcare is we're now talking about more money. trillions more than that spent on product that many of us are not certain what we'll get.

the reality is we need to cover more people and i think for the public to support that people say, well, i might be willing to get a little less healthcare myself if it's a more efficient product and we help people out. if we have to carry and cover more people and everyone that can pay will pay more and people that have current healthcare they're happy with may get a little less and congressional leadership is putting in for their interest of course this plan has no support. host: thank you. chris? guest: think the caller does a good job expressing the opposition to it. it sort of shows the opposition to it is a mixed bag. i think there's obviously a lot of that sort of special deal stuff. i'm not going to defend and i think is understandable as next person. there's a talk about excessive

focus on government run take over. of course the senate bill has nothing that's government run and the house bill has a public option where estimates are between 3 and 5 and 6 billion people. there's a tremendous amount of propaganda about this being government run take over of healthcare when it never really was and there's a sense, and i understand this sense. i have health insurance right now. what am i going to get out of? the two big things one would hope to get out of a plan is you won't ever have to worry about your health insurance being revokeed if you get sick. you get rid of lifetime caps and the cost will go down overtime. right? whether the plans would accomplish that the ones on the table right now is anyone's guess. but i think a lot of the substance will go a long way towards doing both. >> special dealing reflected the problems with the plan. they wouldn't have to cheat if

they didn't have problem with the plan but there's two things opposition in this bill. public spirit of rationing. when the caller says maybe i'll get less. people don't do that when it comes to themselves. fear of rationing and two, people to not believe the idea that you can cover millions of currently undercovered americans and save money. they don't believe it. i don't believe it. guest: it's true. guest: it's not true. guest: let's talk for a second here. you grasp healthcare spending per capita of the countries and they're all around here and then there's one crazy out liar that spends per capita twice as much as anybody else for. instance we spend twice as much as canada. so the idea that you could not cover everyone and spend less money is just be line by the fact that's what i'm saying.

we ration right now by price, so you know? we're already rationing things on a market system but the second idea is important. i think you're right. the idea that we can cover everyone and caught costs, together i totally agree the public says how's that possible? because people don't appreciate how screwed up our current system is and what kind of waist there is. >> former writer in these times. contributor to the nation's magazine. among his books the left wing conspiracy. he's now chief correspondent for the washington. why do people believe spin instead of fact? julie from richmond, virginia. you're on the air. caller: good morning. i wanted to say when obama ran

for president, he run first when he first came out, he was more on the left. as he came on out and seen how america was really feeling he came to the right. and he told everybody, he said he could be our president too, but he hasn't tried to be our president on the right. it just forced us through no matter how we felt and it's turned people off. because he told us - when he was running that he would run and help us and run in the middle but he hasn't. he turned all the way to the left. put special deals in and all those dollars in which he has no business doing. and he's down lot of stuff to harm our country stins since the day he walked. democrats shut their eyes and think e we can do what we want because we have the power. host: did you vote? who did you support.

caller: obama. host: who did you vote in the election this year? guest: the guy that won. for people to get jobs back they shut their eyes to everything and said we got the power so we're going to push what we want. host: julie, what would you like to see them do? caller: well he don't have to stand up there every day and cuss the banks and talk about all the stuff that's - anybody that makes any money or anything he puts them down. nobody is suppose to make any money but if you don't make any money you can't give a person a job. that's why. just like the gentlemen before. no one is going to give a person a job when they don't know what he's going to bottom or the next day. it has to be something to give these people an ease of mind to go on. guest: i think what she's saying is - there's a growing

feeling that obama and democrats miss read the results of their spectacular election success. clearly, they had a huge mandate to do things for the economy. remember how panicked people were in 2009. may they had a mandate. the president then tried to execute a rhetorical pivot saying we can't have true economic recovery without healthcare. we can't have it without a cap and trade system. he tried to redefine recovery into something that resembled the 2008 election platform. guest: the one that won him the victory? guest: people didn't buy it. guest: first of all - guest: he must have miss reed something because he's trying do what his flat performance was and it's not working. host: politics. story in the new york daily news this morning.

speculation that andrews comb o would run in a primary confirming this morning he will challenge governor patterson. guest: worst kept secret. passer son's approval ratings are low. andrews has had his eyes on reclaiming for thrown for a long time. i'm not surprises. he'll probably have a good shot if you look at incumbent as cross the country regardless of parties right now. incumbent governors, they're not very popular. things are not going well. so you know it's a good time to be a challenger. in this upcoming election. >> next call is melvin joining us from baltimore on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just had a couple of points to point out. that's fact that if we don't pass healthcare - and if there's

no bipartisan ship the republicans refuse to out right try to get people help when they're being kicked off or not even accepted for pre-existing conditions, then i think that begs the question, how many people have to die before republicans will sign on? and the other point i want to make, is the fact about the supreme court decision of corporations can vote, then that means opinion maybe if they had the vote and right to vote, we have to see who the corporations are. let's open up the books and see who is its on the boards and on the trustees because as we all know. dubai and kuwait and saudi arabians are all on these boards of corporations and so therefore h we might just be giving bin lad in a vote.

guest: run - one of the interesting wrinkles of the united rule. a company like sitc o could run 2 or 3 million dollars against a candidate they felt was going to hurt their national agenda. they're no, ma genuinely having concern. guest: if sits o does do you think members of the public will know it's been financed by them? i think we'll have a better chance of knowing where it comes from than in the past. host: mark has a new book called game change. the new york daily news called the flaws come home to roost. here's his point. i'm just reading headline here. obama's flaws come home to roost. a year after inauguration.

many americans still complain they find him, the president too remote. too removed they want to see him show anger and passion talking about lost jobs. limping economy and terrorist threats. guest: well, he's try to do that now. his town hall in ohio, he said, you know i'm a fighter. fighting the good fight for you, and he's kind of taken this rhetorical turn. now it's my feeling that we saw an awful lot of the president in his first year. you're talking about mark knoller that keeps track of the appearances. and there were hundreds that the president made. it was hard toest scrape the president if you were watching news television much. maybe he gave out the wrong image but the president who's said to have great communication skills was out there talking to the american people a lot. host: and david placid wrote

quote, we began with the belief we needed a clear message as well as a single strategy. the message would capsule the emotion and substance offered voters and strategy for how they would succeed. there was no guarantee our strategy would work but we needed to committee to one path and base every decision on that single paths. that what the democrats need to do in 2010? >> i g guess so. i'm a skeptic to the i think the underlying condition of the country is the thing that will determine the election. around the margin, yes. they have to have a clear message. it needs to be more populist. i think the country is in a fighting mood. at the same time, the one thing that the president is doing well is his personal liability.

-- personal likability. when people say that his problem is personal affect, it does not square with the data we have. >> as far as the electorate is concerned, i think that unemployment will probably be the biggest thing. if unemployed is where it is today and is not show signs of going down, then it will be there. but if it is on a downward trend, it will be much better. messaging is the first son of a problem people do not know what is in the health care bill. if they knew, it would be more popular.

this is the headline in the miami herald. the death toll is expected to be in $200,000 -- to the thousand. guest: the u.s. has had an intimate, but not a stellar commitment with haiti. it is basically collapsed state in haiti. lapsed state in haiti. i think there's going to hopefully be an international commitment to restore that sort of governing apparatus but i think we have to committee resources for a long time. guest: in bill clinton's speech on the campaign. he said he thought given even in light of all the tragedy, haiti

has the best chance toest scrape it's history in my lifetime. clinton measures things in terms of himself and his lifetime. but i think that indicates in clinton with an enormous global foundation is you're going to see a huge effort. from nongovernment organizations to rebuild haiti. one thing the caller mentioned was u.s. military. obviously bipartisan. i think you're going to see. now where it's going to result in a better haiti.

>> our apologies. lea from georgia. caller: good morning. yes, sir i would like to comment on this whole healthcare discussion. i'm really disappointed to hear that the propaganda is still being put out here for the public. this issue unlike other issues involved in politics really shouldn't be politicized. you're talking about the difference of people having a quality of life or no life at all. that should not be politicized. it's not a left or right issue. whatever reforms will not able only be enacted for current administration but for all of the american people. guest: i disagree. that it shouldn't be split

sized. guest: i'm with you on that. guest: that's how we make policy decisions. i do think there's a certain kind of glib on some opponents on what the stakes are. it is the case that - somewhere around 40,000 people a year die from lack of health insurance. it imposed tremendous amounts of human suffering.

guest: he's in trouble and could have big losses like reagan in 1982 and then back to the re-election landslide. that's entirely possible but it's also possible that history will not repeat >> tomorrow, liz fedod sidoti ad jennifer haberkon.

brian wynne examines the current state of hybrid battery, put in, and fuel cell vehicles. >> now remarks by harvey johnson. >> i introduced harvey johnson, caughclass of 2010.

>> he embodies the body of a national urban fellows. he served two terms, leading the charge on economic vitality and growth. he was called for service again in 2009. he was reelected to a third term with covert 80% of the vote prior to -- with over 80% of the vote. he served as the founding executive director of the center for the university-based development at jackson university. he is an esteemed member of the

class of 17 cents six and a longstanding board member. -- class of 1976 and a longstanding board member. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction and that warm welcome. i am going to speed faster than most southerners. i know that time is of the essence. i am really honored to be here. it was mentioned that i was in the class of 1976. i want to acknowledge my classmates. floyd johnson and ted edwards, we please stand? [applause] that was many years ago.

i also want to recognize my wife, kathy, througwho -- [applause] i am happy to stand here today. it has been a movement than a program. this is truly a milestone. for 40 years, this organization has successfully provided people of color with the education and the experience needed to manage and make change in the name of social justice and equity. in addition, it has been instrumental in addressing critical challenges faced by america. that is particularly as they relate to people of color and women, serving in positions of

leadership in the public sector and in the non-profit sector. i would like to congratulate the members of that first class 40 years ago. we have any of those members here? stand. with your hands. [applause] i want to congratulate them for paving the way for people like me. i would also like to give special recognition to luis alvarelouiseuis alvarez. he has been invaluable.

an abstention, i would like to give special recognition to frank lowe witlobe. [applause] many of you may not know him personally. i have known him personally. frank was the founding president of this organization who first breves life into it many so many leaders across the country -- who first breeds tbrd life in 28 so many years ago. -- who first breathed life intoi t s it so many years ago.

his question was how many of you were born after 1954? and a lot of people's hands went up. i would like to pose the question how many of you were born before 1954? and there still willing to raise your hand? [laughter] -- and it are still willing to raise your hand? -- and are still willing to raise your hand? [laughter] during that time, i had to read the back of the best because colored people did not ride in the front of the bus.

we did not have the hamburger joints like now. they were not franchises. we had a good deal looks cafe. -- we had the deluxe cafe. i had to go to the colored side. there were people who wanted to make a change, a difference in the way things were. some of you who can remember back will remember the summer of 1963. the movement that was taking place across the country started with the assassination of [unintelligible] he was shot in the back as he entered his home. it was a summer that saw the clubbing of a worker in greenwood, the firebombing of the home of the first black

voter, it was the summer were two hundred 50,000 people gathered in washington d.c., 60,000 of whom were quiet, to protest the injustices that were being heaped upon black people. it was a summit that ended on september 15 when four little black girls were getting ready to go to sunday school. they were killed by it a bombea. many brave individuals laid the foundation on which we now stand. they persevered. they helped to bring about positive changes in their community. i am very proud to say that this

organization has done its share. since that first group of nuf class members, who can remember many of these times, more than 1000 others have fallen in their footsteps. 1000 -- over 1000 or committed to diversity, committed to social justice, committed to equality. these individuals of the past have created a legacy. it is up to us, the nuf family to continue that legacy. those who came through in the early years had a commitment. they had the determination to create a better society. their efforts have paid off in a big way. their hard work have ship to the political and cultural fabric of our nation. -- their hard work have shaped the political and cultural fabric of our nation.

but there's still work to be done. there is a disparity in the number of people of color holding positions of leadership and government. it is also obvious when you consider the disproportionate number of people of color who are trapped in poverty, who are suffering from social and medical maladies, who are not being educated by the public education system, and who are in jail. no one has to tell you that in justice still exists. today, more than ever, this country needs leaders that represents a diverse population and to make sure that they get quality service and are able to have a better quality of life. that is why i commend national urban fellows, for continuing the mission that was started so many years ago. i am thankful that this organization is still developing

leaders who change america. many have come before us and have left their mark on society. but it is up to the leaders of today, as well as the leaders of tomorrow, to pick up the torch and follow their footsteps. that is why i urge the class of 2010 to continue the tradition of making a meaningful leadership contributions. our previous graduates have laid a foundation on which you can stand. it is a tube to build upon the foundation. to reach new heights -- it is up to you to build upon the foundation, to reach new heights to bring positive change. again, i congratulate each of the graduates, past, present, and future.

[unintelligible] i also commend all of gavin and the current staff -- i also commend paula gavin and the current staff. i commend our mentors throughout the united states and their academic partners for all the good work you do to keep the movement moving ahead. i am proud of this great organization and i am proud of the many graduates who are now making a difference in our society. but is about a movement. it is about not necessarily working hard to make sure you get there, but working hard to make sure that those who fall

behind you get there. as i get older, i recognize that these lakes are not as strong as they used to be. i am a little stooped when i walk. i don't need glasses, but my eyesight is not as well as a used to be. this movement is not necessarily about me, but about the people that follow behind me. in closing, i want to leave you with a point that i think is very important. it is important in my life and i think it is important in the lives of the people that come through this program. it is about building bridges, making sure that the people behind your able to travel the path a little better than you. this poem goes like this. it is simply called "the bridge builder." an old man came to a chasm that was deep and wide

to which was pouring iselin tiea sullen tide. the old man [unintelligible] your johnny will end on the ending date. you never again will pass this way. why bill duke at evening tide? he lifted his old gray head -- why build you add evening tide? -- why build you at evening tide? friend, i am building this bridge for him. god bless you and god keep you. [applause]

>> and so we conclude. for those of you who will join us tonight, we will celebrate starting at 6:00 p.m., honoring the class of 1970 and the very special class of 2010. i have had an inspirational and glorious time. i hope that it was the same for you. godspeed. let us do something and make a difference. [applause]

>> the confirmed death toll in he is topping 150,000 in the -- death toll in haiti is topping 150,000 in the capital alone. >> the government has declared that the emergency phase of the search and rescue operation has concluded. some of the teams who have been here since the day after the earthquake will start to leave. those teams are exhausted. they need to go home. they need to restock for their future deployment.

>> try to relax as much as you can. excellent. >> at the same time, teams will remain here in haiti to respond to any further signs of life and that they have found. they will also be working on the recovery of corpses and they will keep the heavy lifting equipment in the country. >> we also now go to

afghanistan. these are military operations at the blogger mayor field. -- at of rubahgram airfield. >> most of this is delivered by air. there are good reasons for that. afghanistan is huge. it is the size of texas. is one gigantic mountain range. the roads are poor. even if they were not poor, the terrain is so unforgiving that delivering things by services expensive. i flew along with an air national guard c-130 on a resupply mission to the south. some shipmates needed food and water and they came in.

the military aircraft was up loaded and broken up into badges and loaded onto the c-130's. >> we will take the c-130 out. we have a recent fly mission for some marines in southern afghanistan. we have eight bundles made of plywood canvas filled with food and water. we will resupply these marines. they are in a situation where they cannot get the supplies via the road. >> how long as the flight? >> it should take as a little more than an hour to get down there and take care of them and then it will take an hour to get home. >> is it dangerous? >> it should be. today the threat should be fairly low. but we do have extra defensive

methods on the airplane to keep its stake. -- to keep it safe. >> the afghanistan war has been a big laboratory for fascinating new methods of delivering cargo. the have gps-guided parachutes. you get into the vicinity of your troops in need of water and food approximately in the right place. then the parachute can steer it to a pinpoint location. it is sort of like precision bombing, but with supplies. >> and basically, we read into the airplane so that it leaves the aircraft then goes into the deployment phase so it will fall down to the troops on the

ground. >> when you open up the door, does the gravity pull them out? >> it will give us a little nose high altitude. they get over to the right cornets and they activate air retrievers. they just rolled out by graphically -- geographically. . >> doesn't matter how you position the aircraft? >> -- does it matter how you position the aircraft? >> yes. >> how much do these loads way? >> they weigh about 2,200 pounds apiece. in our next one, we have 16 of these bubbles. it will fill up the entire cargo. >> they do not really have an air defense network. they could take a potshot at your plan with a rifle or an r p

rpg. helicopters are in more danger because they fly so close to the ground. the mountains pose a much bigger threat than the taliban. >> what do we have here? >> this is the container. this is would hold the cargo in one area. it rides along this cable at tyop. the chutes deployed. when this hits the ground, it gets like this and everything survives inside of it. >> how big is the shooute? >> [unintelligible] >> so it slows down considerably. >> yes.

>> operations like that happen every day. it is one of the major ways of getting supplies to the combat troops. >> he was in afghanistan in october and november. we produce several programs with his video and interviews. you can find them on their website. in the search box of the upper right hand corner of our website, type exe. coming up next on c-span is a "q&a" with students from the washington center. after that, prime minister