candidates to campaign against each other? and as we get down the line of this parliament and both of your candidates will have records to defend, how do you see that panning out? >> we're not merging our two parties. we expect parties to put up candidate. we conducted in a reasonable way that we always do. the wall happen quite quickly. this is not an aspiration but is going to be very early legislation. we want that fixed because we think that would make for good and strong and determined government that can act in the long term. up next parliament has been something knocking around for a long time and i think now is the moment to do that. we want to have -- one of the reasons to come together is that

we have a strong majority together both in the house of commons and the house of lords. i am sure that we may learn new tricks of of each other. people will want to take a stand on an issue, but the aim is to have both parties firmly committed to a coalition agreement set out in full details on the reforms that our country needs. that is the aim in in a short period of time we of, a huge way to achieving that. doors we have our own convention, culture, and traditions in this country. this represents a very significant change. in any other political country, there's not a leap radical thought that the parties might cooperate with a shudder for the good of the country. but campaign against each other at election time. that is precisely the kind of thing that you will see now. and i hope -- this is the

ambition -- i hope that people find it relatively support -- relatively unsurprising relatively quickly. we can only help that by being successful in delivering a good government that we have negotiated in this coalition agreement. >> i thank you all very much indeed. i'm afraid i've got to go and a point the rest of the government, the rest of this cabinet so that we can get on with doing the work that nick and i were both talking about. thank you all very much for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you've been watching the

first news conference by incoming prime minister david cameron and did -- and deputy prime minister nick clegg -- and see them again at the state opening of parliament scheduled for may 25. you can walk past programs from the 2010 british election from our web site, c-span.org. coming up next, a news conference with secretary of state hillary clinton and british foreign secretary william hague. and then john thune speaks to republicans say leaders. political roundtable on the midterm elections after that. tomorrow, a senate homeland security hearing on the gulf coast spill and clean up after a spirited committee will hear from homeland security secretary gen and a polish town of and bp america president. that is live tomorrow starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> defending the united states in cyber attacks, monday, homeland security undersecretary on the department's work with the pentagon and white house and the role of private networks in cyber security. "the communicator's" on c-span2. >> and not to the state department or secretary of state hillary clinton held a joint news conference on friday but britain's foreign secretary william hague after the formation of the country's new government. they talk about iraq and afghanistan and the longstanding alliance between the u.s. in the u.k. -- and the u.k. this is about 25 minutes.

>> i was pleased to host him when he was in his shadow stage some months ago, so this is not the first time that we've had the opportunity for substantive discussion about a broad range of important matters. the election of a new government in the united kingdom and the smooth transfer of power this week or two powerful symbols of the majority democratic traditions that our two nations share. we're very intrigued by and will follow closely the latest incarnation of this long democratic tradition. we're reminded again that our common values are the foundation of a historic alliance, which rarely undergoes -- really undergirds are common aspiration. the obama administration looks for to working with in the

british government and build on the deep and abiding trust that has existed between the british and american people for a very long time. the foreign secretary and i have a lot of talk about today. we discussed our shared mission in afghanistan and he reaffirmed his government's commitment to working with the international community and the afghans for the long-term stability there. the united states is deeply appreciative of the british contribution in afghanistan, and we honor the sacrifices of the british service members who served their country with such distinction overseas. the and not a states and the united kingdom are also firmly committed to the nato mission in afghanistan. we support the efforts by the afghan government to fight corruption and build a stable and sick or government and country -- and secure government and country. we will continue our close consultation on the matters

going forward 3 we remain united in our insistence that iran had to fill its international obligations and prove that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. contrary to recent suggestions, iran has not indicated any interest in or accepted the standing offer of the it 5 + 1 to discuss international concerns over in the new program. rather, are wrong senior officials continue to said they will not talk about their nuclear program with the spirit we're working closely with our u.k. and other partners on a new security council resolution affirming that there are serious consequences to their continued flouting of the international institutions and failure to comply with iaea resolution through the foreign secretary and i also discuss the important to find a way forward in the middle east peace process

through our countries will continue working together to encourage all parties to resume and it -- to read negotiations. we seek a two-state solution to the israeli-palestinian conflict with an overall goal of securing peace in the middle east that requires everyone at the table. and there are so many other issues that we touched on. we share a mutual interest in restoring confidence in the financial sector in europe and in the year rose some -- euro zone. i look forward to a very strong working relationship with the foreign secretary. it is a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity to began what will be a long, close, and at times intense consultations over the months and years ahead. >> thank you. it is an immense pleasure for me to be here today. i was here not so many months ago as a shadow foreign

secretary and we had a very good meeting them. was my hope that we would work together and government. and now we do have the opportunity to do so. his been an extraordinary week in british politics. only a week sent the british election results came in and now we have a new government created in a new way. one of the things that has struck the prime minister and i is the share want -- the sheer warmth of the welcome from the united states. the first call to david cameron was from the president united states. and the first phone call i answered was from secretary clinton. one of the reasons i wanted to come here so quickly and have our meeting is to show that we reciprocate that warmth and we're looking forward to exactly the relationship with the sec -- which the secretary

of state has been describing. this new british government has some real ambition and energy and determination to rebuild our economic strength at home, which is of course the foundation of any successful government, but to deliver distinctive british foreign policy abroad. i'm aware coming yein that the challenges of foreign policy are uniquely trekkie. i've had such huge admiration for secretary clinton, the leadership she has provided the international community, the energy, the ideas, her advocacy of women's rights, development, and effective diplomacy -- they are expiring examples to other foreign ministers and would-be foreign ministers around the world. i pay tribute to her for that. and today we've had very productive talks the reply to this very wide agenda of issues

which the united kingdom and united states work in partnership on we talked about our joint effort in afghanistan in which the prime minister has made our top priority and foreign affairs. we would take the nato strategy and the agreements made at the conference the time and the support to succeed. we discussed it closer related situation in pakistan where we and the united states share common goals and indeed have already started finding ways to enhance and strengthen our cooperation in the support that we give to pakistan. we discussed and iran where we of course agree on the need to send a strong and united signal about our wrongs nuclear program. to secure the passage of a un security council resolution, and the united kingdom will thereafter play a key role in

ensuring any determination by the european union to follow what such a resolution. we talked about the middle east peace process and i express my full and firm support for the president's effort to relaunch negotiations, and what we as a leading member of the you can do to prop up these efforts. we will work together on the crucial issue of nuclear proliferation, and we hope progress will be made in new york. and we discussed developments in europe. i reiterated my determination that the european union should be a strong partner with the united states in meeting our shared challenges and the determination of the new british government to play are highly active and activist role in the european union from the very beginning. and finally i wanted to say a few words about the president -- we're very happy to except that description and to agree with

that description. united states is without a doubt the most important ally of the united kingdom. fundamentally it is a relationship built a strong alignment of our national interest. the scope of our cooperation is unparalleled. our military, our diplomats, our security agencies work hand and glove together. it is not backward looking or nostalgic relationship. it is one looking to the future from combating about one extremism to complex issues around the world. i believe the u.k. and u.s. have common priorities and we will continue to pursue these priorities, and what we can confidently say is that an unbreakable alliance, and i've certainly enjoy our talks today. thank you. [inaudible]

>> forgive me if i switched the subject to a rock. there's been a lot of violence in the wake of the parliamentary elections in iraq. does the minister -- is the administration concerned about this? how deeply are concerned and how might it affect the timetable of the truth withdrawal? >> of course we're concerned any time there is -- there's a level of violence that we've seen and destruction that it has caused. but we're not worried about the ability of the iraqi people and their institutions to work together to overcome the threat that the extremists are constantly presenting them with. in fact, we also have seen signs

of al qaeda in iraq becoming much less of a threat overall, but the spate of recent bombings has certainly been heartbreaking for those who were affected. what is heartening to us is that the government and the people seem undeterred. there has not been our reaction that has pitted -- a reaction that has pitted communities against each other. there have not been recriminations, even in the difficult period of government for nation -- formation that is ongoing. overall we're very convinced that iraq is certainly able to deal with these in both the military and police functions, but also equally importantly in their political structures.

we see nothing that would in any way interfere with our timetable for withdrawing american troops. >> you talked about being intrigued by this new incarnation of democracy in britain. if i could ask you two quick questions -- is there any part of view that or is about possible fractures in the coalition government, something very unusual in britain, leading to a lack of stability in your relationship with britain? and on afghanistan particularly, are you concerned as many seem to be in britain that the surge is not delivering fast enough and president karzai in particular is hardly delivering at all? >> the first question, the

answer is no. i have absolutely no concern whatsoever. we do not formally have a coalition government in the way that you have formed one in the u.k. now, but we have enough of our own internal differences that we have to sort through. i see nothing at all unusual about this new government, and from our perspective is a strong start and certainly on the foreign-policy front, which i followed very closely, we are extremely pleased. and this meeting and discussion has confirmed our close partnership and commitment to working together. and afghanistan is one of those areas. i would beg to differ with the premise of the question. i think that the actions that

are coalition forces, the nato- isaf forces are undertaking are proving to be affected. we conducted our own very thorough review with president obama when he took office. in the course of the review, we made three conclusions. number one, what happened in afghanistan was critical to american security interests. in our own home country and beyond, the countries of our friends and allies, like great britain. no. 2, the taliban had, after a having been driven out of afghanistan, regain momentum and that momentum had to be broken. it would require from the u.s. and from our allies more troops on the ground in order to achieve that objective. and i am seeing signs of that. but thirdly, there had to be a

very close civilian-military partnership because you do not expect to win what is called a counter insurgency by military means alone. the military commanders in charge of this on our side, general petreaus on the international side, general mcchrystal -- they are taking all the lines -- lesson learned in iraq and are applying them in afghanistan to good effect. but we have to strengthen the capacity of the government of afghanistan. i would just add for a little bit of context here -- this country was so ravaged by natalee war but the most intense conflict and depredations that destroyed so much of their history, of their infrastructure, it may seem like it as a long time to was on our time frame in the u.s. and u.k., but the nine years -- not

even yet, eight years, since the routing of the taliban -- they've seen significant improvements in the light of the people of afghanistan and the creation of a democratic government where there had been done. are we satisfied? no, that was the substance of our lengthy meeting with president karzai and a number of his key ministers, many of whom were here to report on the progress that they are making in very critical areas like the economy, like agriculture, like health and education. so part of what we will be doing with our counterparts, but the foreign secretary and others, is to be working to review where we are, what more we need to do and how better we can coordinate our efforts. i think our military efforts are very well coroneted but on the civilian government side, the development side, we will make

sure that we're making the best investments. all of all, this is a big challenge. i am not gwendolyn tercel bad. but it is in our interest or we would not be there. we're making progress and we have a very clear understanding of how much more we in the afghans also need to be doing. >> let us say that we will give the time and support for the government of afghanistan to it -- to achieve. we will take stock of how best we can do that and that includes enhancing and reinforcing the coalition between the united kingdom and the united states at the highest level so that we of a clear share and perspective on what we're doing it on the first question about the nature of the new government in britain, i think it is very important for our partners and friends around the world to know that what we set out to cheat -- to achieve here is a particularly stable

period and craig brin. two of the three parties have come together to put the national interest ahead of the party interest, creating as we've done so of valuable majority in the house of commons to sustain a government over a full five-year term. there's been a strong welcome for that round the world. it does mean stability in britain. to pursue the objectives that we've been talking about today, and everything about our approach to relations with united states is an approach shared by the whole cabinet and i am meeting on behalf of a united government. >> secretary clinton, you spoke to a chinese state councilor for an hour on tuesday night. did that conversation bring you materially closer to consensus

on the iran resolution? and related -- it seems inevitable that iranians will try to use this weekend's visit by the president to try and blunt the moment -- the momentum toward additional sanctions at the security council. what have you told the prime minister of turkey, and what are you telling the brazilians in the conversations were having to try to prevent that from happening? >> i did have a very lengthy and substantive conversation with a state councilor. we covered a lot of negotiating points that are being pursued in new york. we're making progress every day. this is the highest priority not only of the united states but with many of our partners and allies like the u.k. we believe that the case is being made, perhaps most effectively by the iranians

themselves. when the united states and allies like the u.k. began pointing out, starting last fall, that the iranians were not responding to our offers of engagement, that the offer that was made to the iaea for the research reactor approach was not accepted, that there had been no meetings since the meeting in geneva in october, that the iranians did not release said that they would start in renting at 20% when the undisclosed facility at iqom was revealed. every step along the way they have demonstrated clearly to the world that iran is not participating in the international arena in the way that we have asked them to do,

and that they continue to pursue their nuclear program. yes, we are aware of the fact that there will be a meeting in iran. i spoke at length of the brazilian foreign minister. and most significantly, the interchange between president lula and president mad that it and moscow today pointed out that the brazilians are trying to climb -- hopeful that because of the president's visit that the iranians will agree to meet with the p 5 + 1, that they will accept their reactor proposal, and began to buy from the internet -- abide by their international obligations. president a dead bed mad that of -- president medevdev has

said it did not give a one in three chance. they're reinforcing the authority of the security council, putting real teeth into the sanctions, uniting and gold -- a world away the will send an unequivocal message to the iranian leadership. i've told my counterparts in many capitals around the world that i believe that we will not get any serious response out of the iranians until after the security council acts. >> mr. haig, there have been several foreign secretaries under the previous government three i just wondered what you thought you could bring to the subject that might be different from the approach of the past

government? at what point do you think we will get to that stage where some sort of military strike on iran would be discussed? >> i am not looking for a difference from the previous british administration. we supported the efforts of the outgoing labour government working with united states and there will be a strong continuity on this matter, and i fully endorse everything that secretary clinton has just said. united kingdom will work alongside the united states to secure the security council resolution we have been meeting on. we will play a role in the your current union -- in the european union as i spoke of before, and we will do everything as we can to persuade our partners in europe that it will be necessary to show europe's determination, to take some similar steps, many similar steps to those taken by the

united states. to intensify the peaceful pressure on iran. i have long advocated that the europeans should adopt financial sanctions like the united states is implemented on this issue. you have to get into the specifics of that was the security council resolution is passed. there is no magic to this approach. it requires assistance and determination and united strength in the international community to tackle this problem so we will buttress that what our predecessors have tried to do. we're not ruling out military action but we're not calling for it. it is precisely because we want to see this matter settled peacefully and rapidly that we call for the sanctions and support the idea of a security

council resolution. that is our perspective on it. becky very much indeed. >> thank you all. >> watch this week's hearings on the gulf of mexico oil spill or look back at the elks sound of these hearings from 1989. the new c-span video library, over 160,000 hours of searchable c-span program. it is washington your way. circuit, watch it, click it, and share it -- every program since 1987 available free on one. south dakota senator john thune spoke. his remarks on the state of the party are about 30 minutes. senator thune is introduced by

michael steele. >> on behalf of the co-chair and myself, we want to welcome all of you and thank you for what has been -- we hope for you -- a wonderful, wonderful day and i have so far of business and information. we really appreciate everything that the staff has done to put together this event for us and this time together. sarah and her staff, thank you so much for all the hard work and dedication. certainly we wanted to also make sure that we had an opportunity to welcome old friends who are with us, the honorable center from a great state of arkansas, tim hutchinson, thank you for being here. welcome. .

close in your hearts. it would be important for him and certainly for his family. i want to make sure we get the pleasure to listen to a buddy who is no stranger to the excitement and upsets and keeping things going, and, certainly, as you look at his

background and learn a little about him, he is a glutton for punishment. since he was first drawn to public service, when he met a then congressmen who criticized his basketball shooting game, really -- i have to share with you my basketball story. when the coaches looked at me and said, "son, do not ever do that again? " it could not have been that bad. like so many of our leaders and heroes today, senator thune served in the reagan administration. he worked in the small business administration, and like many of you, he was the e.d. of the state party. i do not know how many of you knew that. he was an upstart, shaking things up in the house after the 1994 revolution. kaat he kept -- he kept his

term-limit pledge and went back. in 2004, we were all cheering wildly. he took down tom daschle. [cheers and applause] well, senator, in honor of that defeat, we plan to take down harry reid this year. [cheers and applause] and at that time, it was the first time in many years a sitting senator had been taken out, so this man came with his a game, and he got it done, and we are looking forward to having that great moment again this year. he is the head of a committee, and i had the pleasure of meeting with him and many of the senators every tuesday as they talk about not just the leadership opportunities in the senate but how as a party we get through the policies and the

mission--- and the message. he has his ear and his heart with the grass roots, and is much important this time for us because we need that touch, that connection that says that this party is about our grass roots, and john thune is one of the guys that allows us to do this every day in his state and across the country, so it gives me great pleasure to welcome to the microphone a friend, a family member, and someone who is doing some great work for us, the honorable john finathune frm south dakota. [applause] all right. thank you. >> thank you all very much. thank you. thank you, michael, for that generous introduction, and thank you for flatteringly by wearing

those thune stickers out there. all of the committee men and women, execs, and i have got my delegation here from south dakota, including our chairman in our e.d., and as michael said, i was the e.d. and south dakota, and we have high hopes with regard to some other races in our state, and i know that is true all around the country, so it is going to come down to the folks in this room a motivating and inspiring and helping raise resources so we can go out and get this job done -- it is going to come down to the folks in this were a motivating and inspiring. -- in this room motivating and inspiring. i am pleased that he is our chairman.

he is certainly serving in the capacity now that is critically important to our party and our country, and i have to tell a story, because he mentioned basketball. we all sort of knew that michael was going to do great things with this position and previous posts that he has held, but after campaigning with him, i happened to run into one of his basketball coaches from his formative years, and i had this discussion with him, and he said that, "you know, we need michael was going to do great things at an early age because he demonstrated a great leadership and a great capacity for decision making." and i said, "really?" and he said, "before the first quarter was even over, we were down 4 like 15 points, and another guy was killing us, and i called time out -- we were down four like 15 points.

showing the great leadership potential that he had for the future, michael stepped up and said, "i will take him, because i am not guarding anybody." so --aft [laughter] region -- so -- [laughter] these are really interesting times for our country. i compare this to a story i heard a while back about a person who wanted to become a locomotive engineer. he went to the place where you get such training. he had an instructor there. they said if you have a train coming from this direction at 65 miles per hour, a train coming

from this way at 45 miles per hour, what would you do? he said, i think that would call my brother. the instructor said that was a strange answer. my brother has never seen a really bad train wreck before. i look at what is happening in washington, d.c., and it seems like that is the direction we are heading in unless we can change the direction. that is what we are fixing to do in november. that is why it is important that everyone in this room is involved in that effort. in 1900 six, t norwegian brothers came to this country in search of the -- elaine 1906. the only words. or apple pie and coffee. immigration informed than they needed to change their names. i think they thought that it would be too difficult to spell and pronounced.

they picked the name of the farm where they worked which was the "thune" farm. that was my grandfather. he and my great of go to work on the transcontinental railroad. they saved enough money to start it came merchandising company -- to start a merchandising company. when the great depression hit, it made it difficult. they went in different directions. they stayed in the hardware business, but my grandfather started a hardware store in a town of its population of 600. the middle son, my father, went on to start at minnesota. when world war ii started, he became a naval aviator and was assigned tthe uss intrepid. in 1944, he was involved in one

of the greatest naval battles in history where he shot down four enemy aircraft for which he received the distinguished flying cross. when the war ended, he came back, married his sweetheart, came back to our hometown. my grandfather's health was not so good. he asked him to take over the hardware store. i then said he felt like he had a responsibility to do that. he settled down in our small community and started raising his family. there are five of us. i do not think my grandfather or father would have expected that anyone in our family would go into the profession of politics. as michael said, i had a random encounter as a freshman in high school with our congressman which peaked my interest in politics. it was about the same time that ronald reagan came on to the political scene. i met the congressman in january 1976.

as i got older, are registered to vote for the firstime and president reagan ran in 1980. i decided i wanted t be a republican because i liked what he had to say. i was impressed by his conviction and his belief in american exception was a map. i'm issed by his willingness to confront the communist threat around the world. i was impressed by his sunny optimism, his belief that america's best days were ahead of us, his belief that you achieve peace through strength. all of the things he talked about where things that really struck a chord with me. that is how idec interested in politics, and more importantly republican -- th is how i got interested in politics. we were in really tough shape, but it was the principal the leadership that he brought at that time in history which i think brought america's spirit back to let us -- which led us

to a whole new standing in the world. is that kind of leadership that i think america covets today. i remember a story he once told when we re fighting the cold war about a guy in the soviet union who wanted to buy a car. he goes into the transportation bureau and says he wants to buy a car. the guy says you can pick up your black sedan 10 years from today. the guy says, will that be in the morning or the afternoon? the guy at the transportation rewrote says, what difference does it make? he says he has the plumber coming in the morning. ronald reagan had a w of captioning -- capturing what was so unique about the american experience. it is what separates us from so many countries about the world. it is the principle of 1176. -- 1776.

as a look at the challenges we face today, i am reminded of that. i think about the things that this great party stands for -- a limited role of government, personal freedom coupled with personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, not spending more than you have come a living within your means, and belief that you do achieve peace through strength, the superiority of the individual over the government. those are foundational republican principles. as a the to the challenge we face today, there are no easy answers. -- as i look at the challenge we face today, there are no easy answs. back in 1970, ronald reagan had the national governor's association proposed welfare reform. it was defeated 49-1. it was not until 26 years later in the 1996 that a republican congress passed welfare reform.

that changed the culture of this country in a positive way of recognizing the dignity that comes with our work. it is that kind of bold leadership that will take america to that next plateau. what do people care about in america today? first and foremost our jobs and the economy. if it were president reagan looking at that, he would wonder what the best thing -- the best way to do that is. he would say, do not do any harm. do not pass these programs that rely on a ssive tax increases and borrowing at a time where you have an economy in a recession. do not put

do no harm. you know, it is ironic to me that we pass the stimulus bill here in washington, d.c., but it was all about big government. it had nothing to do with small business. where are the job creators in the american economy? it is our small business that creates jobs. we ought to be looking at the incentives to get them to go out and create jobs. burton's and regulations on them that they have to comply with korea giving them an energy policy that keeps energy rates low in this country -- rules and regulations on them that they have to comply with. grow jobs. on the contrary, our leadership is more intent on building more bureaucracies in washington, d.c., and a massive spending programs that rely on tax increases.

that is not the prescription for creating jobs. there are no easy answers. when it comes to the issue of debt, i think people are concerned about is that there is a fear, a palpable fear, that this enormous burden of debt that we have as a nation is going to strangle us and bankrupt us to force future generations to have to deal with a lower standard of living, and lower quality of life than we enjoyed. the federal government last year, out of every $1 spent in washington, d.c., 43 cents was borrowed. 10 years from now, we will spend more on interest on the debt. it is stunning when you look at the trajectory we are on if we do not take steps to change that direction. again,here are fairly simple principles you can bring into this equation.

do not spend money you do not have. we cannot continue to rrow from the chinese and hand the bill to our children and grandchildren to finance this new spending in washington, d.c. we need to get the spending under control. you need to cap spending. with the preparation bills that passed, we increase discretionary spending by 21% at a time when the rate of inflatn was 3.5%. we ought to and programs like tarp which have outlived thr usefulness. we ought to make sure that the moneys paid back into the program go to pay down the federal debt so it does not continueo grow and become a political slush fund. we need to pass a balanced budget in this country. [applause]

when the south dakota legislature goes home, they have balanced their budget. the constitution says that they have to. here in washington,.c., we continue to borrow and borrow. we passed the bill on to our children and grandchildren. there are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. when it comes to national security, which i think is on the minds of a lot of americans, look at the attacks as recent as last week. you have to be struck by the fact that sometimes here in washington, and pticularly in this administration, there is more of a concern with the rights of terrorists with political correctness than there is with preventing that next attack from happening. we have a perfectly acceptable detention facility in guantanamo bay. we do not need to bring

terrorists to the united states. we do not need to try them in civilian courts. we need an administration that understands that what prompts them to admit -- commit these acts are not psychological problems. it is because they have an ideology, radicalism, extremism that is being taught and permeating this country and exposing us to those kinds of terrorist attacks. we need to underand what the threats are in this country and confront terrorism in the same way our predecessors dealt with thchallenges they faced in their generation. there are not any easy answers, but there are simple answers. president reagan once said that the problem with o liberal friends is not that they are ignorant. if you think about the vision that they have for the country and how that contrasts with what we present to the american people as we head into the midterm elections, it could not

be more striking. the differences could not be more clear. elections are about differences. they ran on a campaign of change in the last election. i do not think that most of the american people thought the change was going to lead to this massive expansion of government in washington, d.c., that takes more power and money from them, creates more jobs for bureaucrats, try it -- piles trillions and trillions of debt on to future generions. that is not what i think the american people had in mind. i think the american people are recepte and will resnd to the message -- to than that is consistent with this basic republican principles. i think most americans right now are sitting around their kitchen tables, perhaps even right now trying to figure out how they will make their ends meet, how the book cut their budgets, how they will live witn their means. the ly place that isot being done is here in washington,

d.c., where it is business as usual. is is a crossroads election. it is a very important time for america. we are going to choose the vision for the future that coists of more taxes, more borrowing, more spending, more government or we are going to choose a future that is consistent with the principle that build this great country and will continue to make it strong. those are the principles like personal freedom, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibili, peace through strength. those are the types of principles that made this great country what it is today. we are moving on a very different track right now. if we did not change directions, we are heading for a physical wreck, and national-security rack -- a fiscal iraq, and

national security wreck. as i look at my status s.d. and across this cntry, people are creating -- as i look at my state of south dakota, people want to elect officials into office who are intent on solving problems. i have a plaque on my wall in my officehat is a quote from the president of the netherlands in the 1800's he said that when principals began to win in this your convictions that piece becomes sen. you must, at the price of dearest peace, laid bare your convictions before friend and enemy with all of the fire of your face. it is time for us to be in the

arena. it is time for people all across this country and across our states to get engaged in the political process. if we offer them a vision and future that consists of those basic principles which i think to lead to great outcomes, we will grow our majorities in the house and senate. we will prepare for majorities in the state legislatures all across this country, governorships, and hopefullyn 2012 and the president. that is what this midterm election is all about. in 2002, i lost an election. i lost it by 524 votes. it was the first time i ran for the senate. i had to go up or out. i decided to challenge an incumbent from my state who was going down until the very end. it was not known until wednesday

at 9:00 a.m. i remember watching that the vote total flip and losing the election by 524 votes. i cannot tell you how many people came up to me and said, if i knew if it was goi to be that close i would have voted. [laughter] i would have done this or done that. it will always be close. it is a game of inches. it comes down to execution. you all know that. it is why we have to do a better job this time around. when 2004 came around, i remember sitting in my living room after the 2002 election and we were having this discussion. i will tell you that it is sometimes much harder on the spouses. she looked at me and said, "i am not going to another campaign unless god himself comes to the door and says you have to run." i do not think that is going to

happen, honey. as time passed and we had an opportunity to process when we had been through, we we sitting in the living room again having a similar discussion. she looked at me and said, "i finally realized that what we went through in losing that campaign last year was not just about winning. it was about the race." that is a pretty interesting observation. which she had concludedas that as much as i was intent on winning, and i am a competitive person, at the end of the day we need to be in the arena. we need to be in the race. .

if we will do that, we can consistent with those core values and principles build a better and brighter and more prosperous future for future generations. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> senators, thank you so much, and we look forward to being in the fight with you. [applause] well, it says here that chairman steele concludes and dismisses, so i guess that is the end of the program. we appreciated. i think all of you, as well. enjoy yourselves, behavior cells, and we will see you in the morning. -- behavior ourselves -- behavior -- behave yourselves.

>> campaign rallies for districts. johnstown, pa.. then, a rally for a republican with the massachusetts senator scott brown. that is monday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> and now, a look at the midterm election. from "washington journal," this is just under one hour. "washington journal" continues. host: are sunday round table with kevin madden and maria cardona. let's begin with a headline in

the "the washington post" -- everyone has aifferent definition of the anger. definition of the anger. but the expressions of displeasure are everywhere. >> that is right. people are angry. people are fearful. there is a lot of banks because of the recession. there are great signs in terms of recovery, but until we see the numbers in terms of job creation, people will continue to be nervous and will focus it on washington. i thinkt is anti-incumbent and not anti-democratic. we have seen it all aund. the republican leadership has even said that is anti-incumbent because of what happened to bob bennett in utah. we are seeing across the board. what democrats need to do is -- we knew that these midterm elections would be difficult. what happened in 2006 and 2008 in terms of democrats winning

more house seats, it meant that there are few republican seats left to lose. so there are a lot of democratic seats that are vulnerable. we know that. are in a good situation in terms of raising money. we will take the case to the voters, each democrat that will be up. they will talk about what they have done that for their constituents and the last two years, eight years, however many years they have been in office. we will make sure we keep as many seats as possible. host: kevin madden. guest: i think it is an anti- washington sentiment. people are starting to lose faith in institutions in congress. the biggest problem for congress is that there is this canyon between where the voters are on many issues and the way the voters have reacted, or the public has reacted to the downturn and t way congress

has appeared when you go through the economic downturn, most families start to do more with less. they react conservatively. they are looking at a congress and the washington that has reacted liberally. spending policies, proposed tax policies, bigger government. there is a huge disconnect there. the problem is -- i would argue that it is an anti-incumbent, but the problem for democratss there are more democrats than republicans. they are the ones in charge. they are the ones, voters are beginning to hold them responsible. i do think the electorate has this interesting instinct of revenge. they a turning out incumbents that were here 20-30 years, that seniority andof clout. it is being held against them.

ey're almost doing it apologetically. they are saying it, it is time for somebody new. host: the president this past weekend, a fund raiser in buffalo, new york, and then traveled into new york city for a fund-raiser and said this about the upcoming midterm elections and the republican party. >> we have our mops and brooms out. we are cleaning stuff up. hold the broom better, is what they're saying. don't tell me how to mop. pick up a mop. do some work on behalf of the american people to solve some of these problems. [applause] strategywasn't their from day one. i am not making this up. i am not making this up. this is public record. they have said in interview, we

made a political decision. we did not do anything, we the otherwell, maybe side would take the blame. we did our best to gum up the works, to say noo everything. after they drove the car into the ditch, another what the keys back -- now they want the keys back. [laughter] no! [applause] drive.n't guest: i find it interesting that when the president starts to talk about the challenges we have in this country, he continues to sag, we have to stop finger-pointing and get things done. then when it is a chance to introduce politics, he goes all the way in starts pointing

fingers back at the republicans. the democrats are in charge. they have majorities in both houses. he has to start leading. i think what the republicans did is they decided to present themselves as the alternative, and democrats tried to paint us as the party of no. over this past year-and-a-half, we see in the american public become the electorate of no. they are saying no to spending and no to this left-of-center overreach that we are seeing. we have actually had some success of the last year because we have realigned ourselves with mainstream america on the issues. an important part of the democrats' coalition, independents, come the

republican way. we he said here is how we would do healthcare and cut spending. i disagree with the presidents of finger-pointing, and i think that is why rublicans will do better. host: two specific details. the gop has big ideas. the thing i want to ask you about is the parents' tax cut. parents must -- invest thousands of dollars and parents do not get the tax breaks they need. the second point is a republican of wisconsin who wants to change the entitlement programs, in terms of medicare and medicaid and social security, saying this country cannotfford the central -- scheduled increases

in these benefits. guest: let's look at the details. president obama is exactly right in that when he came to washington, he had an agenda of change. that is what he has done since he walked into office. he has tried to do it in a bipartisan manner. to kevin's point of laying blame, you need to do that when you are trying to set the record straight. he came in trying to talk to republicans and convince them to pick up a mop and help them fix the situation they created over the past eight years. all we got was obstructionism. that was the only thing they were offering the american people. they said from the beginning. the president said it again -- this is their political strategy. jim demint said it, they just want to see president obama fail, because that is how they

would see success. the issue in terms of taxes. this is something the democrats need to underscore. it came out in "usa today" where it said the 2009 tax bill was the lowest the american people have had in more than 60 years. the tax cuts he promised, he has delivered on. only 95% of americans have the lowest tax bill they have had since president truman. that is something democrats nee to talk about. the need to tk about the situation that the president inherited when he walked into office. 750,000 jobs were being lost per month when he came into office. we created the biggest job creation in over four years last month. while people are not feeling it yet, and we need to continue to work harder because those numbers are not good enough, we

need to continue to remind the american people why we were in this situation. we were not starting from ground zero when the president walked we were trying to bring us back from the brink of the biggest economic disaster since the great depression. guest: and yet the deficit is approaching $13 trillion. i find that amazing with the amican public as far as they understand it. it usually takes a long time. when you see the deficit in polling, it usually ranks pretty low. it is not something that jim and mark but in middle america are sitting around talking about. -- jhiim and martha in middle america are sitting around talking about. talking about. the democrats have proposed more spending. it has filtered back to voters that this is becoming an increasingly big problem. we may be creating some jobs, we

are creating 20 many jobs in the government sector and not in the private sector -- too many jobs in the government sector and not in the private sector. washington continues to open up this ticket -- the spickot from the u.s. treasury. ey elected a post-partisan and a centrist. but he has governed very differently. on january 20, and then on february 12, he went down on the a democratic retreat and lambaste a republican. the door to buy partisanshi closed very early on in this

administration. there was a poisoned atmosphere from the beginng because of the president hyper partisan actions, all sugared over with bipartisan talk. host: let me put another topic on the table. elena kagan. guest: whathe white house did was precentor with the type of résume mthat she has -- incredibly qualified and brilliant. she has a terrific resonate in terms of being the dean of harvard law school, have experience at the white house, which puts her in a unique position. in terms of her understanding how the decisions are made that will impact real people. the fact that she has been incredibly well qualified in

incredibly well qualified in terms of history. she was at harvard. she did a lot of changes at harvard. that undescores the fact that she understands the kind of environment thareal people have every day. i think the rollout was terrific. a lot of republicans have been very gracious. a lot of them saying -- not say they will vote for her, but 11 of them voted for her when she was up for solicitor general. that is another important piece of experience she has. host: some of the news of the weekend is that the oba white house is asking the clinton library to release 160,000 pages, documents rated to her. when republicans go after her, is a hypocritical? -- for her lack of experience. guest: i think there is a higher

standard that you have to meet. the risk is when you have somedy that has already been confirmed by the senate, even though it is not for our judicial appointment, but for solicitor general, you have now created a higher standard for yourself when you're born to try to prove that. to provee going to try that. it is not about her lack of experience. it -- there are some individuals that have made that point. host: this morning, one reporter said that what is most striking is the extent to which it is about obama. it is no secret that he sees the supreme court's conservative majority as an obstacle to his agenda. surely there are republicans on the senate judiciary committee prepared to challenge the president by standing up for fundamental liberty. .

.

then they sort of, that she has liberal check marks, but what i think is also very important to say is that, clearly, she is the nominee from a democratic administration. she works for the white house. there is no question in terms of her beliefs, but she is a democrat, and in terms of the person she is going to be replacing, another reason why i think republicans are not going to be that quick to replace her, because it is not going to change the obama court. host: you can get to was on line or at twitter. this headline in "the washington post" yesterday. blanche lincoln. the arkansas primary approaches. this has become the kiss of death. guest: i would advise senator lincoln not to be touting that.

i think there was some pew research. whichever one did. they did this poll, and there are a lot of institutions that are being questioned by the public at large. the news media is being questioned. they are unhappy with wall street. they are unhappy with banks, both political parties, congress, the administration, so it seems that right now, as far away from washington you can run, the closer to mainstream is the best sort of package you can have four running in this particular environment. guest: i think what you need to do, as kevin points out, is to demonstrate to your constituents exactly what you have brought home and what you have accomplished, and in these two years, congress has accomplished a lot. it could be bringing us back

from the recession which was the fault of the republicans. all of these things are things to a think been -- i think they need to run on. senator bennett in utah was an appropriate year. bringing the bacon home right now does not have the same sort of political guarantee -- host: jack murtha. a closely watched race. the democratic candidate. tim burns, the republican

nominee. let's go to melissa joining us from new york on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. as far as elena kagan goes, it does not matter to me what her sexual orientation is, if she is gay, or if she is straight. what matters to me is in sheik uploads the law and looks to president. you can have an opinion when you are giving is stammen -- what matters to me is that she upholds the law and looks to president -- precedent. you can have an opinion when what you're giving is statements. it seems that whenever some disaster hits, they want to say, "oh, this is what we inherited. barack obama was a united states senator before he became president.

he was well aware of all of the issues going on, so to say that he was completely dumb struck by what is happening is an excuse, to me, and when 9/11 happened, if i am not mistaken, george bush did not blame bill clinton for it. he took action. and what i would like to know from those -- both guests is when do you think it is proper for a president to take responsibility for their actions? because this is getting to the point of ridiculousness. i am waiting for barack obama is to say that the b.p. oil spill was the fault of george bush. say the bp oil spill was george bush's fault. guest: i think what barack obama has done -- he has taken responsibility for everything he's done since he walked in to the oval office. it is important to point out that we didn't walk in to ground zero.

it takes a long time to get into the hole. the president takes responsibility for everything he done from day one. what he has done is tried to put us back on the pafpblg economic grieged making sure we are growing our jobs.

last many, we had the biggest job growth. we are not satisfied. clearly main street is not feeling it yet. you mentioned this earlier. more than 2/3 of the jobs created were private sector jobs. >> who belongs on the bench. the elite, no apologize needed. they are from different parts of new york. she believes this must bebout who can interpret the law. we have these standard that's

other people hold up to it. melissa's point is one that is incrosingly being shared. forget about all the personal stuff. forget about what law school they went to. is this person going to faithfully up hold the law i have a feeling she'll get 7-10 republicans supporting her. host: a call from orange county, california. caller: good morning.

one of the main problems is the hyper partisanship that has developed as the news media has expanded to the internet as well as obviously fox news. people that watch fox and other news have two totally different senses of reality. it seems that the hot button issues, fox seems to drive real hard as far as wedge issues are concerned. a lot of miss givings about people who can't speak the length wadge correctly. they have poor personal habits and such. take the fence that they built between america and mexico where they did build a fax. disassemblehe thing and

rebuild it along the mason nixon line. maybe all those people who do have problems with the english language from getting confused. language from getting confused. host: i should point out what are you wearing. guest: my bracelet says ask for my papers. i am a lat irve na, i speak spanish and have brown skin. i could get pulled over for not having my license. guest: my parents immigrated here from ireland in 1964. i have an interest in this as well.

it becomes less about the color of their skin and more about if the federal government is protecting our poorder. the arizona reaction is one where the state has become so bee leaguered. i won't judge the law. i don't kno enough about it to criticize it too much. i will say that the caller makes an interesting point. a lot of times because the media covers these things. the squeeky wheel will always get the oil. immigration is a very complex issue. its not going to be solved in a day. even if we agreed on it, we wouldn't aee.

the specifics where we start to argue. this bill, the healthcare, the hyper partisanship referredo was not about death panals. that became a distraction. the squeeky wheel will always get the attention. a parking lot full of 100 cars, no one will notice it. no one will notice it. that is the way i think a lot of the media starts to fus. there are really reasonable debates we can have that don't get the same coverage of the hot topics. responsibly for climate change issues. and the older brother. the two are challenging each other to head up the labor

party in great britain. guest: their parents must be having a hard time. having a hard time. >> nick clegg and cameron both in their early 40's, they almost look alike. that is clearly the biggest challenge.

everybody is nervous about that to kevin's point in terms of folks being disappointed in the two-party system. when we need to focus on is that the two-party system has worked thus far. one of the things that everybody can do is to make su everybody participates in this system. one of the most interesting things to me depen as a naturalized citizen. is that less than 50% of the people come out to vote. if you are not voting, then don't complain.

it was still very, very and didn't even get to 70 or 75% of voter participation. we think that's when we will start seeing a lot of folks better understand and accept the two party system. what great britain is going through is quite fascinating

really truly my faff rite. on two sides i have one thing republicans do quite well. they stay on message and repeat eir message. one thing you saw the president do was repeat the messaging quite a bit. it gets repetitive. and they seem to read a message every time they speak, and even though i agree, it seems to confuse the message. with regard to one of the previous callers talking about blame, i agree with her in that you have to point out some of