that the pm should attend twice a year to answer questions from them. the government vigorously rejected the idea, but only a few months later a good example of the delayed drop effect so often experienced by persistent select committees the prime minister himself agreed to it. the liaison committee format is a huge improvement but nevertheless has limitations. the lengthy cross-examination of a prime minster a year is not a substitute for an effective event every week. all of which leaves us with the pmqs seen in the last parliament. we reached the point where

almost nothing was deemed beyond the personal responsibility of the prime minister of the day, where the party leaders were responsible for a third of all the questions asked (and often more like 50 to 60% of the total time consumed) all set against a background of noise which makes the vuvuzela trumpets of the south african world cup appear but distant whispers by comparison. if it is scrutiny at all, then it is scrutiny by screetch which is a very strange concept to my mind. the academic analysis does not make for enjoyable reading either. a survey by the regulatory policy institute of all pmqs posed in 2009 concluded that the prime minister had answered only 56 per cent of all

questions asked of him. if it seems harsh to cite gordon brown in this fashion then it should be observed that the same survey determined that only 56 per cent of the questions asked of him were actually genuine questions in the first place. what the detailed exercise revealed, depressingly, was that pmqs had become a litany of attacks, soundbites and planted questions from across the spectrum. it was emphatically not an act of scrutiny conducted in a civilised manner. and this, ladies and gentlemen, is what the house of commons has allowed to be placed in what i repeat is the shop window. what could be done about this? it is not for the speaker to dictate in this field or to impose his suggestions on others. it is my duty, as my predecessors before me also felt, to point out to the house the reputational damage that our present arrangements are inflicting. it seems to me that three steps could be taken which might lead us to a more attractive outcome. the first surrounds the culture

of prime minister's questions. no committee can legislate for this. it would require the prime minister and a new leader of the opposition, as so nearly happened in 1994, to agree on a common understanding of behaviour, one which offered teeth to our existing code of conduct which states unequivocally that "members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the house of commons, or its members generally, into disrepute". a compact between the party leaders, endorsed by the whips, would allow speakers present and future to enforce order far more vigorously with the parliamentary equivalent of

yellow and red cards available at their disposal if that were to prove absolutely necessary. the second element involves the character of pmqs which has shifted too far away from backbench members. once again, it would be wrong to impose changes unilaterally. the very fact of a coalition administration has opened up a little more space for backbenchers as the two questions previously reserved for the leader of the liberal democrats have been opened up to them. this is helpful in terms of the balance of pmqs but it is hardly decisive. if the session is to remain 30- minutes long, the next leader of the opposition could usefully ask whether he or she truly needed as many as six questions of the prime minister in order to land a blow or whether, in the spirit of margaret thatcher in the late 1970s, three or four would do instead. arguably, however, a 45-minute

or even 60-minute session conducted with mutual respect would be a huge and welcome advance on the status quo. in such circumstances, the current number of questions allocated to the leader of the opposition would be more appropriate. finally, there is the content of the encounter. is it the right device for ensuring effective scrutiny? does it need to be supplemented by other institutions? are open questions posed in the vain attempt to catch a prime minister out actually the best means of inquiry? it has been 15 years since a procedure committee even addressed these issues, let alone had their findings accepted by colleagues. it seems to me that the hour at which mr blair's assurance of 1997 that the committee would be able to "review the system" must now have arrived. the ideal result for the house

in my view would be more scrutiny, more civility, less noise and less abuse masquerading as inquiry. i would like to thank this audience for its patience as well as its hospitality. i have devoted a considerable amount of time to the subject of pmqs tonight precisely because it has been neglected for so long. i hope that i will at least manage to stimulate a debate about it. i will now apply that red card to myself and seek to answer your questions. thank you very much indeed. [applause]

>> mr. speaker, thank you very much for but thought-provoking and interesting speech. i think it is the shop window, the first thing they raised about the u.k. is parliament terry discussions and the fact that the prime minister has been diminished. this is a very timely offer to take this.

there is a new opportunity for a new parliament. i propose taking questions in groups of three just allow us to get the microphone around. >> raise your hand. if you could tell the rest of the audience your name in your organization that you are associated with, that should be helpful. the microphones will be other way around. -- be on their way around. >> i suppose you have made an appeal to history. my name is adam west.

the ministry of defence. i suppose one chains of the cannot roll back is the introduction of television cameras to the house. we are talking of the shop window of the house of commons. i just wanted -- and wondered, how, in that context to you and the bust -- in the context. >> two points. first of all, i have no regrets about televising parliament.

i think it is a really good thing. i think that it has brought more benefits than it has brought this benefits. insofar as the poor behavior has contributed to a lower benefit. in any case, we are in an age of transparency and that has to be that with which we work. how do we incentivize people to behave in the spirit that i am advocating what is just a short clip that will be taken. the leaders of the opposition and members of parliament ask

searching questions and should express themselves forcefully. it would be undesirable to have this type of politics through the will always be an element of partisanship. first, people should be seeking information, trying to highlight the merits of a particular course of action that they should pursue. that seems to be of the essence.

this does not mean that no one could ever sheer enthusiasm -- sheer enthusiasm. -- share the enthusiasm. this includes a prohibition on their king or chanting. i am not saying that no one should ever be prohibited, but we have the opposite and we should cut it out. this institutionalized mass and in some cases orchestrated derek king, heckling and abuse -- baracking, heckling and abuse.

they sit in positions where they hope that i cannot see. they do it week after week. i do not want to go too far because we know who they are. what i would say is that their own self assessment is not in accord with others. i once asked my father about a duffel business colleague -- a duffel business colleague. -- a doubtful business colleague. he said that he would buy it at his valuation syllogism -- hope to make a profit in the process. they think are so funny. it is so boring. the public is not impressed by it. a display of anger and a bit of

a cheer, but this massive shouting and raucous noise is so distasteful and the damages us. >> anyone else from this side? a third question from this side, anyone? >> david, ministry of defence. i wondered if you could take a moment to reflect on your behavior before you became speaker and how you acted in the house of them and how becoming speaker has changed your view of the house and the way that you now see it? >> i think this is an occasion where i am grateful for your question.

let me deal with this issue of behavior. i do not want to be too introverted about it. in the early years, in 1997 until 2000 to, my behavior was spectacularly bad. not just bad, but that on an industrial scale -- bad on an industrial scale. i was on the front bench one day in the shadow cabinet and i was beside myself with irritation and i kept yelling. speaker martin asked me to the quiet -- to be quiet. i told him that i found that quite difficult. [laughter] [applause] i was very badly behaved.

i think i got a lot better and i think the record shows that. i know that the colleagues seem suspicious about what i have done and whether i have done it right and if i can do it better. people often do say that soul- searching is the sign of a balance of mind. it was genuine. a couple of things have interceded, namely elections. instead of renting, we have to ask if one party is doing it the right way or if i am doing it the right way. if i press the fast-forward button to my latest stage of development, from about 2005

onwards, i begin a model of exquisite elementary behavior -- parliamentary behavior. you may think that this coincided and did not actively coincide with a formulation of a mission to become the subsequent speaker. it is for you to speculate. [laughter] having become speaker, how do i reflect on it? a lot of backbenchers do get frustrated. some people are naturally a livelier and more outgoing and more inclined to speak out from the back benches. the house has a sense of humor. that to be a good thing. -- that could be a good thing. i suppose the view that i have come to form a from the chair is

that it is undesirable and it looks and sounds so bad. the people who repeatedly, you come to realize that they are not being called at all. giving given the ferocity, they can deduce some relationship between the excessive noise and the fact that they are unable to [unintelligible] >> sue, you had your hand up. i am from the cabinet office. >> whether you think that

parliamentarians have impacted their reputation, particularly the former military, can you speak more in that area? >> i do have a view about it. the short answer to your question is that i came to the view a while ago that it would be better to pay employees more if that is what was independently recommended. before anybody says that the speaker calls for a pay increase, i am not saying that at all. if it were independently judge, and i think that there pay should be independently just, that they should be higher, then there would be much to be said for that to be accompanied by a band on paid outside interests. -- but a ban on paid outside interests.

there are people who save that it is of great benefit, both to the individual member and to the house, to have that this type of external experience and it would be a great mistake to dispense with it. we have all heard individual mps say that it would be a mistake. [unintelligible] i think that is pretty self- serving, to be honest. my view is that if colleagues feel that they need current, as distinct of that past professional experience, if they feel that they need continued current such experience, they

can get it without having to be paid. there is nothing to stop them from embarking in a fellowship to get experience in the commercial sector. large numbers of colleagues go in the armed forces. i suspect there were not take much -- there would not take much to get quite a lot of them from professional bodies and the commercial world and from the charitable sector to institute programs whereby in these could get experience in those sectors. if that is what the member thinks should be offered, then fine. but it does not have to be paid. that is my view. i think that we are moving more in that direction. i strongly support the decision of the house to require greater transparency in what those

interests are. i think that if people do want to hold those interests, the public, including their constituents, does have a right to know what outside job are doing, how much time it is taking and what they are being paid. that was unpopular with some people. some people were probably worried. when what they were paid is revealed, people would say that you spend three hours a week and they are earning 40 grand a year. their constituents would say that you would spend your time in a representation of me. ultimately, i would prefer the solution that i have suggested. what's a couple of hands over here.

-- >> a couple of hands over here. i wanted to ask you -- i think it is fair to say that many overseas commonwealth parlance changeiament's look to ways to conduct themselves. to what extent were your own ideas influenced by commonwealth parliamentary experience? >> i would be candid with you. i cannot honestly claim of my thoughts of reform were significantly influenced by commonwealth experience. i have done little bit of travelling, but not a great deal.

my thoughts were influenced by two phenomenon. for all the weaknesses in the american political system, there are some things that we can import. we have not gotten to such a reform yet. but the idea of confirmation hearings in relation to keep public appointments has a great deal to be commended. if your order to have very important public posts occupied by people that are accountable to the public and highly paid, there seems to me to be a great deal to be said that they should be subject to some kind of confirmation hearing.

i think that it is perfectly right that they should be subject to scrutiny by the committee that shadows that department within which that role falls. i think there's a lot to be said for that. i suppose that around 2001, after my first parliament, i was trying to think of what my attitude should be towards this and that, i thought quite a lot about reform and i thought they had a great deal to be commended.

robin cook was a serious reforming chair. forgive me if this sounds cheesy, but in my first parliament, i was thrilled to have gotten into the house. you would ask why. i was delighted to be sitting in the chamber at 2:00 a.m. and debating matters played at night -- late at night. you would say that my right hon. friend would give way. we thought that this phenomenon was enormous fund. i was quite convinced that i was at my best at 2:00 a.m..

there is a difference between thinking your best at 2:00 a.m. and being the best at 2:00 a.m.. i thought that this was nonsense. around 2003 and changes in my own life, i started to think how we combined effective scrutiny was being rounded people with normal lives? the idea that we should be sitting late into the night an act and acquitted procedures -- into the night and have antiquated procedures, there is a proper balance to conducting parliamentarians shares. i would love to say that new zealand played a big role.

but it was america, losing an election, and changes in my own life. >> behind you. >> thank you very much for an enjoyable talk. in some respects, there is balanced between moving from general scrutiny to the sound bites, and setting up the story for the papers which you described in

>> the enormous numbers of written questions were being tabled by colleagues. i did it and then high was just at the university. as a matter fact, i did. the reason i think it is their, in an active not want to produce any individual colleague, but it has grown because the websites

have grown. a series of websites that track the performance of colleagues. and i see some evidence that colleagues and i just to demonstrate how hard they are working hard engage with an option with the tether on who can take the most question. i think when robin cook was still the leader of the house, and certainly when jack straw was, that if this continued, there might have to be some sort of minute -- limit. i think that is five a day, but i will be corrected. i am right. good. you can take five questions each day, but there is no limit on

the number you can table. how would be sorry if we got to the point or parliament imposed a limit. but with freedom comes responsibility. they're people who simply complain. to some extent, that is the price of democracy. how will not be taken by -- taken in by this captive asian showing how enormously extensive a calculation is, based on an estimated amount of time that a officials the interests or -- researching a question. to some extent, i take the view that he is more productive or

engaged in some other mission. think it govett in net terms of disrespect, but at stake one should not try to block the system in a competitive system between one member parliament and another. i think there is a degree of self discipline about it. what they could do technology -- with technology cap is block things that have been put before. it might be helpful to have some means of blocking something taking up space needlessly. and by the way, i hope that people are not board. still free to comment. someone asked me, and feel free if you want to ask other things.

it's interesting people being shy. you can ask me any question. please do. i am accountable to you. -- athink it's fantastic fantastic crustacean. i want to make the point -- and tested presentation. a lot of people -- a lot of this is not funny. but talk to rounded on several occasions. one of the things like it to do in my role as travel around the world and see british civil

servants. have to talk about some countries that have the challenge of transparency. and how we behave in our transparency. we get talking about the , so it is not funny. all strength to your arm. this is very, serious indeed. my question is when you started doing the history and the number of times that people try to reform his practice as you are doing. are you going to be successful in doing this? i don't hear anything your saying that i would not applaud.

have you going to be successful? >> i ought to say that prior to the election of the speaker, the right fully respected roger -- robert rogers. he offered to come, he is the second most senior person in the house second only to the clerk of the house. it was listing possible reforms, because so many candidates for standing on a platform of reform, need for reform, urgent reform. he submitted a paper, these a the things that could be done. and there some things that can

be done by the will of the speaker, others requiring the decision of the house, and some where there are matters of administered action, etc., etc.. the things that i could do, i doubt i can speed up the conduct of question time. we do make a bit more progress than we did, but we explained in other speeches. horrifies the urgent question as a means of certainty. -- i realized the urgent question as a means a certainty. an urgent question can be asked about the minister and the exchange is followed for 20 to 35 minutes on the matter. somebody will put an urgent

question to me. in the last 12 months, i have had 25. they all have in common there were urgent and of substantial interest and wanted a statement by the minister. the the thing is where i campaigned and launched the idea of deputy speakers and get a procedural committee report in support of that opposition and the government accepted it. we have elected select committees that iran through in my speech -- that i ran through in my speech to others. i will need the support of the

major parties. i need the backing of the party leaders on this matter. i was careful not to be prescriptive. i aired a few suggestions. they were not complicated. the house should then come to leave you. did they succeed? tw of things count in my favor, if they to say soon. one is that i think that there is a widespread recognition that we cannot go on like this. and that the culture and content and character is unwholesome to the electorate. i think i've got a chance to do this and a few other reforms. and the second thing is that there's one difference between me and previous speakers. and it is not that i am the

shortest period [laughter] the difference is that i was elected after published manifestoes and a secret ballot. the character of the election as speaker has changed. although the speaker should remain neutral between the parties, the speaker can have views on things. and he is entitled to stand on some sort of a manifesto as to what he or she would seek to do for parliament. i do have some mandate. this is new but i thought that the prime minister's questions needed to change. i think that i have a chance. hubris is always a nemesis and i mean i get there. i am quite persistent.

one might go as far as to say stubborn, and i do not intend to give up. >> that is probably a good time to drop to a conclusion. of the workwry you've undertaken and we look forward to many more years of you speaking. i like to thank you for coming along and being candid with you about -- us about your views. when you come along and talk to you. particularly grateful that you have to talk about your views on prime minister's question. would all like to share our appreciation to you and thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> now the swearing-in ceremony for elena kagan. she succeeds justice john paul stevens, who retired in june after 35 years. this runs just about five minutes. >> welcome to the supreme court

for the swearing in of elena kagan. please welcome members of her family. we will have an investiture of the new justice on october 1 at a special sitting of the court. if we are administering the treasure additional -- we are administering the traditional zero to and she can begin reduce right away. please raise your right hand and repeat after me. >> i, elena kagen, do solemnly swear that i will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that i will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as associate justice of the united states

supreme court under the constitution and laws of the united states, so help me god. >> congratulations. [applause] >> on behalf of my colleagues,

let me welcome you to the court. there will be a reception down to it -- down the hall. thank you.

>> next of political roundtable on the elections. after that, greg barker. then another chance to see the british house speaker talking about changes he would like to see in parliament. last week the senate passed the

education, jobs, and medicaid assistant act, 61-39. if because of that, the house will reassemble on tuesday to take action on the bill. live coverage of the house on c- span. >> book television has been finding out about the new votes coming out this fall. >> jimmy carter wrote in his diary every day with an intimate look at the white house years. this is super, super top secret. anything that bob woodward does is meaningful. this will be big rig -- this will be one of the biggest titles. this is not a sweeping biography of george bush by about specific things about his administration. >> learn about these and other books in our fall book previewed this weekend. for the lettuce and nonfiction, of watch book tv every weekend.

-- now all political roundtable on middle election campaign. from today's "washington journal," this is about 40 minutes. the "american spectator". who will be the speaker of the house for the 112th congress? guest: i don't really know. republicans are within striking distance and possibly could take over the house. it depends on how things go round. in 2006, we had a similar situation, and the mark foley scandal hit and that is what turned it from a bad year for republicans and turned it into an election. we will see how the news breaks with charlie rangel and maxine waters.

that is the type of thing where that is the last hammer to drop, where you see parties lose their majorities. it is the ethics issues, because that is bipartisan. host: what are the issues that benefit the republican party? guest: the overarching issue is the economynd the health care bill. i think those are the big issues. in a broader sense, i think what happened was that when obama took over office at a time when there were a lot of problems, and the people hired the democrats to fix it. they do not want to hear now that he inherited a mess and it was bush's fault. all people know about is that people are out of work. so they do not want to hear about george bush anymore. so that is the problem for democrats. now they own the mass.

ess. in terms of theealth care an, that is indicative of something else. one of the reasons that obama was an effective candidates is he was able to signal to progressives and liberals that he was one of them of having a moderate, reasonae rhetoric and centrist rhetoric that he shared with the rest of the country. that was how he was able to unite a coalition of independents who were disillusioned with bush and the republicans as well as getting a progressive-activists to go and fight for him. once you are president, it is not about the rhetoric. it is about what you actually do. with things like the health care law and the failed stimulus bill, which is based on liberal economic views, basically

went to the left of where a lot of indendents were hoping he would be. at the same time, a lot of the progressives have been disillusioned because he did not do a lot of the things they expected him to do. "americanm serwer of spect."opro what you think about pulling george w. bush back into the 2010 election? guest: it's a little late. obama did not spend a lot of time expining how we got to be point -- to the pointe got to. he brought bush in late. obama -- despite the partisanship of the past two years, it was not because obama has the reached out towards

republicans. it is because republicans has refused to go along with anything the president has done. it is obsuction. the fact that obama has not been hammering republicans and has not been portis and makes it feels le they are dragging out bush at the last minute -- bush had eight years to mess the couny up, and obama has only had two years to fitx it. the stimulus bill did not fail. the reason we are in a situation we are in is because the stimulus is not big enough. christina romer, who left the administration, her projectio on recovy were based on a larger stimulus bill. and the administration went for a smaller bill because that was what was possible with the congress they had, because there

were so few republicans or willing to go along with anything. as far as the economy is concerned, the democrats are in a precarious place because unemployment is high. host: who will be the speaker of the house? guest: i will not make any predictions, but i will say that it is very clear to congressional republicans that ntinued economic hardship is helping their political chances. they are stymying any effort to bring relief to the poor. host: prospect.org. do you get more readers via print or online? guest: our online readerships

used towards a younger demographic. -- skews towards a young . demographic. guest: we focusn policy matters. we are not simply about breaking news. we are about ideas and policies and how to make government work better. host: what is the democrats' strongest suit in this election? guest: it is late for them to bring this in, but there strongest argument ithe republicans have stymiedany effort to stimulate the economy and to bring unemployment down. that is just how things have worked republicans have successfully turned washington into gridlock. there is nothing that can get done as long as there are some republicans in office. . .

that voted for mccain but ended up for democratic members of congress and if i can respond on the still last issue. there's a myth on the left that it's, if only it were bigger than it would have worked better. we've seen from history that despite what liberals, sort of, say, that we - that typically government stimulus product stimulus checks do not work. in the great depression, why did a deep recession turn into a great dression that lasted up until world war i if stilu spending was so good?

and if japan in the 1990's they spanned the equivalent of trillions and it was a lost decade. you think there's a new government program you can do and regardless of the economic arguments the reality is, if we're talking politics the american people think the was a failure. talking about bush does not matter. guest: i think there are different reasons why recessions happen and right now one is of weak aggregate demand. you ease the burden on middle class providing aid to the state as and unemployed and this is the problem. of phil, touched on something important, that people don't know that the stimulus helps. they think it didn't help. that's because of two things. the stimulus was two small to do what it was supposed to do and

as a result republicans can say it didn't work. what phil said about the democrats policies being unpopular. we're grading on a curve. tun the only people more unpopular is congressional republicans the economic situation is such that people are angry with uncouple bents but it's not a result of people loving republican policies, it's the result of the unemployment rate and the people being angry with the current office. host: (202) 737-0001, for republicans and (202) 737-0002 for democrats. if you reside outside the u.s. the international line is open. call now, we'd love to get your perspective on american politics. gene six, arizona. kathy republican you're on with

our two guests. please go ahead. caller: i want to say just to the gentlemen from the "american spectator," due to you i became involved in politics because i started reading the "american spectator" back in the clinton administration about the long march missiles and clinton and i started - i was raise - i tried again last segment but they wouldn't let me on for some reason. i was raised a democrat and my grandfather was a senator from the state of montana with democratic party but no one would vote for that party again and you opened my eyes and i mean, i was in college campaigning for jimmy carter. god forbid that i did. thank god for the "american spectator" you guyare great. host: very quickly, kathy. hurry up. caller: don't cut me off. i want to say what i've realized

is i love this count and that the democrats are, not even americans. i was a political science major and it's amaze together me what they're doing to this country and all the restf it is follow knebo log kne bologne. guest: yes the democrats are clearly pursuing an agenda to the west of where the country is and that's picked up by poles. so i don't really see in terms of adam talking about republican obstructionism and so forth. democrats d 60 votes in the senate for most of last year, so i don't think that people want to hear about what they - you know - how it's democrats - how it's republicans obstacle

juksism's fault. they were able to get their agenda passed. on the stimulus issue responding to adam, i compare it politically not even getting into the merits of the debate. i consider the situation of democrats faced with stimulus potentially similar to what bush faced with iraq war. where is, is that you know, bush could invade the argument the counter factual argument without iraq war there would have been no terrorism. counter factual arguments don't work. all people krared about was they were against iraq war and things weren't going well in iraq. conservatisms saying if bush would have sent troops it it would have been different. all people knew they had problems with iraq so i think it's similar with the stimulus. liberals saying, it should have been bigger and democrats saying

it would have been worse is not an effective political argument. host: justin in tulsa, oklahoma, democrat line. caller: well, i think it's real inresting. should it have been bigger? economic stimulus, if that's good way to go in general. i think we're treating the symptom and not really trying cure the disease. the federal reserve system we have. creating extreme amounts of interest. and it's basically anything tons landing on the taxpayers back. guest: the federal reserve isn't very popular right now and i think it could be doing more to help the economy, but i'm not sure that the federal reserve is the problem as such. host: you sent out a tweet this

morning before you came over on the show, saying you'll be on with phil klein of the "american spectator," and we're going to find out which one of us is more americ. what did y mean by that? guest: [laughs] i was kidding. one of the funny things that generally happens is - i've discussed this with phil, i'll call someone and sometimes i'll call a lib call group looking for comment and they'll say your from the "american spectator" and they'll it with dread. and i'll say - well i think the sa thing happens to phil sometimes. one publication generally gets mistaken for the other and some times the results is funny. host: your both graduates from colombia journalism school. did you know each other there? and what was it like specifically to be i presume a conservative at colombia? >> i didn't know him. we went different years but i

guess, the thing is you spend a lot of time in new york and so forth, so for me, i'm often - i'm a jewish conservative so i'm kind of used to be the out lily among liberals. guest: good morning c-span. you guys hear me? host: please go ahead. caller: yes, the gentlemen from the "american spectator" prompted my phone call earlier in his comments about the inability of the white house to um... create a clear, simple, cogent narrative. but the most astounding and let me repeat. it's been astound together me, the if you look back a year ago coming out of this period in

august going in september when they have t townhall meetings, every major pole. nbc, "wall street journal," et cetera had one third to one quarter of the entire country believing the health insurance reform had death panels. at every step this white house has failed in leading public in what it's trying do. it's been a haphazard message. it's been, you know, one topic this topic this topic. franklin rooselt had fire side chats in time of crisis to lead the public on every pole. it the right wing thinks that obama is partly socialistic. not even born in this country. it's this great communicator obama that a million people showed up on the smithsonian ll has failed clearly communicate and i don't know if it's axel rod or obama but this messaging has been - it's

astounding how atrocious it's been. >> i think that it's clear that - administration hasn't been as aggressive as many liberals would like them to be. but ultimately the issue is e unemployment if the stimulus was bigger and the administration more aggressive in pursuing it. everybody would be doing some monday morning quarterbacking how great administration handled things politically. it really all comes down to the economy. i think there's way too much emphasis placed on things like narrative and sort of the peripheral political issues that don't really, aren't really as important as economic fun da member talls. >> florida. call all good morning, peter. i wanted to point out that the democrats have been in charge of congress since 2006.

the last two years of the bush administration they were in charge of congress and control of bush. now, unless the american people take this country back, we're headed for communism. socialism. tax is imwhichever you want to call it, it's all the same thing. host: when you say, take this country back, what do you mean? caller: everybody out and get somebody in congress that will listen to the people. host: alright. philip klein? guest: well, i tnk the issue again s sort of the an agenda pursued if you look at, sort of the health care legislation. the american people tried over and over again to send a message to congress that they didn't want this massive heah care law passed. when ty went into the town hall meetings, people, they were

dismissed by democrats as angry mobs sent by the insurance companies when scott brown won ted kennedy's senate seat in the most liberal onef the most liberal states in the country, they ignored that. they said the poles would improve once health care was passed and we still see amounting opposition and see in missouri for instance this week. 71 percent voted against the rejected individual mande. that was sort of a central plank of obama care forcing individuals to purchase a health care policy that's dtated by the government and do so under the threat of attack. and these are unpopular policies pursued and just completely ignoring what the american people want, so it's not surprising that people want to throw democrats out.

guest: this is very strange rhetorical technique republicans use. they use the term, american people and it's very exclusive way in which democrats and liberals and pple that voted for obama are as american as anyone else. to talk about taking country back as though americans are not in office is really a strange and ugly way to talk about things. howeve as far as health care bill goes it's clear it's more popular than it was when it was passed and it's also clear that we - you know, we don't base political legislative agendas based on special elections in particular states. democrats won congress. obama won the presidency in 202008. scott brown wins in massachusetts it's not like no backsys. none of what happened in 2006

matters as far as missouri, when you put the individual mandate referendum when there's a republican party of course you're going to have a more republican electorate. one of the reasons we don't have a direct democracy in this country is generally there are part office legislation that are popular and unpopular. the mandate is an unpopular part of the legislation system. you can't say, it's also an essential part. that's the only way you're going to lower health care cost. when you give people a chance to pick and choose the unpopular and the unpopular parts of legislation obviously, they're going toeks ice the ones they don't like regardless how they are to the system working. guest: first of all, somehow to say it's unique is something you hear about on the left. it's unique of conservatives being out of power saying that they want to take back america. i point out during the bush

administration i attended an annual conference for liberal activists called the take back american conference so this idea that it's new to conservatives is absurd. people out of power always they say want to take back america. it's absurd to try to imply that there's some thing on tort about conservatives making same point. host: democrat in new york you're on th adam serwer and philip klein. please go ahead with your comment or question. caller: good morning, gentlemen. my comment is sh, i'm missing t last call in. disillusioned pretty much with washington. completely and none of the ises are - that are up right now, really concern me. what concerns me is the war. and i'm a veteran.

i just came home and, what my concern is, is that my family has lost four people in the war. a son, son-in-law - host: in afghanistan or iraq? caller: afghanistan. i was in iraq. i get pretty mad when i see the president come down to the v.a. and talk about pulling troops out of iraq and what the american people don't seem to understand is we have over 100,000 contractors so even if you bring the troop level down to 50,000. you still have a $100,000 contract inside of iraq. we have more contractors than military. host: we'll leave it there. thanks james. adam serwer, when it comes to the war as a political issue? guest: just thanks to the last caller for you and your family's

service and when your asking about the war your asking abo the war in afghanistan? host: you can take that how you want. guest: i think the war in afghanistan is a bit out of site and behind for most ericans. most americans want the war to bever obviously, but they're not thinking about it. we're in the middle of a harsh recession and unemployment is high and there's a small part of the population bearing a heavy burden in fighting the war and everyone else is suffering in a very different way but as a result, they're not thinking too much about what's going on over there and that's she. host: next call for the two guests from jacksonville, north carolina. earl, independent line. good morning. caller: yes, you know all this talk about the republicans taking the house and senate back. think is an old columnist trick. in the beginning all the hype

from the media was about obama being the first black president and now there's not enough to make any money off so they come to this thing because they looking at history where you know, the uncouple bents lose out but we never had a black president or a president that had passed this much stuff in the first term. health care. financial reform. he's put in two supreme court he is wanted with little fight as nothing. thing is, american remember how we got in the mess we in and plus, this recession have never - we have never been in this kind of recession. host: philip klein? guest: again, i go back to the fact, yes. obama has been tremendously successful passing a lot of legislation. unfortunately for democrats politically it's legislation again that i go back to that's

unpopular with the american people. and you know, adam spoke about how the individual mandate, for instance is unpopular but it's the overwhelming way to reduce health care cost. guest: tell that to the people in massachusetts they've had individual mandate and a system that's very similar po to what obama is doing and health care costs are stl sky-rocketing with the individual mandate. i think there's a lot of wishful thinking o on the democratic side but the more that this goes on the more people learn what's in the health care bill it's just going to continue to be unpopular and whatever comes before the voters, we've seen that. one more point. he noted how he tried to dismiss the missouri ballot measure saying it was voted on during the primaries when the electorates helped the

republicans, but why did it end up there instead of the november ballot. it was originally supposed to be there but democrats fought it being there because they were worried it would turn-out conservative base because they know the opponents are much more enthusiastic than the supporters of it. host: we've not talked about proposition 8 gay marriage issue as a political issue. do you see this coming up this november? hos guest: iraqi still think to t elevates it more, i would say this. back during 2004 there was this push for the federal marriage amendment and one of the big arguments and the reasons why it didn't go anywhere is the feeling was that, the arguments for proponents of that were that we need to pass a federal

marriage amendments because, the state courts are going to impose marriage on all these different states and at the time, it was really only massachusetts you were talking about so that was seen as something isolated example that didn't rise to the occasion of amendment. however, i think now, that you know there's this decision in california that is overriding what the people had voted for. i think that among opponents of gay marriage and me personally, i actually support the allowing fayes to marry, but i just think that it has to be done differently than through the court system, but i think for conservatives like me. >> is that a generationle thing? guest: might be. there is sort of definitely a generationle issue. i think for conservatives like me. it makes it more difficult when

you see courts deciding this. opponents of gay marriage have a point when they say look this is going to be imposed by the court unless we have a federal fix. that's why i think this decision most likely will bump it up in the line. host: adam serwer. guest: first thing as far as massachusetts you can't stop a flood with a sandbag. health care reform was not going to bring health care costs, because they're rising nationally. as far as proposition 8 look. conservatives realize they're fighting a losing battle. americans, even more conservative leading ones. younger americans don't see a reason to prevent people who are gays and lesbians from getting married there's no rational basis for it and republicans realize that.

they can use the issue to energyize base. but what's goi to happen eventually is, we're going to beme accepting of gays and lesbians being able to have recognized legal marriages, secular civil marriages like anybody else in thi country. it's going to have some value i think has a culture war but it's value is diminishing every day. host: nextcall. adam serwer what the american prospect and the "american spectator". long island, new york. ken, republican. caller: thanks very much. c-span you guys are great. i don't know where to start. u have given me so much to play with here i don't know which to go with first. you're talking about gay marriage, which is it that the united states is looking for procreation or immigration.

do we want to create another own citizens or import it. if we want to create them that has to happen between a man and a woman and we have to have some protection between marriage for man and woman in new york we cannot make it's an easy as a no fault marriage where you guys can go into a marriage and create couple of kids and s, we don't want to do this anymore we quit. we'll give our kids to a couple of gay people to raise. i don't get it. where does our government. national security and country get the peoe from? if we have to make them. guest: i don't think there's anything about gays and lesbians that prevents straight people from pro creating. host: next call from florida. democr. caller: good morning. my comment is this. i'm a democrat. i'm african-american and i want

to speak to the first caller that called on this segment that said democrats are not american. i'm a 20 - over 20 years served the country in the united states air force and as long as we have individuals for the right that are so ereme to call american. say that people are not american because they have difrent political views this country will remain divid and it seems i argue with some republican ideas as long as you have extremist on the right that want to say that because they're reference they're more american than democrat. i served iraq and we came together for a cause and i don't recall anyone on the left said republicans are not american. we might not agree with their views but we don't say you're not american.

host: philip klein? guest: i agree. there's unhelpful rhetoric about ways to demonize political opponents. i don't think it's good to say somebody is not abamerican who you disagree with. i sort of debate things on the sort of facts and data. host: are the tea party as net plus for the republican party? guest: i think so overall. i think basically it's sort of something that is important. i mean i think the important aspect as a conservative that i have hopes for the tea parties is that when bush was in power and the republicans were in power. they exploded spending and they really didn't govern as conservatives. medicare prescription plan and

you can go on and onbout big government policies pursued by president bush and my hope for the tea parties isn't particularly about if they'll help republicans get elected. if republicans are elected, will they keep the heat on and be a force that republicans actually try implement limited government agenda or not? that's the more important test. it's easy toe opponents when the other party is in power? but the important thing is can you pressure the people who are supposedly on your side to doing this sort of things that you want them to do. guest: i i think the tea parties are petty much the same. whenever the other side's party is in pow there's a ground swell of enthusiasm and when bush was in power you had liberals protesting in the streets and now you have

conservatives protesting in the street. i think this is very normal and it's sort of strange that whenever it happens, we sort of act like this is new and unusual thing. this is how the pendulum swings. track announcer: our last call. henry from the independent line. thank you. caller: good morning i want to direct my questions to mr. adam serwer. he mentioned the fact that he felt that if the stimulus was larger, that weay have had a different effect as far as economy is concerned but if i remember correctly administration said that basically, the stimulus package was doing it's job and it was on-target. and that we didn't need a second stimulus because it was working perfectly. in fact. vice presidented byn said it was

working beyond they're wild's dreams and second point. this belief if they run against bush somehow the american people will remember bush, well we remembered bush and voted his party out. we gave the democrat a chance and it's going to be almost two years and what we've seen is basically nothing getting done. finger pointing and the same old, same old and that's why you hear the frustration in a lot of american voices they're sick of all the back biting and fighting and nothing getting done for the american people. guest: well, again, i think administration hasn't been as forthright as it has for the need for greater stum stimulus. one of the things that republicans have been blocking aid to the states and to the jobless and you saw with the report with the jobs report that

came out just recently is that there were hundreds of thousands of state and local jobs lost and part of that was because of the census and part of it was entirely foreseeable of republicans blocking aid to the states and there's no reason for it. when we're in a recession the federal government has to do deficit spending in order to relieve the pressure on the states because otherwise. consumers won't be spending. the burden falls on them and the fact is that republicans have done everything they can to prevent the government from doing anything to relieve the burden on the american people and they're reaping the benefits because people are suffering and they feel like voteing the bums out. host: philip klein, why are you a conservative? guest: i think fundamentally i am because people should be free to do what they wants a long as they don't energy fringe upon

other people's rights to do what they want. that's why i believe in the government with limited functions and wh you know on certain issues like gay marriage or something like that they - i may deviate because i view it from this prizm of are two gay guys getting married going to effect me at all? and i don't see what the governments role is. caller: actually, i'm not i'm not sure my answer is different from n those. i think the dpovbt has the responsibility to help without infringing but we saw a conservative government with no regard for independent liberty or due process. i think you had a government who internally believed it had the

right to suspend habeas corpus and freedom of speech. individual liberty. liberties and conservatives i think we both care deeply about individual liberes but host: 94 being on washington journal the sunday morning. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," michael hayden discussants national security strategies. frank vargo talks about the need for changes in export policies. and we began a week-long series examining energy issues. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

tomorrow the center for american program hosts the discussion on the roles that community health centers play in job creation and economic development. live coverage tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, q&a with greg barker. then the british said house speaker talks about changes he would like to make. then the bank of england governor talks about the state of the british economy. >> coverage of politics, nonfiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media networking sides. they are content any time after the c-span video library. bringing our resources to your community, it is washington your way. now available and more than 100 million homes, created