growth above inflation for the upper income households while leaving the household at the bottom under the current system, we could fix over half of the current projected shortfall. if we also think about indexing the normal retirement age to take into account increases in longevity every decade, we could eliminate the rest of the shortfall." as it currently stands, the initial social security benefits of new retirees after adjusting for inflation increase at about 1% per year. we cannot afford such largess." >> the congresswoman and just said that i said we cannot raise the retirement age right now. why a do you have and senior citizens on a tv -- why do you

have senior citizens on television saying that i am going to raise the retirement age? when we sat down in front of the chicago tribune editorial board, the first thing they said it was, she does not say that right. what i am talking about our potential ways to fix this for younger generations. are we paralyzing ourselves that we cannot even talk about the potential of how to solve these problems? politics of fear is not politics of solutions. we need a politics of solutions. >> thank you for clearing that up, both of you. >> do you believe the federal minimum wage should be increased

or decreased? >> at this point, i would say we should continue it where it is. i do not believe in decreasing the federal minimum wage. as we get into more studies -- and i have not really seen studies either way that stand out and say yes or no -- but i think we could look at raising it. the stateein legislature when it was increased. i know that the candidates on the the republican side, the governor wants to decrease it. i feel that the people that are earning less -- and a minimum wage does not add up to a much ones puttinge their money right back into the economy. i do not deal with hypothetical.

i would have to wait to see what is being discussed about it. >> it is almost time for us to wrap things up. this will and the question and answer portion. we need to get onto our closing statements. closing statements will begin with mr. king's innsinger. >> when you look at what is going on, when you watch the news, everybody is concerned, we have to ask ourselves, do we find ourselves at a crossroads? i think we do. i think america finds itself with the decision to make. we can continue along the path

of more government, more government spending, looking to the government for solutions to joblessness despite the fact that for years we have looked to the government and it does not solve jobless problems. or do we get back to believing in the individual, the free markets, the entrepreneurial spirit that our moms and dads taught us about, our granddad and grandma's taught us about. we have had a friendly relationship on the campaign trail, but we have a fundamental differences. we see the world through different lenses. i believe that we cannot continue to attack billions of dollars of debt onto our children. i believe that we cannot look to the government to solve problems. we have to look to individuals.

i believe that we must continue to process the war on terror and make sure that the horror that was visited on our shores on 9/11 does not revisit us in the future. there is a difference between hearing slogans and solutions. between hearing of fear and a vision for the future. i believe i will go to washington, d.c. i want to represent you well. i want to be your representative. does that mean we will cure everything? and no. it means that sometimes we will disagree. that is democracy. that is great. but i will make a commitment to you that i will always be accessible. i will always stand in front of you, and if you do not like my view, tell me about it. that is what you deserve. the constitution of the united

states talks about a representative government. i want to be your representative. i believe that america's best days truly are ahead of us. i really do. i believe that just as we came out of tough times in the 1970's and saw a huge economic growth, we can come out of tough times now and do even better. i believe we can all work together for a better future for our country. ask yourself, what visioned do i believe, and we will see you at the polls november 2nd. thank you. [applause] >> that was the republican challengers closing statement. we close tonight with the incumbent democrat. >> it has been a privilege to represent all of you in congress for the past two years. america has gone through some difficult times, but i believe

we are on the right path. our economy has come a long way, but we still have a very steep hill to climb. i honestly believe that the policies between adam and i are just different. we cannot continue to give companies tax breaks to send our jobs overseas. we need to make sure that we are helping american workers, american business, helping american business so that we turn products over and see once again, made in america. i am understand what so many of you are going through. i am a mother and grandmother. i was a room mother when my kids were in school. my daughter is 29. she asked me to be a room

mother. her brother would fight her over that because he wanted me too. i also understand what it is like to sit at the kitchen table and decide which bills i should pay and which ones could way. i went back to school as a nontraditional student to get my degree. i am a military mom and i understand what families go through when their children are injured overseas. that drives me to work for the veterans in my community. that has been my mission. i know what it is like to work hard, play by the roles, only to feel like your rug has been pulled out from underneath you. my husband and i are small business owners. i know what it is like to feel like you are taking one step forward and two steps back, to take care of employees and not

ourselves. we understand what you're going through, but we are americans. we can do this. the economy is not a democratic problem or at republican problem. it is an american problem. you want to know that we are moving forward, that your representative in congress knows what we are going through, and is going to be tough in fighting for you, and is going to look for the answers wherever they are. no party has cornered the market on good ideas. i have fought hard for this district, just like when i felt secure funds for downtown or make sure that the illinois national guard was able to put its new facility at the community college. it will be my honor to fight for you. i believe we need to invest in our communities, and that is michael. i am asking for your vote this november -- that is my goal. i am asking for your vote this

november. thank you and so much. [applause] >> it is a packed house. i want to thank of the candidates and their staff. they worked very hard to get in here tonight and they worked very hard with the staff and student government association of illinois university. congratulations to both of you. >> of the 2010 midterm elections are two weeks from today. each night on c-span, we are showing debates from key races from around the country. here is our lineup for tonight. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the focus will be on the illinois senate race. we will have that debate live for you. that will be followed by the pennsylvania governor's race, the florida senate candidate, and finally, a debate to be wisconsin's next governor.

we are also showing debates on our companion network, c-span-2 tonight. later, a debate from pennsylvania's eighth district race, followed by the arkansas governor's race. from the journal of line -- hot line, which you see there, the republicans are cutting in half their support for bob ehrlich. the latest polls show governor o'malley maintaining a five point lead, his largest of the year. we have other debates available for you to watch online any time. that is that c-span.org /politics. >> every weekend, experience american history tv, starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern.

people and events tell the american story. here historic speeches and eyewitness accounts that -- accounts of events that shaped our nation. topps history professors and leading historians delve into america's past. it is all weekend every weekend on c-span 3. >> in about 50 minutes at 6:00 eastern, we will be live at a forum on the implications of the midterm elections. until then, a discussion on the impact african-american voters may have on the 2010 elections. "washington journal" continues. host: jamal simmons joins us, democratic strategist, political analyst for cbs news and a principal at the raysden group in washington, d.c. we have seen two polls recently.

here is one. "the st. petersburg" web site. u.s. blacks enthusiastic about voting in midterm election. and then if you go to another website, from "new american media" the newest gallup poll found black voters are poised to desert voting booths by nearly 2 to 1 gap, whites are more apt to say they are thinking about the november election than blacks. what are you hearing? are african-americans enthusiastic or not? guest: when you think about the difference between what will happen this election, the question is not a baseline question. the question is about the difference between voters -- african-american voters and white voters. what you have seen historically is in midterm elections there have been these large gaps between african-american and white voters. in 1994, 10.2% difference between african-american and white voters. in 1998 when bill clinton was under incredible stress, there

was only 3.7% difference. you saw democrats picked up five seats which is unusual in a midterm election. this is coming from the joint center for political and economic studies as well as some research 5 pew big moments director jesse jackson concert -- after jesse jackson was a campaign in 1984, in 1988 -- 96 in the midterm. what democrats are focused on is, let's talk to voters. let's communicate with them very clearly about issues that are at stake. let us talk about the change they got in 2008. and that this election will help continue that change. and that's really where the democratic party is focused. they are also doing a lot of door knocking, phone calls, all the traditional campaign things that friendly you are not seeing republicans doing much of. they are spending a lot of money on television, mail. democrats are doing television,

mail, and traditional grassroots door knocking. host: there has been a lot made of president obama not going to need it -- certain districts because he is not very popular. a low approval rate. but in a column in "the wall street journal" this morning is president obama is all the democrats got. when you look at other democratic leaders in the party, his poll numbers are the best. it is president obama doing enough to get african-americans specifically -- because they are part of the democratic base -- to turn out? guest: he is. he was on radio. there was a big event in philadelphia. he was at the congressional black caucus meeting a few weeks ago. he just did an interview last week with a group of african- american columnist from the country that people are talking about. so, he is out there communicating with people very directly. at the same time, it is not just

about barack obama. each one of these candidates has to run his or her own race. when did you don't want to have happen is to have candidates who rely on barack obama to rescue them in the last few weeks. so these candidates have had to communicate with voters directly. the ones who have been doing that should see a pretty good turnout and those who have not might catch it on the chin. if you are a candidate, you still have to go out and get the voters to vote for you. host: what is the best way? guest: you talk about it -- to people about the issues. the three biggest issues are jobs, like anyone else, education, like many other people, and also crime. people are seeing an uptick in crime in some of their local communities. these politicians want to talk to voters about issues they care about. of those of the issues that most important. host: do they need to spend a lot of money? we talking about the roll money plays and politics. guest: money is important but at

some point there is diminishing return. there are so many -- only so many as you can watch, so much radio you could listen to. at some point, you care about what is their perspective, what is their viewpoint. african-american voters are a lot like everyone else. the notion that there is an african-american community is kind of an old-time notion. there are african-american communities. in some places you have people who are more religiously focus, some places you have urban voters concerned about things like crime. another place as you have very educated voters who are very middle-class to care about their taxes and health care, and they want to start a business and cannot get access to capital. i was talking to a guy in washington, d.c., he said he ran a transportation company. he uses vans to carry people who have disabilities or elderly citizens from one location to another. you get a contract right now, except he can't get funding to

buy more vans to supply the contracts. this issue was not really tax cuts as much as it was, he needed loans. he needed access to capital. they're all kinds of issues that african-americans face, just like everyone else, that candidates have to talk to. you can't walk, the terminator and has a screen that reads across that says it 35-year-old african american male, you have to talk affirmative-action. host: you refer to 1986 where jesse jackson had a national bank that helped turn out african-american voters. a program to register and mobilize black voters for the midterms. it worked. is there something similar happening? guest: absolutely. organizers for america and at the dnc, they have ground operations across the board for congress, senate, governor. they are going out and knocking on doors. what i am hearing is for instance, the democratic

national committee, they have talked to more african-american voters in the month of september then they talk to african- american voters the entire year of 2006. you are seeing extraordinary efforts at doing door knocking. host: of the dnc plans to spend seven times to eight times more than previous years. it used to work there. explain how this works. how the ground game works at that level? how do they spend that money? guest: they raise money nationally and a part of that money into states that are most in portland. they make sure that the state party in michigan is going to get enough money to be able to run their program. they said staff members out to communicate directly and not on doors in that community. they also -- advertising, whether radio and television ads, they will run a radio and television advertising in communities to make sure they are also getting a national message out. but again, it in a lot of these

communities, there is going to have to be a state-by-state, race race method to make sure the candidate is back to the communicating directly to the voters. host: what is the guarantee that this could work? when you look at 2009 governor races in virginia and new hampshire or the 2010 primaries, the data shows that african- americans didn't turn out of the races. guest: if you look at congressional special elections that took place in 2009, democrats swept those. i'm wary about congressional elections in this case because the house -- whether it is mississippi or tennessee or more -- or sanford bishop in georgia, those candidates are communicating to african- american voters that they need them to show up. someone like war barnes running in georgia, who was governor when i was down there, he has a

great relationship with the african-american community. he knocked the confederate flag down there that cost some white voters. you have mike firmans -- the only african-american elected state wide, he will help turn out african-american voters who will also help roy barnes was running for governor. host: jamal simmons is our guest, democratic strategist, talking about african-american turnout. what is your involvement in camping 2010? guest: spending a lot of time with people like you. my day job is i work for a lot of foundations that do communications around health care and criminal justice policies and things like that. i spent a lot of time in democratic politics. i have been chief of staff on the hill. interesting, there is a stir in the paper about what is happening in the south. most of my career i worked with

seven politicians, whether bill clinton, al gore, a westley clark. so, i have a good sense and feel about how this works on the ground. in the south, you pretty much do have to have kind of a message. people are pretty conservative. even when they are democratic voters, the care a lot about faith, about family, people look out for their neighbors. sometimes these big messages about big business and other things that happening don't mean as much to someone. so you have to have a candidate that can connect to the voters. host: the story he is referring to is the front page of "the new york times" below the fold. white southern democrats see bad outlook turned worse. since the civil rights act, democrats have been losing seats consecutively in the south. guest: we know a lot of the reason why it is the case. it talks about the 1964 voting rights act. there were a lot of white voters who had the democrats but they were conservatives. what we have now is -- where we

use at two parties that both had conservative and liberal members, were national party. what you are seeing now in the last 40 years is we have sort of a liberal party and the conservative party that don't really have a lot of cross between them. we almost have a parliamentary party system but we don't have a parliamentary government. in washington, you then come to washington where compromise is required but you don't have people built the inside the party that can do that compromise. there is not a lot of reason. host: first phone call. kent, independent line. irving, texas. are you with us? good morning. caller: good morning. first, i have a question for you, gretchen -- greta. when a republican calls in on the republican line use a republican. and when an independent, you call it the independent line. when somebody calls and on the

democratic line you don't say here is a democratic on the democratic line. would you please go like -- start calling them the democrats' line so it would not be descriptive but just identity. host: i see that -- go ahead with your comments or questions. caller: in connection with this subject. the local congress lady here has recently been in the paper for handing out about 23 different scholarships to people, and it has caused a lot of problems here. so, i have some black friends and i asked one of them who has a church what he thought was going to happen. and he just kind of laughed and said, we are still going to call vote for her because she has been a conversely we are just going to go ahead and vote because she is one of

us. so i would like to make comments about our guest. host: what is your question? caller: this minister, who has been a friend of mine -- host: do you have any thoughts to add? guest: people make the determination on who they are going to vote for based on who they think can operate the best. that candidate may have a way to beat her but you cannot say that you are going to vote against somebody because you do not like what they did some place else. host: chattanooga, tennessee. james. caller: good morning. i remember you, jamal. i am 61 years old.

i am a vietnam combat veteran. but braze to god. i get up every morning and read the bible. -- but praise to god. i have always done what was required of me, and i urge all black people to vote. it is a ploy to downplay the out come up the push that black people do to get out the vote. i vote early. i take my friends. i ask them in the barber shop, have you voted? there is a silent force here, and we are working. it is a play, strategy to downplay the black vote.

we are getting out there. we are proud of you. keep up the good work. host: what about tennessee, that state in particular, getting african-americans out to vote? guest: he is doing things that are effective. talking to people directly. here is an african-american woman who works at an office. she drives a mercedes. ok, maybe we know some of the things that they are concerned about. so you could communicate directly with them through mail , phone calls. host: next phone call. bob. caller: if the republican party

had a program to get out white voters, would you consider them racist? why aren't you racist? guest: everyone is trying to get everyone out. republicans do have some programs try to reach out to latino voters. in general, people talk to voters, regardless of their income, other ways, all sorts of ways to dissect the party. david in north carolina. independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to make a short question and then a comment. are you familiar, in legal terms, of the public duty doctrine?

guest: tell me what it means. caller: well, i will get to my statement first. for the past 10 years, the right wing of the party does not want any refs on the field on wall street. they are talking freedom, constitution, they do not want these legislations, restrictions. the democrats, on the other hand, want refs on the field, and they are responding. as you mentioned, gretchen, a minute ago, the african americans is one of the basis to the democratic party. the democrats and african americans want refs on the field, someone to protect them. this is where the public duty

doctor and comes in. under the law, there is no duty to protect. if an african-american sued the sec for giving madoff a clean bill of health six months before, he turned himself in, and you sued the sec for failure to protect, and they would come with me public duty doctrine. i would like for you to look into the public to the doctrine. there is no duty to protect. host: we will leave it there. i saw one story this morning, all voters -- not just african- american -- turned out to vote.

the commentator asked the question, do democrats really want to win in the house and senate? does president obama want them to win? would it not serve his interest best if republicans shared the burden of running the government? guest: that would make sense if it seemed that there was a republican party that had any desire to help us out of the ditch that we are in. instead, we have a party presenting the pledge of america. it talks about competitiveness. america.ed to ameri to it talks about education, but does not mention "education" at all, and reduces spending back to 2008 levels.

that means we have to take 28% of the budget out. gutting education is not going to help us become more competitive as a nation. if you had a republican party that was serious about dealing with the nation's issues, that could be the case. but instead you have someone like darrell issa who wants to have hearings and investigations for everything that has happened in the past two years. president obama decided that he was not going to look back and scrutinize everything about the budget ministration. the clinton administration constantly did subpoenas and it did not help you get policy. the obama administration understands there is no good to

come from a republican in charge and all they want to do is investigate. host: in the washingto the same congress wants to extend tax cuts for those people who make over $250,000 a year. they do not need these tax cuts. so we are going to borrow $700 billion abroad to kick tax cut to will be people in the united states and then cut down on domestic programs? it does not make sense. that is why we cannot trust republicans to take back the mantle of leadership. host: the front page of "role

call newspaper." -- "roll call" newspaper -- pensacola, florida. ellis on the democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. earlier on, you had someone who said he was voting against his congressman.

my opinion is he probably did not vote for him the first time. secondly, florida has started their dirty tricks campaign. last night, i received a call stating that we should vote against two amendments that are on the ballot, five and six, trying to fix the gerrymandering that we have going on. we got a phone call saying that african-american organization were against those amendments. i went on their website and they had a list of about 20 minority organizations saying to vote for it because it would cut out the gerrymandering that the republicans have done in florida. what do you think about that?

guest: i was in west palm beach during the recount, so i am familiar with the shenanigans that go on in a state like florida. democrats have to be sure that we have people in these states monitoring the vote. we have to make sure that there is not voter intimidation happening. if there are problems, do the little things that are necessary to get the problems addressed. host: what are you hearing about possible every counts in these senate races. -- races? guest: it can be a bigger issue depending on the year. harry reid was in a recount in 1998. nevada no longer has a law where -- i am sorry, he was in a

runoff that turned into a recount. right now, the first person past the post winds. -- wins. so there are recounts around the country and there are some interesting election laws that people should pay attention to. host: wayne from tennessee. caller: i hope you do not get a raise, gretchen, because mr. simmons will say that you do not deserve it. i have a comment about the black community singular and black community, plural. guest: african-americans vote for african-americans for a variety of reasons. around the country, you see

different americans living in different conditions. many times people have different ideas about what is important in their lives. a candidate in new york is running on something different than someone in rural alabama. host: washington, d.c., filled up. -- phillip. caller: washington, d.c. it is no stranger to race politics. he looks at a candidate, sees with their platform is in relation to what he would like to see in office. do you vote democrat down the line? guest: i voted for a friend of my mother who was a republican

in college. for the most part, i will vote for the democrat. i have a hard time voting for republicans who are against my interests, even if there is a democrat who will not express my best interests. host: this morning, cnn is talking about not only the african-american vote, but the lending enthusiasm of young voters. ging enthusiasm of young voters. guest: we have seen the excitement go up since 2006. you want to see young voters again this year because they have a perspective that has to be in the debate. we saw in 2008, not only did

barack obama do well with young voters, but so did john mccain. if you look at a group like rock the vote, what they will tell you is, these types of leaders tend to be more inspirational. it is important for young voters to show up so that their perspective is heard. if you look at the election now, it is not just african- americans deciding the election. it is also college students, their professors. if liberal whites are so disgruntled because they did not get a public option or something else that they wanted to get done in the past two years, democrats will not win. the need to have a maximum party

turned out to make sure that we have more opportunities to change the country, going forward. host: prince george's county, maryland. jeff on the democratic line. caller: i have so much to say about this issue. to those folks who are calling and saying that we do not need a level playing field, a robbery, -- referee, think about all the changes that have had to happen because folks in power are being voted out. it is appalling for people to take these disingenuous stances because of the president, the democrats are trying to get some sort of tax reform, campaign reform, essentially fairness.

it is ridiculous. i could go on and on. this thing called the fairness doctrine, i think fox news tried to co-op that. the republican party is trying to get a market on being american. black americans, we are going to get out and vote, regardless of which party we are affiliated with. to coin a phrase from a hard- working friend of mine, i would consider myself a demopublican. there are some ideas i like from one, some from others. but what we do not like is having someone tried to buy our public opinion. guest: you touched on something at the end which is important.

he said this idea of money coming in to buy votes -- the one thing i am more about this election is the amount of unregulated cash coming into this election. it is not that people are spending money for the person they believe in, that is normal. the question is, do voters have a right to know where the money is coming from? who is putting money in these races? we do not want to end up in a case like russia where you have the billionaire oligarchs who are buying the elections on behalf of candidates. you want to make sure that you have a fair electorate. it seems, right now, all of our work on finance reform -- campaign finance reform has gone out the window. host: a twitter response --

guest: i did not say that. 2008 was clearly a high water mark. it is like a first kiss. you can never experience it again. the question is, will you do better than you did in 2002, 2006, other midterm elections? will you be able to close the gap with the youth voters, african-american voters? if democrats have a chance to win, it is about getting those younger people under 35 to come out. host: what is it about those younger people that make a difference? when it has made a difference

for democrats, the percentage between those two is quite small. is there a point at which it really hurts the democrats? guest: if it is less than 5%, democrats generally do well. host: janet in memphis. caller: i will say this quickly, but come back through history with me. tom bradley was running for governor in california. that election was stolen and given to ronald reagan. anyway, ronald reagan stripped education -- funding for education from poor kids, like me, and gave it to the asians. we saw all these people coming

in and then all the money being given to them, and then we saw a slide of our jobs being given to them and then overseas. the slide continued to where we are now. president clinton had such a troubled past, it was known he could not stand up against globalization. now we have president obama who is squeaky clean and it is hard for someone to use his past against him but they are fighting him in all these nefarious ways because he is really the person to do the job. what affect do you think the black vote can have won the elections can be stolen, in the matter that it was done with ron reagan in california? as soon as he guided the schools

there, he was awarded by becoming president. everyone knows he was not intelligent enough to do that. guest: as a student of political history, i do not think tom bradley ran for governor against ronald reagan. he did lose in his election in what people thought would be a massive turnout for him, but he ended up losing by a couple of points. she also talked about the democrats' standing against globalization. i do not think anyone is doing that. we are in the middle of it. the question is, how do we get our work force to be able to harness globalization for the benefit of american citizens. how can we be competitive where we are still competitive in science, math, engineering, in order to compete against that? thomas friedman was relating a

conversation that he had with the chairman of intel, saying that he could be a seat -- could not be a successful company without american workers. we have to do better in our high schools to make sure that kids are involved in technology, engineering, and math to compete with people across the world. i would love to see us at a place -- on the issue of competition, there is a consensus that we have to address it. but some are more to the left, some more to the right, but everyone focused that we are competitive so that our children can have a piece of the world. host: jamal simmons is with us, a principal at the raven group. he is also a cbs political

analyst. there was a recent report put out by the joint center for political and economic studies. the influence of black candidates on 2010 midterm elections. there are 20 seats where black voters could determine the outcome. most of these seats are in southern states and only three are held by republicans. if the democrats retain half of these seats, it would be tough for the gop to regain the seats necessary to get the majority in the house. guest: that is an important point that democrats have to compete in the south, as well as the midwest and west. i am not one of these people running around worrying about the sky is falling on election day, but we have two weeks left. this is the rough and tumble part of the campaign.

you look at this advertising between ran paul and -- there is a lot happening in the next few weeks. as a candidate, you have to make sure that you are keeping the ball moving. i was in a campaign ones where we were ahead the entire year until the final 10 days and the election turnaround. we lost. you could see what was happening. this wave that everyone is talking about to defeat democrats, it may exist, but it is not taking hold yet. carli fear russia is up slightly in california. washington state, patty murray

is also ahead. in mississippi, childers is also up. so you look around the country and republicans have to take control in order to win, and they are not blowing anyone away yet. democrats are still holding their own. guest: what is your prediction for the house? -- host: what is your prediction for the house? guest: i predict the democrats will retain power of the house. there are some seats that republicans hold the democrats will be able to take. if you look at the seat in new orleans, that is a democratic pickup opportunity. there is one in delaware, another in hawaii. you have a few of these races

where democrats can do pretty well and finished strong -- finish strong. host: moving on to read still, north carolina. mary, you are on the line. caller: i see that your guest is a democratic strategist. it seems that democrats and president obama are afraid to tout what they have really done, spending time holding the republicans off, rather than showing the public their accomplishments. it seems that their strategy is to tell everybody what you're young, what is good, what hav

have accomplished. host: has there been a communication problem from the white house? guest: i could argue that the white house is in a better position today. if we had said from the beginning, focus on competitive, focus on long-term issues. in the short term, we have some hard work to do. thinking more of a long-term strategy as well as focusing short-term on jobs. health care is important, something that the democrats have tried to do. next year, you will see kids left off of the roles having benefits because they are allowed to be on their parents' plan.

maybe have a mom who has a job with a birth defect cannot get that child cover because of a pre-existing condition, she will be able to get them covered. right now, we do not have many real time examples because of the timing, but next year, i think you will see democrats talk more about the bill. host: if you want to take a look at a list of the things that work, jim abrams writes in "the philadelphia inquirer" -- fresno, california. david, good morning. caller: i am a white, independent voter. i voted for barack obama. i gave him a pass on the reverend wright situation.

since he has been in office, there has been two incidents including race. one was the person at harvard, professor gates, where president obama made a comment, gave his opinion on police officers not being very bright about that. i was shocked that he made that comment. being president, he should have allowed the police to handle the situation. i do not know why he would make a comment concerning that. the second thing is, the new black panthers, the situation where they were convicted but did not get any time for intimidation, i am surprised that the administration, with

the department of justice, did not do something that showed they wanted to make a statement that we are not going to let anybody intimidate us, no matter what race they are. i believe this is the reason all lot of white independent voters are going against this administration. guest: most people who do not want fox news are not familiar with this new black panthers case. if you look at the clip, there is one gentleman standing in front of an african-american voting district, looking at him as if he is a nut job. so is not really that he is intimidating voters. this was all cleared up under the bush administration. i think people think that this is an important case tried to highlight racial issues.

barack obama was talking about a specific police officer who walked into the professor's home and questioned him. clearly, it was his home. i think the president probably learned a lesson in both cases. but if you look at barack obama brought the, he is someone who has been appealing to voters across the spectrum. he treats everyone equally. some people do not want him to be equal. they want him to favor in a different direction. i think that is something that he is not in the business of. you just have to look at this from a broader stance and you see that we have a president,

even though people are not extraordinarily happy about the economy, he is still getting about 63% personal approval ratings. host: you have worked on presidential campaigns, have worked for the democratic national committee, specific races. describe what it is like to be in a campaign at this moment. guest: can you say hell on c- span? the common joke on the campaign is every day is a week, every week, a month. day's low in two nights, you are up early, out late. you are tired a lot. you have not talked to your friends and family. it is a tough environment but anybody that has been through it

-- some of my good friends are republicans who have been on the opposite side. there is this strange bond that you have with each other because you understand the grueling life that the person has led, how much they had been through. it is fun, something that you cannot get an excitement level doing something else. every day you get up, you are doing something because you believe in it, you think you can make the world a better place. if nothing else, -- it makes some people cynical -- but i have become more optimistic. most people are supporting a candidate because they can believe they can make -- they believe they can make a difference every day. i am working all day and i am

really not getting paid that much. host: baton rouge. tyrone. good morning. caller: i do not know if republican blacks were more republican from the lincoln days, up to president roosevelt, i think maybe they started to switch parties. certainly, after kennedy, after he got martin luther king out of a jam. do you think it is a danger that the democratic party may start to take the black vote for granted and say that they will come running to all the time? host: thank you. guest: you hit on a good point.

i am a democrat, but it is good for the country to be voting on people from all spectrums. in fact, too often, candidates will treat black voters like a one-night stand. everything to get them to vote at one day and then they do not pay much attention to them. we need to have continual involvement, a trust level that the candidate will operate in the best interest of those folks. host: dennis in new york. democratic line. can you make it quick? caller: i will do my best. mr. simmons, as a white liberal, it is not just the government option that is missing. the republiklan party set up that medicare part b thing which

is a slush fund for drug companies. middle-class seniors have to pay two sets of premiums for one drug benefit. they should have put the prescription drug benefit into part be. for this reason, i am writing in tom harkin for senator in 2012. host: what is your question? caller: when is the democratic party going to get off of their corporate agenda and get back to acting more liberal? guest: to me, the question is whether or not you want to make the perfect enemy out of the good. there are lots of things that i would like to see democrats do, and compare that to the average republican, a democrat tend to come out on the line that i come

out on. look for the candidate that you want to do the best. if they are not doing what you like, you press the case. too often, what we saw was the tea party showing up expressing their case for more conservative policies, but you did not see democrats and liberals showing up and vociferously stating their case. the tea party is >> we are at george washington university. we will hear from mark penn, a former adviser to hillary clinton, also karen hughes, an

adviser to president bush. afterwards, a debate between various senate candidates. later on, a discussion between the wisconsin debate for coverage. -- the wisconsin candidates for governor.

>> the potential effect of the 2010 elections, that is the topic from george washington university. on house republicans are busy crafting a post-election strategy aimed at securing concrete legislation and showing that they can turn principles into concrete action. also, the latest polls show mark rubio maintaining his lead in the race for florida's u.s. senate seat and trunk chris has 31%. -- and independent charlie crist has 31%. democratic rep kendrick meek

rounds out the list in the thrid ird position. -- third position.

>> good evening, everyone. welcome to george washington university. we are very pleased to have our guests here this evening to do the second installment of midterm examination and give their opinion about what is happening in the next couple of weeks. it is exactly this kind of conversation which we like to host. we are the premier school of practical politics. the first school founded 23 years ago to teach people how the business of politics operates and to teach leaders in that field. we are able to host this event because of the generosity of

friends of the graduate school of political management. our hosts have been the respective leaders of their parties. >> thank you, director. thank you are special panel for being here. this will be a lot of fun, 80 years ago you might see a grown man cry. -- two weeks from now you might see a grown man cry. i only had one campaign when i

was a student at george washington university. i was in my second year of law school during the kennedy campaign. we debated with a man who is in heaven now. he had nixon and i had kennedy. we debated catholic girls' schools. i got to show for mrs. drew pearson. that was the first time i had ever met a bloody mary. i have many memories of the good campaigning in 1960. the graduate school, there is nothing like it. its position is correct, the location is right. and the focus on ethics, decency, and trying to do a good

job in supporting once family as frank and i have tried to do and recognize them as supporting this lecture series. if you are interested in the field, i would suggest every consideration you give to the right to a school political management. i r e mention my colleague. we have a strong personal friendship. only wish other politicians could do that. [applause] >> thank you. one of the reasons why shocked and i threw our original involvement decided to endow this lecture series is because of our concern and something that might be on the front burner in this election campaign

more than i have ever seen it and that is the inability of members of the republican and democratic party to disagree agree believe. -- disagree agreeably. this has been a nasty campaign. it does not have to be that way. chuck and i met when he was the democratic-the head of the democratic national committee and i was the -- when i was the head of the republican national committee and he was the head of the democratic national committee. despite that, we created the national endowment for democracy, the national democratic institute, the international republican institute to work together on

the things that we thought was in the best interest of our nation. i then served for four years with a man named paul kirk. he filled in senator kennedy's seat until the election in massachusetts with the election of senator brown. while we fought tooth and nail in 1985, we created the commission on presidential debates which has sponsored every general election debate in presidential politics since 1988. we are friends, our wives go along, we -- get along, we go to dinner. we play golf. we can be friends even though we disagree on the political direction each of us would take and we think that the whole question of comedy and politics should be addressed. you will see a little bit of

that tonight because two people who will be introduced are from different political parties. it is my final test introduced our moderator, mark murray, the nbc news political director. he has reported on political trends and issues. he is a frequent on their contributor to msnbc. before coming to nbc, he spent more than five years as a reporter with "national journal ." he is a free-lance reporter for

"atlantic monthly," and "the washington journal." he's a 1996 graduate of the university of texas in austin. >> thank you for that very kind introduction. now to introduce the two stars for this panel. first we will start with a marker pen. -- mark penn. he is an adviser to corporate leaders like bill gates, bill forward. he was the political strategist for hillary clinton's political campaign in 2008. he is the co author of "micro trends," and he why it's a

weekly column for the "wall street journal." we move on to caring use. she served as the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy in 2005 and 2007 and a counselor to george w. bush from 2001-2002. she returned to texas in 2002 but continued as an informal adviser to the president. she served as director of communications for gov. bush in texas. she is the past executive director of the republican party of texas and a former tv news reporter for an nbc affiliate in dallas fort worth. they both have opening remarks to make so we will begin with market. >> -- mark,.

>> as we look at the midterms. karen will probably go through this current projections and they keep picking up 10 in the polls. i think that it will go a little bit away from the polling which shows most of the race is very close and within the margin of error. the final five days will make a tremendous difference in the outcome of this race. what i want to hit upon arc couple of overriding trends -- i want to hit upon a couple of overriding trends. i don't think that this should be interpreted as a victory for the republican philosophy any more than i think that 2008 should be interpreted as a victory for the left.

the fact of the matter is that the increasingly independent voters will be making the decision and they are looking for a centrist brando's politics. -- a centrist brand of politics. the independents are at a record historical highs as we have been measuring. it used to be a red or blue country. about 85% belongs to the two parties. today, this is closer to a third or 40% who are independent. the biggest party in america is in fact no party and particularly among younger voters, those numbers are off of the charts. i think that your seeing somewhat of a balkanization of the parties.

first, i think that you are seeing the impact of that even though many more are independent, the republican party is 26%. it only takes 14% of the country to have a majority of the republican party. since typically there's only a democrat or republican on the ballot, then they can run the entire country. that is where the electorate is getting more and more frustrated and that is why your seeing that politics is probably one of the few things left in your life where there are only two flavors. if there's one thing the voters are demanding, it is more and more choice. there is a huge wave of discontent. this is the longest sustained time of discontent i have seen in my lifetime which goes back about 35 years.

we have seen and two or three year before but we are now looking at about six years of discontent in this could well be a decade of discontent and that will have long-term effects on both the american psyche and on politics today. there is a continued demand for change and they continue to be dissatisfied with what government is doing. finally, i think that there is more partisanship than ever. i find that people are taking more and more into personal backgrounds. the politics of personal destruction is out there more than ever. the advertisements, they're going back to college and probably get to high school but there seems to be nothing that is out of bounds for wholesale distribution on the internet and

this is deteriorating some of the discussion of the issues. people often ask, what is it that people want? i took a poll for the aspen institute and we went in with the theory that people wanted more decisive government. they were probably impatient with checks and balances and one of the president to have more power. that was completely wrong. people reaffirmed checks and balances and they did not want the president to have more power. they said fundamentally that they wanted, if anything, to have a greater role themselves. they back to the election of supreme court justices, direct election of the president without the electoral college, and national referendums. they said don't give more power to the politicians come and give more power to the people.

with the growth that we have seen, whether or not the tea party is the ultimate movement or just a second generation in what could be a series of movements, people want more power. when the constitution was written, typically it relied on a few elise that went to college. today, voters are more aware of the issues and they are georgia what is going on. i read it but in college that said that that the voters are not floodools. they are increasingly astute and they feel that they should have a bigger share of the power. i think that this underscores what they are looking for. at the end of the day, they're looking for both parties to

solve immigration, health care, and do it in a strong bipartisan fashion. the voters essentially get their way and that is what they are sending. >> thank you so much, mark. i want to thank chuck and frank for endowing this program. we have been doing things like this around the country and we both have very different perspectives but we found that we can disagree agreeably and of course we work together every day, he is my boss this panel is about adding value to our clients. this panel is about understanding the implications of the midterm elections and they are really great. the one that you hear about is the potential to change the balance of power here in washington which will affect what legislation is and is not able to be passed.

it will also set the tone for the final two years of the obama administration and the starting gun for the 2012 presidential race and my party's efforts to find the best republican to run against barack obama. we will be electing governors in 37 states including 15 of the 18 that will redistrict next year. that will determine the boundaries for the next 10 years. republicans have their opportunity to pick up 20-25 seats in congress and that will affect elections for the next 10 years. this is a time of great disillusionment and deep anxiety. voters are frustrated and angry. there is discontent. for the first time that i can remember, i truly believe that

my generation of americans are worried that the country that we leave to our children will not be as stable or peaceful or prosperous as the one that we have enjoyed the opportunity to live and. people are worried that the federal government is on a path that is simply not sustainable and that they feel an urgency about that. i think that there is a feeling among republicans and independents and even democrats that president obama's policies have made things worse. he was elected on an idea of hope and change that our politicians could be higher and better. he was not enacted to enact trillions of dollars in spending and piled up the national debt. there is a big difference between delivering speeches and delivering good government. after two years, many people are

disillusioned. this is across the political spectrum. instead of seeing the best of our politics, which is what people wanted, they have seen the worst of washington. the health-care debate, the legislation passed in the middle of the night. also the backroom deals, trying to buy votes for the legislation. the stimulus that was a pork barrel exercise. people feel like they have seen the worst of washington. that adds up to a climate which will produce gains for republicans. i believe that we will win back the house. the senate, we need it 10 seats and right now it looks like maybe 8.

every time the house this changed hands since world war ii, the senate has changed hands. there are many races that are close. we will be back here a couple of days after the election to talk about who was right and who is wrong. >> now we will have some questions. we have a new poll out today that actually shows that republicans probably might meet your predictions. they also show that the republican party is you'd still more on favorably than the democratic party -- is viewed still more unfavorably than the democratic party. how would you advise them to try to change the mood?

people are very discontent. how should the republicans' approach power if they are able to get it? >> we need to show that we are listening to what people want. i would recommend that we start enacting some things. i would do a bill a day to cut spending. we need to extend the tax cuts. i have been traveling around the country and every businessman that i talk to says that they cannot believe that congress went home without knowing what kind of taxes they would be making. right now, we are scheduled to have a six trillion dollar tax increase on january 1st. i would suggest that a lame duck

congress, republicans need to work with democrats to extend those tax cuts and make sure that we don't face a massive tax increase on january 1st. i also would look at some of the worst aspects of the health care bill and is trying to work with democrats to fix it and to begin to replace the onerous parts of it with much more market- friendly legislation. >> what do you think that that will happen? republicans working on deficit reduction, tax cuts, maybe a compromise? >> it takes two. if i was advising republican leaders -- i'm hearing some of that. we have a lot of potentially new member of congress who have experience working in state legislatures.

in state legislatures, republicans and democrats are accustomed to working together. they have worked pretty effectively across the country. i would recommend that republicans approached this in the spirit of finding areas of compromise, places we can work together. is president obama willing to work with republicans? is he willing to compromise and recognize and listen to the people. he has done a lot of talking but is he willing to listen to the people? >> in 1994, bill clinton and the democrats lost control of the senate. you helped advise clinton in 1996 in getting reelected. how would you advise president obama if the republicans take back control? >> if republicans take back control, i think that there will be a moment of truth for both

parties. maybe they will want to cooperate and make a political calculation. either way, the president's job in those circumstances would be to neutralize some of the growing negatives that he has experienced. he should also suspend a tax cuts for a year. people believe that the system is unfair, has many loopholes, not workable, benefits those it should not benefit. may be extended them for the economy but then come back with a tax reform bill and put it to the republicans. on health care, he has to continue to monitor health care. i think that expanded coverage but not enough to control costs.

he will face this issue before it gets out of control and blows back. i think that he can to more in terms of the values issues. president clinton did a lot of issues. this is a tougher approach to violence in our schools. the administration hasn't been strong enough and they understand the concerns. on the deficit, ip think that the administration has to stop the basic policy of trying to prime the pump. finally, the administration has to move up a more comprehensive economic strategy.

in 1994, clinton had the expansion of trade, innovation, closing the deficit. some of them were really favored by democrats, others were favored by republicans. with places like china and india really leapfrogging the economic growth, it is important that the u.s. remains competitive and the president gets out ahead of the wave of global innovation. i think that if he neutralizes those weaknesses, the truth of the matter is that this will not be an endorsement of the property -- of the republican party. this will be an expression of malcontent. he can come back from this with a two-year time.

>> often times the conventional wisdom in washington can be wrong. we thought that mike castle was going to be christine of donald. we thought that murkowski was going to beat joe miller. -- we thought that mike castle was going to beat christine o'donnell. >> most of these races are really within two or three points. they're mostly in the low 40's. there is still a good 10%-50% undecided and every district. the real question is that you have to balance against a growing fear that you will bring back the policies of the bush administration that remain as

unpopular as ever and put in power and unstable party that has lost control of themselves. the headlines by candidate start a turnoff. i saw sarah palin out there stumping. that is what the reason why it might turn out for democrats. she is a turnoff to younger people, young professionals, better-educated. those people that obama won in 2008 and that have been peeling off. the more they see the sarah palin and the tea party, the more the last couple of days could break the democratic way. >> listening to his litany of what president obama should do differently this shows how far that the mainstream president obama's policies are. the health care costs, this was sold as a way of reforming costs

and it does nothing to control costs. i think that the tea party has energized our party and reminded the republican party of what it stands for. we're the party of lower taxes and limited government. we need to examine ourselves and look at the last. i remember being the executive director of the republican party in texas one another tea party movement ended up costing us the presidential election. i am grateful that they decided to remain in the republican party and become an energizing force reminding our party of what we really stand for which is a strong national defense, less spending, more power to the states and local governments and less power to washington. i think that this has been in

energizing force for our party. the momentum is on our side. we have a great opportunity here and we have to work hard to turn out the independence and to the conservative democrats to agree with us because this is important for our country. >> are there some drawbacks for the tea party because some might be too conservative to win in a state like delaware with christine o'donnell. and that the party is just plain to the republican base. are there some potential drawbacks? -- the tea party is just playing puck to the republican base. >> as a former executive director of the republican party, when candidates run in

our primary and they are elected by our voters, we have an obligation to support them and try to elect them. if we want someone different, we have a chance. >> i am fascinated by karen's hi dean of the tea party at how this time of the decision -- hugging of the tea party in this time of in decision. >> many of them have been republicans all of their lives. they are concerned about the future of the country. we need to change the direction of our country. >> are there some certain ways in which elected leaders, people in the media, can actually reduce the partisanship and change the tone? in california, they aren't

trying to tinker with redistricting congressional districts are set up where the most conservative person wins conservative districts, the most liberal person wins liberal districts and when you get those two people in a room, they don't agree on anything. when you change the districts, you get some more central -- centrist candidates. is there a way that we can reduce person should in washington? >> -- partisanship in washington? >> by nature, which contain will be made of two camps. -- washington is made of two camps. i think structurally, calif. it is interesting. you have to redo the districting. you see it passed by 50% in a

referendum so they will have non-partisan primaries. that will bring the power of moderate voters. this will enhance the power of those voters in the primaries. again, i go back to that poll. no one is really behind the things that the people ask for. the california system seems to be ahead of things in terms of both election and beginning to change the system to make it more 21st century. >> some critics have said that the referendum process in california has made that state ungovernable because you have so many pieces coming and this has burdens on the elected leaders and states are able to produce a budget. is it possible to have the voice of democracy and make this a more smooth process? >> national referendum would

have to be worked out. voters are asking for more direct power. they don't want to just to let people. they want to directly elect the president and then they want to have more input whether it is some kind of tailored referendum. we cannot be afraid of democracy. democracies sometimes makes bad choices. not having democracy makes consistently worse choices. >> the selection, they are talking about 95 or 100 house districts which are still in play which is a huge number at this point. that is less than 1/4 of the seats. that means that more than 75% of the seats are so one-sided that even in this very contentious year that today are a lot for either party and i don't think that is good for democracy.

in texas there are some very gerrymandered districts. we really do need better-drawn districts. having come from a state where it is hard for people to remember there but when my boss, president bush, was elected in 2000, one of the things that appealed to him is that he had worked with democrats in texas to get things done. the problem is that from both the media perspective and the special interest, you come to washington and you get pushed to the far extremes. the special interest groups expect strict adherence and the media covers the most strident

voices. we get pushed to the extremes. >> talk about the way the media has changed from the time that you have left the white house. the news cycle has changed. if you had to gopac and to work on a campaign and -- if you had to go back and work on the campaign, what would you do differently? >> in the 2000 presidential campaign, none of us had a blackberry. we thought that he was a -- we thought that al gore was a little weird using this. by the 2004 campaign, i could not imagine life without it. you are right, one of my colleagues says that there is no longer a 24-hour news cycle, it

is a 1440 minute news cycle. this is a very -- when i got involved in the news process, the newspapers dominated the political process. this was a once a week political news magazine. what was on the cover of "time," "newsweek," or what people were looking at. you see things going out on the news and the wire services. the explosion of information is good. mark made the point is that voters are very informed and they have a lot of information and that is very healthy. i worry about whether people have time to think when i was in the white house, there was a

problem on the electric grid sometime after september 11th. a lot of the power went out in the northeast. there was some concern about whether it would have been a terrorist attack. president bush did not say anything while he was waiting to find out what had caused it. it took four hours. the media was just appalled. four hours. the white house with four hours, it is unbelievable. four hours is not very long to assess the situation and think about what you want to say. we have to think through the ramifications on decisionmaking when things are so frenetic. >> for our list is the length of two disaster movies. >> he mentioned some ways that the obama administration can

use 2011, 2012 to there is advantage. talk about how sometimes the political mood, perhaps in dealing with 10% unemployment, how hard it would be for the white house to change the overall dynamics of the race if the unemployment does not go down. are these may be outside their control? if it stays around where it is, is he in trouble? >> let me pick up on where karen was in the things in the media and roll that into the change in the environment. when i was working in the clinton white house, i would look at the newspapers and it was hard for people to understand that "usa today, as"

had would people with thinking about -- that the headline on "usa today," had what people were thinking about. the only speech anyone heard was one that he gave to scandinavian students. someone can say something anywhere and that can become a national news story of great importance. never before have we had this kind of political connection across people that is easy and convenient. there is no question that the primary source over the next few years will become the smart phone. the old pattern was that you worked all day, you got home, you had a little dinner, that was the most important event of the day. by the time you get to the

nightly news, it is done. you have had a flash of news and interest all through the day. people cartoon in and plug in in a way before that only people inside the bubble work. this is a totally different news environment. it is interesting, we did one focus group and this was a discussion of newspapers. people said, what is the newspaper? what do you name our news source now? this is not a newspaper, this is not a television station, how do we get our news? this is the new environment that we are still really learning how to handle and deal with. the news environment can create

a greater capacity for what you would call mass action in a moment and of this -- in a moment's notice. information will spread within hours to huge segments of the population. what is the president to do in a highly volatile news environment. clinton survived the events of 1998 because it created 24 million jobs and he had promised to these. that is also why bush in 2006 had such problems. he did not end the iraq war and he did not end either the partisanship in washington.

at that point, he had not done it after six years. president obama has kept some basic commitments. he is not getting the full credit. if you were sitting at the white house and you said we did financial reform, health care reform, stimulus package. this stomped and economic collapse. they are sitting there and saying that if we continue the policies they will bear fruit and show that we are the right direction to keep moving the country. this will be a basic choice between forward and back. the question that you raise is what happens if they don't have that kind of economic improvement.

this comes down to difference in philosophy. sarah palin is the republican nominee for president, i don't care whether unemployment is 15%, i do not believe she would be elected. >> how do you look at the 2012 republican field? as mark was mentioning, there are some people who see republicans as the bush campaign in 2004, you need to win 40% or more of the latino voters. you have to make inroads in places where you have not been able to before. as we head into 2012, what does the republican party need to do to be able to win? >> we have to show that we can make government work. that is what people are frustrated about.

government is not working. there is no jobs, no improvement. people described this as an anti-incumbent election but that does not sum it up, especially when you look at the governors' races. we are poised to have 30 republican governors after this election? why? six of the six incumbent republican governors are expected to win their reelection. of the salmon democrat, sixth of seven are looked at as hon.. the difference is that the republicans are making government work based on limited government, focusing on

education, health. the governor of indiana inherited its budget deficit and he got rid of the deficit and has worked to create jobs in that state. we are looking at republican governors across the country who have really made government work for people and made it effective. they have a record to run on and results to run on. >> you think the future of the republican party is with the governors? >> i might be prejudiced because i came from the governor's office. a governor has experience working with legislators, setting a direction and achieving results. that is why you have seen president obama's weakness. he sublet his program to nancy

pelosi and the house to write his legislation. that is why we are not seeing the kind of policies and leadership that he would have expected. i personally think that the governors are really this ceo of a state and people will be suspicious about rhetoric in 2012. maybe their expectations were too high but they have definitely been dashed. >> many people will parachute into new hampshire, south carolina, looking at what happened in the republican primaries where in most cases the most conservative republican has won. george w. bush did not win his primary by being the most conservative. he tried to position him to be

the most general candidate. does it concern you that this is the race of who is the most conservative? >> what work for governor bush is compassionate conservatism. i believe that the conservative philosophy can be compassionate and hopeful. i would hope that would be the tell we would said. in 2012, people will be looking for someone who can make our government work. there are many republican governors to have great records to run on and they will be running not on who is the most conservative but on what they have done. it looked at what we have achieved it in our state.

>> what is your thoughts on the republican party going into 2012? >> 2/3 of those people who consider themselves republicans are conservative. there are almost zero liberals. that means that they have with 13%, you can't dominate the republican primary. we have seen the most conservative movement gathered the most energy and enthusiasm in the party. you have seen the tea party not nominate established governors like karen went through but the o'donnells of the world.

it might not come out in this election but it will definitely come out in the presidential election. whatever moderate leanings there was and the ability for bush to ran as a moderate and took a lot of moderates in order to bring to the 2000 election to at least a draw, i think that right now there is a war within the party and because people want some of these choices, the party is dissembling. what is the party going to do it if in fact sarah palin with growing name recognition, enthusiasm, i bet she has an incredible organization in iowa, she wins the primary. what are they going to do? will they backed their candidate to the end? she does not have a chance of winning. she is becoming emblematic of the republican party whose ratings have fallen even lower

than the democratic party. the party itself has some structural problems that are coming out. this is not unusual for the party that is out of power to have these problems. democrats had these problems until they resolved it. >> all of the governors would be offended if you did not say there was strong conservatives because they are. they ran with great conservative support. what a think is important for our party and what the tea party has reminded our party is that we need to go back to our core believes in limited government and cutting spending. some of the frustration have seen is that when we controlled congress, we spent too much money. our governors have taken heat about that.

the 2012 presidential election will be a great and true philosophical debate. we did not see that in 2008 because a lot of people thought that president obama was a lot more moderate than his policies have turned out to be. clearly, he likes spending money and he believes in government solutions to problems. republicans believe in unleashing the private sector and that the private sector creates jobs. the need to properly limited government. there will be a great debate in 2012 and i believe that puts republicans at a natural advantage. >> there are many who feel he did not go left enough on health care. they're people who have said that one of the front runners, mitt romney, the health care that he initiated in massachusetts is very similar to what president obama did on the

federal level. >> that is why markets talking about fissures in the party. there are some fissures in the republican party. many liberals feel he is not liberal enough. they are disappointed in him. . .

>> can you shed light on that? do you think hillary clinton will decide to do that and run for president in 2016? >> i think hillary clinton is doing a great job as secretary of state. he has a team and he will move forward with that team. >> we have questions and the audience. so please fire away. we have microphones right up there. >> don't be shy. >> i guess this question is

directed to ms hughes. if a lot of these tea party- backed candidates win their senate and congressional races, do you think they will win an overly proportional power in congress and do you envision a shutdown of congress like in 1995? >> what i hope is that they will demand some changes. i think they will shake things up a little bit. voters did not want business as usual. that is what they said in 2008 and no one seems to be listening. i do think they will come to washington and they will try to shake things up a little, and frankly, that is probably a healthy. we have seen a sometimes people can be an office for a long period of time and get used to the way things have always been done. it might be a breath of fresh air. i do not think you will see the kind of government shut down

efforts that you saw in the past. again, if what happens it cup -- if republicans take the house and not the senate or both the house and senate, i still think it is in neither party's interest to shut the government down. that's not to the republicans a benefit the last time that happens. ed. i do think they will be a voice of conscience and remind their colleagues of what the voters said in this election. >> a quick follow-up on that. aren't there some inherent contradictions? on the one hand, we want to change the town, but then there are candidates who might end up winning that say that my entire rationale for running it is to oppose president obama on all of these policies. >> let me disagree. let's get realistic about a tea party right.

in florida, we have and hispanic republican marco rubio. a great guy. worked closely with popular incumbent governor jeb bush. he has not only talk about the way we need to change things in washington. he has given ideas for things we can do better perigee as florida voters -- he did an idea razor and published a book with 100 ideas that floridians had to improve their state. that's a look at what is really happening and a lot of these races -- let's look at what is really happening in a lot of these races. we have a very charismatic -- i think when he wins that florida senate race, and the polls show he is ahead, will become a big leader and republican party. and that is good for the thpart, the outreach to hispanic voters

in 2012. >> in fairness, he is not a tea party candidate. implied in the question is that fear and concern, who exactly are you collecting? i think that put the brakes on the momentum that the republicans have. going into the summer, the republicans had an unbelievable all that. i was there in 1994 when newt gingrich thought it was a good idea to shut down the government. we told him that would boomerang. i doubt the republicans will do that again. they will come up with something else. there will stop the national debt in some way, some other trip wire that could be seen as a destructive rather than constructive. i do not know what they're going to do, but implied in his

question is the fear and concern that maybe there is a rubio in florida, but there is an aware.ell in del >> canyon names of individual races that might be under the radar that on election day -- can your name at some individual races that might be under their radar that on election day might surprise us? >> there are a couple of races i am watching. i was in alabama just yesterday campaigning for or woman named martha robie, who is running for the second congressional district. i think it is a good representative raised because the democrat is a first term, one in 2008. he is a former mayor of montgomery. she is a very effective city councilwoman in montgomery who has a very diverse district. she is able to work with people.

a very attractive candidate. it is sort of represent a phrase about whether democrats can win seats outside of urban or minority districts in the south. that is one of the ones i am watching. i am watching a race in texas where there is a longtime incumbent democrats chet edwards. it is one of the most republican congressional seats in the country still held by democrat. we have a very strong challenger -- a businessman. i think this might be the year that we can elect a republican in that district. there are a couple at large seats in north and south dakota. in north dakota, a longtime congressman has been there nine terms. he is facing or real fight in their congressional seat. there are couple of races in florida, in ohio. from the house, you are probably not hearing as much about the individual races as you may have

the senate. in terms of governor, you hear about california. i think that is a really interesting race. it is interesting because the polls would show that jerry brown has the edge, but when i talk to my friends in california, they tell me that even a democrat friends are voting for meg whitman because they know that california has enormous problems occurred on cannot imagine a state facing the kind of enormous problems the state is facing and go back to jerry brown. and of course, the governor's race in florida is very interesting. the governor's race -- we were there last night -- is viewed as being tied. talk about an ugly race. the ads are really negative. florida and ohio, because of our experiences in the 2000 and 2004 presidential race, are races are

watch for a closely. i think my friends are about to be elected governor and senator there, in florida. that is good news for our party. if we can solidify our leadership in ohio. >> i have been traveling to a lot of the same places. we have been polling 42 marginal districts and i think we will come out with another 10 tomorrow or the day after. if you go through those races, you will find that there are five or six that the democrats are clearly winning. and the original 42. fundamentally, i think the untold story -- you can check these races -- when the republicans expanded their target, they had to, because there were not going to get a transfer in congress out of the districts they had targeted. to me, the reid race is really

fascinating. that will be a big reaffirmation of democrats and the direction of the senate. again, i think this is where the tea party came in and changed the nominating process. the race is still polling extremely close, i think the likelihood here that you will have the clash between core democratic leadership versus tea party in nevada. if reid wins, i think that will be a very big reaffirmation for the party. >> i think very bad for the country. other than speaker nancy pelosi, harry reid is one of the least, has one of soloists favorable s --one of the least favorables. i encourage my republicans in nevada to do everything they

can. >> i encourage the democrats in nevada to do everything they can office. reid in talkingace they are about is the alaska senate race. republican john miller, lisa murkowski running as of write- in. if there is one race that will complete surprise you, that is one you can rely on. >> it stayed up late at night because of all those absentee ballots, and places like florida. there is a lot of accounting to do. >> thank you for being here today. one of other things i have heard that staunch supporters of the obama have said, although there will lose the house, it would be good for democrats. what do think about that theory?

>> we think that's a bit of spin. it'd be better for the president to keep both houses of congress, if possible. again, that would be a reaffirmation of his leadership, the direction he is taking the country. it would then strengthen the resolve of those democrats who are there who did not lose to say, hey, we're there, we have the majority. let's move forward. let's press the accelerator pedal, because we need -- we know we can do that even with 10% unemployment. i think that would be a powerful message. i think if you wind up losing the house, as i said before, republicans have to make a key decision -- sit there and say no for three years or work the way clinton and newt gingrich did. republicans will have subpoena

power. they have not had it in a few years. the question is whether you go back in 1954 on, which is every time you get the subpoena power, we go back to a series of investigations. so that may play out. that may backfire. i think that will be one of the big changes that would happen here if the republicans win the house. >> i have republican friends who better fort it's president obama because we do not win the house because that would force him to compromise and would therefore set him up better for re-election. i did not agree. i think that we really cannot afford what is happening in washington, and we need to take the house at least so we can begin to chip away and change these massive pieces of legislation that have been passed without much regard for the incredible consequences. i think we need to start, beginning to chip away at those and beginning to challenge, at

least, the president by proposing cuts in spending, by proposing cuts in the deficit and changes to the health care bill. >> you could propose that even without the house. >> hi. there has been a lot of discontent with a two-party system. some people say that the tea party is the answer. do you think that is the case? if not, what do think is out there? >> i think the tea party -- we have seen the rise of two big populist movements in the last two years. the first one rose up to elect president obama because people were hungry for a change and he was able to inspire people. the second rose up in direct opposition to the president's policies. i think it's by and large a movement that is basically trying to restore the republican party to core principles of less government, less spending, lower

taxes. so i do not really see it as a separate party. i see it as more of a reminder to republicans of what we really stand for. >> look, i think if you look back here from 98, an1980, i pod for john anderson. there have been a few attempts at independent movement. perot turned out to take more votes from republicans than he did a democrat. i think the tea party, just like move on, it lives within the republican party. i do not think it is attracting a significant number of voters outside that. for a third party to be successful, it actually has to draw almost equal numbers from democrats and republicans. if you go to the math, if it draws mostly from republican party, it is a republican spoiler.

ralph nader -- that got 10% or 50% -- that will be a democratic spoiler. it will be someone that hits the moderate center. has a combination of being more socially liberal and economically conservative. so either the two parties will have to do what they do each presidential cycle and move to cover the middle -- we saw president clinton cover the middle in 1992. when he was not govern that way, he came back and governed that way and we had some of the highest satisfaction, equal to the satisfaction of president reagan. i think you saw president bush to take the center and peel off the center, particularly by 2006 and into 2008 with some of the lowest ratings. then i think you saw obama take the center and the last election. and now he is losing a lot of independent voters and has two years to come back. if you run out the various

scenarios, -- sarah palin got the republican nomination. i think you will see people come in with an independent candidate. the supreme court. it is interesting what has happened to the economics of politics. despite the effort of campaign finance reform, money is flooding into politics like never before. i used to say that america loves its democracy -- runs its democracy on less than the advertising budget of a hamburger. that is no longer the case. the internet is giving as a tradition that never existed. when i was originally working with the democratic party in 1996, i did a poll of democratic donors. first, the list was small. the median age was 74. there were no small donors. there was no tradition of being involved in politics to the extent of giving money. on the high side, i had lunch

with someone from karen's side, who said corporate money was flooding in. they did not know quite what to do with at all. so what is going to happen here is either the portis will cover the middle, or new movements, or someone who has a billion dollars or more who will try to push the envelope away ross perot did. you would see in the case of a unemployment is an area -- conditions where it is difficult for both parties. the likelihood that is conditions will improve, president obama will pick up as clinton did period opening that exists now is likely to close, but it is not guaranteed. >> hi. a running theme has been

increased charges for the voters. in a few weeks, californians are going to decide on a measure that would put the responsibility of redistricting back in their hands appeared i wonder if you have -- i wonder if you have any comments on that system, as opposed to a system that was controlled by the state legislature and vetoed by the governor. >> is in a nonpartisan panel? >> yes. it is a fairly complicated system drawn from a group of citizens that meet certain requirements -- never held positions related to t their seated. >> i am not familiar with how that system is done, but i do think we need it more competitive districts. from our republican perspective, the sense in our party is that for a long time redistricting was done to keep republican strength down. we have much more republican

strength in taxes than we have congressional districts. if you look at voting patterns in my state of texas. if you are a republican, as i am, you think the district ought to be drawn a fairly to reflect your voting strengths. on the other hand, i do worry that there are so many seats that are viewed as save for one party or another. i think it is important that we have more competitive congressional elections. i am not sure i thought about which exact system -- it is sort of like, mark was talkinga partisan selection of judges. what does that mean? sometimes that mean that liberal interests are the ones who are viewed as nonpartisan. it depends on what your definition of non-partisan is, too. is it truly fair and non partisan or is it a ploy to let some special interest group make those decisions? i always worry a little when you

take things out of the hands of elected representatives or out of the hands of voters, such as the selection of judges, because whoever this committee is formed, who controls the makeup of that committee and is it fair or not? >> as said before, i think this system of redistricting has gotten to be to all political. that any legislature that has the advantage pushes its advantage to the maximum that it legally can. and that i think that this movement for more non partisan redistricting is a promising movement. if there were more competitive districts on each side, that means that in an election year, you are likely to get even more swings in the house than you are seeing now. instead of 40-50-60 seats, you have something more like 120 seats, which would make for some elections that are more

subject to the wall of the people. this is an example, like the money discussion that we had, money flooding into the system from corporate interests. where were the people talking about money flooding in from labor and 2008? their record amounts of money, special interest money from the left, it used to elect president obama, undisclosed in 2008? i do not recall the president making comments about it as he has directed towards more pro- business in this election cycle. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i think the same applies as to whether something is non- partisan or not. >> next question. >> thank you both for coming. i enjoy the back and forth. there was an article in "the hill" newspaper this afternoon that came out and talked about the president taking at 10 day trip to asia after the election while the congress focuses on what it will do during a lame- duck and what the agenda is

going for it. some of the democratic strategists have come out and said this is going to cede momentum to the republican party. i want to get a reaction from both of you. what kind of impact will that be? president clinton had done the same thing as well. >> i think that trip has been and the work for a very long time. as far as a lot of president obama's travel. his party takes -- if his party takes a big haircut on election day, his party would have an image problem. >> he answered that one. sometimes the calendar is not all politics. especially in the wrong political period, like we have had, along period that we had to focus on domestic issues, sometimes a trip has to be what it has to be,. sometimes trips like that, they get shortchanged or most likely

president obama will do more media appearances while on that trip to have in communicating back home. and that is most likely what he will do. >> when the president is traveling overseas, you to look less relevant to the debate in america or you could look more presidentiala, as you do big events and things occurred in this case, particularly if you take big losses in the election, it is probably not an ideal time and wouldat far away give an advantage to republicans to set the agenda and talk about their vision and what it will accomplish. sometimes you cannot control that. as president, you have obligations, and i am not familiar with the obligations of this trip. clearly, our relationships with countries in asia are very important to our country. >> sometimes hundreds of thousands of people screaming for the president oversees can also be a pretty good picture

for the president. >> next question. >> i know that a couple of the themes that were mentioned tonight had to do with a motor discontent, increasing polarization of the parties in congress. and the sense that government is dysfunctional. one of the biggest issues is the dead and how we address spending and reform entitlements -- and the debt. what is the likelihood that the deficit commission will produce something that the president can support and that will actually pass through congress, given the trajectory of the partisanship that is taking place? >> well, it's obviously difficult, because it has been tried for a number of years. i think that is one of the things that has caused some rest and about health care is the idea that we have at added a new entitlement when we have not been able to figure out how to pay for the entitlements we already have. plus we have this mounting

deficit. they have their work cut out for them. i do not know what they will come forward with. we have seen in the election cycle that some candidates who stuck their necks out and made specific proposals but criticized for a, when they tried to make some suggestions. in france right now, you are seeing what happens when he was suggesting raising the retirement age to reduce some of the structural deficit in their programs occurred and so, you know, it is difficult. but i do think that perhaps we have arrived at a time when people truly believe that the path we are on is not sustainable. we have to do something about it. i did work for the speaker of the texas house, and he wrote a column that he sent out. we got a lot of people listen -- talked about my daughter's debt. he talked about it as a parent, about how he is worried as a fiscal conservative about the kind of debt we are piling onto our children.

people are really, truly worried. it feels different to me this time, as though people may reward someone who comes forward with a plan that sounds like reasonable ideas to begin to try to address this. i guess i am optimistic in terms of my hopes that that could happen. i am realistic that the political realities are very challenging. >> let's remember what happened, and i was there in 1996 in the budget balance accord, which erskine bowles, who is heading this commission, helped to spearhead. no one would it predicted that newt gingrich and president clinton would make a grand bargain. here is where of bipartisanship can work at its finest. to be successful, these things have to give the republicans of what they want and the democrats

what they really want. you cannot just take the democrat idea and water it down to get two votes. has to be a grand bargain. it has to be a grand bargain on the deficit, one on taxes, one on entitlements. the commission report is going to be a springboard to exactly that kind of hard bargaining or is going to go on the schultze. i do not think, based on history, you should prejudge that. just when you prejudge it that nothing is going to happen, and you have to partisan people like clinton and newt gingrich, you wind up with a balanced budget accord. the same thing could have been. we should be rooting for it. ultimately, it is what the voters are looking for. they are not looking for one side of cutting taxes and cutting spending without the other side of keeping and vitamins -- entitlements whole, how to keep the costs down on health care. they are looking for a grand

bargain. that is what the last one was. what happened last time, is that we ran into a surplus and only a couple of years. they did not expect that to happen. if you get to a much bogged down in the conventional wisdom, i think you lose sight in what the american system produces at moments at least -- you least expected to. >> i think both parties have to be able to hold their nose at a little something in the other. it is not just watering down. it has to include something that the republicans really want and the democrats do not like and something the democrats want and the republicans really do not like. that is where you can generally find consensus. i do think that people are very practical. the time may be right for something like that. >> next question? >> company i would like to direct this question to mr. penn. you mentioned that the re- election of senator harry reid would be a rallying point for

democrats and be a morale booster a, a but in the house, among democrats that are up in tight reelection races, there have been a lot of discord with house speaker dance it pelosi and what she has been doing -- nancy pelosi. bobby bright for one. that dynamic in the house, how does that affect what you for see going on after the elections with morale among house democrats? >> begin, morrell with house democrats is really going to depend on the -- loral with house democrats is really going to depend on how the house does. after the 1994 election, there was health care, there was a tax increase, there was a gun legislation. there were a lot of votes -- for good bills, but they took a lot

of hits iwhen it came to 1994. that made a lot of democrats gun shy for or what appeared in this case, if the republicans fall a little short here, and the democrats did the house, that will be a big morale booster for the house. then democrats will say, we can take the tough votes for the president and we can still afford and to stay in the house. that will be a tremendous position. those are the two boosters -- the house goes down, i think you're right, there will be a lot of resumes out here in washington, d.c., and a lot of people looking for jobs and a lot of people moving into offices and did not have them. i think on the senate side, i think the harry reid thing, and i think the fact that it looked like the republicans could take the senate until some of these tea party nominees came into place, i think that holding the senate and holding harry reid

will be good morale boosters. the president will have to assess with his advisers after the mid terms of what it looks like. president clinton in 1994 felt walloped by the midterms. he did not expect the losses. he realized that he had two years to move his administration to the center and win the trust of the american people that he did not have. he had much lower numbers then president obama has, and he was facing a much more united republican party in new can return right now, i think -- right now, i think neither of those conditions is severe. the elections.st >> we will see what happens. i do remember. it is a very dim -- it is a very divisive after a loss. i remember the republicans, in

2006, are remember going to the senate dining room, and there was a lot of bitterness there. nobody likes to lose in the political process. and when it involves something like your committee assignments and whether you are the chairman or not. so control is a big deal to people in congress. and so i do think that if the democrats lose the house that there will be a lot of consternation with the speaker nancy policy for some votes that she forced the house to take on climate change. it was meaningless, going nowhere, but it put democrats in industrial and coal states, it forced them to take a tough vote that could cost them their reelection for no meaning. i think there will be a lot of consternation if that happens. >> if we have no more final questions, we will have the final remarks. >> thank you. first, i would like to ask you to give enhanced to our guest

for their comments tonight. -- to give a hand to our guests for their comments tonight. i would to thank all of us tonight.joining and i do hope that we will see you again on the fourth when we talk about what just happened. from the graduate school of political management at george washington university, thank you, and we will see you in a couple weeks. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> with two weeks to go before election day, the "national journal" hot line is writing that house republican leader john boehner and a representative pete sessions have proven to be correct in their april prediction that 100 house seats would be in place for the midterm elections.

the cook report. 90 democrats and five republicans in takeover categories. if republicans pick up just 20 seats in the 2010 midterm elections, msnbc reports that it will be the fourth time since world war ii that either party has gained 20 or more seats in three consecutive cycles. the other times this happened, after world war room and one, after the great depression, and during and after world war ii. each night, we are sharing debates from key races around the country. here is our lineup for tonight on c-span. in about 25 minutes from now, at 8:00 p.m., the focus will be the illinois senate race. we will have that debate for you live. an hour after that, the pennsylvania governor's raised, the florida senate candidates, and a debate between the candidates to be wisconsin's next governor. we also have political debates

on c-span-2 tonight. at 8:00, it is massachusetts were barney frank is up against a republican. later, pennsylvania's eighth house district. here is some information about independent voters. >> he writes a political column and joins us now. he wrote about marketing researchers in new york who are polling independent. first of all, getting a different look at independence. i want as do the types of people that there are polling and what did they find about these voters? >> an interesting thing. these are not political pollsters. they are corporate marketers. and they are more used to asking certain questions. a strip mall, you get 12 to go

together and say, would you vote for this senator? you get half a dozen people that know each other and you self- identify as independent. they sit down and their living room, in a place where they're comfortable, and have a comfortable discussing. beginning with, the sign your own country. what rights would be important and what would you stress -- design your own country. that way create a picture of what people think is missing in the political process. what is interesting is that when they do that, you get past the size of government or health care, but you do not get the same focus on it that you might get from reading political polling in focus groups. you hear a lot about what has happened to the society at large and how the political process

plays into debt. >> and what were some of the top issues folks were bringing up? >> the issue that came up again and again it is accountability. there was a woman there who works in a school, and she was talking about how the kids had a but they did not want to make the kids clean up because it was closed a physical labor. the lunch ladies were told to clean up somebody else's mess. someone talked about drivers and having more common courtesy in society. people do not let you in any more. they are angry on the road and they have this anxiety. they talked about the economy in terms of wanting people to slow down and spend time with their kids. they talked about the internet in terms of the threat it creates for their children, having to worry about the unregulated content. what comes across is this sense, and then there relate this to

politics, of all of these influences coming at us so quickly and no one being accountable, taking responsibility. they see the political parties in much the same way they see the food fight in the cafeteria -- people making a mess, throwing money all around or fighting with each other all day or caring more about their own interests than they do about the voters and no one taking responsibility. piece ''ine to your s "voters discuss accountability." what does it mean for candidates? >> they have an interest in taking some of the things that they do for supermarkets or four corporate entities and try to work it in a political way. [unintelligible] i think their feeling is that

eventually there will show this research to some professional benefit. but they wanted to mostly try it as an experiment. they indicated counterintuitive if you constantly ask people about ideology, you will get responses based in a moment on how they feel about issues and ideology, but that is not necessarily what is driving the discontent and the political process. to that person, it makes more sense that we swing to the right in 1994, swing to the left in 2006. they will swing to the right four years later. you say, how could peoples ideology changed so much? they are not changing their ideology. it is a basic frustration with the society and the political process, and they are making that manifest in their votes against the status quo. >> to you think that our -- there are any candidates that are tapping into the issues that

these marketing folks have discovered? >> i think president obama tap into this into thousand a. i think this is why he did so well with independents in 2008. it was why john mccain was a doing so well. [unintelligible] there have been politicians who felt this at various intervals, who promised to transcend the partisan dynamic and washington, who promise a new kind of accountability, who promised to change the dialogue and stay connected to the things that frustrate boaters and address their concerns about modern society -- and to address the frustration that voters feel about modern society. i think that is fair to say that happened to the president and the last two years. >> his column is "political times."

you can read that at nytimes.com. >> as we wait for our live coverage, in l. a little less than 20 minutes 8:00 eastern, the state -- in a little less than 20 minutes at 8:00 eastern, the state department briefing from today. >> the support of the governments of ireland and the united kingdom has been essential to the success of the peace process in northern ireland. the irish minister of state and the u.k. secretary of state for northern ireland are here representing their governments. and the secretary will discuss key issues with both of them

during the day. people of northern ireland have made process in the peace process, and this congress -- conference will bring together american business leaders with the northern ireland government officials to encourage increased economic activities to the benefit of both countries, both the northern ireland and the united states. special economic envoy declan kelley will be giving a read out at 5:20 p.m. this afternoon. ack on the chechn parliament today -- on the chechen parliament, we are concerned about the continued violence in russia oppose the north caucuses which contributes to insecurity in the region. several independent records confirm that the level of

violence and increased in 2010, and we have been following these events closely. that is all i have. i will take your questions. >> on that, -- are you in touch with the russian government on that? have you been talking with the russians? >> have we been talking with the russian government about our concerns in the north caucasus a security? >> latest attack and -- >> we have conveyed our condolences to the russian government. i am not sure that has been in moscow. >> have you heard anything from the swiss or the families of the two remaining hikers about a trial date been set for them? >> i love to check on that and get back to you. >>-- i would have to check on that and get back to you. our position is well known on this matter. we believe they have done nothing wrong and that it should

be released immediately. go ahead in the back. >> what is the russian official position? the foreign minister of russia mentioned today that by withdrawing its troops from the village -- the georgian village, russia fulfilled the agreement. pullouts by russian security forces is a meeting as a step. you have any comment about that? >> i have seen the press reports. it was unclear from what i saw all-weather with it is withdrawal had been completed and at what -- whether the withdrawal had been complete. there are monitoring groups on the ground and that is their role to look at this and a judgment and see if it in fact

indicates that russia is complying to the agreement that it signed with the georgian president end the conflict there. and it also speaks -- obviously, we want to see a greater presence on the ground, the return of monitors, for example, in order to create a safeguards on the ground that can help both monitor these kinds of developments and generally reduce tensions. administrations position to retain the russian -- >> the status quo ante, prior to july of 2008. august, thank you. >> iran has been invited to the nato-afghanistan meeting. how do separate the world a bit late in that region? >> are you talking about the

raúl conference? >> yes. the rome conference. >> um... well, yeah, there has been some comments today about the rome conference, but in general, i their holbrooke that presence of their gives the lie to believe that there is some kind of clash of civilizations. this is a conference that brought in people from throughout the region, or governments from throughout the region who are all -- all of whom want to see a stable, afghanistanan emerge. >> do you think they are doing is talks because we have to --

we have announced the withdrawal date as july, 2011? >> i believe they joined these talks because they feel it was in their interest. i do not want to speak on behalf of the iranian government. he will have to ask them clearly, as neighbors of afghanistan, they have an interest in seeing a stable, prosperous, peaceful afghanistan emerged. >> a follow-up. the iranian a delegation called for all holistic approach to afghanistan and they cited military, political, and development issues. do you read anything into that? >> that is what is going on on the ground. we have said many times from this podium and from nato and from on the ground in kabul that military force alone will not win the day, will not win this conflict or end this conflict. that will require a strong, holistic approach. the civilian effort as well, development on the ground to

extend the governance of the afghan authority and to lead to economic prosperity. that is a long-term goal here. >> is there any calls to increase iran's goal in aiding the taliban or meddling in afghanistan's elections. >> i cannot speak to what is going on on the ground. i have not been updated. we have expressed our concerns in the past. >> do you agree with ambassador holbrooke's analysis? can you explain it? how can you give a lie to it? iranians can take part in the conference and have diametrically opposed goals.

is because they are sitting at the table, does not mean that they are agreeing, right? >> i am not going to say that they agree 100% with what we are doing in afghanistan. but it does printer to is that there is a shared desire -- it does point to is there is a shared desire for a stable afghanistan in the future. as much as we can encourage that kind of dialogue and not just with iran but other countries who border afghanistan, and that is a good thing. >> [inaudible] -- regarding yesterday's' meeting. >what are the main things steinberg will talk about, with regards to yesterday's meeting? >> i think we talked about

yesterday and heard it is a bilateral discussion with israel -- it is a bilateral discussion with israel. the focus is on, does touch on regional concerns. we issued a statement yesterday that went into more detail of the topic of discussion. >> to your every action to iran taking over the -- do you have reaction to iran taking over --? >> we are not a member of opec, so it is difficult for us to comment on their leadership. our concerns about iran are well known. >> you are not a member of opec, so you do not think that you should it -- you are not a member of a lot of things you have opinions about. you're not a member of the eu, yet you are curbiharping on theo let the turks in.

>> don't think we are harping. we often say we are not a member of the eu. >> you have a position on its membership. >> this is an internal matter for opec's. our position, and i do not think you want me to detail it, and our concerns about iran. >> your concerns and not extend it all to what they might do as the head of opec? >> it is an organization -- >> we all know what it is geared can you check with them again to see if they are serious that they have no opinion? if you have no concern about iran being ahead of a cartel that basically controls the world's oil flow, that raises serious questions about the administration and its positions on -- energy security?

>> energy security is a party for this administration. we are concerned about iran's nuclear ambitions and its failure to come clean with the international community so that we can address those concerns and a productive, constructive way. you know, really, you know, we could say that we would look for the other members of opec to remind iran that it could play a more a scandal -- constructive role in the region. that's to be the topic of our discussion with individual members of opec. >> there is a question to the about iran giving the lie that they are isolated. they are present at the rome conference, and they will head opec. they are dealing with venezuela

and brazil. the just had a ahmadinejad well- received in south lebanon. how can you say iran is oscillated? >> 1929 and the sanctions brought to bear on iran are targeted towards the entities within iran that we feel are of most concern. has a oftetn said iran clear choice -- it can engage with the international community or it can seek greater isolation. its actions regarding its nuclear program, its support for terrorist groups have isolated internationally, and we will keep the pressure to bear on it, on those fronts. that said, we also recognize that iran could possibly play a constructive role is a the afghanistan. -- vis-a-vis afghanistan .

>> was the peace process touched on at all in those discussions? was there any discussion of when senator mitchell might make another trip? >> i checked on that senator mitchell. i do not believe he has any trouble plans, at least nothing to announce. he remains in new york pa. i do not know to what extent the peace process was discussed yesterday. it probably did come up, but i just do not know to what level it rose bird >> >> iran gave its support to maliki to form the new government he was one of the suitable choice is to lead the next iraqi government.

do you share this? >> we said, as recently as yesterday, that our policy towards iraqi government formation is that we want them to move forward as quickly as possible to form an includes of government. process, and it needs to be iraqi-led. we do not believe that it is our place or the government of iran's place to comment. our concern is that it be an inclusive government. >> do you think this statement will affect your position towards al-maliki? >> we have said all along that we want to see an iraqi-led

process. we want to see it move ahead urgently. it has been seven months now. i fundamental concern is that it be an inclusive government. members of the isi are working with terrorist groups. have you had talks with a partner where you've seen some members of the government are working against your goals? re well, thsese aere allegations we have heard before. we believe the government of pakistan has pledged his cooperation in bringing perpetrators of the mom by a tax to justice. we expect -- in bringing the perpetrators of the mumbai attacks to justice. pakistan has been greatly touched by extremist violence, and it is also is an add

existential struggle. we believe they are committed to working cooperative flint. ly. trip to asiaent's is in a couple weeks occurred is the secretary of state planning -- is hillary clinon planning to go? >> nothing on this at this time. muearly warnings about mbai. the intelligence for --? >> what i can try to find out is whether there is some kind of review going on, looking into -- i am not aware of their is a state department specific review under way. i will check on that. >> the foreign minister of japan

said that he is calling for more defense cooperation between the u.s. and japan in light of north korea's provocations. do you have a comment on that? do you agree? >> i refer you to the department of defense, but we have a broad, deep, bilateral relationship with japan, and we are working constructively on so many fronts, including defense cooperation. but i am not aware of the comments. >> do you want less cooperation? >> the midterm elections are two weeks away and each night and c- span we are showing debates from key races. tonight's lineup includes live coverage of a debate between the u.s. senate candidates in illinois. in an hour, pennsylvania's canids for governor. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, tonight's debate in florida's