front of the camera and behind closed doors, if you will. he has the respect for the process by which legislation becomes law. however, one of the primary factors, one of the big enthusiasm gatherers for republicans this year, a lot of tea party backed candidates are very enthusiastic about having an extremely open process. several people have said only up or down votes on one single issue on a bill. is there it sort of a recipe for a little bit of stagnation there if on one hand, mainer knows that what he needs to do is go behind closed doors -- boehner knows what needs to do. with a fairly sizable chunk of a new and muscular gop majority that says we want everything on c-span. we want every negotiation taking place in the open.

how does he resolve those two differences? >> i would suggest that the story that wants to be written that is not going to be written later on is this intramural fight with then the republican party. a lot of the tea party types will come here and be in all of the institution. they understand that responsibility goes with it. john boehner is an adult. he saw the mistakes that republicans made in 1994 and the mistakes the democrats made after 2006. he has already said that he wants to go back to a more regular order, to a committee process, which shot think is the right thing to do. that will do two things. it allows you to vet the legislation better, but it also

allows people the chance to vent. i think you will see john going to a regular order and he will do it well. he will be the secret weapon that will keep the pieces together. what you'll also find is that no matter what comes out, you'll have a variety of democrats that won by a very narrow margin whose pants are still wet right now that will vote for most anything that comes up. not to say it is going to be easy, but john will be able to put the pieces together and from his standpoint, will make it work. >> this is key. the difference between now and 1995 when we took control in 1995 is that we had the contract with america. for the first 100 days, all those folks that came out with less ticket to washington and come out and the anti-

establishment, they had a list of 10 things to do. they did them in 100 days, they went home and took credit and they were able to beat their chests. this time they do not have that specific list. he has to figure out how to let the steam out. during that second season before they get into the seriousness of the debt ceiling and the budget, they have to be able to let some steam also they can go home and say they proved they were anti- establishment. >> and the vote to repeal health care is an example. the have always said they will have a vote each week on some type of doing away with -- unfortunately ota was done away with last time. >> we will do it again. >> there will be places they can do each week, responsible areas that can make reductions in they will get democratic votes, too.

>> there are too big picture points is the political dynamics that will impact the path that the leader has to follow. one, independence and abandon the democrat party last night. in part, there was a sense that obama came in and folks wanted change. they wanted to change washington, but they did not want to change america. the era opposed partisan politics did not happen. i think they want to see transparency. they want to see bipartisan action. they want to see people put aside their petty differences and work together. the second dynamic is among the republican coalition that demonstrated last night a new

process. tea party folks, libertarians, economic conservatives, social conservatives, across the board there is a grand coalition. whether it will stay together is unknown. that is not clear as we sit here a day after. i think they what transparency and for folks to work together to get things done. you have a coalition of folks who do not want any compromise. i think there is a challenge out there with those dynamics. he is an institutional man, which is a good thing. you have to work within the institution to fix the problem. i think he is the right guy at the right time, but with significant challenges. >> another topic was certainly a big issue and sing to follow candidates around, energy and climate change.

in summer of 2009, the house voted and passed legislation to address climate change primarily through the institution of a program that would cap carbon emissions. then it just kind of stopped. cap and trade became this euphemism for washington overreach. i was over in prescott valley near my home town at an event. people who i had known for 30 or 40 years and why did not really think would be in on terms like cap and trade routes asking her about that. it was an albatross around democrats next. it went nowhere in the senate. even to the point where there was nothing that could be done about the oil spill fund right after the largest oil spill in american history it just really died an ignominious death.

there seem to be certain areas of agreement in some aspects of energy policy. this is a topic in which you have a lot of interest. where do you think the next congress has opportunities in environmental policy? >> we have made a number of mistakes on cap and trade. the focus should have been energy independence, economic growth, and leading the world in new energy technology. it should end -- i believe the evidence is compelling. we will have another hearing on this in a week. the physics and chemistry are solid. we should have focused on those things and not passing cap and trade. we mixed up the objectives with the goal. to put forward a complex financial instrument at the time when the economy of the world has collapsed because of complex

financial instruments was not the smartest idea in the world. we would have been better to go with a simple carbon tax. it would be a tragedy for our security and economic interest and for the environment if the incoming congress focuses all its attention on attacking climate change versus trying to solve our energy independence. if not, we will fall behind the chinese even further, and the economic damages will be greater. we have a chance to come together, but if we start saying let's have a lot of oversight on climate change, that is wasted energy. >> there will be an effort to overrule dpj -- to overrule epa. they had authority under the

clean air act to act in terms of some of the carbon gases. there will be an effort to repeal epa's effort to do that. i would not be surprised if it passed the house. where there can be some areas of agreement right at the end of the session, out of the subcommittee we have a good research bill. i think you will see an effort to look at a next generation nuclear energy, but you are going to see an effort to reduce the deficit and things like that. you will see a lot of tax credits that will provide for alternative energy that will go way, which means to an extent that those industries will go away. you will see a greater chinese movement in that area. we will move away from talking

about climate change and energy independence, but it will be in a short term, more traditional carbon in it as well as nuclear energy in those areas. >> is there any way that people can arrive at some sort of program where they tie in a renewable energy standard? i don't think too many people are opposed to having more solar energy or wind power. is that something that is a possibility? >> close, but i don't think it will get there. there is an ever to bring something up in the lame duck, but it will be very difficult. >> how you frame the message matters.

if we talk about energy independence, that is positive, we can get something done. within the realm of energy independence, there is an opportunity. we had some things going on that we would stress that leadership on both sides did not want to do in the 2008 cycle. there are 14 or 15 of us that sat around and try to work together. there is an appetite for some bipartisan action on energy independence, but you cannot have a lot of discussion about cap and trade. i do think there is a deep concern on the activities of agencies, administrative agencies regulating outside congress. i think this administration will push the agencies to move, and that is where you will see -- that is one of the real consequences.

you are going to see on the house side, whether it is epa, health and human services, on health care bill, moving forward to the final bill without an opportunity for input, etc. that is where the class is going to be. the epa is seen as one of those agencies moving beyond what congress has mandated. >> none of us have a vote anymore on all this, so what we are looking for next year, and what you might seek similar to what president clinton did with speaker gingrich is, they look for an opportunity -- it will be easy to find, but what is that issue of their similar to welfare reform in 1995 and 1996? i think energy may be the key,

for the very reasons that were discussed does now. you see and hear a lot of common ground. it is not only bipartisan but it is cross regional and also across philosophical. you will hear liberals and conservatives concerned about the fact that we are sending $300 billion overseas for foreign oil a year. that is a concern from a national security standpoint that liberals and conservatives and everybody will very easily agree on. the key here will be in the white house today and in days to come, they are looking at the next year and they say no, we have to fight on this. there is going to be disagreement. we have to stand our ground here. the same will be true in the republican caucus. this is one that i think both parties may say except for energy, energy is one that we have a lot of common ground,

let's state outlays for we can negotiate and work together. if they do that, it could very well be the welfare reform example of 1995 and 1996, but it will be hard to get there, the way it was difficult to get there for clinton and gingrich. >> i agree that there will be that issue, in terms of energy, as important as it is, it will be hard to do anything in renewables without either the price of carbon going up or some kind of subsidy. it is going to be hard to write that because many people in the new majority are going to say do not pick winners and losers. nuclear energy is an area where there can be some common ground, but we are some years out from the next generation and energy. i hope it can do something there. if you limit yourself to traditional carbon sources it will be very difficult.

>> for the good the country, it is important to find that issue. it is good for the administration and congress. two other areas, education -- there is a lot of support for the things the president is trying to do. also trade. there is a very difficult issue for some of our new members. but there is common ground. so i throw education and trade in the mix, and maybe some others. i think folks will be looking for a way to say we really can work together. it certainly needs to be done. >> i think where we can come together is on the debt ceiling.

the democrats will say to republicans, you have to put up x % of your boat and we will put up x% of ours. you can look for some areas of deficit reduction and they will go along with that. >> i would like to open it up to our audience. part of the appeal of this sort of event is that we are able to talk about policy issues. it is good to hear some of the non obvious issues that are very important to people. i know we have a microphone out, so let's start with questions and answers. in the very middle, the furthest spot from where you are.

>> hollis to talk about thiokol coronet we have to members of the science committee -- let's talk about the science committee. department of energy, national science foundation, energy research to grow the economy and create jobs and remain competitive with other countries. in the last year, this issue has got much more partisan. my question for chairman gordon and mr. baird is, is their chance we are going to see about -- anything about american competes between this and the new congress? one of the basic ways to grow the economy is to continue to invest in technology and the scientists who will create the jobs of the future. >> you raise a good question. a quick premise is that lamar

alexander -- asked the academies to do a report. they came back and said we are going in the wrong direction. we need to invest in r and d as well as in education and human capital, which boils down to more education as well as increasing our investment in the national science foundation. the america compete act passed by 397 votes in the house. if we could -- if he could do that again, i would nominate him for special envoy to the middle east. something we all agreed upon, we brought back up this year. i had thirtysomething hearings on it. it came out of our committee on

a bipartisan basis. we get to the house floor, and amazingly it got caught up. lamar alexander, to his full credit, said he had 12 republican votes in the senate and that we should just back off and wait to go into the lame- duck session. i hope it will be that moment of sanity where we can at least get the american -- america competes backed reauthorize. in the question goes to funding. is very important for the country, but when you start talking about reducing the deficit and you start talking about doubling of the national science foundation, it is going to be very difficult to do. i hope we can do that, but more likely, if we can just keep up with inflation, i am afraid that

is about the best we can do. >> i think one of the best things to come out of the congress was are portion of america competes. if we are going to turn the country round on energy and economic basis, quantum leap kind of developments are going to come out. >> it is not a matter of cutting, it is a matter of what should be kept in. a continuing resolution would mean that has no additional funding. that is a very tough issue. we put it through the department of energy looking for umps.formational bone if there was ever a place to

come together on energy, there is no better place than that. >> if we are in a trade war, we need to fight it that way. we are just place a fair. -- laissez faire >> i would like to ask another question that has been lying under untouched for the last couple of years. that is the surface transportation reauthorization bill, which so far, nobody seems to want to pick up because nobody knows how to pay for it. is that going to happen in the next two years? >> i believe is is one of the greatest mistakes that the administration, when the number one priority should have been jobs, one of the first things

they did was come out and say we are not want to have a transportation bill. people would have seen where their tax dollars were going. your problem going to have to raise gas taxes. you could have seen where your money went. >> there was also a moment when the transportation industry asked for a gas tax increase. >> we should have done it. i don't understand why they didn't do it. trying to do it the next time around is going to be tough unless there remember a gentleman named ronald reagan. >> losing somebody like the chairman, that kind of leadership on the kind of issue, makes it only more challenging.

>> this is one area, and i have been on both sides. this is a very challenging issue for the administration and congress to maneuver because of the whole earmarking issue. like it or don't like it, this is one of the reasons why did not go through, because there was no way to put a lasso around it and try to control it. bush had the same problem and president obama would have or will have the same problem. >> the pledge of not raising taxes on folks making less than $250,000, we cannot have come together and got that done. the only way to have a halfway robust program is to have some type of fee or levy on oil from overseas. you will have to look at some

way like that. you are going to have to do it that kind of way and maybe at a later date you can index the gas tax. >> my name is ronald johnson. one issue around which argument can be made that something must be done is immigration reform. i would be interested in the views of the panelists on the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform in the next congress. >> but me preface that a little bit. this is one of the topics i wanted to address. a little over three years ago, democrats and republicans were about that close to an immigration deal that would have created a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. fast forward three years now,

and my home state, arizona becomes this battleground in which an unpopular governor sees her popularity ratings soar because she signed the border enforcement for -- first type legislation. this is possibly one of the stickiest issues. i would be very interested to see what the views of the panel are here because you would think that if they are going to look for any sense of agreement that they would avoid this with a 25-foot pole. >> it is a red-hot issue in the electorate. the numbers are troubling. 130 million people by 2050, additional people in our country, and we have no idea what to do that population increase. we do have a real problem with these numbers, and my own belief is that we ought to have a

nationalized -- we are to make some other reforms along that line that ought to be bipartisan. the problem in our caucus has been that there are those who want much more liberal immigration, letting more people in, and don't deal with the numbers issue. there are others who think we need to crack down, and the voters think we need to crack down. a partial compromise might be being more selective on the legal immigration side, and maybe some kind of structure there reduces incentives for people to come and get jobs without citizenship. >> there are really two aspects to immigration. you have what you might call high emigration where we are educating half of the engineers -- half of the engineers in this country are from overseas and we

send them back overseas. the human capital aspect, bringing the best and brightest from around the world here and helping us become more innovative. this community understands that. this committee also understands some of the lower end and the needs there. one is hostage to the other. they are going to have to come together. we were somewhat of an anomaly within the congress in that we passed through the house 150 bills and resolutions. everyone was bipartisan. the way -- one of the ways we were able to do that was third- party verify years. we went to the business community on most everything we did and we would have them come forward and talk about why it was needed. our first hearing, we had donahue and others come and talk

about how important it was. it will have to have this community really step up in terms of immigration, combining the high and low end. we will have to push the republican party to move forward, and hopefully there are enough democrats who want to do it for the right reasons that can also come together. >> agriculture has got to be there too. >> there are some practical things that most people agree need to be done. stapling the green card to advanced degrees, i think people can agree on that. the black -- practical, political reality is, we will not get any agreement of people think we do not control our borders. this is both a message -- more than a message. where is this administration going on that? are they committed to that?

there's a commission to reject it was a question if the bush administration was committed to debt -- there was a question if the bush administration was committed to that. if we are sincere and capable and committed to securing our borders, i think you can then get to the discussion about what to do with the folks who are here. the ability to work and to earn a living is in the interest of this economy. there is a lot of stuff in the field that is not going to be picked that is going to impact jobs in the end. first and foremost, we have to somehow do a better job of convincing the american public where committed incapable of controlling our borders. if he did that, i think there are practical things that can be done that both parties can agree on.

>> i represent several education organizations. a question about discretionary spending. there is no agreement on the top line number. the republican pledge calls for rolling back spending to fiscal year 2008 levels, which would result in significant cuts in education and science and health and other things. is that realistic? what you think will happen in the lame-duck session on appropriations and what is the longer-term outlook for the spending part of the budget? >> not good. this is why i describe it as the first season, and everything will key off this. there is no easy answer. the scenarios are pretty obvious. there is the negotiation

scenario where everybody comes back in the next couple of weeks and they negotiate something else. the other is the train wreck scenario where it either does not get done or some type of longer-term cr is done. those are may be too simplistic, but those are the obvious scenarios. i don't think there's any question that at this point, having listened to what appears to be the incoming budget chairman and the house leadership, your scenario of a 2008 budget level appears to be very possible, very likely. it is within the context that every dollar -- think about it. every dollar that congress will vote to spend money on or every dollar they will vote to spend, from the day they take office next year, is borrowed. all of the money that came in and tax revenue has gone already

to entitlements and interest on the debt. in that context, every dollar will be scrutinized within that backdrop. i don't have a good answer, but i think you are setting the predicate. that is why i suggest a lame duck and the decision of whether it is a cr or some kind of negotiated level going forward, will predetermine the answer to that second question about where the level in sup. >> i think it will be a real effort to get to some kind of -- where that level ends up. >> it is going to be very difficult to do. i think the republican leadership probably does not want to deal with this 2008 scenario any sooner than they have to. hopefully there will at least be an effort to start it, but i am afraid on the other side you will have some democrats come back very bitter and take the

opinion that if it is so easy, you go ahead and do it yourselves. >> that seems to be one of the scenarios that might be taking shape, that we have a limited amount of time with a lame-duck starting on november 15 and continuing until the week after thanksgiving. there may just be a desire to punt it into next year, depending on how many feelings are hurt and so forth and also just the practicality of how much time they have to do a short-term cr. >> the best way to get your answer is to ask mr. dement what they intend to do. >> the other context, but this same moment in time, omb is preparing the president's budget for february. if you don't know where you are,

you may not know your next step and where you are going. that is part of the challenge here. i hope there is an ability to negotiate something in come to some reasonable conclusion to this year, but i think that unfortunately, it is probably just as likely that this breaks down, given the fact there is only about 24 legislative days, and republicans are going to come back emboldened and not necessarily wanting to negotiate. democrats are trying to come back of these little frustrated with leadership races that sucked the oxygen out of the capitol building every time they happen. you put all that on the table, it is like putting a 5 pound bag of flour into a 1 pound bag. something is going to spill over the sides. there is no question about it.

>> one thing that has budgetary implications is how the incoming majority is going to deal with iraq and afghanistan. whether we will actually extend into iraq, which we probably need to do, but there are serious budgetary implications in foreign policy. some interesting figures will probably develop with some of the isolationist new members, running into the foreign policy implications. that will have profound implications because if you keep those numbers high, getting down to 2008 levels for everything else will be even more draconian. >> that is an issue where you can cross the partisan divide. i have always been a fan of getting conversations open between the administration. you can get a lot done.

that is not a bad -- to limit on a positive note, there are some opportunities here with this device of governments that can allow us to move forward -- with .ivisive government nmen >> i would like to hear your comments regarding how congress will address public education, k-12. if we look at the economic status and the situation among our states, we know that the fed has invested 20% across the country, we are looking at great concerns about how well u.s. students are competing with international benchmarks.

i would like to hear how you believe that congress will approach public education, given that fact that it is a state issue, yet states are not equipped with capacity or funding to carry out what we really need to do, and the federal government seems to be moving into different directions. one, more intrusive and the other more standoffish. i would like to hear your comments on how that might be addressed. >> in the new congress, i think the new house republican leadership will look to the models of chris christie and mitch daniels and say that is how it ought to be done. that is to ought to be in charge of it. ought to be done at the local levels. they will adapt to that type of model. that is my judgment looking at it for the new congress.

>> i totally agree. that is what folks are saying. look to what chris christie and his generals are doing. >> in terms of funding, that is accurate. in terms of scores, looking at international sports, those are built to run out and science -- looking at international scores. we have set up some programs modeled after the university of texas and others where we are trying to give court teachers in the math and science areas -- core features in math and science areas. almost 90% of physical science

teachers have certification to teach physical sciences or a degree in that area. it is difficult to teach the subject were you do not have that core knowledge. in terms of funding, you'll not see much help from the federal government. if we continue our funding within the national science foundation and to some extent within the department of education, to a least help teachers during those -- in the summer to get their competency up, unless it is done away with, we set up some scholarship programs for those students -- for those teachers going to math and science who agree to teach for five years. there have been something set up in the area of core confidence within the stem area. >> i think it would be constructive if they would

revisit some of the mandates from notes shot left behind. -- from notes child left behind -- no child left behind. >> we need to give it some thought to what is happening to education at a local level. >> you made a very brief mention of loophole closings in some of the press coverage over the last 24 hours. there has been discussion of refocus on the so-called tax expenditures budget. proposals from the fiscal commission related to changing the tax treatment of health benefits, changes in interment incentives, which have had some

support in the past on a bipartisan basis. do you see the tax expenditures area as potentially being an area where the parties may work together, or is that also in the realm of increasing taxes? >> it has the potential of going either way. this is one of the most lobbied and finance areas. that is the reason they are in there in the first place. my idea of a wasteful loophole closing is your idea of an important jobs program. it is very difficult, but within the context of a comprehensive tax reform, it is possible, if you start doing rifle shot approaches to this, it becomes very difficult, because it

energizes that particular constituency to the point where becomes difficult to do it. within a context where you lower the rates but it closed the loophole, that is possible. a corporate tax being a good example, and maybe even a bipartisan example of that, given charlie rankles built and others. -- given charlie rangel's bill and others. >> if you combine tax simplification with dealing with some of the tax expenditures if they are perceived as loopholes, there are a host of those out there that can be fixed.

>> any other questions? >> speaking of impact on funding, i wanted to ask the panel probably what we can expect to see in terms of interaction is when the congress and the president in terms of foreign policy, and in terms of funding for foreign aid, which has already become an issue that has come up in discussion in the last couple of weeks. >> i think that is a very interesting question. the implications in terms of what happens to the foreign affairs committee is significant because there will be some consistent support for israel. one question will be how to reconcile fiscal constraint with foreign aid packages. the second is foreign aid

packages with palestine and israel. will those be undercut by the changes in the makeup and the house? my belief is that it will, and i think it will be detrimental. >> you have an interesting partnership that started in the last administration with bob gates and condoleezza rice. now it is bob gates and secretary clayton, working together and recognizing that the justification of defense spending -- there is not only cross pollination but prevention versus direct action. gates has been a very effective spokesperson on this and has formed partnerships in other republican and democratic environment. i think that continues as long as secretary gates is there, which may not be much longer. it has started within that kind

of rubric and context. that may be some clues to the future, but it will depend to a large extent on the next choice possibly in both positions. this is a typical time when those kinds of changes occur. >> every dollar that gets spent is going to be reviewed and looked at closely. it may not often be as a parent if a dollar spent on foreign aid is important to stability and security here at home. i have always believed that it is. there is an education process that will have to go on. apparent.t often be as a paren >> looking out to the faith community, who understands the importance of what we do in

africa, dealing with aids and malaria, and a spiritual concept of too much has been given, much is expected. i have no doubt that america's place in the world and its outreach is critically important to economic security and physical safety in this country, but there is going to have to be a greater education process because of the nature of the economic times in which we live. >> we have time for one more question. >> i apologize if this question has already been asked. i would like to ask congressman gordon what impact he thinks the results of the election will have on the push for an increase in nafta funding in the lame

duck. -- nasa funding. >> that is going to be very difficult. the president ask for $700 million additional within this and nasa budget -- this nasa budget. you know, it all boils down to where we continue the resolution or whether we have some kind of negotiation. ensure that, and you know. your opinion would be it would more likely be a continued resolution. if that is the case, you will see the nasa budget reduced from what was asked. the new will have to look at

potentially revealing the information. that is what it will boil down to. >> we have a couple more housekeeping things. i want to thank the panel. [applause] >> the midterm election results for you, the colorado senate race has been called for incumbent democrat michael bennett, according to the ap. this is mr. bennett's first political campaign. he was appointed to the seat vacated when ken salazar was appointed to be the interior secretary. there are still two senate races that are too close to call, in alaska and washington state. >> it's hard was that one is making a star out of britney

.pears are sharor cher americans after a while get wise that the stars and the wizards and dream teams and the best and brightest really might not be what they are cracked up to be. chaos and mayhem can come to rain. henry kissinger, robyn nightmare, donald rumsfeld, just a few of the leaders critiqued derrickleebaert. >> this weekend, we'll show some of the art created by japanese americans during their time in japanese american internment camps. we'll talk about the first televised provincial the presidential debate on its 50th anniversary. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, on c- span3.

>> the discussion on midterm elections continues now. in this panel, we have dick armey of freedom works and former texas congressman martin frost. there recapping last month's election results. >> i major garrett. my colleague susan davis will be joining us momentarily. i want to briefly introduce our panel. most of them are very familiar to all of you. i will not vote for all of their resume. to my immediate right is dick armey, a former majority leader of the house. to his right is martin frost, a democrat from texas, a graduate of the university of missouri school of journalism, as am i.. he was also leader of the house

democratic caucus and head of the democratic congressional campaign committee. he can tell you how hard it is to win house seats, so he will have some perspective on the magnitude of last night's victory. then we have eric smith, president of blue engine message and media. he was a crucial component of the obama 2008 presidential campaign as far as paid media and advertising campaigns. he formerly worked with the gephardt, and susan davis has joined us. >> i apologize for being late.

i was working on a telephone interview, talking to one of the members that will be coming to washington in january. the best way to start off is to open it up to the panel ends ask, what does last not mean it is what does last night mean? >> i think there is danger in reading too much into this being the republican election. i think there was -- it was too easy to read into it being a democratic mandate. we have seen three consecutive --ctions -- i don't think all the research i have seen, it was status quo. i think you have to put all the

officials from both parties on notice. when one party controls either chamber of congress -- both parties are renters now. you can get an eviction notice every four years. >> i think the voters said very clearly, stop, you have gone too far, we don't want to go into further. there is great frustration with tour the country is going. the lack of jobs and the lack of focus from the obama administration on job creation is what actually kill them. i think this portends for an interesting two years.

gridlock might be the best thing that could happen for a lot of voters. they wanted the obama administration to stop going in a certain direction, and i think that is really what the election was all about. >> how do you think democratic leaders will internal lies the message? >> those of you who expect dick armey and need to get into a fight have come to the wrong meeting. we always wound up in the same position on things. this may develop in the course of this conversation. let's start with the president and then go to the congress. the question is whether the president is going to be jimmy carter or bill clinton. the question is open. if the compromises on some key issues as bill clinton did on welfare reform and on the minimum wage in 19 set 97 -- in 1997.

democratic leaders and the president have to make a sincere effort at bipartisanship, because that is what -- the public does not want with a lot. the public wants action on the economy. if we have gridlock, i think it is bad for everybody, including republicans who just won the election. somehow there has to be some progress. i am not sure of the shape of it. does the democratic caucus move to the left, or does it move to the center? if the democratic caucus, which will be more liberal because a lot of people lost for moderates and conservatives. if it moves to the left, it could be a minority party for the long time. they have a chance that the republican hold on this being longer than two years. we are at a crazy time in this country.

>> i think this is a big election. what makes the election special is that it is a true paradigm shift for the nation. yes, it is a referendum, but is often on that -- after the election, no one that wins the duty of serving in high office should ever be able to delude themselves now with the notion, the voters just gave me a mandate to do whatever the hell i want and demonstrated they are willing to take it whether they like it or not. what they have done is, the paradigm shift is, the voters have said to washington, we don't take instruction from you. we don't follow your lead. you are not in charge. we are in charge. yes, we want action, but we want

action on america's agenda. the agenda in america is, get spending under control. avoid that financial catastrophe we are surely headed to if we don't fix this thing. rain in governments lust for power and control and have little reason respect for its constituency. this lesson was brought first to the republicans in the primary process. they are not done yet. they are not going to keep quiet and go home. the real interest has always been government, not politics. your party or my party, i don't care. the question is, what are their

policies? i know these folks, i work with them and talk with them everyday. they are energetically anticipating, we are going to work with these new people in congress and a lot of the old ones who are returning, to help them get a good legislative agenda passed that takes the country in the direction we insist that it go. this grass-roots movement from america, this definition of who is in charge around here, for those of us who enjoy watching these things, it is going to be even more entertaining than has been in the past. >> we are going to open this up for questions shortly, but i want to have each of you address where we need to go. what to do about the current

bush tax policy, and what to do about the pledge to america promise to cut spending by $100 billion back to 2008 levels. it is going to come up soon, both those issues. trying to figure how to get it through the senate. >> what the president ought to do, i do not know that he will do this. when he has press conference is he has to say i got the message, let's do a one-year extension of all the bush era tax cuts and let's see what the deficit reduction commission comes in with and revisit the issue. when i say all the bush era tax cuts, i am not just talking about the marginal rates, the personal income tax but also the 15% on dividends and capital gains. that is what he ought to do.

i do not know if he will do that. >> what do you think? >> i think lame ducks prior to -- there are and productive times. i cannot imagine the soon-to-be majority party looking to cut a lot of deals went in a couple weeks, there will be in charge. i do not know if we would be doing that either. if he came to see john and i fight, he would do that. we do disagree on everything. i think americans want to see some progress and want to see some bipartisanship. there is a desire for post partisanship. >> you have to start with the president. is that the best place to get started? >> i think it can stir. just because by necessity.

that is the first issue in the queue. >> maybe i did say that. maybe -- people want the obama agenda to stop. what they are happy -- they're happy to set -- throw sand in the gears. i think that is the best case scenario is we -- [inaudible] the republicans can decide what they want -- how they want to proceed. they can negotiate whenever there is. everyone agrees if you raise taxes now at the end of december in such a dramatic fashion, the economy will be in big trouble which is already in big trouble. i think what you will find is congressional republicans will

spend the first several months sending a lot of different legislation to the senate. trying to set the framework for how they will do a budget that will have cuts in it, deep cuts, $100 billion or more. they will have to negotiate a budget with the senate and that is where the rubber will hit the road. behind all that, there will have to raise the debt ceiling. that will be part of that budget discussion and that is -- who knows how this will work out. in the next 34 months, they will start sending a lot of spending cut bill to the senate. >> china has a lot to do with that. you are right -- right. the lame duck sessions are about

taking care of unfinished business. for the congress that is going out, the majority of congress is going out and will leave this tax issue and dealt with. one of the few things they could do that would be applauded by america at large. they should take that initiative and also when it is good for their health politically because during -- doing so is a signal we heard you. it was not just the republicans that hurt you. we understand this needs to be done, we will do it. the other thing that you are looking at on this spending side is -- to a large extent, the new republican majority in the house is blessed with the fact that the outgoing majority never finished their budget for the past fiscal year. they can do a lot of demonstration of their commitment to budgetary reduction and so forth as they clean up that mess. they have to get on to a

demonstration -- a demonstration of confidence. just doing the new budget on time will be a great encouragement to the american people. april 15, my goodness, the government met its own self- imposed deadline with the same degree of promptness of the require me on the deadline they imposed on me. it would be a sign of healthy responsibility. when you go back to the last -- [unintelligible] we like to entertain ourselves with who did it. the mess that -- misguided democrats believe president clinton' did it. that is a and containing debate. you take a look at it, john perry put his finger on it. that process was the key

personnel from the house, the senate, and the white house sitting down and working out the budget agreement and in those deals you get rid of the troubles prater end up with an agreement. it would be a perfect agreement in any one single person dies? no. it can do three things that must be done. pass the house, passed the senate, signed by the president. >> the spending bill outcomes. nevertheless, is the most comforting fact of life. you can make all the noise and racket you like, entertain yourselves and one another if you like. until you have done something that commands passage in the house, the senate, signature of the president, you have done nothing.

let's get busy and get soberly about our business. >> let me make one other point. what will happen is they will pass a second cr and fund the government until about february or march. a cr at last year's levels. there will not be a lot of bells and whistles. the clean thing to do is keep the government functioning at 2010 levels, fiscal year 2010 and what the new congress come in and figure out what to do with the rest of the fiscal year and the appropriations bills, dick's point about the final action, the bills were completed by october 1, the beginning of the fiscal year was 1987. that is how long ago it was that congress completed the appropriation bills before the fiscal year started. >> this is something that john

boehner spoke out about. one being returning to regular order. changing the way the house does business. we have seen republicans and democrats in control. they have shoes and not to use regular order in the past 15 or 16 years. you know the unit challenges. is it possible to change the house in the way they do business? >> it is possible. it is difficult. efficiency is not the thing that you necessarily want the congress like this that is so desperate for transparency and for that -- especially with the new class, they want to change the way business is done. one of the things john boehner promised is three full days to look at this legislation.

john boehner who has made this a cornerstone of his drive to reform the congress, he sticks to that, it will change how congress is done. it will go at a much slower pace. you will have roles that are open. if you have open rule, the democrats get to offer their amendments that are going to embarrass the heck out of republicans. that is a leap of faith that the process will work in the house will work its will and good stuff will get done for the american people. over the last 30 years, the regular order is broken down. i think the system has been a game on both sides and what happens is the leadership is so frustrated with the delaying tactics of the minority and they get frustrated with the fact the minority has clever motions to recommit that they shut down the

process and say, we have to get this stuff done. they believe it is not about the process, it is about the results. i have been a fan and proponent of open road. the process does matter. that is one of the things that has come from this election. the sense that backroom deals, the lack of transparency that the regular order of breaking down is not good for democracy. john boehner will stick to this and he will have to understand that his legislative agenda is not going to be as robust and he will not get as much as he wants done. one of the things i said is we want to be a regular order. we had that and it falls apart. >> the last time we had the type

are regular order you are talking about i believe was my first term, in 1979 and 1980. i remember when the department of education bill was up under an open rule. we were here until 2:00 a.m. three or four nights in a row. you have to be willing to stick around here and run those amendments, it is a good idea. there's a chance that john boehner will try this. it was not tried by gingrich or by speaker pelosi. >> you had speakers in both parties who had not wanted to do this for their own reasons. if they do it, everybody better bring a cot or pillows. >> i cannot help but point out that being younger and all, i was not there in 1979. >> you have your money. >> first of all you are talking about regular order. that is the procedures by which

to develop a good work product. it begins in the committees. in the subcommittees. if you take a good legislative idea and refine it and polish it up and resolve the problems in the committees, by the time you take to the floor, you do not have to have a bunch of high drama. if it is good work, you get a good standing with the american people and that will follow. >> what happens is people do not talk about it. >> we must have voted on abortion about 10 times, school prayer and all kinds of things. >> i wanted to make another point. there is a great misconception and hue and cry about bipartisanship around here. people are missing the point. they want stability. if you take the law with the

regular order in the parliamentary rules, some of the old fashioned protocols, the manner by which i address my colleague becomes a very important thing in terms of the questions and stability. when you yield to the distinguished gentleman from iowa, who by the way is a horse is rare, the gentleman from iowa, kriegel level of stability that allows you to conduct your work because someone is not bristling because he did not hear what i said. he heard me call him distinguished and it is difficult for him to come back nasty. these particles are important and they should be observed. every member should make that. there were folks that i was privileged to work with, senator

byrd, who understood the instrumental value of good manners in a legislative process. it is not that hard to do and it ought to be done more regularly. >> there ought to be full consideration in committees. we have tried to short circuit the committee process. >> does this process question matter to the white house? does it make a difference when the white house has to do with legislation that comes its way? >> absolutely. the four of us are focusing on the house which is the finer of the two institutions. we used to meet and plot how to get these guys -- how to work against our common enemy which was the senate.

there is a management issue for leaders in congress and the white house. harry reid is looking at that much -- he has the 2006 class coming up. in difficult states. you are heading -- within the senate democratic caucus, you have this first wave coming up. i think something that could change the senate significantly is that i did not double check this morning but the estimates were about 40 of the members of the senate will be freshmen in january 2011. 40 out of 100 are in their first

term. one last part with the management issue. assuming -- john boehner will -- the speaker runs the institution. they can drive the schedule and resources. if you do not have the luxury of being able to pass bills that will feed his base and make the republican party feel good and drop them on the doorstep of the senate which will be a management issue for mcconnell to do with, these bills that they want passed or stop and tried to -- speaker pelosi kept pushing bills on the senate that ended up dying there and first reading go left and right. you see the inverse happening. >> we have spent time talking

to members of congress to be, republicans who are -- to just one. taxes and spending are the two upper most issues but health care is after. i want to put before the panel health care. we have a law and a house republican majority that is committed to undoing that law. but all at once or brick by brick, you can have protracted, minuscule but important procedural fights and preparations fights and the underlying infrastructure to put that bill into force. the health-care issue was one of the things that drove this citizen awakening that you have been part of and one of the organizations that were aware of

it. you went down the panel. what happens to health care policy in reaction to this election? >> i in 1994, president clinton lost his congressional majority because he thought about doing it. they have lost the majority because they did it and do it with parliamentary muscle. i think -- the human cry is repeal it. my advice to speaker better -- john boehner is take a simple repeal of obama care to the floor and have a vote.

you have to bid if you want, that is fine. every member of that body is going to cast a vote that is between himself and his district. i promise you it will pass that bill was nothing less than 20 democrats voting yes and thanking him for the opportunity to do so. what you have done is you have showed, you have a firm ameritech, we got your message on health care. you do not want this. that advises the courts now, this is high drama. we're with you on health care. you have got your committees working on the smart money bills, take out the mandate, take that to the floor separately. also, the big test of this majority is will they for the first time in the history of congress be the trial bar and

make this a significant and critical reduction in the cost driving up health care. if they cannot stand up to the trial bar, they're never going to fix health care. no one in america is going to fix health care if you do not do tort reform. you explain in which way -- just to protect the doctor from a lawyer. is not just the money. it is the meanness of it and if we do not have a congress that will protect old people and children from the mena's of unnecessary medical procedures affliction on their mind and body and fares, we do not have much of the congress. >> dick is in his rights to

continue to raise money for the issue of health care. he will continue to do that. i do not think this election was determined by health care. it was determined by 9.6% unemployment and the unwillingness and inability of the administration to focus on that issue to the exclusion of almost everything else. the administration made a mistake in taking cap and trade to the floor first before health care because that was what sound a lot of democrats in the midwest. i do not think those democrats lost on health care. there were on the wrong side of cap and trade. if the president had to get health care to the for first before cap and trade, it would have passed earlier and it would have been an opportunity for it to gain acceptance. you have every right to wave the flag and tear down health care. i know you will do that

effectively. it is not going to be repealed. that will be vetoed by the president. the republicans will make incremental efforts to make changes around the edges. i do not know if there will be successful. health care was not the issue that determined this election. >> when i came to congress in 1989, one of the first things that i witnessed firsthand was the repeal of the catastrophic legislation. >> i was there. >> it was one of those bills that everyone thought this will be great and will save the republic. they repealed it the next year. know if it will. repealing it in its totality is a possibility and could be a campaign issue. i think that dick armey is

right. they have to put this up for roh. my other advice is to focus on the weak link which is the individual mandate. if they could repeal that and make that the singular issue, the whole house of cards will crumble down. this is unpopular with people who have health insurance which is the vast majority of people in the country. their rates have gone up since this legislation passed. that is a good [unintelligible] and it will keep pounding on it. >> let's be clear. it had an income tax surplus that went into effect right away. my father got health insurance as a part of his retirement package from his employer and headed catastrophic health insurance because why did he have to pay a search charge for something he already had? there was a difference, it was

ill-conceiveda conceale build. >-- bill. further in thech senate. the five leading up to that end the debate -- the fight leading up to that end the debate, the one thing that democrats feel that is expanding to people, people think the first thing that open-ended comes to mind -- they do not know what is in the bill yet. if you have a debate in congress for weeks or months and that conflict drives media coverage, people find about -- out about the free mammograms and all the

things that they like and one in this bill, they will learn what is in the bill. >> i am not normally a partisan person. [laughter] i hope sincerely that the democratic party takes a lot of lies from youtube. >> we will open it up for questions. please wait for the microphone to get to you. >> my question is for congressman armey. what advice would you give your party [inaudible] on what went wrong and what they

should do going forward? >> i am not going to give any advice. i would urge my party to make it clear that members in the house and senate, to the president that he is the leader of the party and he needs to reach a out in a sincere and direct way to their republicans. i hope the president will do that. if he does not, the democratic party is in real trouble. >> my view of the shutdown which was a terrible frustration to me at the time running up to it and experiencing it, it was a matter of -- that was the product of that majority, our new majority thinking we had a mandate. a shutdown was -- [unintelligible] these folks, they do not have

that affliction. they do not have something they have to prove it to. do your work with a sober seriousness, and present it to the other body, presented to the white house as a serious work product and put all the starting and posturing, put all that aside. it has lost its entertainment value. it does not in do you to the voters. what they want to see is a quiet competence and getting about the task before you. it was provoked and misguided -- a misguided sense of control. >> one of the things that republicans can do to avoid being blamed for the shutdown is not talk about how they want to shut the government and which they did almost consistently.

i worked for one of the guys who did it. he said it for months before and they shut the government down and guess who got blamed? the guys who said they wanted to shut down the government. >> we have lots of questions. >> good morning. you mentioned three successive change elections. what do all of you make of the rate of change that is going on in politics right now? would you make of it and what is driving it and what does that do to relationships in the political process? >> it is the internet's fault and cable tv. >> i enjoy pointing out to people that al gore is the inventor of the demise of the left. >> it could be the demise of the right. >> will have to be someone in

all at the magnitude -- somewhat in awe of the magnitude of the grass rates movement. it defined the election. the communications available to people that is now available through the internet which will be enhanced by our innovations will introduce in asia -- a few short days, it makes it consolidated in its influence and the readiness of its presence and gives it the capacity to go beyond. this movement is not going to go way and fade into the background. it will be the defining influence over the behavior of office holders for many years to come. this could change in two years. i believe based on the research

i have seen these are votes against the status quo. the most analogous situation is the scott brown collection. we will spend weeks and months digesting figure out what happened. we did focus groups in massachusetts and they saw no incongruity for voting for, in 2008 and scott brown in 2010. there were looking for people who said they would do things differently. people can work across the aisle and find ways to do that, that will be positive. he has heard the same people and he has pursued a path that is unfolding [inaudible]

>> it is a serious question and has serious implications for how congress gets business done. the lack -- people -- there is a disconnect between how washington operates and how congress especially operates and how the american people perceive it to operate. the rise of campaign commercials and how they -- these politicians slimy to other leaves to people this trusting their politicians more. when they come to the chamber, they have -- they do not have the best experience. any kind of mechanism to get congressmen and women to know each other better, whether it is staying in congress leads to less interaction. the process breaks down because

they do not take each other seriously. what has happened is the members do not take each other seriously which means the people who are being represented by them do not take them seriously. that is leading to this decline of the popularity of the institution. >> before he waxes eloquently about the citizens movement, there will be people inside the republican party who will make sure there are no more sharron angles and christine o'donnells elected. >> this quex me up. the establishment by -- the closest thing to a republican icon has $3 million and he loses to this woman who has nothing. they say it is her fault, it is

his fault. he had all the aces, the fact of the matter is they're not moving a lot of heaven and earth. their guys are feeling. the fact is unless you have come to terms with the electorate, it will not live -- when the race. -- you will not win the race. when you have an open primary -- >> this is not a cowboys group. >> the point is if you're going to be the political party with the (a process that says come and join the

party, that winter is sure nominee. what are you going to do about it? if you do not want to have a process, change the rules. if you're going to have them, have the decency to stand by your nominee. both these instances you mentioned, you had two candidates who were getting shot at by the opposition party and shot in the rear by their own party and you say they are obviously no damn good because it did not win. >> to nominate a few more folks like that. i did not know we would have a live reenactment. that is fantastic. >> this is a question about another issue that i was [unintelligible] what sense do you have as to what might be attempted to at

least moderate some of the provisions of financial regulatory reform that -- and a related question. speculation that the democrats were in the minority and barney frank might be open to leaving the house. what are your thoughts about not only his possibly moving on into another position but what challenge this poses to the democrats since maxine waters has some ethics issues within and presumably in line to be the ranking member. >> i do not think he is going anyplace anytime soon. dick may not agrree. -- agree. members of congress of hate voting on financial issues. they do not understand it, they

do not know anything about these issues than they do not want to vote on this again. i do not care of their democrats or republicans, they may challenge the regulations, you may have some votes on overriding the regulations but i cannot imagine they will revisit that bill. that is the last thing they want to spend their time on. >> it gets back to jimmy buffett. you have to learn from the wrong things you've done. we see a pattern going back to several congress is. haste makes waste. we do not need to do their rigorous work. >> before he goes off to some summit meeting. >> if you take tarp, they wanted

it over the weekend. it is legislation by panic. born of the fear that i do not want to be seen as the guy that doesn't see the problem and does not care. i will go along with whatever they rushed through the committee. you'll have to takes a much of the work that was done in a brush and then with a lot of bad, a loose ends hanging around that are missed tedious. the law of unintended consequences never applied to the private sector. in the public sector, it becomes a serious question. the fact is if they do not demonstrate a rigorous confidence and legislative detail, they will not be able to endear themselves with this new awake and legislative constituency. the voters are requiring more of

people in service in office than they have ever required in -- at any time i have watched and worked with voters. we have to redress these issues with confidence and rigor. >> i will give you a second serious answer. this is the devil they know. the business community got a lot of things it wanted out of this bill. they're not wanting this reopened. members of congress will not want it reopened. >> here is a more serious answer. these folks are aware of the fact that we are not legislating on behalf of the business community. we do not make legislation that makes sense, the american citizen at large, we are out of a job. >> this i will be happening at the regulatory level because that is where the lobbying community is coming at it. i do not think there is going to be any effort to repeal this

legislation because i do not think there is appetite for that. members of congress do not understand this and do not want to understand it other than a campaign contribution. i would say that there is two things that the republicans will focus on. some sort of anti tarpon legislation, this will never happen again. there will be focused on fannie and freddie and how to reform them and put them out of business. some sort of legislation like that. some sort of anti-regulatory act would come up. i do not think there is an appetite for it. >> i have to go speak to a group of my friends who are unhappy about the election results. [applause] >> is that going to be an area

where the can work something out? >> there was a poll conducted on folks who came to washington. on that poll, the only thing that was less popular than barack obama was the big banks and wall street. i do not think there would be any effort to repeal reform. i do not speak for them but they are probably aware that curtailing the big banks on wall street -- truck is a different issue. your question about regulatory reform. i think that is -- >> that is a terrible name for the legislation. >> we have noticed in the last

two years that a lot of the less sexy legislation [unintelligible] has not had the necessary floor time. what are the chances [inaudible] and do more of those fair [inaudible] >> the pending free-trade agreements with south korea, panama, and colombia. the president is making a trip to asia starting on friday. he is going to korea. when i interviewed him last december, he said he wanted to

get the free trade agreement and this year. it will not happen. >> i had a few favorite moments with president clinton. one of the moments i had we sat across the table from each other and it was a question of trade. i said are we agreed we are going to work together and we did. my observation was if you can get past airbase and again get past mind, we can get this done. -- past your base and i can get past a line, we can get this done. that becomes a real problem. you are not repairing any major international issue without bipartisanship and

leadership from the top. that is the one area where they have an opportunity to work together productively to the well being of the economy. with respect to the smaller and less sexy bills, if i am correct that this new majority will understand [inaudible] there is a big difference, you will see them addressing this issue and understanding we need to get them done because it is important. when asked what is the political point, the answer is it is the work that needs to get done. if they can achieve that kind of professional competence, they can be a blessing to the process and the nation. if not there will be written off as a another bunch of political

thunderheads that are embarrassing to us. >> a friend has a rule, gaspard's rule, a politician at rest is a safe politician. that is one motivation i think where senator mcconnell said his top priority was to ensure he was the president with a one- term president. those things do not bode well for bipartisan cooperation. if you look at these dynamics behind voting, two years from now, all the folks will be judged on what they did. i do not think there will be a lot of cooperation. you will find these members [unintelligible] there will have to go two years and now and show something they

have accomplished. i think they do not want to be too much. >> trade does fallen to that. that is something that scrambles partisan politics more than anything. it is -- the wall street journal showed that this cut across economic lines. that is something where we will file it under all politics are local. >> a couple of observations on trade. a lot of pro-trade politicians got elected. it was -- pro-free trade was not the political killer. during the campaign, you saw especially as the campaign drew to a close was bashing china and how china came up and the

terrible imbalance between what we export and what we import from china and how that is affecting jobs and people are blaming china and there was an effort by politicians to blame each other for being pro-china. i think the reason i say that is until the administration works out some sort of big scale compromise or big scale deal with china, deals with that big problem. it is hard to get other legislation through. that being said, the south korea fta and panama, you have a pro free trade leadership in congress. you also have a senate that is more pro free trade than the house.

that does speak well to that. we do not have trade, we cannot grow jobs and that is the winning argument. >> there is a lot of focus on how obama will work with the new majority. what do house democrats do now? a broader trade during clinton. a lot of his worst enemies were members of his party. as much as we can forecast this, how do you see the democratic minority in the working with the obama administration or becoming potentially a point of opposition? >> i think it is hard to predict. i worked for the democratic leader when clinton was president and when bush was

president. it was much easier to manage the minority when you have a democratic president because you have -- they get lots of goodies and stuff from the white house. invited to parties and bridges and tunnels. when you're in the minority and you do not have the president, things are harder. people tend to fall in line behind the president on messaging in politics. if there is not a president is a center of gravity. people tend to go their own way. when clinton was president, it was easy to execute. when it -- he was not, leadership would take months trying to develop something that was an exercise in politics. i think that everyone picks and chooses their fights. there will be times when the

house democrats are standing shoulder to shoulder with the president and at times they're not. one thing i have seen is nothing rallies people together more than being on the defense. any efforts to repeal any of the legislative gains democrats have had will serve to push them together more than pull them apart. >> we have to more questions. -- two more questions. >> it seems like primaries are run on a lot on ideology, elections are run on ideology and policy and legislation,. to kill the legislation that looks like it will move seems to be run by both parties as if they are coalitions of appetites. that is not just talking about your marks. it is how the authorizations are

written. cap and trade might be a good example. renewable fuels might be another good example. i think that is part of what's has to be overcome and does that analysis make any sense? if it does, how do you overcome the lobbying frenzy of the [inaudible] >> i believe lobbying is an honorable profession if it is carried out professionally. if there is productive inputs. i have a ph.d. in economics. i do not know how this bill is going to affect your industry and the place to get information is from you. if the lobbying community is

held to a platform of professionalism -- i would argue that virtually everything i have seen happen in washington in the legislative process, what bill will be taken, how will we right of the bill, and why and political decisions, not policy decisions. unless they can get the maturity and the discipline to transform themselves into people who understand the gravity of their responsibility and live up to it, it is about something other than myself, they're going to be a very unpopular group of people as they have been. when you do the work of cleaning up the legislation, you do not

need to twist arms on the floor. if the bill has a good standing with the american people, you'll get votes from both sides of the aisle. the biggest problem we see hoin the past several years is plain sloppy self indulgent work. designed to fulfil a political objective rather than a serious policy objective for the both sides. i talk to folks across the country all the time. we just want them to go and do their job seriously like i do in my job. instead of it being a bunch of people trying to get a leg up on one another. it is always about themselves. if this is [inaudible]

president obama has made it clear that what he cannot get legislatively he will get administratively through the agencies. if this majority does not understand their duty to do serious responsible and professional and rigorous congressional oversight of the agencies they create, in the administration of the laws they make, they are going to have the president -- you'll get cap and trade through the epa as he promised if congress does not do its job. the biggest challenge that faces these folks is how do we move from politician to professional as we do the nation's work? it is a challenge that has not been very well met by people in congress at large. you are losing -- it breaks your

heart to see a guy like ike skelton lose like that. it is about [inaudible] , cowboy out and do it up and do you job. >> one more question. >> a question of the debt ceiling was brought up by an the other panel. there is a difference of opinion between omb and cbo and treasury as to when it is needed and the likelihood of how it mechanically might happen, stand-alone or repackaged through other elements. >> would be one of those things

that forces things apart? >> the these fights in the past have not gathered as much attention as one hope for believe. they come pretty quickly and go quietly. it was not the case in 1995. to answer your question, we -- they will raise the debt ceiling at the last possible moment. if the treasury department can sell all the stuff they can and they always seem to come up with money. that is the one thing i remember. the process will probably be if house republicans passed a budget, there will use the -- and they will use the road to get it through and said it out through the senate. the president will talk to harry reid and say, we need this money so we can pay for the war.

and for social security checks, so you have to get this to the senate. that is the process by which it will happen. does rand paul stand up and say i will filibuster against this until i get some sort of agreement to have some sort of budget reform or some sort of deficit cutting bill passed something? that is on noble. that is the process. >> it will pass a majority but there will not brag about it passing. >> [inaudible] that is not going to happen. what we need to do is help people to -- this is just it. the need to raise the debt ceiling is a legacy of our past fiscal irresponsibility.

the repercussions of not doing it are destructive to the country. it is a duty i do not want. if you're going to ask me to do something that is the son savory to set the books right on your past spend thriftiness, i need some kind of expression of commitment and resolve that things will change. for them to be hard in bargaining this, i think is a perfectly responsible and necessary thing. there is the need to raise the debt ceiling is born out of sloppy work and irresponsibility. use the moment of desperation to

leverage a better understanding [inaudible] that this body must make about how we do business going forward. >> time for one more question. >> my original question was about foreign policy and trade. i appreciate your answers on the trade issue. i want to talk about foreign policy and where it fits in the agenda for the congress. no one seems to be talking about it. troops are supposed to be withdrawn from afghanistan. next year, funding will need to continue. where do you think this is heading? >> we spent a good part of this

week putting together a "charticle". we bring up in that afghanistan and the start treaty. afghanistan -- substantial support among republicans provided the july withdrawal is not precipitous and [inaudible] to evaluate his afghanistan policy after one year and the start treaty, richard lugar is a linchpin. it is not going to happen in the lame duck. it is not likely to happen at all. >> i think that folks will have to find places to agree and

disagree. success will be based on what success they have in choosing [unintelligible] on both sides. i agree that afghanistan will be a place that republicans and democrats and the administration can find some common ground on. that would be a great opportunity for >> it offers people a box to check on bipartisanship. i think trade is a domestic issue more than foreign policy.

>> i would make a couple of observations. i think that the republican leadership and the president will find common ground on afghanistan. i do not assume that all members, many members of the liberal caucus and some members including rand paul will have great concerns about continuing operations in afghanistan. i would say that i think there will be an effort to find common ground at the leadership level. two things i would also observed, what is going to happen with iran, which is the closest thing to the next war, i would say, and then what is going to happen with china, which is the 800 million pound gorilla in the room. >> the largest guerrilla ever known. [laughter]

>> one of the most effective s was the one put together by citizens against government waste were the chinese guy was talking about health america squandered its great heritage. china should be on the might of all policymakers and how great an imbalance there is between china and the us. >> if i am correct that the temperament of the new congress is going to be more with respect of the ingenious of division of authorities in responsibility, checks and balances, i think you are going to find a greater willingness and it is our job to work with advice and consent. this is one area while you might -- where you might find this congress will have a

tendency to more deferential to the white house and less to go into an area that is more frightening to them. >> i just want to thank the underwriters, and we want to express our appreciation to all our underwriters. susan davis, my colleague, martin frost, dick armey, thank you very much for coming. [applause] >> earlier today, house republican leader john boehner and house republican whip eric cantor spoke to reporters about last night's election results with republicans gain control of the u.s. house. >> we are humbled by the trust that the american people have placed in us. our job is to listen to the

american people and follow the will of the american people. it is pretty clear the american people want us to do something about cutting spending here in washington and creating an environment that will get jobs back in our country. we have a big job ahead of us. that is why you'll see us roll up our sleeves. >> last night indicates the american people are tired and frustrated in washington. it is very clear that what a government that listens to them, and frankly, whether you are republican dick --, democrat, or independent, the people in this country want to see results. the first order of business has to be to create jobs. the american people said that the obama administration's agenda over the last 20 months has failed. they want to see us return to limited government. that means the leadership has to

cut spending and get us back to an arab or can promote opportunity, people ready to step up and accept responsibility -- back to era where we can promote opportunity. >> the american people spoke, and i think it is pretty clear that the obama-policy agenda is being rejected by the american people. -- the obama-policy agenda is being rejected by the american people. but been i think it is a mandate for washington to reduce the size of government and continue our fight for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government. we will make a lot of decisions over the coming months about what will happen in january. it will have plenty of time to ask that.

the american people are concerned about the government takeover of health care. i think it is important for us to lay the groundwork before we began to repeal this monstrosity with common-sense reforms that will bring down the cost of government in america. >> thank you. >> today we talked to a reporter on how republicans gain control of the house. >> there is a front-page article in "the wall street journal" on how the gop regained the u.s. house. how early in 2009 did eric

cantor begin laying his plans for taking back the house? >> and started remarkably early. you could say that in january 2009 they already determined had a possibility of taking the house back from the democrats. you have to remember the atmosphere back in. president obama had just won this enormous victory. the democrats had delivered their second shellacking of republicans, and it seemed the best republicans could hope for in the midterm was to gain a few seats. republicans did feel like they had a chance, because there were so many democrats in swing districts that they felt they had a shot. it is very much fair to say that as early as january 2009 there were already planning a process that resulted in what we saw last night. >> why did being labeled the party of no stick with the

republicans? >> because the economy did so poorly the past couple of years, and to some degree that prompted the rise of the tea party movements, and the obama administration's policies, for whatever reason, proved to be less than popular, it paid off. it turned out that the voters were not happy with what was going on and saying no resonated with them. if the economy had done better and if the president's policies had been more popular, that could have backfired in a big way, but that is not what happened. >> you wrote about kevin mccarty's strategic role. what did he learn from rahm emanuel's success? >> that is one of the interesting things. they really studied what rahm emanuel did in 2006. they felt that it was a model for running an insurgent top campaign to recapture the house.

they did look at what he did. one of the lessons was to recruit in every district in the country. even in places where it seemed like the democrats would never lose, they tried to have a credible candidate just in case. that is not something that had been done every year. they tried to weaken them, may be caused them to retire. you attack early and often. that was another lesson. the third way was to demand fundraising and other commitments from your candidates, not to let them get away with anemic fund raising or not having an online plan. they had to prove that they were running d's in campaigns. that applied to incumbents at least as much as to challengers. >> so the internal fund-raising had not been as successful in

the past? >> the leaders felt like in the past a lot of republican incumbents had been lazy. they just relied on the nrcc to give them money and help them out. the message they tried to send a relatively early on to incumbents was, we are not going to help you. you need to raise your own money into all this work yourself. we want to give help to challengers. we don't want to have to worry about people who already have their seats. mike rogers was in charge of incumbent protection. he was booed at some meetings because he had been harassing the incumbents some meetings. it gives you an idea of the efforts the republican leadership put into having their incumbents do a lot of the hard work to get reelected.

>> you write a lot about my writers and eric cantor and other members reject about mike rogers. >> john boehner was obviously in ball. the sessions is the guy who headed the nrcc. the strategy was to let republican members take charge of different parts of the effort. it was not as centralize as it had been in the past. that is the kind of thing that can backfire. maybe there were skillful, but they had kevin mccarty in charge of recruiting. jeb penciling was in charge of raising money. b.g.e. jeb and sterling -- jeb hensarling was in charge of

raising money. >> nancy pelosi was not deeply involved on a day-to-day basis in 2006. as the leader, they have a lot to do. they have legislative duties, too. not to minimize his role, but he was not in charge of the campaign day in and day out. >> they saw a public concern republicans. what did they see? >> it probably was a done deal, but there was a tightening that took place. race is like this tend to tighten at the end. there was a confluence of events and a series of polls that gave them the jitters. they wondered if maybe they could pull this off. they have lost a bunch of special elections, particularly since president obama was elected. there were at 3 -- at least three elections that the

republicans really should have had a shot at. there was one in new york that they had held ever since the civil war, 150 years, and they lost it in a special election. or the one in pennsylvania. it seemed like a classic pickup for the republicans. the democrats had an edge in registration. socially conservative democrats were turning away from the party. they were confident they would win, but they got killed. the democrat won the seat by eight points. he won it again last night. a bunch of things came together what they felt like maybe there was something wrong with the polling, maybe it will all go wrong at the last second. these elections are always roasters -- rollercoaster s.

>> did any of the leaders that you spoke to have the idea that the win would be this size? >> i don't think so. there was some speculation or hope that maybe it would happen, but this was bigger than almost anyone foresaw. there was a feeling -- they needed 39 to retake the house. that thought that getting to 30 would be easy, but then they thought they would win either no more or they would win 10 more. it is like quantum physics or something. these races come in groups. once you have won 31, your probably going to win 40. but, when she when 41, you will probably win 50. , you willu went 41 an1

probably win 50. journal's "wall street ," talking about how the gop won it back the house. thank you for speaking with us. >> now, faith and freedom coalition founder ralph reed talks about last night's election results. this is about 40 of minutes. -- about 45 minutes. >> do i need a microphone? >> good morning, everybody.

my name is ralph reed. i am the founder and chairman of the faith and freedom coalition, which is a pro-family, conservative, and free-market organization of 400,000 members. we were founded in the summer of 2009 with the express an explicit purpose of ensuring that conservative people of faith and their conservative allies, particularly those not exclusively, evangelical christians and frequently mass attending catholics were mobilized, registered to vote, and specifically engaged in turning out to the polls in record numbers. at the risk of utilizing a worn phrase, i would say this morning we can say mission accomplished. greg keller really ran the operation. it was the most ambitious, the most comprehensive, and the most

effective voter contact and get out the vote effort aimed at the conservative faith community in modern american political history, or at least as long as i have been doing it, which is 30 years. 60 million voter guides, 8 million pieces of mail, three pieces of mail to every social conservative household in certain areas. they received an average of three phone calls, and many of them received a knock on the door. particularly along the i-4 corridor in florida. in nevada, in california, in ohio, particularly in cincinnati. all that to say, a total of 58.8

million voter contacts directed at frequently mass attending catholics and evangelical christians. i will leave the full data to glenn, who is the expert. fully 32% of the electorate identified as a member of the christian conservative movement. 29% of the electorate consisted of white, evangelical christians. both of those numbers are the largest number ever recorded in a modern midterm election, meaning sense that kind of data started to be kept with the rise of the so-called religious right

in the 1970's. that is an increase of seven points in the aggregate as a percentage of the electorate over the 2006 base line, which was 25%. they voted 78-21% republican. it broke more heavily republican than the same constituency did in 1994 when i conducted an almost identical survey at the christian coalition. one of the great untold stories of the 2010 elections is that not only are the t party and the evangelical movement not at odds, and not only are they not distinct and separate movements, but as the data makes abundantly clear, these movements are inextricably intertwined, and

there is an enormous amount of overlap. 52% of all the voters who said they were part of the tea party movement also said they were part of the christian conservative movement. so a majority of the people who were voting yesterday as tea party voters or have gone to a tea party event or identify with the tea party movement are evangelicals and pro-family roman catholics. i don't know if we have this cross tab or not, but according to my analysis, about two-thirds of religious conservatives identified as members of the tea party movement. glenn has an enormous amount of very illuminating data to illustrate that. all of that to say, what we know from yesterday's is that one of the largest, if not the largest

single voting bloc in the electorate is conservative people of faith. they turned out in the largest numbers we have seen in a midterm election since these kind of numbers have been kept. they voted more overwhelmingly republican than they ever have in the midterm. these voters cannot be ignored. they are a majority of the tea party movement. either party -- if either party ignores them or opposes them, is at their peril as the ballot boxes. if you look at the geographical distribution of these voters, which is heavily in the south and midwest, that is where the bulk of the congressional gains took place, not all of them, but this group of socially conservative, faith based boat, was the fuel in the engine that

drove one of the biggest midterm victories in the history of our country. with that, i will turn over to glen bolger who will walk to the finding is in greater detail. >> good morning. and now you have asked for copies of this. as soon as this is over, i will have it posted to our blog which is available through our web site. pos.org is the website. we did a survey last night, 1000 people who voted in yesterday's election or early voted in the election. we find that the best thing to do is to an election night

survey because it is random. you are not picking the geographic locations, and also people are not reacting to what they have already heard in terms of the post election analysis. we do the call starting at 5 eastern and worker with across the country. first, just a profile of that 29% of the voters just today who self-described as evangelicals and born-again. 78% of them voted republican on the generic ballot. 21% preferred the democrats. they tend to be republicans, as you expect, but only 53% are. you have 10% who are independent and another 21% who are democrats. ralph touched on the geographic difference. the northeast, where republicans picked up 13 seats, 14% of white

evangelicals live there. 25% live there. 44% live in the south where they picked up 21 seats, and 17% in the west where they picked up seven so far. there are still some undecided races out there. republicans have lost what they could lose, so there if -- if there is any tip it will be beyond the 61 seat pickup so far. two-thirds of the pickups come in the two regions were 69% of evangelicals live. 56% of them are women. there are evenly split between 18-54-year-old. 42% are very conservative, 23% moderate, 8% are liberal. 71% of them are married.

the president's approval rating is only 18% with this group. 34% overall have children. 71% are married and 34% have children. 18% approve of the president. 39% of white evangelicals are supporters of the tea party. 43% of those are white evangelicals. these are not totally disparate groups. there is some overlap there. the difficult economy helped create the highest wrong track #going back to 1994.

1994, 58% of voters said the country was on the wrong track. in 2006 it was 63% and now it is up to 67%. no wonder those were significant change in elections. the providence approval rating -- the president's approval rating of people who voted yesterday, his approval rating outlook stunningly similar to what president bush had in 2006. bush had 42% approval, 55% disapproval. the intensity was the same.

when you look at the major party vote, it pretty much match is the number of seats won. since redistricting in 2000, it is very competitive as to what the major party vote is and how many seats the party that wins is going to take home. not surprisingly, the top issue , jobs and the economy was number one in healthcare #two. look at however rubdown. among those who said illegal immigration was the top issue, that was 10%. they voted republican, 81-18. that is 63 points. federal spending and the deficit, moral values voters voted republican by 50 points.

73-23. economy and jobs by three points. the only issues that the democrats won were those of it so security and medicare, iraq and afghanistan, and education were the top issues. on how people voted, i am old school. republican until 2000 was always blue. until 2000, when the press thought it was unfair to the democrats said they were always read, they were going to switch it every four years. when you see this, understand

that -- independence broke 65-27 for the republicans. republicans and democrats basically wants to each other out. african-americans and white democrats voted at the same level. just like in 2006 when independents voted heavily for democrats, this time they were the difference makers in terms of how much the republicans won by. in terms of turnout, christian conservative voters, 78-20 republican. tea party movement voters, 27% of the electorate. those whose self-described as white evangelical christians, 78-21. other white voters, 51-45.

the rest of the electorate -- elector voted 72 -- right to life voters, 77-20 republicans. 35% from each group. those who said the issue did not make a difference to them voted republican 57-40. looking at a few other socioeconomic ways of breaking the data, those who were married voted republican 58-38. those not married voted democrat by eight points. married men, heavily republican. married women voted republican, 53-44. those who are not married, women voted heavily democrat. those with children, more republican than those without. those who are mums of children

under the age of 18 voted republican by three points. that's voted republican two-one. more people told us they voted for john mccain and voted for barack obama. so with a did have a turn out problem. more obama voters from 2008 defected, 14%, compared to 7% of mccain voters. republicans were among those who get information from tv our internet. on the internet we asked what kind of sight they got their information from. social networks about campaigns, only 2% got a lot of information from there. they voted republican by three points.

mainstream 80th -- mainstream media webster writes, 50 cents -- 56-41. we have been asking this question consistently, was it your vote a message to support or oppose president obama? 40% said it was to oppose the president. 23% said to support it. basically the same margin as in 2006 for bush. more people said it was a vote about the president. look at clinton in 1994. it was - 4 for president clinton compared to 17 for bush and obama. even in 1998, when the impeachment factor was seen as a big deal, people said it was not as much of a factor as it became after the 2000 elections.

among christian conservatives, 60 by% said their vote was -- a message opposing the president and his policies and programs. 13% said their vote was a message supporting it. 21 percent sunset it was not a message about him. 81% of tea party voters that it was a message opposing his policies and programs. 15% said it was not a message. we ask if they thought members of congress were ignoring their religious heritage. we also asked republican voters which is more important to getting america back on the right track, cutting taxes,

which was 16%, reducing spending, or restoring moral values? spending or moral values are relatively close. among eight republicans, it is basically even, 36-34. among stock republicans the gap is wider. that place more emphasis on reducing spending. among the party voters, they tend to be evenly split between spending and restore moral values, 34-33. 64% said they got most of their

information from tv news. 40 of% said newspapers. people could give multiple responses. internet, 33%, radio news 21%. in the past we have asked this. i did not have time to pull up all but data. among internet information, 2% overall but 5% of those say most of it was some social networking sites and most of the rest said mainstream media websites. i would be happy to open it up to your questions or comments. >> one quick comment, our take away. this was a full throated, undeniable repudiation of this

administration's policies and failed economic stewardship of this president. it was an across-the-board electoral catastrophe. hitting every key voter group, losing all roman catholics, 52- 47, losing frequently mass attending catholics. that was a slaughter among one of the key swing independent groups. the evangelical vote turning out in the largest numbers we have ever seen, boating more heavily republican that we have ever seen. and don't know where your data showed on women, but the cnn poll which was 52-48, which is basically a tie, losing in by 13 points. >> white women, 57 republican.

we had a 57-40. >> so you can see that this is really across the board. we are viewing this as a to- election process at a minimum. the house is going to be in tax cutting, pro-family, fiscally cutting hands. we are excited about john boehner, soon to be speaker john major and his leadership team. there is work yet to be done. we are not going to rest until barack obama has been replaced by a pro-family, pro-life, conservative president and harry reid has been replaced by a pro- family conservative leader in

the senate. we will be redoubling our efforts as we go into 2012. as you can imagine, we are very pleased with what happened yesterday. >> you mentioned the [unintelligible] rate. are you targeting the health care of zero [unintelligible] >> it was really across the board. it was a bad vote on health care. it was the fact that he was one of those who along with bart stupak did not vote to require the house conferees -- that they instruct their a hell conferees if there was a conference committee between the senate bill and the house bill. this was before nancy pelosi

rammed through the senate version. there's a critical vote on whether or not the house conferees would be constructed -- instructed not to exceed to the senate language. bart stupak voted wrong on just about everything. if you claim to be a pro-life democrat but you vote consistently with nancy pelosi and steny hoyer and against your pro-life convictions, you pay a price at the ballot box. >> [unintelligible] >> we were in a total of 62 house races and won 47 of them. i don't know that we are releasing that list, but we will be happy b.g.e. if you go to our web sites, in previous releases we announced -- we were doing radio in 24 of those districts, so you can see where we work.

just to explain mechanically our project work, we built files of social conservatives, both evangelical and catholic, a total of 7.7 million households. depending on the region of the country, the district or the state, they got multiple pieces of mail, multiple phone calls, e-mail's, text messages, and in some cases a knock on the door. we were trying to ensure that those people turned out in the largest numbers possible. we think that outcome was successful. >> your poll numbers show tea party and evangelical christians, namely white. i am curious about reaching out to the african-american and his

banks to identify themselves as pro-life christians in service. how are you going to reach out to them? >> we made that a major priority this year. i symbolic national tax forced to make sure we build bridges to both african-american churches, where we have had great success in the past on issues like marriage and like an education reform as well as the hispanic community. i think the exit polling is clear that we have a long way to go. i have not had a chance to digest all of it, but i did look at the cnn exit poll that showed that the hispanic vote broke 66-

33 democrat, which is only 3% better for republicans than they did two years ago. >> among white voters, it is 61- 36. and hispanics, 40-57. >> we were out there knocking on doors and ringing doorbells and making phone calls and distributing voter guides in churches. we were involved in the south carolina race with tim scott. he spoke at our conference in september. we went all land in florida because of marco rubio. we were all in in mexico because of susanna martinez. we recognize we have a long way

to go, but every incremental gain we make among this voter group is a huge step forward. i guess i would prefer to data at than the cnn data. we know we can do better among that group. george w. bush got 44% of all hispanics. he got 56% of the hispanic vote in florida. the african-american vote is going to be tougher, as long as barack obama is in the white house, but we are not going to give up. we are going to keep trying. anybody else? >> we talked about crossover between christian conservatives and the tea party. does the data suggest that it was a victory for the tea party or christian conservatives?

>> i think it is a victory for both. the social conservative, pro- family movement is in the middle stages of a fascinating evolution. i would not claim to have all answers to where that is headed until i get chance to fully digest this data and really look at what we see happening. from a 30,000 foot level, i see the agenda broadening. we have always thought that was going to happen. when i was at the christian coalition, we helped pass welfare reform. we passed the deepest, broadest tax cut directed at mary families with children in the post world war two period. now with the obama spending spree and this out of control, big government program in washington d.c., and with the

tea party movement, you are going to find more and more people of faith working on a broader range of issues, remaining true to their pro- life, pro marriage, and pro religious freedom convictions, but also recognizing that a big, out of control government that is bankrupting future generations is not just a fiscal issue, it is a moral issue. the second thing that i see, and this is something that has enormous, long-term political implications for the country, you are looking at a constituency that has moved from the wilderness years of roughly 1920-1979, when the moral majority was founded, to significant political effectiveness and influence. i think increasing maturation, sophistication, and technological proficiency. if this constituency can do

through these groups, if they can become a conservative analogue to what the labor unions and civil rights organizations have done, this has huge long-term implications for our politics. this constituency is bigger than either of those constituencies. 20 years from now, you are wrong to have a social conservative equivalent of an nra are the afl-cio. they will be turning out and registering tens of millions of voters. what does that mean long term? it probably means you will have more democrats who say they have to learn how to appeal to those voters. it is going to be hard for them to win statewide races and elect members of congress, as glenn pointed out, in the heartland of the country or in the south.

>> if i could just follow up on that. there are a number of prominent evangelicals who warned against creeping into the tea party ideology in terms of things like -- different ideology. is that a concern that you see? do you worry that the base for a lot of evangelicals, which is the morality issue, is going to wash away in fiscal issues? >> no, i am not. i am not concerned about that. i have now been doing this long enough that i have seen this movie before. in 1992, which was my first

presidential cycle of the christian coalition, we did a survey of evangelicals. it was maybe a week after the election. it was a real wake-up call for us. resurveyed evangelical christians. they were about 20% of the vote at that time. their number one issue was jobs and the economy. when the economy is in trouble and people are losing their jobs, and people cannot find jobs and they are losing their homes, -- it is not an either- or. it is both. they are concerned about values and our concern about the economic issues. it is not like you go through a neighborhood when you are door knocking, and you knock on the door of a voter who does not frequently attend church, and you say here is a tax and spending fire. you go into doors down and knock

on the door of somebody who frequently attends church and professes to be a born-again evangelical and you give them a pro-life flyer. they are for more individual freedom. to add this aggregate these voters' concern shows a lack of understanding of how comprehensive the world view is. they are believers in the lord jesus christ. that fate covers every area of their lives, cultural, moral, physical, business. they don't this aggregate that. their world view is the prism through which they view every issue. >> what do you think now that the wave of conservative christian have been voted in? what is the most important thing

for them to accomplish over the next two years before the voters analyze what happened and who they will vote for in the presidential election? >> i don't think it is just a handful of things. i don't want the list to be exhaustive, but i would say stop the spending. demonstrate their fiscally conservative bona fides by extending that tax cuts. no. 2, repeal health care. it is not as a fiscal issue, it is a moral issue. the extent to which it will lead to unrestraint taxpayer funding of abortion. thirdly, on a range of issues, the pro-family and pro-life, and unapologetically so. glenn has one piece of data. i don't know if you can throw it

up or not. it showed it was about a 20- point advantage for republican candidates to be pro-life, that pro-life voters were an asset to the party, not a liability. can you pull that up? i may have the number wrong. it was possibly this one. >> you can see that among voters for whom the abortion issue made a difference at all, it did not matter to them, they voted 57-40 republican. among right-to-life voters, 77- 30 -- this is a huge asset to the party. my advice to the republican party, hopefully not totally unsolicited, would be stop

apologizing for being pro-life and pro-family. this is helping you at the ballot box, not hurting you. you should speak proudly of you are pro-life and pro-family convictions. glenn and i will stay around if you need to talk to us any further. thank you all for coming. he is going to post this on his website. we will also posted at ffcoalition.com. ours is already up, and glenn's will go up as soon as he changes the color scheme. make sure we change the color scheme. it is critical. >> in a cnn exit polls, margo

rubio got 55% of the white boat. there's no exit polls done in new mexico. >> what about nevada? >> my sense is that -- the truth is, i don't know yet. i was so busy last not putting all this together that i have not had a chance to drill down. we made a significant effort in nevada. 72,000 doors knocked in the las vegas area by our volunteers and paid workers. two weeks of saturation on christian radio. 150,000 voter guides. we made a significant effort there. my sense is that this is anecdotal.

two things happen. number one, i think we got our puzzle on the ground. the air war largely canceled itself out. nevada is not an expensive media state. this is not liked pennsylvania or florida or california. both parties, both candidates, every third party in the world that could rub to nickels together was on television. infomercial's were being bumped to air these attack ads. there is one serving in the last week that showed that 72% of all the view -- all the voters are tuning out ads in many people had stopped watching television. i think not surprisingly, given the preparations for those last 96 hours, and especially the

whole early baroque time, i think she got out and hustled on the ground. the second thing that happened, voters made a calculus that unless they were sure the republicans were going to carry the senate, and by the time it got down to the end, it looked like it would not go republican, why would you throw out a majority leader from your state? if it looked like the democrats were going to retain a majority anyway, you would think it makes sense for those late breaking voters to decide if it's going to be a democrat majority anyway, i would wrote it -- rather have harry reid and chuck schumer or dick durbin. i have to look at the data. we were getting over the weekend from our people. as i said, our activists knocked on 72,000 doors in the last week. they told us we are just about it out here. we are getting lapped.

>> is it just as easy to say it is a continuation last not of what we saw in 2009 with scott brown? is there any differences at all that leap out in the data? >> one of the key parts was, as ralph talked about, there was a high republican base turnout. that was not as big a factor in massachusetts and new jersey as it was in virginia. you had high republican enthusiasm. the democrats did do a good job of turnout in a number of places. they got whacked in florida and virginia. one of the keys was independent s.

it was basically a two-one ratio. >> when it comes to questions like this, i just say whatever glen bolger says. having been involved in every governor's race in more virginia since 1981, and our organization being deeply involved in 2009, be used virginia as a dry run for what we want to do in 2010. it was kind of frightening to me, looking at this data early this morning and seeing how much it look like virginia and new jersey one year ago, to the point that even some of the numbers were identical. in virginia, we saw the self identified evangelical vote go from 27 to 34. nationally we saw it go from 25 to 32. we saw the self identified

conservative vote in virginia go from 33-41. we saw the conservative vote from 2006 to 2010 nationally go from 30 threeto 41. it is amazing the extent to which groups like ours and our candidates used virginia, new jersey, and massachusetts to try some things, some themes, some kinds of campaigns, some messaging, and we thought it worked there, let's just do it everywhere. the second thing that is astonishing is that you could have a political team this cable, one of the best political themes i have ever seen in my career up until this point, have all three of those things happen and just ignore them all.

you would think that if you lost virginia by 18 points, if you lost a senate seat in massachusetts for the first time in 44 years, and you lost in new jersey by the biggest margin since the early 1970's, that you would say, we may want to pay attention to this and adjust accordingly, but they didn't, and the result was yesterday. thank you all very much for coming. feel free to get in touch with me, glenn, or greg taylor afterwards if we can answer any questions. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this weekend, we will show some of the art created by japanese americans during the -- during their time in japanese

american internment camps. we'll talk about the first televised presidential debate on its 50th anniversary. american history tv, >> coming up next, reactions to yesterday's close the midterm elections with news conferences from president obama, republican party leaders, and the democratic senate leadership. today, president obama held a news conference at the white house to talk about yesterday's congressional elections. republicans gained a least 60 seats in the house, securing a majority in the next congress. republicans gained 6/8 and the senate. this news conference is an hour.

>> good afternoon, everybody. last night, i had a chance to speak to the leaders of the house and the senate and reach out to those who had both won and lost in both parties. i told