er and mitch mcconnell that i look forward to working with them and i think nancy pelosi and harry reid for their leadership the last couple of years. i can tell you that some of election nights are more fun than others. some are exhilarating. some are humbling. every collection, regardless of who wins and loses is a reminder that in our democracy, it rests not with those of us in elected office, but with the people we have the privilege to serve. over the last few months, we have the opportunity to talk to people throughout the country. i did some talking and i did a lot of listening.

mr. de's vote confirmed what i heard from folks across america. people are frustrated with the pace of the economic recovery and the opportunities that they hope for their children and their grandchildren. they want jobs to come back faster, and they want paycheck to go further. they want the ability to give their children the same chances and opportunities that they have had in life. they want to know that their tax dollars are being spent wisely and that we are not going to leave our children a legacy of debt. we want to know that the voices were not drown out. they want business to be done

here openly and anonymous -- not anonymously. over the last couple of years, too many americans have not felt the progress yet. as president, i take responsibility for that. what yesterday also told us is that no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here. we must find common ground in order to set -- in order to make progress in some uncommonly difficult challenges. i told them last night that i am very eager to sit down with members of both parties to figure out how we can move forward to gather. i am not suggesting that this will be easy and that we will be able to bridge every difference or solve every disagreement. there is a reason that we have

two parties in this country. we have certain beliefs and principles. what i think the american people are expecting and what we owe them is to focus on those issues that affect jobs, security, and their future. reducing our deficit, promoting a clean energy economy, making sure that the children are the best educated in the world. making sure that we are making investments in technology that will allow us to keep our competitive edge in the global economy. the most important contest we faced is not a contest between democrats and republicans. in this century, the most important competition is between america and economic competitors around the world. to continue the economic leadership, which have to be strong and united. the of the challenges we face

have simple solutions or bumper sticker slogans. nor are the answer is found in any one particular philosophy or ideology. as i have said before, if no person, no party has a monopoly on wisdom. that is why i am eager to hear good ideas, wherever they come from, whoever proposes them, and that is why i believe it is important to have an honest and civil debate about the choices we face. that is why i want to engage both democrats and republicans in serious conversations about where we're going as an nation. with so much at stake, with the american people do not want from us, especially here in washington, is to spend the next two years refining the political battles of the last two. we just had a tough election. we will have another in 2012. i am not so naive as to think that everybody will put politics aside until then, but i do hope to make progress on the very serious problems facing us right now, and that is going to

require all of us, including me, to work harder at building consensus. you know, a little over a month ago, we held a town hall meeting in richmond, virginia, and one of the most telling questions came from a small- business owner iran's a tree care firm. he told me how hard he works and how busy he was, how does not have time to pay attention to all the back-and-forth in washington, and he asked, is there hope for is returning to civility in our discourse to a halt the legislative process? so as i strapped on the boots again tomorrow, i know that you guys got it under control. it is hard to have faith in that right now, he said. i do believe there is hope for civility. i do believe there is hope for a part -- progress. that is the widely by in their resiliency of the nation that

has bounced back for much worse than what we're going through now. a nation that has ever come war and depression, that has been made more perfect in our structure -- struggle in individual rights and individual freedoms. each time, progress has come slowly and even painfully. but progress has always come. because we have worked at it and because we believe in it. and most of all, because we remember that our first allegiance as citizens is not to party or region or faction but to country. because while we may be proud democrats are proud republicans, we're prouder to be americans. that is something that we all need to remember right now and in the coming months. if we do, i have no doubt that we will continue this nation's long journey towards a better future. with that, let me take some questions. i will start off with ap.

>> thank you, mr. president. are you willing to concede at all that what happened last night was not just an expression of frustration about the economy but a fundamental rejection of your agenda? and given the results, who do you think speaks to the true voice of the american people right now, you or john boehner? >> i think that there's no doubt the people's number one concern is the economy. and what they were expressing great frustration about is the fact that we have not made enough progress on the economy. we have stabilized the economy. we have job growth in the private sectors. but people all across america are not feeling that progress. they do not see it. and then understand and i am the president of the united states and that my core responsibilities making sure that we have an economy that is growing, a middle-class that

feels secure, the jobs are being created. so i think i have to take direct responsibility for the fact that we have not made as much progress as we need to make. moving forward, i think the question is going to be, can democrats and republicans sit down together and come up with a set of ideas that address those core concerns? i am confident that we can. i think there's some areas where it will be very difficult for us to agree on. but i think there'll be a bunch of areas where we can agree. i do not think there's anybody in america and the things that we have an energy policy that works the way it needs to. that things that we should not be working on energy independence, and that gives opportunities for democrats and republicans to come together and think about, whether it is natural gas or energy efficiency, or how we can build electric cars in this country, how we move forward on that

agenda. i think everybody in this country things that we have got to make sure that our kids are equipped in terms of their education, their science background, there mathematics background to compete in this new global economy. that is going to be an area where i think there's potential common ground. so on a whole range of issues, there will be areas where we disagree. i think the overwhelming message that i hear from the voters is that we want everybody to act responsibly in washington. we want you to work harder to arrive at consensus. we want you to focus completely on jobs and the economy and growing at so that we are ensuring a better future for our children and our grandchildren. and i think that there is no doubt that as i reflect on the results of the election, it underscores for me that i have got to do a better job, just

like the rebels in washington does. -- just like everybody else in washington does. i think john boehner and in mitch mcconnell and harry reid and that's a policy are going to have to sit down and work together. because i suspect that if you talk to any individual voter yesterday, they would say that there are some things i agree with democrats on, something side agree with republicans on. i do not think people carry around with them a fixed ideology. i think the majority of people are going about their business, going about their lives. they just want to make sure that we're making progress. that'll be my top priority over the next couple years. savannah. >> following up on what you just talked about. you do not seem to be reflecting are second-guessing any of the policy decisions you have made. instead, send a message the voters were sending was about

frustration with the economy or maybe even chalking it up to florida you're on your particular and effectively. if you're not reflecting on your policy agenda, is it possible voters can conclude your stomach getting it? >> well, then i, that was just the first question. we're going to have a few more here. i am doing a whole lot of reflecting the kulbir is a policy or we're going to of to do a better job. no, i think that over the last two years we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation, where we had the risk of slipping into a second great depression. but what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious, a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with

respect to the auto companies, i think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people's lives and then they were accustomed to. now the reason was it was an emergency situation. but i think it is understandable that folks said to themselves, you know, maybe this is the agenda as opposed to response to an emergency. and that is something that i think everybody in the white house understood was a danger. we thought it was necessary. but i am is sympathetic to folks to look at it and said this is looking like a gentle overreach. in addition, there are a bunch of price tax that went with that. so even though these were emergency situations, people rightly said, we already have all this debt, already have these big deficits, this is

potentially going to compound it. and at what point are we going to get back to a situation where we are doing when families all around the country do? which is make sure that if he's been something, you know how to pay for it. as opposed to wrecking of the credit card for the next generation. and i think that the other thing that happened is that, you know, when i won the election in 2008, one of the reasons i think the people were excited about the campaign was the prospect that it would change how business is done in washington. and we were in such a hurry to get things done that we did not change how things got done. and i think that frustrated people. you know, i am a strong believer that the earmarking process in congress is not with the american people really want

to see when it comes to making tough decisions about how taxpayer dollars are spent. and i, in a rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had the earmarks in them, which is contrary to what i talked about. and i think folks look at that and said, gosh, this feels like the same partisan squabbling. it seems like the same ways of doing business as happened before. and so one of the things that i have got to take responsibility for is not having moved enough on those fronts. an i think there's opportunity to move forward on some of those issues. my understanding is eric cantor today said that he wanted to see a moratorium on the earmarks continuing. that is something i think we can work on together. >> is it the notion that voters rejected the policy choice is

the maid? >> well, i think that what i think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. if right now we have 5% unemployment instead of 9.6% unemployment, then people would have more confidence in this policy choices. the fact is that for most folks, proof of whether they work are not is -- has the economy gone back to where needs to be? and it has not. my job is to make sure that i am looking at all ideas that are on the table. when it comes to job creation. if republicans have good ideas for job growth that can drive down the unemployment rate and we have not thought of them, we have not looked at them, but we think have a chance of working, we want to try some.

so on the policy front, i think the most important thing is to say that we're not going to rule out ideas because there democrat or republican. we want to just see what works. and ultimately i will be just as president as to the bottom line, results. mike emanuel. >> thank you, mr. president. health care. as you are well aware, obviously a lot of republicans ran against your health care law. some have called for repealing the law. yes a wondering, sir, if you believe that health care reform that you worked so hard on is in danger at this point and whether it if there is a threat as a result of this election? >> well, i know that there are some republican candidates who won last night and feel very strongly about it. i am this will be an issue comes up in discussions with the republican leadership.

as i said before though, i think we would be misreading the election if we thought that the american people want to see us for the next two years relitigating arguments that we had over the last two years. with respect to the health care law generally, and this may go to some of the questions that have been raised already, you know, when i talked to a woman from new hampshire who does not have to mortgage her house because she got cancer and is seeking treatment but now is able to get health insurance, when i talk to parents who are relieved that their child with a pre-existing condition can now stay on their policy until there 26 years old and give them a time to transition to find a job that will give them health insurance, or the small businesses that are now taking advantage of the tax credits

provided, then i say to myself that this was the right thing to do. if the republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, if they want to suggest modifications that would deliver faster and more effective reform to a health care system that has been a wildly expensive for too many families and businesses and certainly for our federal government, i am happy to consider some of those ideas i know one of the things that has come up is that the 1099 provision in the health care bill appears to be too burdensome for small businesses. it just involves too much paperwork, too much filing. it is probably counterproductive. it was designed to make sure that revenue was raised to help pay for some of the other provisions. but if it ends up just being so much trouble that small

businesses find it difficult to manage, that is something we should look at. so there will be examples right thing we can tweak and make improvements on the progress that we have made. that is true for any significant piece of legislation. but i do not think that if you ask the american people, should we stop trying to close the doughnut hole that will help senior citizens get prescription drugs? should we go back to a situation where people with pre- existing conditions cannot get health insurance? should we allow insurance companies to drop their coverage when you get sick even though you have been paying premiums? i do not think that you have -- that you would have a strong vote for people say those are provisions are want to eliminate. >> about one out of two voters apparently said that they would like to see health care overturned or repealed. are you concerned about that?

>> it also means one of two voters think it was the right thing to do. obviously, this is an issue that has been contentious. but as i said, i'd think what will be useful is for us to go through the issues that republicans have issues on. not sort of talking generally. but let's talk specifics. this particular provision, when it comes to pre-existing conditions, is it something that you're for or against? helping seniors get the prescription drugs, does that make sense or not? and if we take that approach, which is it different from campaigning. this is now governing. then i think we can continue to make some progress and find some common ground. chip. >> thank you, mr. president. republicans say what this election was about was spending.

they say it will be when hell freezes over that they will accept anything remotely like a stimulus bill or any kind of proposals you have to stimulate job growth through spending. deale accept the fact that any kind of spending to create jobs is dead? and so, what else can government do to create jobs? that is the number-one issue. >> i think it is an important question for democrats and republicans. i think the american people are absolutely concerned about spending and deficits. and i will have of the said commission that is putting forward its ideas. it is a bipartisan group that includes republican and democratic members of congress. hopefully they were able to arrive at consensus on some areas where we can eliminate programs that do not work, cut back on government spending that is inefficient, streamline government, but is not cutting

into the core investments that are going to make sure that we are a competitive economy that is growing and providing opportunity for years to come. so the question i think that my republican friends and me and democratic leaders are going to have to answer is, what are our priorities? what do we care about? and that is going to be a tough debate. because there are some tough choices here. we already had a big deficit that i inherited, and that has been made worse because of the recession. as we bring it down, i want to make sure that we're not cutting into education, that is going to help define whether or not we can compete around the world. i do not think we should be cutting back on research and development. because if we can develop new technologies in areas like clean energy, that could make

all the difference in terms of job creation here at home. i think the proposal that i put forward with respect to infrastructure is one that historically we have had bipartisan agreement about. and we should be about to agree now that it makes no sense for china to have better rail systems than us and singapore have been better airports than us. we just learned that china now has the fastest supercomputer on earth. that used to be us. they're making investments because they know those investments will pay off over the long term. so in these budget discussions, the key is to be able to distinguish between stuff that is not adding to our growth, is not an investment in our future, and those things that are absolutely necessary for us to be able to increase job growth in the future as well. now the single most important

thing i think we need to do economically, and this is something that has to be done during the lame-duck session, is making sure that taxes do not go on middle-class families next year. so we have got some work to do on that front, to make sure that families not only are seeing a higher tax burden, which will automatically happen if congress does not act, but also, making sure that business provisions that we have historically extended each year that, for example, provide tax breaks for companies investing in the united states for research and development, that those are extended. in makes sense for us to extend unemployment insurance. because they're still a lot of folks other hurting. there things we can do right now that will help sustain the recovery and advance it, even as we are also sitting down and figuring out, ok, over the next several years, would cut the

budget cuts can we make that are intelligent, smart, and that will not be undermining our recovery but will be encouraging job growth? >> the things you just called investments, they call wasteful spending. and they are dead on arrival. it sounds like without their support, you cannot have any of it. >> without any republican support, it will be hard to get things done. i am not going to anticipate that they are not going to support anything. part of the message sent to republicans is that we want to see stronger got growth in this country. but there are good ideas in getting people to work, that don't add to the deficit, then my hope and expectation is that it will be something that we are willing to have a superior --

serious conversation about. if they are building a plant, investing in new equipment next year, they can take a complete right off, get a huge tax break next year, and that will then encourage a lot of businesses to get on the sidelines. that is not historically considered a liberal idea. that is an idea that business groups and republicans i think have supported for a very long time. the question is going to be, do we come to the table with open minds and say to ourselves, what do we think will actually make a difference for the american people? that is how we will be judged for the next couple of years. >> thank you, mr. president. after your election when you met with republicans, you said in discussing what policies might go forward, the election had consequences and you pointed out you had one.

i wonder what the consequences are -- are there areas you would be willing to compromise on that you might not have been willing to compromise on in the past. >> well, i think i have been willing to compromise and i will be willing to compromise going forward on a range of issues. let me give you an example. the issue of energy that i mentioned. there were a lot of republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the house last year. and so it is doubtful that it can get the votes to pass through the house this year. poindexter, or the year after. -- or next year, or the year after. that does not mean we should not have a better energy policy and let's have those areas where we can agree. we have terrific natural gas

resources in this country. we need to develop develop electric cars, are there things we can do to encourage them? there has been a partisan interest on those issues. there has been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases. is that an area where we can move forward? we were able to increase for the first time in 30 years fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. we do not need legislation. we needed the cooperation of legislators and investors and other shareholders. that will move us forward by any serious way.

i think when it comes to something like energy, we will have to say, there are areas there -- where there is too much disagreement. let's not wait awhile let's make some progress on the things we do agree on. we can continue to have a strong and healthy debate about those areas where we do not. >> [inaudible] ." >> i am sure there are remarks about reforming washington that i will be interested in. people want to see more openness. in the midst of the economic crisis, one of the things i take responsibility for is not having pushed harder on some of those issues and i think if you take republicans and democrats at their word, this is an area they want to deliver on.

i want to be supportive of that effort. >> thank you. i have a policy question and personal one. you talked about how the immediate goal is the bush tax cuts and making sure they do not expire. republicans disagree. they want all the bush tax cuts extended. are you willing to compromise? are you willing to negotiate to allow them to expire for everyone over $1 million? where are you going to budge? the second one is, president bush when he went through a similar thing came out and said this was a "thumpin'". when you call you friends, and you see 19 state legislatures go to the other side to my governorships in 20 states, the

democratic party's setback, what does it feel like? >> it feels bad. the toughest thing over the last couple of days is seeing terrific public servants not have the opportunity to serve any more, at least in the short term. you mentioned they are some terrific members of congress who took tough votes because they thought it was the right thing. even though they knew this could cause them political problems. even though a lot of them came from tough swing districts or majority republican districts. the amount of courage that they showed and conviction they showed is something that i admire so much and i cannot overstate it.

there is not only sadness about seeing them go, but there is also a lot of questioning on my part in terms of what could i have done something differently or more so those folks would still be here? it is hard. i take responsibility for it in a lot of ways. i will tell you they have been incredibly gracious when i have conversations with them and what they have told me is, we do not have regrets because i feel like we were doing the right thing and they may be saying that to make me feel better which shows their character and their class. they are terrific public servants. my goal is to make sure that we

do not have a huge spike in taxes for middle-class families. , -- not only would that be a burden on families who are going through tough times, it is bad for the economy. it is very important that we are not taking a bunch of money out of the system from people who are most likely to spend that money on goods, services, groceries, buying a new winter coat. that is why unemployment insurance is important. it is the right thing to do. my goal is to sit down with speaker elect boehner and see

where we can can move forward in a way that does no harm. that extends those tax cuts that are -- that extends the provisions that encourages businesses to invest. and how that negotiation works itself out. it is too early to say. this is one of my top priority is and my hope is that given we all have an interest in growing the economy and encouraging job growth, we're not going to play brinksmanship but we will act responsibly. >> thank you, mr. president.

you said earlier it was clear that congress is rejecting the idea of cap and trade and looking ahead, do you feel the same way about epa regulating carbon emissions? is that off the table? to follow up on what you said, you said you did not do enough to change the way things were handled in the city. in order to get your health care bill passed, do you wish you had not made those deals even if it meant the collapse of the program? >> i think that to making sure that families had security and we were on a trajectory to lower health-care costs was absolutely critical for this country. you're right that when you are navigating through the house and senate in this environment, it is an ugly mess when it comes

to process. that is how people view the outcome. that is something that i regret. we could not have made the process more health care than it ended up being. the outcome was a good one. with respect to the epa. the smartest thing for us to do is to see if we can get democrats and republicans are room where we are serious about energy independence and keeping the air clean and the water clean and dealing with the issue of greenhouse gases and seeing if there are ways we can make progress in the short term and invest in technology that

starts giving us the tools to reduce greenhouse gases and solve this problem. the epa is under a court order that says greenhouse gases are pollutant. that fall under their jurisdiction. one of the things that is important for me is to have us ignore the science and define ways that we can solve these problems, that do not hurt the economy, that encourage the development of clean energy. that may give us opportunities to create new industries and create jobs and that put us in a competitive posture around the world. it is too early to say whether or not we can make some progress on that front. i think we can.

capt. trade was one way of skinning the cat. it was a means, not an end. we will be looking for other means to address this problem. epa wants help from the legislature. i do not think that the desire is to somehow be protective of their powers here. what they want to do is make sure the issue is being dealt with. >> thank you, mr. president. on personal, you had fun on the campaign trail by saying the republicans were drinking a slippery and sitting on the side while you were trying to pull the car out of the ditch. now that there are 60 house districts that seem to have rejected that message, is that possible that there are a majority of americans who think your policies were taking us in reverse? what specific changes will you make to your approach to fix

that and better connect with the american people? don't ask don't tell us something you promised to end. we have 60 votes and 59 votes in the senate, it is a tough issue. do have to tell your liberal base that maybe 52 or 53 votes in the senate, you're not going to get it done in the next two years? >> omi take the second issue first. i have been a strong believer in the notion that if someone is willing to serve in our military in uniform, putting their lives on the line for security, that they should not be prevented from doing so because of their sexual orientation. since there has been a lot of discussion about polls over the last 48 hours, it is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of americans feel the same way. it is the right thing to do. as commander-in-chief, i have

said that making this change needs to be done in an orderly fashion and i've worked with the pentagon and worked with secretary gates and admiral mullen to make sure we are looking at this in a systematic way that maintains order and discipline. we need to change those policies. there is a rare -- a review that comes out. we will have surveyed attitudes and opinions within the armed forces. i will expect that the secretary of defense gates and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mullen will have something to say about the review. i will look at it carefully. that will give us time to act and potentially during the lame-duck session to change this policy. we have a bunch of court cases out there as well. something that would be disruptive to good order and discipline and unit cohesion is

if we have got this issue bouncing around in the courts as it already has during the last several weeks, where the pentagon and the chain of command does not know any given time what rules they're working on. we need to provide certainty and it is time for us to move this policy forward, and this should not be a partisan issue. this is an issue as i said where you have a sizable portion of the american people squarely behind the notion that folks were willing to -- who were willing to serve should be treated fairly and equally. in terms of how we move forward, i think that the american people understand that we are still digging our way out of a pretty big mess. i do not think anyone denies they think we're in a ditch. i do not think we have gone out

yet. to move the analogy for that i used in the campaign, what they want is democrats and republicans are pushing some more to get this off the ground and we have not done that. if you think i was engaging in too much campaign rhetoric thinking -- saying republicans were sitting on the side of the road watching as get that part of the ditch, at the least, we were pushing in opposite directions. >> you reject that idea altogether, your policies could be going against -- >> yes. here's the bottom line. when i came into office, this economy was in a freefall. the economy has stabilized. the economy is growing.

i think it would be hard to argue we're going backwards. we can argue is we're stuck in neutral. we are not moving the way we need to to make sure that folks have the jobs and opportunity, they're seeing economic growth in their communities the way they need to. that will require democrats and republicans to come together and look for the best ideas to move things forward. it will not be easy. not just because democrats and republicans may have different priorities as we were discussing when it came to how we structure tax cuts, but because these issues are hard. the republicans throughout the campaign said they are concerned about deficits. one of the most important things we can do is economic growth.

what other proposals do they have to grow the economy? if they're rejecting some of the proposals i made, i want to hear from them. what affirmative policies can make a difference in terms of encouraging job growth and promoting the economy? because i do not think tax cuts alone are going to be a recipe for the kind of expansion we need. we cut taxes significantly and we did not see the kind of expansion that will be necessary in terms of driving the unemployment rate down significantly. i think what we will need to do is for us to mix and match ideas and figure out those ideas were we can agree and move forward and disagree without being disagreeable on those areas that we cannot agree on.

if we accomplish that, there will be time for politics later. we can solidify this recovery. >> thank you. >> the slurpee summit. [laughter] >> do you think you need to hit the reset button? how do you plan to set that? would you include anything beyond your cleveland speech, those proposals to get them off the sidelines and get them off and start hiring again? >> i think this is an important question we have been asking ourselves for several months. you are right, as i reflect on

what has happened, one of the things i think that has not been managed by me as well as it needed to be was finding the right balance in making sure that businesses had rules of the road and are treating customers fairly, whether it is credit cards or insurance for their mortgages. also making absolutely clear that the only way america succeeds is if businesses are succeeding. the reason we have got we have an unparalleled standard of living is because we have a free market that is dynamic and entrepreneurial. and that free market has to be

nurtured and cultivated. there is no doubt that when you had the financial crisis on wall street, the battle around health-care, around financial reform and you had bp, you had a successive set of issues in which business took the message that it seems like we may be always painted as the bad guy. i have to take responsibility in terms of making sure that i made clear to the business community and the country the most important thing we can do is to boost and encourage our business sector and make sure they are hiring. we have specific plans in terms of how we can structure that outrage. keep in mind we have been talking to ceo's constantly and as a planned for my trip later

this week to asia, the focus is how are we going to open up markets so businesses can prosper and we can sell more goods and create more jobs here in the u.s. and a whole bunch of corporate executives that will be joining us. so i can help them open up those markets and allow them to sell their products. there has been a lot of strong interaction behind the scenes. setting the right tone publicly will be important in and of making a difference at the margins in terms of how businesses make investment decisions. >> [inaudible] >> i discussed some with chip we have -- it was doubtful they would get a hearing.

we are [unintelligible] -- figuring out what would help you make more investments create more jobs here in the u.s. and listening hard to them in the context where democrats and republicans are together. we are receiving the same message at the same time and acting on that agenda could make a difference. >> thank you, mr. president. how do you respond to those who say the election outcome was voters saying they see u.s. out of touch with their personal economic pain and are you willing to make changes in your leadership style? >> you know, there is an

inherent danger in being in the white house and being in the bubble. folks did not have any complaints about my leadership style when i was running around iowa. for a year and got a pretty good look at me up close and personal. they were able to lift the hood and kick the tires and i think they understood my story was theirs. i might have a funny name, i might have lived in different places. the values of hard work and responsibility and honesty and looking out for one another that have been instilled in them by their parents, those were the same values i took from my mom and grandparents. and so, the track record has

been that when i am out of this place, that is not an issue. when you're in this place, it is hard not to seem removed and one of the challenges that we have to think about is how do i meet my responsibilities here in the white house which require a lot of hours and a lot of work but still have that opportunity to engage with the american people on a day-to-day basis. and give them confidence i am listening to them. night, some of them break my heart. some of them provide me encouragement and inspiration. no one is filming me read those letters.

it is hard for people to get a sense of, how is he taking in all this information? there are more things that we can do to make sure that i am getting out of here. i think it is important to point out as well that a couple of great communicators, ronald reagan and bill clinton were standing at this podium two years into their presidency getting very similar questions. because the economy was not working the way it needed to be and there were a range of factors that made people concerned that maybe the party in power was not listening to them. this is something i think every president needs to go through. because the responsibilities of

this office are so enormous and so many people are depending on what we do and in the rush of activity, sometimes with this tracks -- we lose track of the ways we connected with folks that got us here in the first place. that is something that -- i'm not recommending for every future president that they took a shellacking like it did last night. [laughter] i am sure there are easier ways to learn these lessons. i do think that this is a growth process. and an evolution. and the relationship i have had with the american people is one that builds slowly, peaked at

this incredible high and during the course of the last few years, as we have together gone through some very difficult times, has gone rockier and tougher. i am sure it has more of sundowns during the course of me being in this office. -- more ups and downs during the course of my being in this office. getting out of here is good for me, too. when i travel around the country, even in the toughest of these debates, during the summer when there were protesters about when i am meeting families who have lost loved ones in afghanistan or iraq, i always come away from those interactions feeling so much more optimistic about this country. we have such good and decent

people who on a day-to-day basis are finding all kinds of ways to live together and educate kids and grow their communities and improve their communities and create businesses and work together to create great new products and services. the american people always make me optimistic and that is why during the course of the last two years, as tough it is has been -- as it has been, sometimes scary moments we have gone through, i have never doubted that we will emerge stronger than we were before and i think that remains true and i'm going to be looking forward to playing my part in helping that journey along. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we will hear from house republican leader john boehner, mitch mcconnell, and more. this is 15 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. as you heard me say last night, we are humbled by the trust that the american people have placed in us. we have recognized that this is a time for us to go to work on the people's priorities.

creating jobs, cutting spending, and reforming the way that congress does its business. it is not just the way that -- it is not just what people are demanding, it is what they are expecting. are we going to listen to the american people? republicans have made a pledge to america, and our pledges to listen to the american people. that is exactly what we are going to do. last night, the president was kind enough to call me. we discussed working together on the american people's priorities. cutting spending and creating jobs. we hope that he will be continuing to work with us on those priorities. the new majority in congress will be the voice of the american people. i think we have clearly expressed that last night. we will continue to renew our

efforts for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable washington, d.c. i want to say thank you to my colleagues. senator mcconnell and i have worked very closely together over the last five years or so. barbara and i have been years for the past 20 years. -- barber and i have been >> let me say what a pleasure it has been to work with john in our leadership roles. i have also known him for 20 years, a great friend. and this is a happy day for the three of us. let me make a few observations as well. we are indeed humbled and ready to listen to the american people. and to lead on the issues that

they clearly indicated that they care about. to turn the ship around. we will work with the administration when they agree with the people and confront them when they do not. choosing what i think our friends on the other side learned -- choosing the president of your constituents is not a good strategy. this election yesterday was a referendum on the administration and the democratic majority here in the congress. ignoring the voters and their wishes as you could see during the entire two year period produces predictable results. in the health care bill, it was a metaphor for the government access that we witnessed over the last two years. the american people watch the government taking over the student loan business and then they said now they're taking my

health care as well. i think it became that tipping. -- it became the ticking point. listening to my friends and the other side of a house, they may have missed the message somewhat. it the impression that their view is that we have not cooperated enough. i think the american people were saying that they appreciated us saying no to the things that the american people indicated they were not in favor of. so i think the group that should hopefully get the message out of yesterday's elections is on the other side of the aisle. we hope that they will go in a different direction and work with us on things like spending and debt and trade agreements and nuclear power and clean coal technology, other things the president said that he was for and most of my members are for. the question is, how do we need

in the middle? it seems the best credit you for the other side would be to listen to the voters who made it clear statement about what they would like to see done. obviously want to make progress for the country over the next two years. with that, let me turn to gov. arbour. >> on behalf of the republican governors, while the governor's races may be thought of as being separate or very different from what is going on in washington, in this case, this race was a referendum on obama policies and the policy of the obama administration, the policy-read agenda debt was repudiated by the voters. a lot of governors will agree

with this -- going forward, the governors believe that we can work with the congress to try to set things in a better direction. the voters yesterday voted against excess of spending. piling up deficits, trillions of dollars of new debt being loaded on our children and grandchildren. the huge tax increase right around the corner in january. and a government-run health care system. all of us have to have a balanced budget. we have to cut spending. i can remember when my career in washington was going on, a spending cut -- budgets were supposed to go up 8%, and if they only one of 5%, that was up 3% cut. i hope they will be something that will be an example for the

new congress. we look forward to working with them and appreciate their support in helping us get here. >> the speaker attempted to reach me this morning and left a very nice voice mail. i think we will have a very smooth transition with her office. what unites us as republicans will be the agenda of the american people. if we are listening to the american people, i do not see any problem incorporating members of the tea party along with our party in the quest that is the same -- they want us to cut spending and focus on creating jobs for americans. >> would you be open to a less

than permanent continuation? >> we continue to believe that extending all the current tax rates for all americans is the right policy for our economy at this time. >> what made you cry last night? can you bring stability back to the house? talk aboutficult to my background and my family. i thought i was going to be in good shape. >> the exit polls said that 53% of americans at an unfavorable view of the republican party, almost the same as the democratic party. what does that tell you about how you have to govern? >> we need to listen to the american people. it was a loud message last night not only to the house in the senate, but if you look at the

number of republican governors and the republican legislative bodies, it is clear the american people want a smaller, less costly, more accountable government here in washington, d.c. the american people see us doing things that they are telling us to do, i think we will do just fine. >> you have all been reading about 1994. what are the lessons you take away from that? will you do in the senate? >> it is important to listen to the american people. they're more americans engaged in our government today than i have ever seen in my lifetime. i think the real key to having real success with the american people is to keep the american people engaged in this process

be on last night. the government -- beyond last night. the american people will stay engaged in the process. i'm very hopeful that they will. >> i think clearly the election yesterday did not transferral for control of the government to the opposition. it was a first gap in the direction of changing what we have been doing in washington. there are at two opportunities for that change to occur. our friends on the other side can change now and work with us to address the issues that are important to the american people, that we all understood. for further change can happen in 2012. but in the meantime, we were sent here to work on the people's business. over in the senate, where a majority is not enough in any event and it takes 60 votes to do most things, it is clear that

we will have to have some kind of bipartisan agreement. hopefully they will be on the issues of spending and debt, which is what the american people are asking us to address. i anticipate we will see enough democrats coming in our direction on spending and debt to actually make progress for the american people. >> there's a different point of view in your conference about what to do and deafens -- about debt and spending. [inaudible] >> that is what the transition is for. it will figure out how we do those big things that need to be done on the behalf of the american people. >> on your conversation with the president, did you discuss any areas of bipartisan agreement or

to market we have a pleasant conversation. we agreed that we needed to listen to the american people and work together on behalf of the american people. and i look forward to having the opportunity to talk with him about those areas where we can move together. >> the next congress, one of its task looks like it will be increasing the debt limit. how will you work with the tea party to achieve that? >> we will be working that out in the last couple of months. i believe that operating under the 2008 levels of spending, before the bailouts, before the stimulus, is a responsible way forward. >> are you going to formalize this link between the american people online and your

administration? >> we are. to continue to talk to the american people everyday and listen to the american people every day. programs like america speaking out and some other ideas we will offer in the coming days will provide the american people of warm and of vehicle to talk to us so that we can talk to them every day. >> house republicans have pledged to repeal and replace the health care bill. do you plan to use that appropriation process to the fund the reform law? >> the health care bill enacted by the current congress will kill jobs in america, ruin the best health-care system in the world, and bankrupt our country. that means that we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with common sense reforms that

will bring down the cost of health care. >> on financial reform, do you have plans to try to change that? >> one of the things that congress is not doing a good job of the last 15 years is real oversight. i am not talking about -- rock- solid and oversight of the executive branch which is a constitutional responsibility of the congress. i think that when it comes to financial-services, and the 358 regulatory filings required and to that bill, it is going to require a significant amount of oversight. not only will the congress understand that the american people understand what this bill will do to our financial services industry. thank you very much.

>> today's senate democratic leader spoke to reporters about the election through a conference call. harry reid, chuck schumer, and dick durbin participated. this is 20 minutes. >> we have already done a couple of presidents already. i hope this is helpful to you. i have had conversations today with the president to come up

with senator mcconnell, and i am looking -- leader banner, i have not had a chance to talk with him yet but i am looking forward to doing so. this is nothing compared to the plight families are looking for their homes, decent education, and their jobs. this is what the senate democrats take away from the election. the american people expect us to work together. we're committing to put the concerns of middle class families first and we will look for real solutions in real progress. and we're not finished fighting the big banks which have big bucks, not using those to help stimulate the economy. we want to make sure that would protect social security. we want to make sure that we do things that would stop bp and other companies like that from spoiling our earth. we want most of all, not in

order of priority, but the number one issue during my campaign was corporations that ship jobs overseas. we're going to look at that very closely. there is nothing that has impacted the middle class more than jobs being shipped overseas. we will fight to stop this -- we will put this back in the hands of the middle class. simply saying no, we have to find ways around everything, it will not bring jobs back were strengthen the economy and help families trying to make ends meet. no is not the answer. not -- not our yes, but a combined yes. we need to get out of the economic ditch that we're in.

>> this is dick durbin from chicago. i could not agree with senator read more. the lesson last night from the american people is that we need to work together, playing to a draw political scores is not acceptable to the american people. if this nation is going to win, to create jobs, create the strength on the strength in the middle class and the country so that they can help us expand employment in the future, we need to work together. it will be the crucible for some of the most important issues of our days. throughout the history and after meaningful debate the senate has risen to the challenge of governing. we must continue this important american tradition. some of the most controversial measures require 60 votes. we know that we will need help from others -- the other side of the aisle and they will need

hours to reach these goals that we share. the american people want us to roll up our sleeves and find common ground. even if it means giving and as we must, this is what the american congress has been about and it will be the challenge for the next few years. >> this is chuck schumer. i want to say two words about my colleagues on the phone who are a great team. a senator who did an amazing job in nevada, and has the admiration, things, of our entire caucus. and senate hernandez -- senator endez as well. i want to reiterate what dick and harry had said. the middle class is hurting.

that is the lesson of this election. the average it'll -- middle income, the most salient fact or statistic of the last decade is that even from 2001-2007 and continuing into the recession, median income decline for the first time in america in a decade. that means people do not have good paying jobs or when they do, stretching that middle-class paycheck is very hard. our job is to focus on the middle-class like a laser, to create those paying jobs, to help them stretch that paycheck, and there are lots of places where we can talk common ground with our republican colleagues to do just that. they will believe a little more on the tax cutting side, we will believe a little more on helping with public works and education and things like that. but we can come to common ground

and we want to come to common ground for the future of this country. if the pie stops growing for a long period of time, we do not have the america that we know. and nobody wants that. the american people are optimistic. they want to believe that their lives will be better 10 years from now than they are today, and that their children's lives will be better than theirs. i think this is the first time since world war ii that people have doubts. it is our solemn obligation to provide a bright future for them. we believe that we can do that in a whole variety of ways. we believe that we do not have -- we do not have the monopoly on knowledge. there may be ways that our republican colleagues think that that can happen as well and we welcome working together with them on that. >> let me congratulate the leader of his successful

election. in the midst of the enormous challenges with money from all of the country coming against him in that race. and senator schumer on his re- election, a great victory in new york. i've always thought that i had two jobs as the chairman, one was to keep the democratic majority and the other was to make sure the majority got reelected. this afternoon we know we've accomplished both of those with several extra seats despair. i think it is important to know the challenge that we had beyond the midterm election history, we actually beat history last night. since 1930's, every time the house of representatives has switched control, the senate has switched control. and we beat that history last night by keeping the democratic majority in the senate.

i certainly appreciate that. i appreciate the fact that democrats had a solid night, despite the difficult circumstances because our candidates across the board were really focused on the issues that people are hurting, the people -- that people talk around the kitchen table. our incumbents and no. 3 victorious challengers were successful because they struck a responsive chord with their state's electorate. they state focus on jobs and spending, and they still prevailed. i think we have a good night considering the fatality -- the totality of the history against us and the economic challenges that we inherited they were to -- we worked to turn around. as a result of the election, it only strengthens our resolve to make sure that we deal with the

economic challenges that families are facing. we heard a loud and clear, and we also know that this election, while a tough fight, is at the end of the day not about political parties -- they are about the people who we represent. that is what we're going to get back to work on starting on the 15th. we look for to that opportunity. >> we will take some questions now. >> j t from "hill." >> i'm wondering if you could look ahead at the lame duck session and tell us what is likely to come up, and particularly what is the plan for the defense authorization, which at the don't ask don't tell repeal in it. >> i have a nice conversation with chairman 11 today. he is anxious to move forward with that.

the problem we have with the defense authorization bill is that it takes awhile to get it done. if we get agreement from the republicans that we can move the bill without a lot extraneous amendments, i think it is something that we could work out. i thought that would be my goal. as to the other things, this conversation is not on the new congress. we're here to talk about the election last night. therefore we have to start governing. we will have a number of meetings with my caucus before we get into specifics -- specificity as to what we do when we get that. we are close on a number of issues and there are a number things that we have to work our way stores. i had a very constructive conversation with leader mcconnell over the past hour, and i think that we're going to

work well together. we want to make sure there is a concerted effort by both caucuses to recognize what the induction meant. it means -- the election meant. it means that we will have to work together. anything more than that, i think it will be a big mistake. it will not be our way or the highway, their way in the highway, it has to be our way. >> next is simile pierce -- emily peers. are you there? will go to the next one "the wall street journal." >> are you there?

we seem to be having a problem, you guys. >> we will try one more time. >> i think you have to press zero if you want to ask a question. >> we lost her. >> anybody there on the line that was the last question? -- that wants to ask a question? >> are we going to do questions? >> senator, we are trying to get these questions through. there seems to be o'clock.

>> i think what we will have to do is -- [inaudible] it appears that we have some technical difficulties. >> can you hear me now? i am with the "wall street journal." >> we have been waiting for you. >> there were some technical difficulties. they seem to have been resolved. you had 59 votes and it was incredibly difficult to get anything done as you alluded to. the upcoming election, in the upcoming congress you will be down to 53 or 52. you talk about points of compromising, but from senator mcconnell today, it sounds like he did not want to compromise that way. it will lead incoming senators like rand paul speaking openly of sticking to their principles and not compromising.

how do you manage a senate like this that was already hard last time around, with these additional difficulties coming up? >> first of all, this whole congress -- is the easiest team i have ever played on. we have worked together, and our concern was that we have not had input from the republicans. every piece of legislation that we dealt with could have been improved with input from the republicans but they said no to everything. i cannot imagine that is going to be there continuance. they cannot do that. the american people have already -- they have already been identified as the party of no. the direction of this conversation we had been on today has been we are willing to work with you. you should be willing to work with us. this is not a one-way street as i indicated earlier.

>> emily pierce? >> hi, i feel like i have heard you say this before. we want to work with republicans, the american people are asking for bipartisanship, and what not. do you really think that you will be able to govern with what looks to be a potentially unruly house majority, and emboldened the senate minority, and can you ensure changing filibuster rules are something like that so you can get bills on to the floor? >> emily, first of all, we are not inventing the wheel or read -- or even reinventing it. when government was set up, in the 18th century, they knew that there would be problems. that is why they made this unique system where we have house of representatives that

has a set of rules and the senate that has a set of rules. this has all happened before. the senate one party, the house a different party, and we have gotten by. we have done some good things. the message -- i repeat today -- is that the ball is in your court. you talk about a small majority. 53 over my time in the senate, that is a pretty good majority. we wish that others had one, but we are comfortable where we are. and we made the message very clear that we want to work with republicans. if they are willing to work with us, -- if they are not willing to work with us, there's nothing we can do about that. but the american people will see that.

>> i wanted to ask senator shimmer and senate dick durbin, there is speculation about all possible leadership fight. do you support senator reid for majority leader again? >> absolutely. >> who said that? >> durban. >> the next is from "dow jones." >> you talk about a compromise, senator reid, on the renewal of the bush era tax cuts -- are you open to compromise, extending all including the wealthy for a short period of time? how you see that debate going forward? >> my conversation with the caucus this morning, the one thing we're focused on like a laser is that we're board to cut

taxes for the middle class. -- we're going to cut taxes for the middle class. i hope the republicans would not like that. we're going to work with them. we're not ostriches with our hands and the sand. we're polling -- we're willing to pull out and look around if they have better ideas. my counterpart, extending everything in deadly -- and definitely, that as a road to the debt that we have and we will not let that happen. we're willing to keep our ears open, but our main goal is to do everything we can to make sure that the middle class gets their tax cuts that they deserve. we have one last question. >> "national journal." >> this is for senator reid. in terms of helping the middle

class in the next congress, have you talk to boehner about any bills that you can move, or did you talk generally about tapping the budget? >> i have talked to mitch mcconnell. i have not talked to john boehner. i hope to within the next hour, but there is a time difference in ohio and washington. i have done morning shows at 4:00 a.m. this morning so i am still trying to talk to john. we have had a longstanding good relationship. i have found him to be a consensus died. the statements he made last night, i thought, and again this morning that he appeared to be the john boehner that i know, someone willing to work with us. i hope that to be the case. thanks, everybody. >> now, house speaker nancy

pelosi. tonight she talks about the election results with diane sawyer of abc news. >> what are you going to do next? to the first time talking to my members who carried the banner. that is what i am doing today. then i will start thinking about what i do next. but it is not about me. >> the president said that he was sad. and for you? >> envisat in terms of my colleagues it -- who will not be coming back. i am a professional. i felt that for the american people because i believe that there is a distinction. >> we all have to talk to ourselves in that moment when it feels bruised.

>> i will let you know how that feels. i have not had a moment for myself and i want to continue my fight for the middle class. in our caucus we always do things by consensus and when we have the consensus, we will have some announcement to make. do you feel you up the support of the minority leader? >> i do not speak for my caucus at this time. >> the best thing about john boehner. >> i hope that he will be the speaker in no way that he leads. i hope that he is not held back. we always say around here, congress will only go as low as the slowest ship. america cannot have that convoy theater. >> announcements from

yesterday's elections from the national journal. the news conferences from president obama, republican party leaders, and the democratic seater to democratic senate leadership. you're watching political coverage on c-span. we are covering several post- election events tomorrow on c- span. senator mitch mcconnell will be discussing the republican agenda for the next congress. if we will of live coverage from the heritage foundation beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern. and at noon eastern time, analysis of the election results from the american enterprise institute. you can watch it live on c-span and c-span.org. >> one of the great features of the c-span video library is the ability to clip and share programs with your friends. during this campaign season, that includes more than 100 debates we have erred on c-span. if you're new to it all, watch dictatorial. it is right there on our web site. search, fine, and share with the c-span video library.

should this year's studentcam competition is in full spring -- full swing. make up 5-8 minute video on this year's theme. your documentary should include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. up load your video before the deadline of january 20 for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. if there is $50,000 in total prices. the competition is open to middle and high school student's grade 6-12. for all the rules and how up load, go online to studentcam.org. >> today the publication of " national journal" hosted this recap of the election results. participants include richard trumka and dick armey. this is one hour and 40 minutes.

>> what happened last night? >> thank you for putting this on. this will be a substantive thing. what a difference a day makes. we had a mess tsunami. -- on that got some numbing. -- mega tsunami. it is more than the house or the salmon -- the senate. you have to look at the governorships and the legislatures of the country. we had 19 bodies, and governors, and the redistricting process coming up which will be smaller there because we have part of the decision making progress on that. those of the facts. what happened?

last but the people spoke. it was of rejection, i believe, of the obama administration. i stood before you with the national press club and talked about what had happened then. as a the responsibility for the defeat and congratulated president-elect obama and said that we are a center-right country. if he lurched to a less rigid lurched to the left, the republicans would be back. i think he did and i think his agenda was overreaching and that's what i think happened was i. >> first of all, i think the corporate agenda and groups like american crossroads had a good day. the question is why, and i disagree with what my friend michael just said in a lot of ways. yesterday the issue that people said drove them to vote was jobs in the economy. it was not because they bought on to the pledge of america.

we do not halt the data analyzed it. we will be on a call at noon time. please feel free to join that call. we went through all the issues and 63% of the people in those congressional races and senate races opposed tax breaks for people over $250,000. 62% of them opposed privatizing social security. we went through those. if you look to the republican voters, 65% knew little or nothing about the pledge to america. this is the first consecutive cycle for the people in power have been kicked out because of frustration. i think the reading from last night is the american people

know that the economy does not work. they're suffering, they're angry because of that, and now that you are part of the governing structure, you will have to come up with a way to create jobs and get the economy back on the road. because i think they are frustrated -- not because too much was done, but because too little was done. as a result of that, i would have to say that the republican strategy of stopping everything probably had an effect. now that you are in the governing structure, you will not be aware that just say no. you have to come up with your ideas and create jobs. hopefully we can do that together. >> your potentially arguing that voters were not against -- not for the republican party but against democrats. >> it was throwing people out at different levels. they believe that their agenda was embraced, it is going to be

short-lived. it was an anger about not getting the job done. now they are part of getting the job done and they have to come up with something that shows how we create jobs. if it probably creates jobs, we will join with you wanted. >> i agree with you that it is about the economy, but the obama administration did not pay enough attention to the economy. i think we will present tax policies that goes along with the monetary policy to take more action on trying to put more money into the system. we have to balance the budget. we have to get government spending under control and that is what people were talking about. they understand that that is part of what makes the psychology of jobs in this country. when you suppress small business by keeping them in the dark about what the policy is going to be -- we do not know what the tax rate is going to be -- that

hurts the creation of jobs at the local level. >> michael, with you also help us stop the outsourcing of jobs? when you help us stop rewarding companies that take jobs offshore and actually start rewarding companies to create jobs here at home? >> desktop -- let's keep with analyzing the job last night. [laughter] would you agree that the results last night were not of validation of republicans but rejection of the democrat? in the republicans say that the people are giving us a chance. we messed up. i know is that in 2008 and 2006. we had an opportunity and did not do enough. i think you saw the republican party listening this time. i think that was part of the pledge of america. they understand that people were out of work. the new misery index has to do with the foreclosure rate, the unemployment rate. that is the change and we get

it. >> both of you have been involved in organizations that spent millions of dollars in this election. mr. trumka, what are the few bright spots for democrats last night? there was a 7 point swing nationally for republicans, but among union households it was only for point chris -- 4 points. >> we do not have all the data analyzed. i cannot give you a state by state or race by race analysis. but i think our members voted for progressive candidates by a 30% margin. in places like nevada, it was even higher. 69%-29% that we voted for harry

reid. the same for joe manchin. we saw made phone calls and send out millions of pieces of mail and knocked on doors. you will see, in demographic after demographic, you voted for progress of an and -- if you are a union member, you voted for progressive candidates, and if you are not, you did not. we think that we did our job and do what ours -- we were supposed to do in our members voted overwhelmingly for candidates that will support working people. >> american crossroads is one of the super pac's they are calling them. talk about the effect you think these outside groups have had to favor republicans? >> we're using the labor union model -- that is what we're going by, and the outside organization set up in 2004 and

2006. i congratulate richard because he did turn out his people. we're working on that. we were able to be involved in eight senate races. we exceeded our budget. we did millions of dollars in television ads and mail out and phone calls. we're not as good as you in deployment but we're working on that. we think it made a difference. we're involved early on in nevada. we had a close race there and were able to target our efforts. early on in arkansas, we worked in missouri, we worked in pennsylvania, we were in colorado -- we were involved all over the country. toward the end, we did some house races. it is a novelist with the outside groups on the democrat side has done a good job on the last three cycles and we're just now catching up. >> the conservative groups house pet progressive groups to 1. >> on turnout, they may of out

spent some liberal leaning groups on television. but it seems light that a lot of union money went to ground operations. why did the ground game instead of blanketing the airwaves? >> we think that is our job. our members trust us when we talk to them one-on-one, and we did a good job talking. our money all went to the ground game, not to one candidate. we probably talk to our members 15 or 20 times in this election, whether a representative from their local union, whether from was, whether it was a phone call or read to or not, we touch them 15 or 20 times and it made a difference. uc demographics, it made the difference everywhere. we had members at our border again, members that were all for

conservatives, members that are like the rest of society. we mirror society except that we give them the facts and the information that they need to make a decision. it makes a difference. >> let me focus on monday. over the last three cycles, the democratic groups about spent the republican groups more than two to one. we're catching up and getting close to a level playing field but we're not there. gillette was talk about the larger election. you reported that this is the practice run for 2012. both sides spent far more than the democratic national committee or the republican national committee for the associated committees in the house and the senate. is this evidence that the outside groups are more powerful and influential than the party organizations? >> us talk about how much we spent all but hated ships in

this world, $7 billion. -- how much we spent on potato chips in this country, $7 billion. candy and costumes, $5.8 billion. its totality we will spend $4 billion on politics. most of that will be spent by the campaigns. i think the outside groups spent $400 million. i do not think that there's too much money in politics. i think we do not invest enough in our democracy. >> speaking of the tech chips, they spent more on a potato chips than they did on energy research last year. i find appalling. >> woody think about the house side spending? does this mean that labor organizations and groups like american crossroads are more influential than the national committees? >> there are two issues. one is not just how much money

is spent, but who is spending it? they have this wonderful sounding group that combines the amount that corp. spent on lobbying and on the election of vastly, you worked us and all of that. who is spending the money? some of your money came from foreign sources. >> that is not true. you cannot say that because it is not true. i lifted every donation that we had come in. we got our money from individuals all of the country. some very large donations. >> are you willing to put that list out? >> are you willing to talk about [unintelligible] >> let's stay focused on the election. moving quickly on. mr. trumka, clearly are

rejection of democratic initiatives of the last couple of years or at least the fact that those initiatives have not turn the economy around fast enough? what does that mean for president obama as he begins his reelection campaign in 2012? >> as of today, we have to have free priorities. jobs, jobs, and more jobs. we are pushing our 5-point plan to create their jobs. we need to put these guys to the test. they said that they could do it now let's make them do it. for every job you create, there is an american out there that will be able to make a living and hopefully rebuild part of the middle class. i would tell him to stick to his jobs -- to his principles. work with them but not compromise his principles. >> to work with house republicans? >> absolutely. they should have been working what -- with us and the senate

republican should have been working with us and it did not. i hope we do not repay debt strategy. work with them but that does not cost you your principles. if it does, you have to stand for your principles. but put them to the test. if it is the same old stuff which they said, we will cut taxes for the rich, and we will deregulate -- the same policies that got us into this mess, that is not going to make it for the american people. >> president obama had a mandate. he did not reach out to work with republicans. when you talk about going to the back of the's, when you tell leader of the congress we one, get? that is not reaching across the aisle. i hope this is a good omen, but to get the jobs that you need, we have to have policies in this country, including tax policies

that encourage small businesses. john boehner understands the american dream. you saw that last night in his emotional response. he came up that way in the small business, creating his own. >> mr. duncan, but republicans have said is that a large number -- mike pence from indiana, republican should not compromise right now. they should take that same tactics that president obama said -- did and say elections have consequences. do you think house republican should go to the table and negotiate with president obama? >> we should sit down and work together. we should work with what the american people were talking about, deficit spending. we have to have certainty to create jobs in this country. that means president obama has to move from the left back toward the center. this is a center-right country. >> a quick follow-up.

this is an amazing statistic. 25% of the house republicans are freshmen. it will be 80 members was the chips fall. is that a problem for john boehner? this massive new influx of possible new members coming in the congress. is he going to have the same kind of control over them that any denny -- denny hastert had? >> it is an opportunity to let congress work the way it is supposed to work. >> what did think about the democratic agenda that we saw and the 111th congress, the one

boogeyman that a lot of the republicans talked about and warned about the employee free choice act. the democrats did not move on that. did they have an impact last night or during the campaign on labor turning out the democrats go to mark >> i am going to go back and comment on what michael said. they were not given a chance to cooperate -- there are 424 bills passed that were sent over to the senate. the senate had a record number of filibusters. they would not let debate go on. >> including cap and trade. we probably agree. jindal point is that it the democrats respond in kind, we will not get the jobs done that we need. you have a chance to govern and you said no to everything that came down. you did not say, let's sit down and negotiate it out. you said no, and you

filibustered. i think that was one of the most outrageous things that the country has seen to stop progress that way. hopefully we will not see that in the future. did the employee free choice at have a dampening effect in this election? early on, it probably did. there was an enthusiasm gap. but the more information and progress that we showed them, progress on reforming wall street and health care, it had less effect. >> will we continue to fight for it? >> absolutely. it is a very essential part. our country is 72% driven by consumer spending. if people do not have money in their pockets, they cannot spend. to compensate for that of the last 30 years, they borrowed.

consumers cannot borrow any more. if you believe that corporate america out of the goodness of their hearts will start sharing more money with the vast number of workers in this country, i would say that i have oceanfront property in southwestern pennsylvania to sell you. the ability -- we need the ability to sit down with employers to work together and share in that process and build an economy from the bottom up. >> can you agree with me that they have to have an environment for investment capital? back during the depression, capital was not being invested. we have to allow that money out there. small business -- not wall street -- small business creates most of the jobs in this country. >> and small businesses starting right now. they need the banks to start lending. that is one of the five planks of job creation for us.

get that pay back part money into the banks of regional banks to start lending to small business said that they and start creating jobs. >> the money is there. people are not applying for those loans. >> let me go back to something you brought up, mr. trumka. but t.a.r.p. the -- the t.a.r.p. vote. he clearly had an effect on this election. lisa murkowski lost her primary although she may have one. several other members were scared off because they voted for t.a.r.p. it is not essentially clear that that is the reason that they lost. what impact, mr. duncan, d.c. those against t.a.r.p. -- that tea party -- what impact will

that have on the republican party going forward? >> it was ill-conceived and ill carried out. there were some good results but this was part of the government overreaching and big government and more deficit spending. that energize the lot of people in this country who had never been involved before. >> 21 of the 54 blue dogs loss last night. if this is all about etiology, the blue dots should have won and they did not. it is simplistic to say that this vote -- it is more complex than that. there is an anger because in this economy, people are hurting. more and more americans are hurting. 15 million people unemployed, a 11 million more underemployed. many having been in -- unemployed for more than six months. i can tell you, michael, that if you do not start the action and

we did not start the action, it will be the fourth cycle that you will get tossed out. >> what you think about that? we have seen three cycles in a row which has not happened since 1946, 1948, and 1950. are we getting into an unusually volatile period of american politics? >> it is. you can go back to the beginning of the century. we had a change in 2008 and we are having change in the direction this time. we get back. i have a chance last night to talk to leader boehner about some of the programs he is putting forward. this is a great opportunity for the republican party and the conservative principles in this country. get back to the basics. do not spend more than you have. h haley barbour did a great job on

that. we can have more efficient government. we can create an environment that help small business produce more jobs in this country. those of the things that you will hear us talking about. health care reform you will hear us talking about, such a dramatic impact it had on us. cap and trade will destroy the competitive advantages in many parts of this country. these are the opportunities for conservative principles. >> mr. trumka, are we seeing a new league volatile electorate? >> absolutely people are fed up. listen to what they said last night. 85% of them said allowing health insurance denial for pre- existing conditions, we are against that. 75% or against reducing or eliminating the minimum wage. 72% were against eliminating the department of education. 68% were against raising the

>> and a think there are other questions on there. the once more government, more efficient government? i think people do. we have to create a new environment in this country. >> let me ask you one question. everybody keeps talking about smaller government. what would you eliminate from this government, and don't say waste generically. what would you lemonade? >> let's leave the policy stuff to the policy guys -- what would you eliminate. the question we will all be asking ourselves over the next few days, and everybody will be predating their own actual knowledge, but when did you know, mr. duncan, that the house was going to fall to republican

hands? >> i think we started seeing that in the early spring. we started seeing indications that the quality of candidates -- i remember a speaker boehner came to lexington and talk to the group about 100 house seats that he thought would be in play. people were laughing at that point, but we knew, because there had been a great effort to recruit candidates. we saw the mood of the country moving in that direction. we started to believe at that point there would be a change in the congress. >> did you have any premonitions that this was coming? >> the citizen united case saw there's more money flowing into this election than there was oil in the gulf. >> that is absolutely not true. you guys continue to outspend us. >> that is just preposterous.

>> you obviously read "what's the matter with kansas?" >> where do you see republicans going from here, and how are they going to avoid yet another cycle in which the bombs get kicked out? >> -- in which the bums it kicked out? >> you will see these people coming with fresh ideas. you'll see them holding us accountable. i think it bodes well for the future of the country because we want more people involved in our government. we need to have more money and people involved in politics. i think that will be assimilated within the party and the party will be much better off for the fact that we had this movement.

>> where does the democratic party go from here? you have just lost more seats than any party since 1948. how do you regroup and get back into the fight? >> the operative word that he said was that he believed there should be more money in politics. i personally believe there is more -- there is too much money in politics. i think we should be talking about policy rather than trying to destroy people's character. they have to go back to the simple notion of jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs. fight for the clean water act. fight for the clean energy act which will help solve the problem in this country and help create jobs. there ought to be a major investment in infrastructure. we have a $2.20 trillion

infrastructure deficit. we need to fix that. the only way to do that is to go after it and make a long-term commitment. they should make that commitment and force votes on jobs bills. stay true to their principles. work with the other side if it doesn't cost you your principles. you have to fight for what you believe in. >> thanks so much for joining us this morning. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> jeremy was with me all night as we sat and yelled and screamed at each other across allow the news room. what happened last night? >> i think we will probably

agree on some things. i want to point out a couple of -- for all the talk about how bad the night was for democrats, i want to point out a couple of areas where the democrats could take solace. in iowa, there were targeted seeks that a week ago i would have thought one or two of them were going to flip. north carolina, three target is seats also held on in kind of a surprising way. the flip side to that argument is that bob etherege, who knowing he was going to fall about two weeks ago, did lose last night in north carolina. california governor, i think democrats will be very happy about that. there were a lot of reservations about jerry brown and meg

whitman and her pocketbook. it was a heavily targeted race for them. the other one i would point out -- >> jerry brown had probably the best victory speech of the night. at one point he said i really into this politics thing. >> he also had some of the best campaign as we saw this cycle. in two of them he used meg whitman zone words against her. he played eclipse of them saying the exact same words. there are 12 of them. the other one is the nevada senate. it is hard to overstate how big a when the nevada senate was for

democrats and how surprising it was. it made all the prognosticators look like idiots. everyone had written off harry reid. that was a huge when there. joe mansion is one of the most popular politicians. those are big wins for democrats. >> one of the great joys of working at a hot line is that every morning you get to sort through 2000 lives so you can bring the best news of the day. a fantastic analyst from nevada said that harry reid would win by three points. he was actually shot by two points. that was a big feet out in nevada. around the country, democrats

had a few bright spots, but in the long run, this is a pretty historic defeat. >> absolutely. the number of tea party candidates and candidates backed by senator jim dement that one last night. there will be six senators in the senate that would be part of that caucus that he gave substantial resources to. that gives him a tremendous amount of bargaining power when it comes to the senate. we are approaching one-tenth of the senate being at least in some way aligned with jim .emanent it gives him all sorts of bargaining power. >> and yet of the six seats that

republicans have picked up, four of them are decidedly not dement. of jim the me he did not play in ohio or north dakota. he thought about getting involved in the illinois race. did he actually get involved in that primary? >> he did, a very long time ago. >> and then he did get involved in the indiana primary. marlon lucked out and ended up slipping into the seat [unintelligible] 4 of the six are these sort of establishment candidates. is that saying that the tea party movement has been overrated or not? >> it is party candidates helped

democrats maintain a majority, with christine o'donnell in delaware who ruined the republican chances there which could have been picked up with mike castle. as far as governing those and looking forward, it is hard to say. one of the counter and 22 arguments is that this class could be more willing to compromise with democrats than is suggested by the tea party rhetoric out there. there are people that harry reid and democrats will probably reach out to. that is counter to the rhetoric that jim dement has put out there. >> at the incoming members, marco rubio is a conservative,

but he was a legislator, too. he was speaker of the house. >> he actually moved to the center after charlie crist got out of the republican party and he became a de facto front runner. he is another one that might be more moderate than people anticipate. >> give me the unreported story that we have not seen really emerged yet. >> the first thing that comes to mind is that harry reid, dick durbin, and chuck schumer are going to have a press conference this afternoon to discuss the fate of the democratic party in the senate. chuck schumer had been angling to become senate majority leader. he also funneled lot of the money to the party that helped harry reid.

dick durbin was also attended to be senate majority leader if harry reid loss. i think the big and tall story here is that a good campaign run in the right time can actually win, but not all the time. harry reid ran essentially a perfect campaign. so did a few others. >> one interesting point into a spot like, the notion of the

trifecta of senate seats, symbolic senate seats that republicans thought they could pick a while ago. the illinois seat held by president obama, the delaware seat once held by mike castle, and the nevada seat held by harry reid. the three very different lessons, ill. you had president obama doing everything he could in the place where he was most popular, but voters were so dissatisfied with government,% said they were dissatisfied with are angry with the federal government. it is almost impossible to overcome that, no matter how popular you are. bill foster, melissa been, will be looking for new jobs.

there are few states that turned out worse for democrats that president obama is own state. look at a state like delaware where the tea party candidates came in and really rocked republicans, not only of one seat but some house republicans thought that might have a chance at keeping the senate seat with the right primary nominee. that nominee lost along with congressman mike castle and democrats picked up the two seats, but that talks a lot about the dangers republicans face going forward if they continue this shrinking and purifying the party. three different states, somehow i think it is fitting that illinois was the state that actually flipped to republicans.

>> one example of how bad it was, in wisconsin, the democrats lost the governorship, the senate seat, to house seats, both chambers of the state legislature, all in one night. this is a state that voted for the democrat in the presidential election and the last six presidential elections. that just shows how much of blue state like wisconsin can change. >> we would encourage you to take a look at your hot line which will be out before you get out of the session today. thanks for your time. [applause] >> i am 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 go through 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 dick 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 and ask, 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 elections -- 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. -- where 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. presidentt with the 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 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. -- gridlock. 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 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. all of our panelists have dealt with legislative realities and 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 unproductive 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. -- start there. 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. they are happy to throw sand in the gears. i think that is the best case scenario is we -- [inaudible] the republicans can decide 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. 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 doing so is a signal we heard you. it was not just the republicans

that hurt you. -- heard 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 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 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. soberlyt busy and get 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. -- civility. 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 -- meanness 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. i do not 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. -- for a vote. 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 an end -- an ill-conceived build. -- bill. it won't go much further in the 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. -- election. 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 -- slam each 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. -- cracks 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. -- failing. 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.

[laughter] >> the point is if you're going to be the political party with the (a process that says everyone and 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.

[laughter] >> 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. speculatth