for congress that i've never heard from to send a message. they do not know who they were. i am sure it would happen on election day. we picked president's differently. i see no evidence whatsoever that she is interested in doing that. mike huckabee, i do not see it. it worked really well for chris dodd. tall, thin, good-looking. i am almost willing to date him. my wife would not approve.

he has to demonstrate some expertise. right now, he is kind of like the republican barack obama. he has been in congress and the senate longer, but when you say john thune you do not think of a particular policy or legislation. he could do that in the next year. he is interesting to watch. haley barbour is the strongest political mind in the universe, let alone the planet, but for president, running out of mississippi, let us leave the lobbyists side of it. haley always talks about he is a fat lobbyist. let us leave the weight issue out of it. he is from mississippi. have you looked to see where mississippi sits on the statistics in terms of health, education, and income? not exactly the ideal place to be in a presidential campaign. he will do to the united states what he does to mississippi.

i am not saying haley is responsible for the state ranks on income or education. certainly not. it are preceded haley. but think of the realities of luck -- of running for president, what people would say. what does that leave us? it leaves us the choice, a republican member of congress told me the other day, of people he is particularly interested in. one is mitch daniels from indiana, who is kind of an anti- politician. if you know mitch, he was a washington figure for many years. he worked for senator lugar. he was on the republican senate campaign committee and worked for lilly in indiana before getting elected governor. mitch is short, slight, and bald. i can identify with some of that. but it is not your typical politician.

maybe this will be a -- 2012 will be the year for somebody short, slight, and bald, and come to think of it, mitch is very white. maybe he is the alternative. you know how in this country we go from young guy to get an old guy, we go from eisenhower to kennedy, or we make these kinds of changes? maybe it mitch is the counterweight to barack obama, but it is not clear that mitch is completely committed. he is a family person, and in this case it is his own family. and his wife may not want him to run. and the other name i am hearing, i was shocked. this is a member who told me -- a member who is from west of the mississippi from a very republican, very conservative state. when his name was mentioned -- anyway. this member said to me, "the name i hear the most about, that

people really like is chris christie of new jersey." out there? out there, there are people who know, are thinking, and are talking about chris christie? these are the same people who are watching "jersey shore"? i grew up in manhattan. we had a particular view of jersey as well, i am not sure it is the same. but people in wyoming, new mexico, arizona, oklahoma, texas, and kansas -- they are looking at chris christie? this member said they liked the fact that he is straight forward. he is in your face. he does what he says he is going to do. he tells it like it is. they find it refreshing. they are always asking me about chris christie. do i think the governor of new jersey is ready to run for president? i do not know. he has been governor of new jersey for 15 minutes.

but i am told he is getting very strong and long looks from the financial community in new york , and running for president now is at least partially a financial thing, and ability to fund raise. so i keep an eye to see whether he is interested. but the republican race is wide open. i would not expect the president to face a serious threat, except that if the afghanistan war continues and gets out of hand and somebody like ross fine gold does not get a job in the interim -- and if somebody like russ feingold does not get a job in the interim. there is nothing the white house fears more than an unemployed russ feingold. if there is someone who can tap dissatisfaction with the president and encourage the liberal wing of the democratic

party to revolt -- rebelled is too strong -- it could be uss.body like ro i could take a question or two. i will take two questions even though they do not expect it. does anybody have a quick question? i would be happy to answer. i do a lot of q and a. you can ask about a race, a personality, or we can just go home. ok, let's go. >> what about the two-party? >> that is a good question, thank you. in this case, the first and last question is the same one. usually, i will get people say, "can you tell me about the city council race in scarsdale?" really, i have gotten that. i think the tea party is here to stay, at least in the next few years. the lesson is there were

effective in organizing and energizing the republican party and they had an impact in republican primaries. i think republican presidential candidate saw that and notice that and will appeal to them, and will be looking for candidates. that will keep them relevant in the next few years. in addition, i think it will be involved in other fights. we have another senate class come up. only 10 republican senators, but one of them must be from maine. olympia snowe -- if you are olympia snowe, you have to be looking out for some tea party person. the tea party people have opportunities to keep things percolating. clearly, there were a-plus overall and a minus in individual places. you can put a nickel on it, a dollar on it. i am sure of it. mike castle wins. christine o'donnell did not come close. she carried a couple of votes, but that was about it.

mike castle wins the nomination, he is the u.s. senator. lisa murkowsky might need joe miller. talk about the tremendous embarrassment to both the tea party candidates and sarah palin. that are important. they are going to stay significant. i think we are going to be talking about them for two years. they may cause long-term problems within the republican party. these new members -- what are the tea party folks back home thinking? are they thinking i have gone washington? it will be an interesting pressure on them. that is how third-party forces in this nation go. eventually, the two parties figure out how to "them. that is how the two-party system works, and that is why it is so strong. thank you very much. [applause] >> in a few moments, the head of freedomworks, dick armey, with

his analysis of the election. next, president obama. after that, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell on the gop agenda. later, a cq roll call group election analysis. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow. we will have more election analysis live on c-span 2 at 6:00 a.m. eastern. also on c-span 2 at 9:00 a.m., the future of u.s. foreign policy. participants include the former ambassador to iraq and retired general ray odierno. here on c-span, a forum hosted by the weekly standard an washington examiner. panelists include bill kristol and fred warren. that is at 12:30 p.m. eastern.

>> it is harmless if one is making a star out of brittany spears or share -- cher, but when one takes stardom into the national security wrong, lives are at stake. americans get wise that the stars and wizards, the dream teams and the best and brightest, may not be what they are cracked up to be. in that fateful amount of time, chaos and mayhem can come to rain. >> henry kissinger, robert mcnamara, donald runs fell. just a few foreign-policy leaders critiqued sunday night on c-span. >> now, a discussion on tuesday's election results and what it means for the future of the gop, with freedomworks chairman dick armey. host: we are back with dick armey. you probably know that name,

part of the tea party movement. i want to begin with "the financial times." outlandish tea party candidates letdown republicans at the final party. for the senate leadership, tuesday night was in some respects a failure. never has the house of representatives changed hands without the senate following suit, and the tea party movement should take the lion's share of the blame. hands without the senate following suit, and the tea party movement should take the lion's share of the blame. [inaudible] guest: what i found interesting was the financial times placed right above that story perfectly ideal establishment candidates in california, a very well-known

businesswomen funding their own campaigns.

candidate lost the race and then turned and supported the democrats or refused to support the republicans or ran as a third

pay -- in every instance, it was the establishment party's favori candidate. so if anybody let down the republican party, it was those people who said,, we have a right to have an open primary and we will see it through to the general elections only if our pet project is the winner. but if somebody comes and upsets our favorite in the primary, we are walking away and washing our hands of them. host: does that apply in the general election of alaska? guest: one thing i will give senator be some rakowski -- when she decided that having lost party's primary for her party's nomination, and therefore i will run as a write-in candidate, she sought it through. but what wednesday -- but what lindsay graham would say is we

need republicans in the final analysis. fine, then stand behind your party's nominee. they did not do it in nevada, and they did not do it in delaware. murkowski put her own fate in her own hands, in respect of of the republican party of alaska. she won as a write-in party candidate. host: so should minority leader mitch mcconnell a presumably the next bigger of the house, john boehner, a compromise with democrats? guest: i think what you need to do is understand -- first of all, do not get into the trap we got into in 1994 and 1995. this is not the question of dueling mandates. the democrats have said the american people gave us a mandate and we are going to do what they wanted if they do not

like it, they can take it anyway. now, if the republicans say we got a mandate and we are going to do what we want, they will run into the same problem. what they got is a new set of directives from the voting people of america. your group of hired hands, we appreciate that you have this great opportunity. we welcome the opportunity to call you the honorable mr. congssman and be deferential to you, buthe fact of the matter is this nation needs a serious public policy reset, and from big governmentontrol and domination and spending into financial oblivion to fiscal restraint, responsibility, and governmental respect for the will and the right of constituencies to be free.

host: how the republicans can fill their pledge. he said specifically i believe we can make changelike slowing the growth of benefits for the wealthiest earners and index the eligibility age to longevity. these ideas represent a viable alternative to the uustainable status quo, and they can be delivered while making no other changes for those aged 55 and older who currently receive social security and medicare. do you support that idea? guest: what i like about paul ryan is that he is secretive figure and i am very excited about him being the budge chairman. here is at bothers me. every american cizen today, if i have a new grandbaby, that poor little child gets a social security number before she leaves the hospital. as soon as she gets a job, the government fces her to take some portion of her earnings and put it into the most badly mismanaged savings retirement program in the history of the

world. what paul ryan seems to be saying in this article is that he joins thehorus of voices that says having forced everybody in voluntarily to go into the government program, they can be subject to the wednesday of politicians. and if indeed we politicians cannot meet our obligations, let us be free to choose who among you will sacrifice your life savings and not get a return on that. host: so it sounds like you do not support that. guest: it does not sound very responsible to me. what if your private retirement program said to you, we appreciate you put your money with us all these years but we are not going to give you your annuity. the government would sue them. i will give paul ryan a better option. why doesn't he say to every young working man and woman in america, you are free to choose to forsake yousocial security benefits.

you bfree to choose. it is a much better thing. if i choose to not subscribe to a government program, then i and exercising my liberty. if in fact the government says we were hahappy to take your money for all yourorking years, and because you were prudent enough to do something yourself in your retirement years, we are saying to you, you don't get any of your money back. host: that sounds like a fundamental difference with paul ryan. gues is a very big difference with paul ryan. who will be in charge of my life savings, the or politicians? host: should they oppose paul ryan as budget chairman? guest: no, they should not oppose paul ryan. he is one of the brightest people -- host: but you disagree with him. guest: we are not in agreement

on everything. he has a right to be wrong about some things. he is right about most things. in the end, what you're saying realistically, we must come to terms with the fact that som people willet their retirement benefits and some will not. you are sayini put myself now on t side of big government, and let somebody in washington decide that this guy at 409 hemingway street gets his benets and the guy at 408 does not. paul ryan knows this. every american young person -- yourself, if given the choice to drop out of social security tomorrow, you would do it that quick because you know by the time you're 65, they will have taken your life savings all your life and give you nothing back. host: l's move on. do the tea party candidates deserve to have a spokesman within the leadership ranks?

michelle bachman wants to be the -- should somebody like rand paul getty leadership position in the senate? guest: you go before the members of your caucus and present your case. i did it eight times and i did it successfully eight times. it was not always easy. let those people in that body, in accordance with the rules of the body, select from those who compete. in the case of michelle bachman, i believe she wants to run in opposition to jeb hensley. he has been one of the most reliable opponents to big government, unnecessary spending programs -- tarp, stimulus, a banking regulation. he understood the issues andas

spoken with them with great -- spoken on them with great thoroughness in the house. no one could ever say that he is not a small government conservative. let them make their case in front of their colleagues about which of the two of us will serve the functions of is office with the greater degree of efficiency andairness. nobody is entitled to a leadership post. it is an honor and privilege and the duty extended to you by the discretionary choice of your colleague. host: dick armey is are desperate rick on the democratic line in california, you're up first. caller: i went up to see the only president in the last 70 years to balance the budget and pay down the national debt, in your tea party were there with all kinds of signs, yelling all kinds of horrible things about him. so is this really about a balanced budget and national debt?

why are they complaining about clinton. it has nothing to do with national debt. it has everything to do with the democrats being in the white house, and they are still mad at clinton. sorry about that socialist comment, randy. guest: i do not know what it is you are referring to. in the political discourse -- and remember, all political discourse is just one step shy of brain death, in respect of of what partisan discourse it comes from. i was there. the one thing i will always admire it and appreciate about president clinton is when we worked on budget matters, for all the eight years i worked with the president and during his entire presidency, he personally sat at the table and worked through the negotiations with theembers from the house and the senate and the white house. we negotiated our way to a balanced budget. now, when the negotiations

closed, we had the president saying i and i alone got you to a balanced budget, or his advocates said that. the republicans set by and i alone got you to a balanced budget. the fact of the matter was it was rigorous, detailed, long- term strenuous negotiations over a long period of time between the leaders of both parties and the leaders of both the legislative branch and the executive branch, the office of management and budget, secretary, treasury, citing these meetings. there were substantive discussions that took place over a long period of time, and we got to a balanced budget. we are very pleased about that. but i am no more willing to concede that it was presint clinton who got us there all by himself than he would be willing to concede that it was dick armey that got us there all by himself. we did it together.

i bet you a dollar up against a doughnut that president clinton would say the same peri. host: in january, they will have to vote on whether or not to continue running the government or shut down the government. they have to raise the debt ceiling or the government shuts down. you remember in 1994 what happened. do you recommend that the tea party candidates stick to principles and do not shut the government down? guest: first of all, raising the debt ceiling is unpopular for everybody. host: do you have to do it? guest: it has to be done. i understand that for there is not a person alive that does not understand it. but the fact is, it is a regrettable thing. you're sitting there saying, especially the new members, had you been more fiscally responsible in the past 10 years, five years, four years,

three years, last year, we would not be here today facing the need to do desperate and i resent that i have to vote raise the -- to do this. and i resent that i have to vote to raise the debt ceiling. i understand this has to be done, but if in fact you are going to get me to vote for it, let me have you tell me, just as you would do with your irresponsible son or dghter if they ran their college bills up through the roof, you are not going to do it again. you will show some restraint in the future. yowill have some sense of trade off between this government program and the obligations you already have in place that you just cannot add another program because you think itould look pretty walking when you cannot afford the programs you already have got out there. how about a little discipline? host: on the republican line in thornton, colorado.

caller: mr. armey, thank you so much for being available here. this is a different question of where you left off, but out here in the republin desert of metro denver, we have had a tea party candidate at the governor's level where there was a divisive party, and now we have a democratic governor. what do you suggest be our remedy for off-year elections in not gathering dust in gathering not just the conservative perspective -- ingathering not just the conservative perspective, but -- guest: this is the problem that you have always. you had in colorado the same situation. you basically had three candidates on the ballot, two of whom split their ballot, leading to one person that neither one of them agreedith. in florida you had a situation where charlie crist said i'm

going to run as an independent, and as an independent he looked more like a democrat than he did a republican. in the end in florida, marco rubio did. in the final analysis, if you are the candidate and if you are, in respect about the circumstances, i think you take a look at marco rubio he said it is not fair that the lord god almighty dealt me hand, i have to win my race in respect of who else is in that race. that means i may have to double up on my efforts. i may have to consolidate my efforts. the fact of the matter is, given the nature of politics, as joe miller is discovering in alaska right now -- if there is another horse in the race, it's not like the only person i have to do is out run the baird -- no, i have to outrun the bear and you too.

host: kevin, in new jersey. teacup just a commentary from a 37-year-old -- caller: just a commentary from a 37-year-old hospital worker, an independent democrat. the whole team party movement and the republican party, they are trying to separate themselves from the neocon- cheney crowd. to the average person my age, i think i am a pretty well educated knowledgeable person. the way it is reviewed, -- the way it is viewed, they look like religious nuts. i work in a critical care unit ani know the problems of health care top to bottom. i work where people are ventilated on life-support and everything like that. what i see a lot of the republican party doing is really

kind of putting religion out there and all this stuff. it is really, really negative, and it turns my crowd of ticket. -- it turns my crowd off to it. guest: understand something. this grass roots movement known as the tea party movement holds no allegiance or very much affection to either political party. they are just as bitterly disappointed in the republicans as they are the democrats. and they have been severely criticized by the evangelicals and america. i happen to be an evangelical. they have stayed so focused on economic issues -- finance, budgets, taxes, and so forth -- and did not address a lot of the social issues. so all of a sudden, in all the bestharacterization's of these fine people that you have seen in the popular press, this is

the last one that i would have thought that somebody would have gotten, that you say they look like a bunch of religious not. there really is interesting to me. that is very curious. it shows me something about the degree to which real, ordinary folks just like your neighbors, and i bet you a nickel that somebody in the church yugo, the hospital you work, or somebody in your family is active in the movement. and you go, joe and grace, they are not nuts. they are part of that. i assure you that they are not a bunch of religious nuts. they are probably about as normal as you are, and they are focused on economic issues of jobs, taxes, spending. their biggest concern in the

world is the potential insolvency of america before the world. host: what's next for the tea party movement? specifically when it comes for the 2012 presidential election? guest: first you have to understand that this party is not about politics in the religious observances. these folks are more concerned with policy. they really believe they can work with their new-fod champions on the kindness to help them pass good legislation .hrough the congress coul they are interested in assisting the movement of good legislation. now, it is true that they understand the power of their involvement in the electoral process to the advancement of their ideas, and they are looking at the candidates, principally at the white house level, and at the senate level,

because they are acutely aware of the fact that we have another one/third to look at in the next election cycle they will have some of their favorite senate projects. let me remind you, the first people w fell to the tea party movement were republicans in primaries, not democrats and the general. host: is that what happens in 2012? are tea partyers looking at olympia snowe in maine? guest: you will have to talk to the folks in maine. if i were olympia snowe, and i said, gee, i am out next time -- up next time, i need to look at what would be a very important faction of ves with in my state and see what i can do to

address this. host: is it a warning to people like olympia snowe? guest: again, understand, these parts have advocacy in the heart -- these folks at at a to see i their heart and mind. they love america, the love of the constitution. it is sheer genius. you swore an oath to protect the constitution. we are saying to keep your oath. it has to do with it will be exercised restraint in spending, will you have some sense of discretion in spending here and there, will you respect my personal liberty? host: let's hear from our republican, ron in new york. caller: mr. armey, i would like to tell meone that -- i am part of the tea party, and i

think we ought to get rid of the department of the environmental agency. i am a truck driver and i've been a truck driver for 50 years and i have seen gary, indiana, a full as soon as they moved in, -- fold as soon as they moved in. environmental advocacy is killing our lar force. why don't they get rid of those people and let those people go and do their job? i can see safety and see some environmentalists -- it has gone wacko. they arehutting down all of our facries -- host: ok, we got your point. gues one of the things i've been saying for years, and i used to say it as a professor to students, most of life's great lessons were taught to you by

little bromides given to you by your mother and grandmother. you can have too much of a good thing. that is sort of what we have from epa. maybe we have too much epa discretion across the country. th have taken a little bit of -- a little bit of knowledge goes a long way. i cannot think of anybody in america that has taken more abuse than congressman joe barton from texas, who has consistently insisted that the environmental protection agency used good science, and they treat him like some kind of hate monger who despises the environment. to avoid the dilemma at your mama talked about, a little bit of knowledge being a harmful thing, if we spend so much of

taxpayer money on environmental interest, would it be a bicycle that we have the best science possible? -- wouldn't it be advisable that we of the best science possible? why is it bad for joe barton to insist that the epa used good science? and this and our rental -- this vironmental fantasy movement is so afraid of truth. just be smart about doing what is necessary and maybe we will not be losing jobs. host: democratic line, bill from washington state. caller: this is just a quick side bar. you were mentioning the constitution, and i thought was kind of a point, because putting the constitution -- congress is supposed to make war, and they have not done

that since december 8, 1941. how do you feel about the blue dog democrats that went down? democratic't the party and republican party have their conservative wings and liberal wings? host: mr. armey. guest: the blue dog democrats have been in a dilemma for a long time. they are sort of a square peg in a round hole. usually square pegs in round holes get whittled down. but the blue dog problems came first and foremost in the fact that they are so aggressively rejected within the democrat party. there is very little tolerance for people who don't buy into the assertively progressive party line of the democrat party. i would say that my friend cheet texas -- your

problems began with neglect by democrats, who never liked you much anyway. and the republican party basically -- voters look at them and say, look, chet edwards is a democrat attending to be a republican. why don't we just vote for the guy who is really running as a republican? nobody is entitled to a seat in congress. you get in the race, is open competition, and you get thousands of people who you don't know who make a selection based on how they perceive your credentials and performance. chet maybe could have overcome the prejudices and neglect of his own party and the appearance of a misfit with the voters at large in the waco area. he carried it off and got away

with that bag for a mber of years. host: sarah palin has a video with her take on what the election meant. >> across the country, everyday americans are standing up and they are speaking out, and sed on what i have seen, there is more than enough reason to in america.h we're going to get back to the time tested truth that made this country great. they have enabled us to weather tough times before, and they will see us through the challenges we face today. i am confident and i am hopeful, because this is our movement. this is our moment. this is our morning in america. [applause] we are going to standp and we are going to speak out, and it may take some grenades going -- some renegades going rogue to

get us there, it may take pokes shaking it up to get there. [applause] we have got to do this together. host: mr. armey, your reaction? guest: it is amusing, because i'm fascinated. i have never met sarah palin myself, but i am fascinated by the appeal she has to this movement. i personally think the reason is, first of all, this is an authentic movement that has, frankly, gotten very little respect. as an attack, assault, -- it has been attacked, assault, mocked might just about every big shot in america, on both sides of the aisle. but they are so aware of their

authenticity, their sincerity, and it hurts a little bit -- i am really who i am and i wish you could have the decency to portray me as i am, instead of this caricature if you keep putting on tv. they identify with sarah palin and her authenticity. did you see the play on words about "we made some of us have to go rogue." it was not the democrats saying she was going rogue that day for that brand. it was the republicans. a bunc of smart alec young political operatives thought they had the right to tell this candidate, being the candidate for vice-president -- these young yale graduates have the right to tell them what to say, and damned if she did not go rogue and say what she had to

say. i'm smart enough to be my own person and say what i have to say -- they call it going rogue, we call it being real. host: who is a more viable presidential candidate, sarah palin or marco rubio? guest: the voters have to decide that. marco rubio is so excited about the privilege and the duty that has been given him, being senator of florida. have left the politicians for years. i have seen people and their first race for city council and they start planning their presidential race. marco rubio said, look, the peoplef florida give me a good opportunity and trust and i am staying focused on that. i thought that s extremely mature on his part. he exhibits a level of maturity and responsibility and tha one

does not often find any people who seek public office. i'm really excited about him. host: independent line. jack, you are on the air. caller: thank you. i would like to ask you how you doing,- how phil gramm's and his life. he created the enron scam with key boy. host: care to respond? guest: you are kind of a non- kind person and i feel bad for the people who have toive with you every day. phil gramm is a wonderful person and his wife as well. they are both, i understand, quite happy in private life. if you had a chance to sit down with them and talk about their happiness, one of the tngs that would say that one of things that is so wonderful

about being of three citizen in private life is that i don't have to listen to barbs from people who got a mean, nasty attitude i bet they are enjoying the fact that they did not watch the show this morning. host: we will go to the republican line, wyoming. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have watched for years the stock market going up and down. and social security being talked about. it is going to be insolvent. i am getting close to the age when i am going to be looking adt it, hopefully 10 years. i am really concerned that we need to do something so that we do not give it to the pirates out there on wall street what do we do to make sure they are more honest with our money? gut: well, mean -- i don't know, it it sounds like you are

about 60 years old. take a look of the money you put into social security during all your working years, and how it grew or did not grow, the return, the level of annuity benefits you get when you are 65, and compare that with what you would have done having put the same amount of money into the stock market or an annuity program there. now, having done that, recognize that that money that you have t into your private savings account and is now due to you in your old age, at your choice, when you want to start a new peace and flopped -- start annuities and flow money back to you, is a matter of contract law. at the age of 60 today, here is what i would be worried about -- five years from now, if i am

65 and i go to apply for social security and they asked me to report on the other private savings and other sources of retirement income and they see that, indeed, i have done well at taking care of myself in addition to social security, they are very likely to tell you, "i'm sorry, but you are not getting your retirement back." the same government would prosecute the private enterprise a firm that holds your 401k, but they did that, and is very likely today to do that to you. watch the next five years and see where you got the best return on your investment, in the private sector, where you saved and grew, or the blic sector, where you grew at a governme

>> 10 house races are still undecided after the election, including seats in colorado and arizona. next year, the congress will have 186 democrats and 2139 republicans. some of the undecided seats are held by republicans, and some white democrats. in the next senate, there will be 51 democrats, 46 republicans, and two independents. the senate race in alaska will be the last to be decided. in that race in alaska, incumbent senator lisa mukowski ran as an independent candidate after losing to joe miller in the republican primary.

senator murkowski is leading by about 11 points. there may be a legal challenge to the results. >> change is going to occur in congress. it will only occur if the people get involved in the political system and begin to make the changes that are necessary. >> john boeher spoke at a roundtable. you can learn more about him online at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> in a few moments, president obama on his invitation to congressional leaders to a white house meeting in a couple of weeks. in about 10 weeks, mitch mcconnell on the gop agenda. after that, more election analysis in a discussion hosted by cq roll call group. and you will hear from stuart

rothenberg. on washington journal tomorrow morning, will be joined by a member of the group americans from prosperity to talk about their legislative priorities. and we will talk about the election results with kinsley and jacobson. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day. >> we will show some art created by japanese americans during their time in world war ii internment camps and talk about the first televised presidential debate on its 50th anniversary. and we will look at the increasing political freedom of women in the early american history. all weekend, every weekend, on c-span 3. >> this weekend on "afterwards," a biographer discusses the

president elected since world war ii, their personalities, successes and failures. this weekend on "book tv." >> president obama has invited congressional leaders to the white house in a couple of weeks. he spoke for about 10 minutes before today's cabinet meeting. >> i just want to make a few quick remarks to expand on some things i said yesterday. obviously, tuesday was a big election. i have congratulated the republicans, consoled some of our democratic friends about the results. i think it is clear that the voters sent a message, which is they want us to focus on the economy and jobs.

they are concerned taxpayer money is not wasted. they want to focus on the people outside the political class. i just had a meeting with my cabinet and key staff. i want them to know we have to take that message to heart. we have to make a sincere and consistent effort to try to change how washington operates. the folks around this table have done extraordinary work. the have cooperated consistently with congress. i think they are interested in bipartisan ideas. and so they are going to be integral to helping me to root out waste in government, make our agencies more efficient, and generate more ideas so that we can put the american people back to work. at the same time, obviously, what is going to be critically

onths is creating a better working relationship between this white house and the congressional leadership that is coming in, as well as the congressional leadership that carries over from the previous congress. so i want everybody to know that i have already called mitch mcconnell and john boeher, harry reid and nancy pelosi, to invite them to a meeting here at the white house in the first week of the lame-duck, november 18. this is a meeting at which i want to talk substantively about how we can move the american people the agenda forward. it is not just going to be a photo opportunity. hopefully, it may spill over into dinner. the immediate focus is going to be what we need to get done during the lame duck session. i mentioned yesterday we have to act in order to ensure that

middle-class families do not see a big tax bite because of how the bush tax cuts have been structured. it is very important that we extend those middle-class tax provisions to hold middle-class families harmless. but there are a whole range of other economic issues that have to be addressed -- unemployment insurance for folks who are still out there looking for work, business expenditures to encourage businesses to invest in the united states, and if we do not have that we are losing a potent tool for us to be able to increase business investment and job growth over the coming year. we have to provide businesses some certainty about what they're tax landscape is going to look like. we have to provide families certainty. that is critical to maintain our recovery. i should mention that in

addition to those economic issues there are some things during the lame-duck with regard to foreign policy that are going to be very important for us to deal with. i'll make mention of the start treaty. we have negotiated with the russians significant reductions in our nuclear arms. this is something that traditionally has received strong bipartisan support. we have got people like george shultz who helped to organize arms control treaties with the russians back during the soviet union, who have come out forcefully in favor of this. this is not a traditionally democratic or republican issue, but rather an issue of american national security. and i am hopeful that we can get that done before we leave, and send a strong signal to russia that we are serious about reducing nuclear arms, but also send a signal to the world that

we are serious about nonproliferation. we made great progress when it comes to sending a message to iran that they are isolated internationally, in part because people have seen that we are serious about taking our responsibilities when it comes to the nonproliferation, and that has to continue. there is going to be a range of work that needs to get done in a relatively short time. i am looking forward to having that conversation with the leadership about the agenda items they may be concerned about. the last point i will make is i have also invited the newly elected democratic and republican governors here to the white house on december 2 because i think it is a terrific opportunity to hear from them, folks who are working at the state and local levels, about what they are seeing, what ideas they think washington needs to be paying more attention to. a lot of times, things are a

little less in the logical -- ideological when you get governors together because they have practical problems they have to solve in terms of how roads and bridges are funded, how they make sure schools stay open, teachers stay on the job. that kind of nuts and bolts stuff, i think, often time yields the kind of common sense approach that the american people i think are looking for right now. in summary, we have a lot of work to do. people are still catching their breath from the election. the dust is still suckling. but the one thing i am absolutely certain of is >> that understand that the world is not standing still.

i am going to be leaving tomorrow for india. the primary purpose is to open up markets so that we can sell in asia, it is one of the fastest-growing markets in the world, and we can create jobs here in the united states of america. my hope is we have some specific announcements that show the connection between what we are doing overseas and what happens here at home when it comes to job growth and economic growth. the bottom line is that all round the world, countries are moving. they are serious about competing. they are serious about competing with us not just on manufacturing but on services. they are competing with us when it comes to educational attainment, when it comes to scientific discovery, and we cannot afford to years of just wobbling. but we need to do is just make

sure everybody is pulp -- pulling together, democrats, republicans, an independent. the product -- the private sector with the public sector. that is something i am very much looking forward to helping to be a part up. thank you very much, everybody. >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell also talked about the elections today and the republican agenda. he was at the heritage foundation for a little less than an hour. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the heritage

foundation. i am the president of the year to the foundation. on behalf of all my colleagues on the board of trustees and the staff and the foundation, it is my very great pleasure to welcome you here this morning. ladies and gentlemen, to paraphrase the vice-president of the united states, tuesday was a big blank deal. it was a seismic rejection of the left agenda. to quote the president of the united states, elections have consequences. the election is over. the battle shifts to public policy questions. >> we moved to the arena of policy politics. that is what we are involved with here at the heritage foundation. at heritage, which are more than 700,000 members around the country, we worked every day to build an america where freedom,

opportunity, prosperity, and civil societies flourish. to every policy about, we fight alongside our allies on capitol hill for the success of our ideas. just yesterday, we released our top priorities in the form of a checklist, a checklist for washington that cuts spending, to repeal obamacare, to protect america, and to stop stifling regulation. senator mitch mcconnell and other legal -- and other beleaguered conservatives have successfully held the line against many initiatives that would have moved the country we believe is the wrong direction. senator mcconnell has led the good guys over health care, campaign finance, real tax reform, sensible foreign and

defense policies, and so many other policy issues. we are grateful and are excited to work with you and your reinforcements as they arrived in the capital over the next few weeks, and we look forward to the policy battles and the policy discussions in the months ahead. mitch mcconnell was first elected to the united states senate in 1984. he has been the republican leader of the united states senate since 2007. ladies and jump, it is my pleasure to welcome back to the project ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome back to the heritage foundation, mitch mcconnell. [applause] >> thank you very much, ed. but mr. by telling you again how grateful -- let me begin by telling you how grateful

conservatives are that you've found this organization and you have led so successfully over the years. [applause] i would be remiss if i did not congratulate you on your good judgment in having among your distinguished fellows the most conservative secretary of labor in american history, and the only cabinet member of the bush administration to serve from beginning to end part i am speaking about my roommate, elaine chao. [applause] all over the past two years, the american people looked at was going on in washington and

they became increasingly worried. democratic leaders were ignoring our nation's ongoing job crisis. the big government policies and out of control spending was causing some to wonder about the future of the american dream itself. americans word about the consequences of a $14 trillion debt, about a health care bill with two massive entitlement programs. they worry about all of the bailouts and about every other piece of legislation that seemed like it was designed to kill jobs rather than to create them. most of all the worry about what some have called the european and asian -- the europeanization, and that our

children and grandchildren could no longer expect to have the same opportunities that all of us have had. two days ago, those wars gave way to a new optimism. democratic lawmakers chose to ignore the american people. on tuesday, the american people chose new lawmakers. for the past, they held their elected representatives to account, and that is what the founding fathers had in mind with the midterm election. they demonstrated the constitutional conservatism is alive and well. there is no reason for republicans to gloat. it is a time to realize who is in charge -- the people.

we can begin to turn this ship around. tuesday was a referendum, not a choice. it was a report card on the administration in anyone who has supported that agenda, plain and simple. it does not take a room full of political scientist to figure that out. americans voted for change in the last two elections because of two long and difficult wars. they want the economy to be moving again. the people who were elected dismantled the free market, handed out political favors and demanded government and created more precarious -- a more precarious future for our children. democratic leaders use the crisis of the moment to advance an agenda of americans did not ask for and could not afford.

then they ignored anyone who dared speak out against them. the voters did not suddenly fall in love with republicans. they fell out of love with democrats. they may have voted to send more republicans to washington, they are sending them here with clear marching orders. very clear marching orders. stop the big government freight train. churchill once said courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. i cannot think of a better way to look at these elections than that. this morning i would like to talk a little bit more about how we got here and the task ahead. i wanted to do it at the heritage foundation because

heritage has played a crucial role in promoting and defending the principle of free enterprise, limited government, freedom, and a strong defense. the very principles the american people voted to uphold in tuesday's historic election. first, how we got here. lets cast ermines back to a early 2009. i think the cover of "newsweek" sums up the conventional wisdom in washington at that time. this was the headline. "we are all socialist now." i will note that "newsweek" was recently sold for less than a single price of the magazine.

hopefully the democrats will not bail them out, too. republicans were taking stock. we knew the principles that had made our party great with the same principles that had made america great. we would have to embrace and explain those principles, not discard or conceal them. week renewed our commitment to core principles, win, lose, or draw. the administration would never suffer the consequences for pushing policies americans opposed if we did not do this. and americans would not have a clear alternative. the single most important thing republic instead was to prepare this ground. by sticking together in

principle opposition to policies we viewed as harmful, we made it perfectly clear to the american people where we stood, and we give voters a real choice on election day. at the same time, we made it clear from the beginning that if president obama proposed policies that were consistent with our principles, we would work with him. i made a public offer at the national press club to accept the president's campaign promise of post parses it by proposing to work with him on a number of goals that he himself had suggested, such as reforming entitlements, reducing the debt, increasing our energy independence, and lowering taxes to create jobs. it turned out the white house had different plans. their strategy from the start was to govern hard left and use

their big majorities to push through the most left-wing agenda possible, squeezing on popular proposals through congress by the slimmest majorities and hoping americans would forget the details and the process over a period of time. their idea of consensus was for republicans to do whatever the administration wanted us to do. they plowed through with one piece of legislation after another, written by liberals, for liberals. they had given us ample opportunity to stand up for the principle of lower taxes and a strong defense. they called for the closing of guantanamo without any plan for housing the terrorists who were held there. they had their stimulus that would triple the national debt in 10 years.

they bailed out automakers that should have been allowed to reorganize or to fail. the only one that refused to bail out, ford, is the one doing the best today. as democrats government left, republicans stood time and time again, making the case for conservative alternatives. $3 trillion to the debt has been added. republicans would win races that have gone silent for democrats in states like democrats, new jersey, and massachusetts. the democratic agenda was not the change americans had hoped for. republicans are offering a clear alternative. that was the message for those races and that was the message

on tuesday. the question now is whether americans were wise to entrust republicans with the task of reversing the damage. republicans can be entrusted to because we have been at it for two years. we share the priorities of people -- that people have voiceprint we fought to defend them. now we're ready to give back to work on their behalf. this raises a practical question. what can americans expected from republicans now? let's start with the big picture. over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest our top political priority should be to deny

president obama a second term. the fact is, if our primary legislative goals were to replace the health spending bill, to amend the bailouts, cut spending, and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do that is to put someone in the white house who will not veto any of these things. we can hope the president will start listening to the electorate, but we cannot plan on that. it would be foolish to expect that republicans will be able to reverse the damage democrats have done as long as a democrat holds veto pen. there is no getting around that. leaders of the republican revolution in 1994 think their greatest mistake was overlooking the power of the veto. they give the impression they were somehow in charge when they were not. after president clinton the tote their bills, there were seen as sellouts or failures.

today, democrats have the white house and the senate, as well. we have to be realistic about what we can and cannot achieve. we can and should propose an vote on straight repeal on health care. but we cannot expect the president to sign it. so we will have to work in the house on the nine funds for implementation and in the senate on votes against the most egregious provisions. we will need to continue educating the public about the ill effects of the bill on families young and old and small businesses. this is why oversight will play

crucial role in republican efforts going forward. women not be able to bring about a straight repeal and the next few -- we may not be able to bring about a straight repeal. we should have bipartisan support for some of those efforts. we can compel administration officials to defend health spending bill and the stimulus and financial reform. we need groups like heritage to continue studying the bill affects of the health care bills and show how the implementation is hurting families and seniors, making us less competitive and limiting choices. we welcome any help we can get in reversing the damage this bill has done. we'll keep a spotlight on the paris agency administration 1 now use -- potential back doors show imposing a new national

energy tax through the epa, now that cap and trade is dead. a car check for the national labor relations board, and some form of immigration form. good oversight can make more accountable all the policy czars the administration has installed. the other obstacle is the temptation to over read our task. it is my view that americans are no more interested in a republican plan for using government to reengineer -- then there were in the democrats' plan to do so. government has limits. thank heavens. and voters want us to respect them. we will focus on doing a few things and do them well.

we'll stop the liberal onslaught. we'll make the case for repeal of the health spending bill even as we vote to eliminate its worst parts. we will vote to cut discretionary spending. we will fight to make sure any spending bill is amendable, so members can vote for the cuts americans are asking for. on the economy, we will ensure democrats did not raise taxes on anybody, especially in the middle of a recession. we will oppose future stimulus bills that only stimulate the deficit and fight any further job-killing regulations. we will fight tooth and nail on behalf of americans to create jobs. when it comes to educating the public, we will fill our duty

to oversee the executive branch through smart, aggressive oversight. we will scrutinize democrat legislation and forced them to defend it. while it may benefit some, it exposes everyone to calamity down the road. if we do these things well over the next two years, the voters will be pleased with what they did on tuesday. republicans will be in a better position to reverse the worst excesses' over the past two years and to the crown work for the kind of change we want or need. the kind of change we want is not only possible but also effective. in cutting waste and showing that governments can work for the people, not against them.

think tanks will foremost with ideas like this week's check list for getting america back to work. tea party activists will can see to energize our party. none of this is to say that republicans have given up cooperating with the president. we work for the american people and we owe it to them to work together to find solutions to present troubles and to help guide our nation to better days. there is a choice. they can change course, or they can double down on a vision of government that the american people have rejected. if they choose the former, they will find a partner in republicans. if they do not, there will be disagreements ahead.

the formula is simple. when the administration agrees with the american people, we will agree with the administration. when it disagrees with the american people, we will not. this has been our posture from the beginning, and we intend to stick with it. if the administration want corp., there will have to move in our direction. there is no reason we cannot move together to prevent a tax hike on small businesses. cutting spending increasing american exports by completing free-trade agreements. we cannot give out -- we can give our armed forces whatever they need to accomplish their mission. so this morning i extend an offer that has been on the table for two years, to

corporate i shared goals. all to become this is not about an election. it's about doing what is best for our country. the american people want us to put aside the left wing wish list and help to create jobs and restore the economy to health and prosperity. there is no reason the pardus cannot work together on achieving these goals -- there is no reason the parties cannot work together on achieving these goals. republicans have a plan on following through on the wishes of the american people. it starts with gratitude and a certain humility for the task we have been handed. it means sticking ever more closely to the conservative principles that got us here. it means learning the lessons of history. it means listening to the people

who sent us here. if we all do this, we will finish the job. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thank you. that was wonderful. questions. please keep the questions short and no speeches from the floor, police. >> please state your name and affiliation. >> i am with cns.com. the fed will buy $6 billion in federal debt.

will republicans tried to pass some legislation to restrict the treasury from selling its debt to the fed rather than on the open market? >> you were asking about spending and debt. there are two pieces of the puzzle. >> no, i just wanted to know if you'll try to prevent or stop the treasury from selling -- >> i do not have an opinion on this at this point. >> senator? i am curious if the tax reform is an issue that you can work together with the democrats. >> tax reform.

>> the first thing we have to do is make sure taxes do not go up. we have a tax credit that has been in place for almost a decade -- we have a tax rate that has been in place for almost a decade. this is a recession. before the end of the year, we have a serious question about whether we will prevent a tax increase on anybody or anything at the first of the year. that needs to be resolved first. tax reform is a huge, complicated issue. i'm always interested in tackling that. in the short term, we have to make sure that taxes don't go up on anybody. there is bipartisan opposition to raising taxes on anybody.

40 democrats said we agree with the republicans and we should not be raising taxes on anybody. they have shelled that argument back in september and punted to the lame-duck. you heard the president say this is a tax increase on the rich. when you define what that means, a tax increase two on increase two rates would affect 750,000 small businesses in this country that pay taxes individually. it would affect 50% of small business income. this is a serious tax increase in the middle of a recession. this is a bad idea. we hope current tax policy will be extended forever one. >> what do you think right now is the top priority for people out there? what do you think the people who voted this wave of

conservatives want done first? >> i think people are registered in spending, debt, and private -- they have taken a look at the affect of borrowing money from foreigners that will have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren and what kind of impact that will have on job creation. i think most americans think we should be to stimulate job growth in the private sector. those are the things i think americans are significant upset about and goes to the root of the electoral success that my party had last tuesday. >> i am with voice of america to be. he said the election give you a mandate to be something like the backside of a mule. can you explain what you meant by that?

i did not remember saying that. it sounds pretty good. [laughter] >> can you explain the mandate? >> look, the nisei again that tuesday's election was about the democrats. they got a report card. they got an f. we are not going to miss read the mandate. you did not say john boehner or myself spike the ball in the end zone. acting like this was about us. it was about them and everybody knows that. so the mandate, if you will come out for change is directed at the other guys. we are right where we have been.

the wonderful thing about that is that we know for sure the american people agree with the policy arguments two over arguments two years. it was clear that republicans in the house and senate did not think it was the right course to take. and so that is the message i take from it. we will find out whether the president takes the same message. i expect his consultant are telling can probably that this was about you. he was pretty much agreed to the yesterday in a press conference pert we'll see how they want to change direction. i have said that i did not want the president to fail. i want him to change. we were not sent here to do nothing. if he wants to address that, he will find a willing partner in senate and house republicans.

>> president obama indicated he would work with republicans with an earmark moratorium. we support that? >> every president would love to have a blank check from cars to do whatever he chose to do on every single issue. we will be discussing the appropriate of giving the president that kind of blank check in the coming weeks. that is what that issue is about. you could eliminate every congressional earmarked and it would save no money. it is an argument about discretion. we decide how much we will spend. that topline determines what gets spend. beneath the top line, their arguments going back to andrew jackson between the executive

branch and the legislative branch, and that has been a much-discussed issue on the campaign trail. i am sure the president would love to have a legislative blank check. >> a number of prominent members of your party, trent lott, lindsey gramm, have expressed dismay by pushing tea party-backed candidates. it was a missed opportunity in the sense that you guys did not win the senate. you guys could have won the senate. >> we had a good day. we went from 41 to 47, at least part we will see what happens in washington state. there are no precincts in washington state. everybody votes by mail and it goes on and on. we'll have at least 47 per i

think that is a pretty good day. you cannot go back in second guest about whether you could have had a better candidate here or there. we are pretty happy with the outcome. there are 23 democrats and a 0.9 republicans and bob in the next cycle. we have it realistic shot at getting into the majority in the near future. >> hello. in my question follows up on the question that was just asked. in pushing a conservative agenda for next year, how d.c. moderate in your caucus -- how do you see the moderate your caucus, and do think it could cost them in primaries? >> the most interesting thing to watch is how many democrats start voting with us. you know? we saw on the tax debate back in september that there was

bipartisan opposition to raising taxes. i think we're more like like to see a unified set of republicans and democrats peeling off to support our initiative. i think everyone of the 23 democrats up in the next cycle have a clear understanding of what happened tuesday. i think we have major opportunities for bipartisan coalitions to support what we want to do. we will see how that develops. there is a never ending cycle of politics. the president and 23 senate democrats are now in cycle. we're optimistic that maybe 23 senate democrats could take the same message from tuesday's election, that we may be able to make some gains.

>> do you have any issue with administration on foreign policy, particularly the policy toward china? china has been an important factor in american economic recovery. thank you. >> most republicans, pertly all republicans in the senate, have supported the president's approach which is the continuation of president bush's policies. it was signed by the previous administration. members of the senate republican converts have supported the surge in afghanistan. where i think we have some problems is over this whole issue that can best be expressed as american

exceptional was some america really is an exceptional country and what it is a good idea to go abroad and kind of suggest we have been wrong in a variety of different things. that is kind of a macro observation, a broad observation. with regard to china, i don't have any observation. >> i wanted to ask what specifically could you find common ground up in terms of energy independence. and if lisa murkowski is reelected, would she continued to be the top republican on energy resources? >> on energy, the president said he is for nuclear power. we are for nuclear power.

the president is for clean coal technology, and so are we. there is bipartisan enthusiasm for plug-in hybrid cars. those are areas of potential cooperation. with regard to alaska, it is clear we will have a republican senator from alaska. the process will unfold up their over the next weeks or months. we will font determine who won -- we will finally determined who won. we will be sorting the commission -- soaring the committee at issues out in the coming months. we will see the ratios and the size of committees and the ratios up committees. we go through a process in the senate where members of

committees select the ranking chairman and that is ratified by the full conference. all of that will be determined in the coming weeks. we will just have to wait and see what happens. yes. >> you mentioned repeal like health care reform. you did not call for a repeal of the dodd-frank bill. what parts of that do you want to change? >> i am sorry i left that out. i thought it was a horrible bill, too. i cannot find a banker in kentucky. it is -- it was a terrible piece of legislation. health care was the worst piece of legislation that was passed in my time.

in the senate, the financial services bill is somewhat close to that. we will be looking at it and trying to figure out how we can improve it. >> one more. >> thank you. i'm with voice of america. -- thank you, senator. how was the foreign policy in respect with the troops in afghanistan. military aid for the pakistan military, $2 billion, it will go through the congress. thank you. >> i think senate republicans are supportive of the policies both in afghanistan and pakistan. i did not anticipate the change

in the composition of the senate or the house having an impact on the current policy of this administration in both afghanistan and pakistan. all right. to buy very much, everyone. [applause] -- thank you very much, everyone. >> thanks very much, senator mcconnell, to be with us this morning. ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.

is just a fewrtion minutes. >> mitch mcconnell has given a speech in which he said [unintelligible] he also said that if the minister shimon cooperation in the next two years, you'll have to move in the republicans' direction. >> i think first and foremost, the message of tuesday's election was that the american people want both political parties to work together. there will be time for another political campaign, but we just finished one. candidates were not elected to

have more fighting in washington or to read fight the battles of the past two years. again, what the president said today in inviting senator mcconnell and other leaders to the white house on november 18 is to sit down, listen to each other, work together, and find common ground. i think that is what the election was about and that is what the president is intending to do. >> did get the impression that the republicans walk away from this election with the same message that you got? >> i think that if you look at candidates -- a lot of candidates ran against washington. they typically did not portray washington in their ads as a place where people listen and work together. given those dynamics and those

images, what they are looking for is what those campaigns were about, working together. yesterday the president signaled some attention to work with republicans on extending tax cuts. our first priority obviously being the middle class, to work with republicans on things like education policy, improving our schools, and to work with them on energy dependence. they were not wedded to all of our ideas. i hope that senator mcconnell comes to the white house with that in mind in a couple of weeks. >> the president is open to compromise in extending the upper income tax cuts? >> we are certainly open to listening to their position in

talking about it and working together to find a compromise that moves this issue forward. our biggest concern is if this congress does not act by the end of the year, taxes for middle- class families were going to go up. we can and should not let that happen. we have the power to change that. i think the power is sitting together and coming up with a plan that works for both sides. the president is confident that we can do that. >> 10 house races are still undecided after the elections, including two seats each in california and arizona. with the races that are final, next year's congress would have 186 democrats and 239 republicans. all 10 of the races that are undecided are seats held by democrats. in the next senate, there will be at least 51 democrats, 46 republicans, and two independents.

democratic incumbent patty murray was declared the winner in washington. the senate race in alaska will be the last to be decided. in that race in alaska, incumbent senator lee summer cowskin ran as a right in candid after losing to -- lisa murkowski. she is leading by about seven points. mr. miller's campaign has said there may be a legal challenge to the results. >> changes need to occur in congress and it is only going to occur if the people of our country really began to get involved in the political system and began to run for congress and come over here to make changes that are necessary. >> that was john boehner in 1990. you can learn more about the presumptive speaker of the house through his own words in over

800 appearances on line at the c-span video library. it is washington, your way. >> in a few moments, more election analysis and a discussion hosted by congressional quarterly and roll call. in a little more than an hour, you will hear from stuart rothenberg. after that, freedom works chairman dick armey with his assessment of the election and the gop agenda. several live events to tell you about tomorrow. we'll have more election analysis from the bill press radio program. that is live on c-span2 at 6:00 a.m. eastern. at 9:00 a.m. eastern, the world affairs council so america sponsor a daylong conference on the future of u.s. foreign policy. participants include former ambassador to iraq and retired

general ray odierno. here on c-span, a forum on the election hosted by the weekly standard and washington examiner. panelists include the weekly standard bill kristol and fred barnes and michael barone. that is at 12:30 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend, jonah boulder, best-selling author and editor at large of national review online discusses the election results, the conservative movement, and the next wave of leaders on the right. join our three-hour conversation sunday at noon eastern on c- tv."'s "book >> there is nothing voluntary about bible reading. >> this week in part to of abington school district involving prayer in school, mr.

schemp else did it should not have to read from the bible before class. that is saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern and online at c-span radio.org. >> now or roll call discussion on what the elections mean for congress and president obama. this panel includes thomas mann of the brookings institution. it is a little more than an hour. >> good morning. welcome to the second session. let me briefly introduce myself. i am the newly minted managing editor of cq weekly magazine having moved from political and the washington post.

there are different kinds of publications. when the things the editor has to do is go back and previous how the news media coverage of their elections once the results were in. i went back into the 1980 posted to do that. it was a humbling experience to do what we said each election. if you is humiliating. almost without fail, we were in not only wrong, we were dead wrong. we have a tendency to declare things did that where a life and a life that where dead. realignments never done this.

we are in the business a short- term observation. that is why we call our panelists. these are people that know what it is like and have the old- fashioned quality that used to be known as prospective. they had seen it before. they understand where it may lead. they understand what is possible and what is not.

is a column called "permanent campaign, " it is a brilliant description of what happened to the elected government in the united states. i think it still holds third to this day. you can get a free if you google properly. [laughter] >> we are going to start with more today. item think they need an introduction. the question is, what is the agenda? i will start by holding up this comment. if voters want the two parties to work together. it starts off as some analysis

of the polls. will the politicians listened? energy dependent say is second rate. chances are they will spend the next two years struggling to win the 2012 elections. >> that is what i fear. the debt bomb is the most serious long term. very shortly we will be spending seven and a billion dollars a year paying interest on the national debt. we are borrowing $700 billion from china to build weapons remain have to build someday. it makes no sense.

it is a balance of power. these are problems that the system has got to address. everyone knows it when it comes to doing it, if the kind of says never get taken. i fear they will not be taken. we have a chance when the commission reports. i doubt they will come up with what will put it into automatic attention of the congress. there will be a lot of ideas there. if the congress is willie willing to tackle this problem

today is really willing to tackle this problem and they can work it out, maybe something can be done. i fear because the president will be pulled by the left, i do not think he is bill clinton. i think his mindset is that of a liberal democrat. there are certain things that are out of bounds. there will be shaking off any time any leader intends to make a compromise with this. rush limbaugh and sarah palin are saying not sit compromise. these are the making of gridlocks.

there are other things that can be done that they can work on. one of them is education reform. no child left behind needs to be reauthorized. arne duncan and barack obama are doing things where they are really taking on the teachers' union. that can be done almost immediately after they agree on extending the bush tax cuts. there are things that can be done. i have a whole list of them. i am pessimistic. >> on that uplifting note, tom.

>> thank you very much. what a pleasure to come back. norman and i started these conferences in 1980. this is 30 years later. we began with that extraordinary 1980 reaction. think of 94, 2000, 2006. everything seems to change in the media aftermath. we tried to figure out what is going on. alas, oftentimes the immediate take makes them claim a mandate in defined in meaning of the election and for others to pull out their ideological frame that they apply every day to their jobs in their life. we figured it is useful to sit

back and see if we can imagine what stream of political activity in developments, what structures exist that might help us get through this. before launching into that, i am always reminded of a story of when something happens in an election. this one is perfect. most of us watched the obama press conference. he said he did not give the reporters what they wanted in terms of indicating that he heard the message of the people and he is prepared to do all disposition and rejects his

health reform bill and believes that stimulus is important. he did not. they were not happy. obama was even less happy than the others. i kept thinking and imagining what he was really thinking when the words were coming out of his mouth. file is reminded of that famous story that some of you carter kept coming in just ahead of him in new hampshire, and down south into the midwest. it was very frustrating.

he was the perennial second finisher in all of these races. but they finally came to the progressive state of wisconsin. it was there he was going to make his stand. on election night, the returns were coming in. number one.dall he was a happy man. then, it took hours for the returns to come in. now it takes weeks for all of them to come in. he decided he had to give them a little sleep. he took a nap. sadler woken up a 6:00 a.m. and said, "mr. congressman, i am sorry but the late returns were from the rural areas, and jimmy carter actually got the votes to move ahead. he has won. you have lost." udall said to call a press conference. he began by saying, "the people

have spoken, the bastards." and i am sure that is -- that is how many democrats are feeling today. but from a historical perspective, we have is about a 6.5% swing in the national vote to were the republican party, which -- we have had that kind of swing several times in the last decade. but it proved efficient in producing more turnover. we no republicans have 60 guaranteed. they could well move up to 65. the significant victory did not produce a majority in the senate, but big pickups. the one i was struck by from george will and kathleen parker -- part hammer has not had a

chance to weigh in yet. it is a rejection of liberalism. it is clearly the country signaling that this administration has gone too far to the left. i am just struck by how much my town is captured by a geological thinking, not just the illogical polarization of the parties, but a belief that when a politician has a bad election it is because they have swung too far away from the center. it is all about the ideological position when my own view, and i think consistent with what you heard on the first panel today, is it is not rocket science to see what happened. we have come out of the worst economic crisis since the 1930's, and the recovery is

painfully slow, as we expected it would be because it began with a financial crisis. if you just consider the democrats were in power. they had a lot of seats at risk. it was a midterm election in which the economy was incredible shape objectively and subjectively. and the whole nature of the electorate changed from a presidential to a midterm election, with the relative representation of young people and old people reversing a. i mean, of course it's going to be a big swing toward the republicans, and a 67% swing is perfectly understandable. frankly, it does not require any kind of the ideological position they are thinking. it is misleading to jump on changes in the% of people who identify as conservatives are moderates or liberals.

those tend to be trailing indicators rather than leading indicators, and people reacting to the realities -- in this case getting really scared about what is going on, and seeing big, active government. they figure because they have been skewed by the republican opposition that not only is that the government not help, but is really the cause of all these problems, so if we just cut it back we will return to some kind of nirvana. the question that i think it is important to ask, that we almost never asked in this town because it is considered elitist or snobbish if you do it -- what if the public is wrong about the policy, and in fact legitimately concerned about the consequences and the reality of what is going on? in the face of the recession that could turn into depression,

if the people think tarp is a bad idea, does that mean washington should not enact it? hats off to george w. bush for doing what had to be done in a crisis, in spite of its own popularity in his party and his country. whatever the problems with it, it is a massive success. i would say the same for the stimulus. ironically, if you are going to criticize that it is because it is too small, not too large. the same for the auto company bailouts. you can apply that to the new agenda. how are we going to produce more jobs and real economic growth in the short term? because if we do not get growth going, you cannot deal with anything, because the decline in revenues will overwhelm any savings from cutting spending alone. that is the kind of talk we are not getting, and one of the really sad things is that the sort of party going in now with

lots of new members and energy is articulating an agenda that, if you look at its pure substantive terms, does not have a chance of doing anything about the problems that are consuming the american public right now. final point. david broder in his column, and warren in his column, talked about the desire of the public for people in congress working together. and i think in general that reflects a basic feeling they have always had, which is they like to see politicians agreeable and coming together and doing the right thing. of course, the right thing dippers among those people, and they do not fully accept the fact that there are profound differences about how to go about these problems, and that they're very behavior in aligning themselves with parties that are consistent with their ideologies has reinforced

this is the logical polarization and intense partisanship. -- this ideological polarization and intense partisanship. i do not think there is a golden mean in the deficits and this policy. we have to look at the substance of these policies and understand that the public has to be brought into this in some more substantial way if we are going to get anything done. >> let me start by saying as tom suggested, with weeks to count returns, the elections are not over. my eyes and the others are turned to alaska, waiting for those right ins. i am not referring to the senate race, but to the critical position of mayor of wasilla. i and waiting to see if levi johnson can get into the double

digits to spring board to bigger things, of course. there is a story i have often told about an election with a dramatic victory for one side or other as a cautionary note. it is a story that takes place in the first year anatomy class at madison school, a professor using the socratic method. he turned to the class and said for the question of the day, " ms. richards, what human organ when appropriately stimulated growth to eight times its normal size?" she reddens and says, "i refuse to answer that question." he looks around and asks mr. porter. mr. porter says, "the people of the human eye when it enters a dark room." the professor says to ms. richards, "you did not do your homework, and you are doomed to a live of disappointment."

that applied to the liberals after 2000. i use that and i will not attribute. it came from al franken. actually, it came from morton, and he forgot. and so for the many freshmen coming in, it is something to keep in mind. the argument about whether voters have swung toward a much smaller government i found quite striking a cnn poll that asked the question of voters. what is the first thing you want government to do in this next year? coming out on top by a very wide margin of 37% was an economic stimulus. i am not sure how that squares

with the notion that voters have decided now that what they want to do is take a meat ax to government. what it suggests to me is that while there is no doubt that we have many more people who self identified as conservatives right now that americans are, as they have always been, pragmatic. they go for what works. if a government is working, that is fine. if it is not working and they see government screwing up, they want to turn to the private sector. was the private sector screws up, there will come back and look for something else. now i will begin a series of almost bullet points. the most interesting statement on election eve came from most likely speaker designate john boehner. "while the new majority will serve as your voice in the people's house, we muster member is the president who sets the agenda for our government." you could have to

interpretations of that statement. the first is that the civic training for our elected officials is abysmal and that perhaps they ought to read the constitution to refer to quite frequently. my guess is that several framers would be spinning in their graves at the notion that it is the president that sets the agenda for our country. the president is the executive who disposes of an agenda that is set by the congress. i do not think that john boehner is ignorant of the basics of the constitution. i think it is part of what has become a consultant -- a concerted effort he has led along with jeb bush to lower expectations and try to dampen the fervor of new people coming in who may say, "it is not about us," but who may believe that it is, and who really do want to turn up the heat and pass an agenda that is in fact one that will take a meat ax to

government. it is one that could not be enacted at this point, but that might bring a big enough public backlash. it reflects another reality, which is that for both parties right now, while we are going to continue to have political clashes between them, some of the most interesting struggles for both will be internal. for the republicans, it is a set of pragmatic leaders whose goal is to win elections, as mitch mcconnell in the second most interesting statement said. "our primary political goal is to make sure that barack obama is a one-term president. the second goal is to win a majority in the senate and keep the majority in the house." a lot of new members coming in did not come in with that as their primary goal. their primary goal is to dramatically reversed the policy course that is being set in washington. there are going to be a lot of elements of tension there, and tension that we saw reflected in the rather stunning statement of

jim demand -- demint, as a cautionary note to the members of the new senate coming in. "you will be on committees, but never mind those committees. there will try to co-op you into coming up with policies. you should forget about that and go on the floor and do things that have nothing to do with working together." i have never heard the politicians say two incoming members of congress "never mind the committee's you're born to serve on." it is an extraordinary statement. jim demand for mitch mcconnell has been like the neighbor freddie krueger living down the street. we have had a whole series of kreueger families move in on the block. for obama, it is a continuing disaffection of his left, which is also kind of funny when you see all these stories suggesting

obama has moved so starkly to the left. if he has moved so sharply to the left, why is the left so dissatisfied? but they are. the fourth statement of great interest was in his concession statement russ feingold saying, "it is onward to 2012." i am not sure that means he is planning a primary challenge from the left to barack obama. it may mean he is looking toward what future he will have, and i am sure it will be a robust one in terms of policy and the public interest. it is a suggestion there are headaches for the president ahead. when we look at some of the areas where cooperation is possible, let us start with trade, where the president has indicated he wants to move toward enactment of the free trade agreements with columbia and south a report -- with colombia and south korea. we will find more republicans

willing to support that than democrats and a base of organized labor which is already unhappy because they did not get the kind of labor reform that they wanted, and that is now dead, certainly. jon klein is not want to be inclined to do anything on that front in the house of representatives. and this will be another burr under their saddle, along with many other liberals. can he make compromise and still keep his own base intact? just a few other points. before we get to the agenda for the next congress, we have to navigate through a very difficult lame-duck session. one critical question which has been raised already by many and is obvious is can they reach some kind of an agreement. basically, they need the tax issue, at least for another year. we will be watching first of all to see whether the campaign that began a couple of months ago,

anticipating a wave election from conservatives, to discredit and delegitimize the lame duck session, because after all these are people who will have been thrown out by voters, will get heated up. if it does, it will make it more difficult to do the kinds of things that pragmatic republican leaders would prefer to push off. because if they cannot reach some agreement on taxes, tax increases will take place on january 1, with the new congress coming in on january 3, and that will be a jolt to people in a whole host of ways, and one of the more interesting statements before the election came from the republican congressman from wyoming, suggesting that if they did not do something about the estate tax that some of her constituents would kill themselves literally. she has elderly people on dialysis who would pull the plug survey would not screw their children out of the ranch's or

other properties they have. it made her take notice. but beyond the estate tax, can a fragile economy take a sharp tax increase for everybody? and will the new collection of people coming in on january 3 -- if you have not reached an agreement on taxes -- insist that their version of compromise is capitulation, make them all permanent. how long will it take to reach an agreement that might continue things for a year, where you can take the battle of next year? we have not had a single appropriations bill enacted into law. the time is running out. will they push the court a few months so that the major battles over the budget that could and probably will lead to at least one shutdown of the government that put off for several months? what about the start treaty? and keep in mind that we will have two major ethics trial is taking place during this lame- duck session.

the year or more in which we had a very strong and close working relationship, for some and model of bipartisanship, for others a sense that the old see no evil, hear no evil ethics process was underway, between ranking member of alabama and [unintelligible] fell apart right before the election before republicans demanded the trials took place before the election. it was never practical, because several members of the ethics committee were in a tough reelection battle themselves, but it was a political shot. it suggests we may have partisan pitched battles over ethics issues. finally, just two more points. one, there is little doubt that the policy agenda in congress will be constrained one. we will have moved from the most contractive -- the most

productive congress in the last 50 years to one of the least productive in our lifetimes. much of the focus will shift to executive power, how much the president can do to executive orders, executive agreements, regulatory power, and bureaucratic action. the "wall street journal" will once again discover in its files article one of the constitution. you're going to find a lot of people in congress with a tug of war over the use of executive power. the courts will play a role as well. whether courts filled with judges, most of whom have come out of the executive branch, who have had a longstanding bias toward the executive against congress, will suddenly change as they see an executive they do not like and a congress with a substantial role by people they do, is going to bring us into a completely different venue. finally, we will see some action, possibly, on trade.

education is worth mentioning. energy is an area where there could be a significant common ground. one interesting tug-of-war will be over in the structure. the business community poured a lot of money into getting republicans into the majority. they want a major move made on infrastructure. it is in their interest not just in jobs but in a speech for the transportation corridors work. the new members coming in tonight do not want new major government spending in infrastructure. can the parties get their act together on that? it is another interesting area among many we can talk about in the remainder of our time. >> thank you. and while i think some of you are playing down the notion that there is a message from the voters here, norm in particular mentioned the message the republicans have taken this, as well as the media, the notion

that what people want is a dramatic reversal in the course of government, whether that is an accurate definition of what the voters want or not. that does seem to be the agenda of the republican party. some question, and let us start for example with health care as one of those things -- and on health care, i would like to ask each of you, what conceivably might the republicans be able to do on health care, and how might the democrats, many of whom suffered as a result of that bill -- how my respond? i would really like to get each of you in on this, starting with you, mort. >> the president said yesterday he was willing to tweak the health care bill, and the republicans are all calling for repeal and replace. i suppose the tea party people just want to repeal and forget about replace. i have not seen -- i think many of them think that providing

health care to the uninsured is something that is not explicitly referred to in the constitution and therefore is an illegitimate form of government. you have a very wide range of opinions about what to do about health care. the 1099 form that the congress required, that every transaction that any business conducts of any kind over $600 has got to have a 1099 form issued about it, it is deemed by everybody to be onerous. it was a fund-raising mechanism. that is certainly going to be pulled out of the bill. that is sort of easy. the republicans really think that appealing the health-care bill is a job creator because

they believe that small business looked at this, and i am now quoting not a tea party person but lamar alexander, a very moderate republican, who said that right before the election he was with the chain restaurant owners, which is one of the biggest small-business groups in the country. and they claimed to him that the health care bill was going to put the burden of $40,000 per employee on them in administrative taxes, mandates. and that encouraged them to have less employees. the republicans really believe that repealing or substantially amending health care is a major item on their agenda.

now this has the makings of a total breakdown of the government. i can well see that the republicans in the house particularly are going to pass bills one after the other after the other to repeal and to inhibit the implementation of the health-care bill. for example -- by the way, there is a 22 page document that was issued today by eric kantor, which you can download, which talks about the steps that the house republicans in vision -- envision putting into effect. one of the items in that is to from theira's and nhs funds it takes to implement the health-care bill. this is not only their

administrative savings, but it is a way of throttling the implementation of the health care bill. i do not think that -- well, you know, if they just do not appropriate that money, this inhibits the ability of the administration to follow through on health care reform, and could be the makings, if there is a big de-funding effort, could be the makings of a government shutdown among many. i do not see a coming to terms here. health care. i think you had two basic philosophical differences between the parties on this issue. the democrats and the administration believe that their highest priority was to give access to health insurance to the 51 million people who were uninsured. all the republicans cared about was lowering the cost of health insurance.

the democrats want the government to set the rules, create the mandates, to essentially take over the insurance companies and turn them into public utilities. the republicans believe in a free market in health insurance, up by your policy across state lines -- buy your policy across state lines. i do not see how they will ever come to terms on this and i can see it as a root of the conflict during the entire next year. >> i think it will be. i agree with martin. i think it will be a source of conflict between parties over the next two years. but i do think an advantage accrues to what is on the books now, and i think republicans will encounter great difficulties. the first panel, i cannot remember whether it was carol or

bob, "to the exit polls. the public is absolutely divided on this. there is not a majority in the country favoring a repeal of health care. if anything, leave it alone or strengthen it, improve it in some way. it really gets hard. obviously, you cannot repeal it with the senate as it is an obama in the white house. you can trust bureaucrats, and we will see a lot of fat -- you can harrass bureaucrats, and we will see a lot of that. you can try to defund, but i think obama will go to the mat and shut down hss. social security is included in that bill. let us have social security checks not go out because of a disagreement between the

president and the republicans in the congress. of course, it probably will not come to that. if boehner has anything to say about that, it will never happen. he is a legislator. but he is running so fast. he is ahead of his troops. it is very difficult. here is one thing i anticipate. there is a philosophical difference. eight republicans were attracted to a plan that was not far different in many respects from -- i would have favored it to what eventually got past, but it is dramatically different from what the republicans are prepared to do now in health care. by the way, that includes an individual mandate, among many other things, and substantial subsidies for individuals in low income households.

but mitch pulled the plug. he said, "you are all of this bill before obama is notgurated, bubecause we are negotiating on health care. even if returned it to a bill more to our liking, obama and the democrats would get credit and we would not have the kind of political success we want." there is less principal and more partisanship in my view. the final point is that many provisions of the health care have begun to enroll, and almost all of them are very popular. it is just that the broad public does not know much about it, including by the way tax credits for small businesses which have led to a marked increase in the amount of insurance among small businesses. but all the other insurance provisions are quite popular. i predict the senate, because it is controlled by the majority,

will hold hearings in which various people come forward to talk about the favorable elements of the health care bill now. that is going to begin to get away from the rhetoric of government takeover of health care, socialized medicine, and death panels. >> i find some of the arguments that we see over the health-care bill almost surreal. if you look at what people like dave nirenberg, a republican senator from minnesota, has said, or mark mcconnell, the head of the fda and medicare services under bush -- this is the kind of plan, with some problems, that moderately conservative republicans have put forward as the alternative to clinton path bill in the early 1990's, with many of the ideas coming out of the right. so it just shows how much a lot of the debate and dialogue have shifted.

whether this is a government takeover of the insurance industry, alex strickland, who is not exactly a major leftist on some issues, has said she thinks the exchanges are one of the best ways to bring real competition to the process. we will see. i am skeptical of the notion that if we just let people buy insurance over state lines everything will be fine. we have this notion that if we just let people buy credit cards over state lines, everything will be just fine. what happened? it was a race to the bottom. everyone went to the state that had all the credit card companies that given the luces regulations. it is why we had an enormous public backlash on credit card reform in the last congress. all of that is a second set of arguments. talking about repeal or repeal and replace puts you in a little bit of a tricky ground. that is why it started with repeal and then it moved to repeal and replace. now it is, "well of course we will keep the popular things.

no more pre-existing conditions." how'd you get to a point where there are no more pre-existing conditions unless you vastly expand the risk pool? otherwise of course people are going to gain the system. why pay for insurance? wait until you get cancer, and then you can go in and get it. you have to have a different kind of system. that is a logic that led to what the heritage foundation was discussing many years ago before they said "we never wrote that. who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" it was the notion of a mandate. are you going to repeal the end of lifetime annual limit? we used to think a $2 million lifetime limit -- who could ever reach that? a couple of weeks in the emergency room and the intensive care unit, and you are bumping up against that. or letting people keep insurance for their kids up to the age of 26.

it cannot begin to unravel something without having all kinds of other consequences, and that will be difficult. one thing john boehner said before the election, when he was asked about the health care bill, is we are going to first repeal the medicare cuts that make up most of the financing of this program. i was at first a little bemused that he used the term cuts. you remember the debates we had in the reagan and bush administrations, where democrats talk about cuts and republicans said how unfair that was, they were lowering the rate of increase? well, now cuts are back. think of what happens if the put out a proposal to eliminate all of those things, most of which would be in any fiscal program to try to bend the cost care on medicare, if you are going to get the fiscal house in order, as mitt romney said in his up said yesterday. you also have to deal with medicare. if you do not deal with medicare, you will not have a plan to do with the fiscal

problem. i can assure you that democrats under any circumstances, but it to get an attack on medicare, you come up with a fiscal plan that says we are going to tackle social security but leave this fine, we are going to cut of taxes and will not cut the health system, you're not going to have any kind of agreement. this goes into very tricky territory. i agree that it could and probably will lead to at least one of the many shutdowns of government that we have. but the bigger thing to watch for there is when the ceiling approach is sometime in the spring. >> that leaves the to a second related question, tom. the debt limit thing may be a starting point. how will this urge the powerful upper percentage of the electorate you want to associate

it with, clearly a strong, vocal segment the ones to dramatically cut spending -- how will that manifest itself? how far will that get? will it start with some potential crisis having to do with the debt limit? how will we see that play out? and >> this is clearly a part of the republican majority priority to deal with spending. in some ways come at it is immediate spending. it is not what mort was talking about initially, our medium and long-term structural imbalance between revenues and expenditures, which is a serious matter. ironically, it is almost all symbolic, and counterproductive, i would argue. cutting spending now, laying

off federal employees, is one of the dumbest things you could do in the economy in the shape it is in now. it would probably have little impact on the deficit itself. it is patrolling at the margins. and it is kind of anti-stimulus at a time when even martin feldstein and others are calling for more stimulus. but i think the fight will be there, and it will come back again and again, bill by bill congestion. there will try to stay away from specifics and do broader percentage cuts until the administration to find the waste and fraud and abuse to do so. i have a machiavellian view of this thing. what would keep barack obama from being reelected? one is a challenge in the primaries. that is probably all about afghanistan and nothing else.

the other is we never get out of this slow-growth, 2% are under. republicans cutting spending in the short term probably increases the probability of more immediate pain, fewer jobs, lower growth. over two years, that puts obama in worse shape. but the public now in its own mind has come to believe that is all we have to do, like households. we have to cut spending, and that is going to produce new jobs and economic growth. >> other thoughts? >> i view the next two years as a great empathetic game -- a great and put the game of chess. maybe it is only checkers. each side is good to try to maneuver the other into the blend of what happens over the next two years. just think about this for a second. in order to get back to 5%

unemployment, we have to create 200,000 jobs a month for five years. we are currently creating jobs at the rate of 12,000 jobs a month. the fastest. of growth, five-year period of growth, in history is 90,000 a month. that gives you some idea of how far short we are of doing what we need to do in order to restore the economy to health. i submit that that is not a good sign for anybody's reelection if they have not done something about that. i think the republicans are now in charge of the house of representatives. they are going to be judged. obama is going to be judged for sure on whether he can get something going. but all i see is an inability to

get stuff done, and maneuvering over who is going to get credit for it. >> in light of that, let me take you back to john boehner. "we must remember is the president who sets the agenda for our government." you cannot blame us even though we are in the majority now. you are going to see shifting the blame, and you will see that obama can be as agile as clinton was when we moved toward the shutdown of the government, with a speaker who is not going to have anywhere near the power, possibly the power of overreaching to create a backlash, as with gingrich, but also the power over his own colleagues when it occurred to say, we have to work with this. can he do that? the fact that eric cantor is coming out with a 22-page majority leader's agenda, never

mind what the speaker has to say, and that mike pence, who is leading the leadership, has been all over television saying the only kind of compromise we want is capitulation, basically, suggests that the path there becomes very difficult as well. i think there will be difficulty with the public that has a deep antipathy towards washington. that leaves even more to believe that if you just cut out the waste, fraud, and abuse, you can dramatically streamline this government. when you start to cut, and that includes a freeze on all discretionary spending back to 2008 levels, never mind if we have another hurricane, another oil spill, another crisis of any sort, and how you begin to sort all that out, you are going to start to see programs that people rely on shaved. will be as interesting as anything is whether the older voters who made up the bulk of this reaction, and some of it was a reaction against the

health care bill -- it is people who have medicare saying "you are going to take something from us and give it to others" -- some of these changes are going to impinge against them. how they react to that may be one of the most interesting political developments over the next year. >> you are saying erick kanter is a bigger threat to boehner than freddy krueger. >> and sang in the nightmares he may have over the next months, there may be at least as many revolving around some of his own colleagues as the democrats in the white house. i think in the and it is the president who is held accountable, even though the president is not in a position to deliver. i think one of the unfortunate things about washington talked is everything is always symmetrical. it is both their faults and they are going to do this, and he is going to do that. we do not look at the substance of what is going on.

i mean, we need to somehow get higher growth. i do not know anyone under these circumstances who argues that cutting spending in the short term will increase jobs in the short run, or growth. so we ought to be able to say that. and the president has discovered one of the dilemmas of contemporary american politics. we have parliamentary-like parties, illogically polarized, but we do not have majoritarian rule because of the senate, as parliament's do. if we did not have a filibuster, if we had majority rule, obama would have put a larger stimulus into place, health reform would have been passed in three years without the credit deals with ben nelson and so on, and then he could have made adjustments if more stimulus was needed. the ultimately, he could be held

accountable. the irony is he gets something that is different and worse because of the republican opposition, but he is the one who has to be held accountable for it. >> let me give you the optimistic scenario here. there is a potential deal to be have that might bring stimulus and economic growth that you could imagine being plausible. that is the crux get more infrastructure spending, eight fairly big shock, and in return we get some additional -- that is democrats get more infrastructure spending, a fairly big chunk, and in return we get apparel tax holiday. as a part of that -- we know that dave camp is involved in conversations with ken conrad about tax reform.

you could see a deal that would involve a pretty dramatic transformation of our tax system, one that would be more efficient and effective, that could be part of a larger package. the odds of that happening are not great, but the fact is even with this gulf between the parties and the growing electoral magmas pulling them apart, there may be something that could be done. >> there is an idea floating around, and that is a national infrastructure institution, an independent institution free from politics that would pick up significant infrastructure projects based on merit and basically leverage a small amount of government money and attract and lots more private money to get it off the

sidelines in order to develop major systems. obama has finally -- he proposed it back in the 2008 campaign and then forgot about it. suddenly, it has re-emerged. i have seen in obama's policy prescriptions indications that he is willing to move a little bit. the infrastructure bank is one, which is based on private capital. yesterday he said the most important thing we have to do is make sure that small business is hiring, that business is the foundation of our economy. that is different from the kind of anti-business town you have heard from the administration and a lot. the small-business bill finally got past. it contained a lot of tax breaks for small buildings -- for small business. it may be that the sun is gone in the administration, that the

private-sector really is where the jobs that created -- the jobs created. and improving the climate for private sector job creation is what they have to do. that proves they can sit down with the republicans and say how can we do this. they can make some progress. i think it is large a tax cuts, some tax reform, and so on. >> the infrastructure bank, by the way, has a model that obama has enthusiastically supported, which is the greenback does exactly the same thing to create green jobs. >> these would work. more tax cuts would increase demand, which is what is really holding back business investment, is confident that there will be enough vitality and demand to merit a new investment. >> it is later than i thought, and i would like to open it up

to the folks in the audience who might have some questions. i see one right down here. do we have microphones? >> bobble with dirt from prudential financial. -- bob weiger with prudential financial. with the estate tax, it seems republicans cannot possibly allow the estate tax to snap back on january 1 to a $1 million floor with a 55% rate. i wonder whether you think that some deal on the estate tax might serve as a kind of an anvil on which a larger deal could be formed on the income tax rates as well. >> i think you are right, bob.

there is a nightmare scenario with the estate tax. if you want an exhibit 8 in the dysfunction of government over the last few years, we knew the estate tax was going to go to the un will the situation it is now, where there is no estate tax but you also have to go back and calculate capital gains on assets people may have had for 50 years, and then move to this draconian level. the should have been able to work out a deal, which was on the table to end three years ago, which is simply to keep it at the $3.50 billion individual exemption and the 45% rate. republicans were holding up for a much larger number. now we are going to get into a series of negotiations. it is going to be a tug of war within the parties as to whether you want to reach that deal, even if it means you play the usual and the game negotiation or game of chicken right up to the end of the lame-duck

session. well logic would suggest that you reach a deal, logic does not seem to apply to many of these cases now. >> anyone else? >> [inaudible] i apologize if you addressed this this morning. can you talk about the interplay between fiscal pressures that states will continue to deal with and the response of federal government? that will be an ongoing concern. as you know, states do not have the luxury of continuing to rack up high deficits. >> i see no prospect that there is going to be any help from the federal government to the states. what you are going to have is a crisis in state after state after state, where state workers are going to have to be laid

off. i think we have had the last daylight on the state. there is one problem with all of this, and that is that some states have been frugal. some states have balance their budgets. other states have been utterly profligate. and there is no way that anybody has invented -- there ought to be a percentage of effort kind of formula that could be worked thatto reward the state's have actually lowered their own deficits. i just think that this falls into the category of bailout, and it -- nothing is going to be done about it. >> and it is truly perverse. with the remaining stimulus at the federal level -- it is absolutely countered by what is happening in the states. it is insanity. there are some policy analysts

out there who have actually drawn up some proposals where you could have a program of revenue sharing. that was an old republican idea, remember? tie it to performance on dealing with pension liabilities and such other things. so in order to keep the money, you had to bend and in a sort of fiscally responsible way when the economy returns and you are in a position. but avoid draconian cuts during times of economic downturn. that is counter-productive. >> and your comments hold true for no more medicaid dollars for states, propping up their deficits? >> i think absolutely. it was also interesting that mitt romney pair of prescription for fiscal sanity was to put an absolute cap on medicaid dollars. give that money to the states and tell them they are on their own. i am not sure that would be embraced by many of his

republican governors with great enthusiasm at the moment. >> yes, sir. >> there was a mention this morning of a battle between bachman and henserling on the republican side. what about elections for house leadership on the democratic side? >> we are all waiting to see what nancy pelosi will do. i do not think it is at all clear cut. many of the people close to her -- some believe she might step down, others that she will not shrink from the fight. i am not even sure she knows herself. if she does decide to step down from a leadership post, then i think it is basically a slam- dunk for study where -- steny hoyer. i do not see anybody challenging

him. there will be battles down the line for the chairmanship of the democratic congressional campaign committee. i think chris van hollen, despite a big loss for his party this time, will remain a rising star and a top leadership figure in the party. >> since we are getting into people, i have to do this. i have to do this. we are getting into personalities. the impact of sarah palin over the next two years. on the agenda. >> i think the cover story -- you see occasional references to this around. the people who got slapped the hardest, i think, in this election, besides nancy pelosi and barack obama, are jim demint and sarah palin. they are responsible for the fact that the senate did not go republican. they are the ones who are responsible for christine

o'donnell. they are the ones responsible for joe miller in alaska. they are responsible for jim buck in colorado and sharron angle in nevada. those characters were all rejected. in every single case, when the republicans won a senate seat, except in the rand paul case, the margin was considerably smaller for a tea party kind of candidate than it was for a regular. portman, dan coats, forget about mark kirk. he is a separate case. he was a moderate who barely one. that is a democratic state. but the regulars across the board finished far better off. you could even put marco rubio in that category both ways. he moderated his case, but he

got less than 50% of the vote as well. i think that jim demint should not have been a happy camper yesterday. furthermore, his colleagues ought to hate him. i think he will have more troops than he had before, but his conservative caucus in the senate is not all that big. the same applies to sarah palin, i think. i think she is a phenomenon. the thing she is a rock star. i think she attracts cameras wherever she goes. but she is a joke, you know, even within our own party. the idea that she would be the presidential nominee among vast majorities of ordinary republicans is just unthinkable. she has a following, no question about it. but i do not think that she is

-- that she triumphed in this campaign. >> the majority of americans agree with you, but i suspect republicans do not. i think you are right in your analysis of the impact on the senate races of the tea party, but not in the house. in the house, the energy and activity really did help the party, and a large number are coming in with an affiliation of one sort or another. i think michelle bachman is starting her tea party caucus. think sarah palin, michelle bachman, rand paul, and jim demint as the new faces of the republican party. it is a nightmare for the party, but i think the adults, responsible figures in the party, are going to have a hard time treating them with anything more than the absolute respect.

>> i say this not in terms of little power but the ability in collaboration with us in the press with sarah palin to frame issues in a way leaves a really important legacy -- the death panels theme, a really dramatic example of her framing an issue in such a way, and such an extreme way. nevertheless, it set up a whole chain of events in which more "reasonable" people said you cannot use the word death panels, but it is like a death panels. essentially, she created an outer edge for the debate, and made other things that would be considered more extreme seem reasonable. they became almost a dominant theme in the debate. i think it is really an extraordinary phenomenon. it is going to be interesting to see how that plays out as issues come up. >> let me take a slightly

contrary point of view. of course, you extreme media types -- [laughter] what palin and demint were able to do was channel this anger and disaffection with the power structure in washington and keep it focused on democrats. there is a real chance to will be able to channel disaffection and anger against the republican establishment if, as is almost certain, they are not able to do anything much on the wish list of those people who got out there and nominated some of these candidates who lost. she could make the case that if there is not his energy and anger channeled by her and the others that they would have fallen short in the house. there is at least a case to be made. i think the case mort made is probably a better one, but i would not rule out the

possibility that unless the republicans dramatically change the nominating process that there will be a backlash against the establishment of that party that could be strong enough to nominate somebody who is in fact outside that larger mainstream. the fact is that when somebody is nominated we have an economic problem that mort _ well with the inability to create jobs. it is what happens when you get a downturn after a financial crisis. it is a jobless recovery. it could go on for some time. you win a nomination and it is a choice between two people. if you have a sarah palin as the republican nominee, the barack obama, and then a bloomberg coming in, that might increase the chances of palin being able to win in a three-way race. . .