because of all the arrogance that i see in this party. another thing, i am so upset. our president does not even go to church, but yet he is going on this foreign thing to a mosque. give me a break. that is exactly why he is left. i think he ought to stay there. that is it. host: thank you, mary. the democratic governor pat quinn is on the front page of the "chicago tribune." guest: that was a striking results. it was close, but here you have a not especially popular governor in a state that is -- was in such a people about corruption.

and he is clean. it is not personal about him. you certainly saw in the senate race with the gop candidate winning -- it was quite an achievement for him. host: we are out of time now. a quick analysis about what happened at the state level is -- guest: there is an undertow of an anti-incumbent feeling. there are definitely historic gains for the gop in the state legislatures. host: thank you for being here. thank you for been here. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. we hope you are heading into a good weekend. coming up next, we will show you the president's remarks just before he left for his 10 day trip to asia, beginning with a stop in india. he was talking about jobs in the

economy. >> good morning, everybody. we are in the middle of a tough fight to get our economy growing fast so that businesses across our country can open and expand so that people can find good jobs and so that we can repair the terrible damage that was done by the worst recession in our lifetimes. today, we received some encouraging news. based on today's jobs report, we have seen private sector job growth for 10 straight months. that means that since january, the private sector has added 1.1 million jobs. let me repeat, over the course of the last several months, we have seen over 1 million jobs added to the american economy. in october, the private sector had added 159,000 jobs. we learned that jobs added more

than 100,000 jobs in august and september as well. we have now seen that months of private sector job growth above 100,000. that is the first time we have seen this kind of increase in over fou8r -- four years. that is not good enough. the unemployment rate is unacceptably high. this recession has colts' -- has caused a great deal of hardship. there are millions of people out of work. in order to repair this damage and to create jobs, we need to accelerate our economic growth so that we are producing jobs at a faster pace. the fact is, and encouraging jobs report does not make a difference if you are still one of the millions of people still looking for work. i will not be satisfied until everybody who is looking for a job can find one. so we have got to keep fighting for every job for every new

business for every opportunity to get its economy moving. just as we passed a small business jobs bill based on ideas of both parties in the private sector, i am open to any idea, any proposal, any way we can get the economy growing faster so that people who need work and fight it faster. this includes tax breaks for small businesses, like deferring taxes on new equipment so that they have got an incentive to expand and hire, as well as cuts to make it cheaper for are to open doors to start companies. -- entrepreneur to start companies. it includes promoting research and innovation. it includes animation like the clean energy economy. it includes keeping tax rates low for middle-class families.

this will generate more demand in the economy. it is also absolutely clear that one of the keys to create jobs is to open markets to american goods made by american workers. our prosperity depends not just on consuming things, but also on being the makers of things. in fact, for every $1 billion we increase in exports, thousands of jobs are supported here at home. that is why i set a goal of doubling america's exports over the next five years. and that is why on the trip i am about to take, i am point to be talking about opening up markets in places like india so that american businesses can sell more products abroad to create more jobs here at home. this is a reminder, as well, that the most important competition we face in this century will not be between democrats and republicans. it will be the competition

between the zero-which countries around the world to lead the global economy. this will depend on what we can come together as a nation. our future depends on putting politics aside to solve problems. , to worry about the next generation until the next election. we cannot spend the next two years mired in gridlock. other countries like china are not standing still. we cannot stand still either. we have got to move slower. i am, that we can do that if we can work together. then this country will not only recover, but it will prosper. i am looking very much 0 were to helping price some markets opened -- very much forwawrd to apply in some markets opened. thank you very much. [inaudible]

>> pcs and networks. it is all available to you on television, radio, online and on social media network insights. by our content through the c- span video library. -- find our content through the c-span video library. it is washington your way. the c-span networks, now available in more than 1 million homes. created by cable and provided as a public service. >> you are watching c-span, created by the nation's cable companies and provided as a public service. we have got midterm campaign coverage coming up. there will be a panel discussion on this week's voting. that will be coming up at 12:30 p.m. eastern. incumbent democrats raul grajalva has kept his seat. that was announced by the

associated press last night. when hundred 87 democrats. 230 not republicans. nine seats yet to be called. the washington state race has been decided. the incumbent democrat has won the race over the republican challenger. the senate now looks like this. 51 democrats. 45 republicans. two independence with the alaska range yet to be decided. illinois has reelected its incumbent democratic governor. across the country, the governorships look like this. two races are not yet decided yet. our campaign 2010 cubbage now a with thecq -- with the cq roll call review. this next segment features

stuart rothenberg. it is just over one hour. >> the capt.. my name is david hawkings. this is my 61 of these conferences, but the first one - sixth one of these conferences. i have been cq since the day newt gingrich became speaker. i am thrill to say i was for"cq roll call." i have a new job as of today. we have lost something called "cq roll call a briefing," which you can sign up for for free. i will be editing this briefing and providing links to some of our best stuff and having something to say every morning.

hopefully, it will be entitled and " we're looking. hopefully, you will sign up. that is my plug for myself. my main job here is a happy one, which is to introduce today's luncheon speaker -- i volunteered to do this because i hate making introductions and listening to introductions. i will keep this one short and say why i volunteered to do this. there are a few things more important in our lives than great teachers. i have the pleasure of introducing today's blunting speaker -- blanton speaker as one of my best teachers. as one of mypeaker best teachers. i signed up in colet and told that it would be a great class because of the teaching assistant. he was a greatta.

-- he was a great ta. i was told to do not worry. it is going to be a great class because you have this t.a. the assistant professor was to with rothenberg, today's luncheon speaker. i can say with certainty that it was one of the best college classes i ever took. there are things i drew from that class that i think about every day at work. the one question on the final and sam still rings in my ears every day. here is the- -- exam still rings in my ears every day. i will ask the question and step off of the podium. politics is everything. explain and support by specific

examples. stuart rothenberg. [applause] >> thank you, david. i think i still have one of your blue books in a drawer somewhere. actually, that was rob. at the time he was just a kid. now he is a member of congress and i am doing this. that was a joke that we is to do. rob was the one who came up with that politics is everything question. i don't believe i was the one who asked that question. this is one of these hard road to do a speech in. this is a hard one because i want to talk to those people. there are people in rest -- in west virginia who are in this room. the manchin voters over there are waiting.

it is a pleasure to be here. you did good, david. i hope i contributed a little bit. i am here to talk about the election and beyond. and those of you who have heard me know that i approach this as a cold-blooded observer of american politics. i do not have an agenda. i do not have any issues. i do not even really care what you think about the issues. i am the color commentator in the sporting event. i talk about what happened, why it happened, what it means, why he should not have thrown that curveball and every other sports metaphor i can think of. that is what i am going to do. i will look back at the election at what happened and why. i will look a little bit at the exits and look forward to what it means and where we are

headed and spend a couple of minutes on 2012. or maybe 2016. let's just jump ahead. i was going through my files. i do not really call them that. i prefer to call them my job. i saw this article that appeared in the l.a. times " " in january of 2010. -- "los angeles times" in january of 2010. she will the social history of the united states. she wrote a book on the reconstruction of american liberalism. then i signed that to you, david? no. the piece was entitled, "2010 as 1994." relax, democrats, relax.

what it should of been its 2010 is 1994.efore- -- we had 1994 again accept it was bigger. we saw it coming, accept it was inevitable. americans were angry, worried, disturbed.pset, different kinds of people had different kinds of emotions. all of the motions came together. there were demotions of anger and -- all of the motion came together. there were demotion of anger and and dieting. when 89% of boaters agree on anything, you know it must -- voters agree on anything, you

know it must be something dramatic. only 40% said their own family situation was approved in the last two years. think of that. 14% of you. if you are typical of the electorate -- and trust me, you are not. if you are a cross-section, only 14 out of every hundred of you think that your family situation has improved. think back two years ago to that election in 2008 and what the expectations were and the sense of change and, and turning around and the future is going to be better. for years, what i was talking to republican groups -- i assume every group is going to be mixed -- i raised the subject of george bush. in the last few years of the doors w. bush presidency, you could hear people-- of george w.

bush presidency, you could hear people sigh. democrats were angry. democrats were better. democrats felt that president bush lied about the war in iraq and lied about getting the u.s. military involvement. the republicans never felt that way. they thought things were going to work out. the longer we went into the bush administration, the more they side. -- sighed. it did not work out. two years later when we have turned the corner, only 14% said their family situation has improved. there were different reactions in the electorate because there were different reactions among --reactions to the president. we just had an election where

republicans were really important and independence were important. they were motivated by different things. it is important to know that sometimes people get on television and say the election was about jobs. it was about doubt for some people. or republicans, this election was not about jobs. if you are a conservative republican, you did not go out to vote with the in the enthusiasm you said you were going to have that you told pollsters -- he did not go out because of jobs. if you are a conservative republican, you went out because you regard this administration as going too far on the stimulus, the mandate on health care reform, cap and trade, and bald in chrysler and general motors, -- involvement in chrysler and general motors. you were angry because you

thought this government was too expensive and was getting into the private sector and was telling you what to do. you were afraid of that. you were afraid of what it would mean to continue that kind of policy. but if you were an independent, it was jobs. if you were a swing culture, -- voter, it was more about the economy and jobs. swayvoter -- sings voter -- swing voters care more about jobs and the economy. independents have real lives. independents are worried about taking susie to dance and billy to little league. i would like to say increasingly

billy to dance and susie to little league. they cannot spend the time watching four hours of tv on knight onfox -- television per night onfox -- on fox or msn bc. they have lives. they are sensitive to the mood. it probably sounds to you like i am be little in these people. they are both king -- voting on the basis of mood. if you are not obsessed with politics, how do i feel about things? am i optimistic, hopeful, or am i afraid of disappointment? swing voters tend to evaluate politicians and parties and vottend to vote on that basis.

the exit polls show that swing voters behave differently than they have over the past couple of elections. two different groups. republicans and swing voters. jobs create the mood. if we have had jobs, you always feel great right now. you would feel better. you would say, we have turned the corner. we have had changed. people do not feel we have had the change. all you have to do is look at the exit polls and you can see to things happening on tuesday. we have different kind of people voting that we had in 2008. the electorate is different than in 2008. the other thing is the change in sentiment among the people who did vote.

let's run through a free of these categories. this electorate was whiter, older and more republican than two years ago and four years ago. two years ago,whites constituted 42% of the electorate. this time, 70% of the electorate. these are not gigantic changes, but they are noticeable. the votes decide which party gets which votes. a is a determining factor. the old folks -- age is a determining factor. old folks voted. i was once talking to a group and i looked around and noticed that there must be a lot of

republicans in the audience. there were also all but up old white guys. someone asked me if i had looked in the mirror lately. when i do, i see a young suave guy. two years ago, they constituted 60% of the electorate in the last presidential. in the last midterm, they constituted 19%. this time, 23% or 65 and older. one quarter of the electorate were 65 and older. they were more important in this election. not only that, but their opinions change. voters 65 and older split evenly. 40 -- 49 percent sign-- 49%

bulleted democratic -- voted democratic. mccain and 53% and obama had 55%. this year, 48% democrat. 21. republican this time than four years ago. four years ago, it was split evenly between democrats and republicans. seniors voted republican. was it the dramatic changes proposed by the administration? trust me, they do not like change. proportionally, you were younger walters -- voters. the makeup of this electorate

was different. let me give you one other one. since i mentioned independents. in 2006, independents -- there was an 18. democratic advantage. obama 52 tofor 44. in 2006, these independents mostly bolted -- voted democratic. why does it matter what the republican or democrats voted?

you look to see where republicans pick up seats. it is dramatic. i picked this off many moons ago. it was on cq politics. i guess i should advertise our stuff it. congressional districts split between john mccain and the democrats two years ago. there are 48 districts going into november's elections where mccain one, a but -- but voters voted democratic. republicans have already won 36 out of the 48. just think of that. there was a reservoir of republican district represented by a democrat where republican

voters had voted democratic. two years later, the same republican -- republican voters said, i get up. i am voting republican. some of these democrats they had voted for only recently. these are republicans who voted for the democrats. often they voted just the way the district wanted. but they said, we are sorry. we want to change washington. we have to change washington and that means you are opposed. goodbye. we have seen this before.

we saw this in the example i have already used. a congressman from iowa who represented a moderate to liberal district in iowa. i believe it included the university of iowa. they reelected him. he was a typical liberal democrat. he wore a sweater under his jacket. he was a college professor. then i look like that? i do not know. he official. in 2006, they said we are sorry. we'd like you. but you have to go. i have to emphasize. some of these democrats did to themselves. the congresswoman that represents the entire eastern half of colorado came to see me . she came in and talked about how

independent she was going to be. the republican congresswoman at the time, a was amus marylandgrave -- marilyn musgrave was too conservative. markey said she was a moderate and she won. she ended up voting for the stimulus and cap and trade. she was representing a conservative republican district. she did not display the independent she needed. the voters fired her. the problem is somewhat like bobby bright or the congressman from idaho who bolted -- voted

cap and trade and against health care. the voters voted against him and threw him out. they were not discriminated against him in this regard. you hear about how voters do not like their member. the personalized the district. they say they do not like her but they like their democratic congress. it did not work this time. it did not work in 2006 or in 2008 for republicans when they try to do it. this was a dramatic party election. it is important to think about who came in. before i do that, i want to at this. this kind of change occurred up and down the ballot. maybe you think it did not occur in the senate because republicans did not win the senate. they are only going to win six

seats. the last time the democrats won six seats, which bought 60 for a big number. there are only 19 democratic senators up this year. this year, after we got retirement, there were 19 democrats and 18 republicans. there are 59 democrats and 41 republicans. this class is evenly divided, which will tell you something about the next two classes, which are loaded with democrats. to take the majority in the senate, the republican would have needed to net 10 seats. that was kind of a tall order. they had to win a majority of the democratic seats up. that is not my point. the evidence of the real republican wave is down ballot. we thought we state legislative

chambers change power on tuesday. the alabama house, the alabama senate, the colorado house, the iowa house, the main house, the maine senate, the minnesota house, the minnesota house, the michigan house, the new hampshire house, the new hampshire senate, the north carolina senate, the ohio high -- the ohio house, the wisconsin assembly, the wisconsin senate. 19 chambers changed. there are two or three chambers outstanding. there are a couple that are divided as well. something like five of its seats in the state legislature switched. this was a dramatic change down ballot. part of it was the turnout. the people who turned out voted for change up and down the ballot. they tended to take their anger

out on democrats. republicans picked up governorships in pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, wisconsin -- there are plenty of places they picked up. they are narrowly held in other places. there are dramatic developments. this is the worst year to have a bad election. is there ever a good year to have a bad election? the answer, of course, is no. there are worse and bad years. my friend charlie cook says the worst year to have a bad election is a year ending in zero because that is when we do reapportioning and redistricting. republicans won so many congressional districts in the states that they will be physically unable to screw the

democrats because there are so few democrats. in ohio and pennsylvania, for example, they are going to lose district. you have democrats who are locked into these small, urban districts that the republicans are not going to be able to delaminate. they may have to eliminate a republican seat here and there because the republicans did so well here and there. that was an exaggerated response. this was a bad election for the democrats. who are these republicans? there are a lot of different kinds of guys. there are some with experience. former members are coming back. michael fitzpatrick in the philadelphia suburbs. in michigan, prove that you can won a bad campaign in win.

there are new people who are coming to our experience. they are legislators. they are savvy political people. you have dan webster, who was president of the florida state senate at one point. now he has been elected to congress. you have the state senator from ohio. you have a state legislator from central southern georgia. you have the man in arizona who runs for something every two years. there are plenty of these people. the former u.s. attorney in the philadelphia suburbs. there are also a bunch of guys who are really different. it will be interesting to see how they behave. bobby schilling comes into my office about one month ago. he is from the rock island area in northwestern illinois.

and across the river in iowa is a town -- i cannot remember what it is. davenport or did you. if you know it, shout it out. this used to be a republican area. there is an international harvester factory or a john deere factory. it has been held by a democrat or a number of years. bobby schilling won it. he comes into my office. he owns a pizza house in what island. -- in rock island. he has 10 children. wow. this guy obviously does not have a summer home in montana or

vail. he owns a pizza place. it is closed on sunday. do you get the picture? he has never been involved in politics. he has never run for office. he has never contributed money. why did you decide to do this? three months after obama took office, he looked around and thought what the president was doing to the country, driving the country off of a class. he and his wife prayed and he decided to run. this is not a lifelong politician who comes to play the game. two or three days later, the men running in arizona paul self first district comes in. you put your finger in phoenix and you come around to our caught in the afternoon. he represents that whole area, that part of arizona. a lot of native american areas

in the northeastern corner of the state. all of those areas come into the middle of the state. he is a dentist. have you ever run for office? no. ever about in politics? he was active in the american dental association stuff i said, you are a dentist. you must have a lot of money. are you putting a lot of money in the campaign? my family has made dentists' rich -- dint -- dentists rates. how are you balancing your dental practice with being a candidate? do you campaign will time? he says, i sold my practice to run for congress. i almost had a heart attack.

you what? i sold my practice. what happens if you louis? i will move and start another practice. if i told my wife something like that, i would be divorced and she would shoot me. i am going to rolled the dice and risk it all and run for congress. he won. he did win. it tells you something about motivation. one guy i talked to, who is the new republican congressman in southwestern indiana in the eighth congressional district. have you ever been active in republican politics? no. he is a thoracic surgeon. he is a doctor. i sent you are the perfect tea party candidate.

you got motivated because you want to change things. the tea party must have loved you. he said, they did not like me at all. i said how comfortable you are conservative on the issues. it sounds like you should have been a perfect tea party candidate. he said, when i indicated i was interested in running and announced i was running, the local republican party -- i met with the local republican party chairman. they like me and they endorsed me. when they endorsed me, the tea party people told me i was part of the establishment and found someone to run against me. a lot of these people -- some of these people are balanced off by daniel webster and somebody like steve stivers who won in franklin county, who is a

business guy. he was appointed to the state senate or part of a term. he is poised and experience. a lot of these people -- they are blank slates. i asked almost all of these candidates in the middle of the cycle what they thought about the department of education and the department of energy. a lot of them what to do away with them. i asked it of the class of '94 -- because of 1994. i got the same answer over and over again. they said those guys had the rio values, the right goals. but when they got to washington, they sold out. we are not going to sell out. they regard the class of 1994 as guys who caved. i can see why they would say that. as a washington person, i'd

think you need to -- i think you need to pave a little bit. -- cave a little bit. their lesson was, they came and went to earmarks. they throw money at the district and they will reelected. we do not think that is the way you have to do things. i am not saying they are right or wrong. but they do things differently. i am not saying there is a thing wrong with being different. but it will put pressure on the republican leadership in the house. mitch mcconnell was about to have a group like this that he was going to have to try to crowd -- to corral. what do they talk about with tax? -- with cats?

heard -- herding cats. he is going to have to deal with rand paul. but he is not point to have to deal with sharron angle. christine o'donnell never got close to that. in some respects, mitch mcconnell is probably thanking the good lord that the republicans did not gain as many seats as they might have. if you are john boehner, you are going to have to balance this. i was a little surprised. if you have been in washington and you are of washington, as we say, we all know john boehner. if you are a washington person in this room, you have played

golf with john boehner, had a drink with john boehner, or smoked a cigarette with don banner, --john boehner, righ? he is washington. members' lobbyist's lobbyists. he might be able to deal with some of these people. he comes from apple orchard, ohio. does anyone know the town john boehner comes from? he is from west chester, that is right. he is from a red republican ohio area. i think he knows these people. i saw some stories on the news about where don banner came from. he mocked the floors -- john boehner came from. he mopped the floor is in his

family bar. maybe the president will not play this exactly like bill clinton did. he probably will not. bill clinton and barack obama are different personalities. we always joke about bill clinton. after the election in 1994, bill clinton said, i hear the message. the era of big government is over. i understand. i have got it. if you told bill clinton you need to be over here, he would not ask why. he would just move over here. if somebody told me i was talking to a democratic white house person -- bill clinton's issue was he wanted to be like. i thought this person would save

a loved, but that would raise certain other issues. when he lost the bid term in 1994, he said to himself, what do i have to do to regain these people's support and affection? he did what he needed to do. the question is whether this president will do that and whether you are convinced that he's sufficiently understand that he bears responsibility and how he needs to change. if he does, there is a significant burden on the republicans to figure out what to do. i was surprised that the incoming speaker said, we should not be celebrating now. this means we can now get back to doing the people's business. i was shocked.

i was pleasantly shocked in the sense that it was a smart political move. it reminded me up right after 2006. right before the election, i happen to see rahm emanuel at the airport. after the election i was talking to senator chuck schumer at an event. i asked what he thought about the democratic agenda and how far they would push? they said i would be surprised and they are going to be cautious. chuck schumer said, we have to show that we can govern and we are grown-ups. if the country puts us in charge, we are not want to spend the country into the poorhouse. we are not radical on cultural issues. the subtext is, we cannot actually do a lot of stuff. it may be that john boehner and

the republican leadership understand that as well. they have a balancing act to do. there are tea party people who are not going to respond to a sophisticated political analysis about what you should do or should not do. look at my e-mails. they do not respond to my sophisticated political analysis about what they should do. you jerk. you are part of the washington establishment. i am just offering political analysis. but they want to take the fight. and john boehner needs to take the fight. he wants to appeal obamacare. once you have made your point, you have to find a place to exit. you have to find a place where you can say, we have made a point successfully. let's move onto something else.

the speaker is going to have a challenging environment. do not assume -- i do not think you assume that barack obama cannot be reelected in 2012. when i think how things have changed in the last two years, anybody tells you they absolutely positively know whether he will or will not win, is not someone i want to listen to. i would advise you not to listen to them. i am sure there would -- sure that will be as all over sean hannity and keith olbermann. resist the temptation to listen to them. in the first quarter of 2009, the president's job approval was in the low 60's.

the republicans had an election. it was kirsten gillibrand who was appointed to the senate. the democrats ran supporting the stimulus, against george bush, say the republicans did not want to give the president the opportunity to bring about economic change. they want the district. -- they won the district. a year-and-a-half later, the republicans were the candidate of change. the whole agenda had changed. everything that had intervened , including bp. we are also new is driven. news matters and how the politicians respond to that. clearly, the president needs an economic recovery. he beats you all to start

feeling better about ourselves and the country. you might have to think, maybe we are turning the corner. things are starting to get better. that is all he needs. we do not need 5% growth in the next quarter of next year. he needs a sense of recovery. the republicans might feel like they need that, too. if you are a republican in congress, you would like to see things improved so that you can run and say, we are doing pretty well. part of this is the question about the republican field. again, anybody who tells you they know who is in the field and who will be the nominee is work on -- worth ignoring.

if someone says it is going to be bit romney or the--former -- mitt romney or the former governor of minnesota, i would be wary. sarah palin, i was not even go there. this is a sarah palin free zone. somebody said to me, can you get into her head? i said, what? i just think she has not done the necessary things. i am not saying she could not do the necessary things to become a serious presidential contender. i am s.a. now she has made no effort -- i am saying she had

not created the debt to be elected president. professional wrestler to the governor of minnesota. comedian to senator of minnesota. maybe it is just minnesota. [laughter] weight lifter in california. you can find strange people. i do not want to go into detail on this. but for president, i remember i had a democratic pollster who said to be, the people in iowa and new hampshire take their jobs really seriously. they are looking for someone with some stature. they judge presidential candidates differently. i will bolt -- vote for some guy for congress i have never heard of to send a message.

people did that. they voted for people and they did not know who they were. but we do not do that for president. we kind of thing president is different. it is really important. i think sarah palin has a lot of work to do. i see no evidence that she is interested in doing that. my puppy is a part -- mike huckabee is part of the television as a path to the presidency school. john thun, -- thune, paul, 0-- tall, tan, good looking. i would hate him. my wife would not approve. right now, he is like a

republican barack obama. he has been in congress and the senate longer. --ji ou say j9i -0 john thune, you can think of him that way. haley barber, the smartest political might in the universe. people say it he isfat -- is a fat lobbyists. he is from mississippi. have you ever look to see where mississippi sit in the statistics for help, education, and income. not an ideal place to be in a presidential campaign. haley barber.

he will do for the united states what he did for mississippi. i am not saying mississippi is his fault. just think of the reality of running for president and what the ads will be. who does that leave us? it leaves us the toys that someone told me -- choice someone told me he is interested in. one is mitch daniels. he worked at and a 4 senator -- for senator lugar. his is short, slight and bald. i can identify with some of that. he is not your typical politician. may be 2012 will be the year for

someone short, slight and bald. he is very white. maybe he is the counterweight to barack obama. it is not clear that he is completely committed. he is a family person. his wife may not want him to run. the other name i am hearing -- i am shocked. this is a member who is from west of the mississippi from a republican, conservative state. this member said to me, you know the name i hear the most? in node the person people are asking me the most about? -- you know the person people

are asking me the most about? chris cristie. these are the same people are watching "jersey shore." i grew up in manhattan. we had a particular review -- view of new jersey. people in texas and wyoming are a looking at chris cristie. he says what he is going to do and he tells it like it is. 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. i am told he is getting stronger

and longer looks from the financial community in new york. running for president now is at least partially a financial i would not expect the president to face a serious threat unless the afghanistan war continues and get out of hand. that would be someone like russ feingold does not do a job in the interim. if there is someone who could tap into the dissatisfaction with the president and encourage the liberal wing of the democratic party to revolt, it

could be somebody like russ feingold. normally, i would take a question or two. i will take to the questions. does anyone have a quick question or two? usually, i do a lot of q&a. you could ask a question or we could just go home. the tea party, that is a good question. usually, somebody will ask me to tell them about the city council race in scarsdale, new york. i have gotten that. i think the tea party is here to stay, at least in the short term over the next few years. i think the lesson was they were effective in organizing and energizing the republican party. they had an impact on republican

primaries. republican presidential candidates saw and notice that.r candidates. that will keep them relevant in the next two years. i think they will be involved in other fights. we have another senate race coming up. i think there are only 10 republican senators. one of them must be from maine. you have to be looking out for some tea party person. the tea party people have opportunities to keep things percolating. they were a plus overall and a minus in individual races. mike castle, christine m. donao'donnell did not come clos. he wins. he is the u.s. senator.

lisa murkowskie maybe joe miller. talk about an embarrassment. they are important. they will still significant. we will be talking about them 47 years. the may cause of long-term problems inside the republican party. what are the tea party folks back home thinking? it will be an interesting pressure on them. luckily, third-party movements are forces in this country. sooner or later, the major parties figure out how to coopt them. that is the way it works. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

as we have more campaign 2010 coverage coming up today from " weekly standard." they are hosting a panel discussion on voting. earlier today, we showed you president obama reacting to the latest jobless figures. after his remarks, he left washington. he is on his way to begin a 10- day overseas trip will take him to india. he will then continue on to jakarta. after that, he attends the g-20 meetings in seoul, south korea,

before traveling to japan for more meetings. >> this year's student documentary competition is in full swing. your documentary action include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. upload your video before the deadline for the chance to win $5,000. there's $50,000 in total prizes. the competition is open to middle and high school students. for more information, go online. >> here is a portion of this morning's "washington journal." is taking a look at what the tea party movement expects from the new republican majority. baert. host: we have been talking with our viewers this morning about the concept of american excess was in.

what are your thoughts on that? guest: i think america was founded on a different basis, founded on a philosophy of individual liberty and people being in charge of their own lives, and government doing only those few things that people are incapable of doing for themselves. i think it is like so many people -- host: the president talked about you frequently appeared here is one incidents of it. >> last year's supreme court decision with citizens united, which basically says that special interests can gather up millions of dollars -- they are now allowed to spend as much as they want without limit, and

they do not have to ever reveal who is paying for these ads. that is what they're doing all across the country. they are doing it right here in pennsylvania, millions of dollars being spent. and the names always sound very benign. americans for prosperity, committee for truth in politics. americans for apple pie. [laughter] i made that last one up. [laughter] none of them will disclose who is paying for these ads. you do not know whether it is big financial interests, a big oil company, an insurance company. you do not even know if it is foreign control. we tried to fix this, but the leaders for the other party would not even allow it to come up for a vote. they want the public to be in the dark. but we cannot allow a special interest takeover of our democracy.

host: lots to talk about there. why don't you tell the audience what you're always about. guest: americas for prosperity's mission is to train and mobilize citizens to become part of the public policy process from the perspective of limited government. we have 1.6 million activists nationally, active in all 50 states, and we take that mission very seriously. the president had a number of factual errors in the piece that you play. the citizens united decision has zero effect on us because we did not and do not engage in any express advocacy, so there was no change with resct to that decision on what we were able to do. also incorrect is the idea that it is knew that membership organizations like ours to protect the privacy of our members and donors and keep them secret. that dates back to 1958 in the supreme court decision naacp vs. alabama with the court held there was a crical free-speech right in protecting the privacy of membership organizations to

buy forced disclosure could be subject to retribution that would shelve their free-speech rights. we take itery seriously to protect the privacy of our supporters. host: some of the names that have been a says it with you are tim phillips and ralph reed. can you tell us about the roles that each of these people have? guest: we have both a 50137 it we have foundations that do educational work, and the 501- c4. david is the founder -- is an original founder and the chair of the c3. ralph reed is not involved in any way except that he used to work with him in a previous capacity before it tim came to us.

host: what role did you have a specific races this time around? guest: we had an active re in educating voters on the house side in particular. we insisted districts where we went in with our november project, and we were very aggressive in educating folks -- we educated vote on radio, television, we did phone banking, we did door knocking, we did a huge volunteer grassroots mobilization. i think it drove the issues forward and this was an issues election. people were voted on health care, on cap and trade. they were expressing concern about the overall direction of the country on things like spending, and i think that is very positive on people voting on the issues, voting on policies, and getting engaged in order to protest it in the process.

host: what is the scorecard on the races? guest: is up in the air, but i think it is up in the 50's, a pretty solid. to us, no matter what candidate wins, we're happy that people are out there talking about the issues ovoting on the issues, and in some races where we may have a ticket folks about someone and really criticized some of their votes, we think we did something positive because we got people engaged in paying attention on the issues and will continue to hold th person accountable. for us it is not so much about wins and losses in the election, over -- although i think the overall -- she really is about driving these issues forward. on that measure, we think we did very well, and that this next congress will be focused on a return to fiscal fonts -- fiscal responsibility. hostwhat is your affiliation with the tea party movement? guest: we are a great supporter and ally and friend of the tea party movement. we have sponsored and organized tea parties and our state.

in other states we have been part of the chorus and joined in with that. we do not agree with everything they do, but overall we are great supporters. anything that brings people o the sidelines and into the political and public policy process is a good thing. it is something the political left has done very well for many years. free-market activists have .argely caught up for h host: if you would like to join us, call 202-737-0002 for democrats, 202-737-0001 for republicans, and four independents, call 202-628-0205. the first indication abt whether or not the house leadership got the message -- those are my words -- will be the year marks decision in congress. can you talk more about that?

guest: this will be a critical vo. this will be when they come back and a vote on conference rules, whether or not to extend the current moratorium on earmarking. john boehner is arguing for an extension of that. i believe he will succeed. if they fail to extend the moratorium, their first order of busiss upon coming back to washington, to say pork barrel in march are coming back, that will be a devastating signal that they did not get the message at all and have not learned their message from the 2006 defeat and everything that has happened after. that is an important vote, and were optimistic they will do the right thing. host: if they do not? guest: if they do not, i think they will lose the confidence all the free market activists and all these groups like ours in the tea party and so on. it would be a disaster for them in terms of have the grass roots support that they need. host: a piece in "washington

journal" this morning, no earmarked -- it must be brought to a vote for our partners that you? guest: people were really disgusted by the process by which a number of bills were forced through in the pas congress, almost as much as the content. the idea that we did not have an opportunity in some cases to read these things. on the cap and trade bill, they added 380 pages at 4:00 a.m. on the day of the vote. people were angry about the way that health care was forced through. speaker premptive john boehner is promising a three-day online posting of the bill before is voted on. i would hope for more on major pieces of legislation. i hope the minimum we can get is what he is promising. host: all the other bullet points that he has here are process oriented.

but americans read bills, the next is comprehsive bills. is this what you are looking for, the framework changing? guest: i think that you have to fix the process first so that we can get better outcomes in terms of policies, and i think he is on the right track when he says that we need to operate this congress in a different manner than the way it has been run under democrats with nancy pelosi, and other republicans in the past. which was a very closed process where they forced things through. i think it really does show that he understands what people are angry about when he talks about changing the way congress works up front and not just grab the reins and taking control and autocratic way that made people so angry. obviously the process reforms will not have great value unless they lead to policy changes, but having a more open process when there are so many actists engaged will lead to better policies and less spending and

better decisions. up-front you have got to get better rules and play, and we can use those process reforms for better politics. host: one of the early decisions congress will have to make is about the debt ceiling. here is john boehner talking on abc after the question about the debt ceiling. >> the next congress looks like one of the first early test will be facing the debt limit, the way the candidates oppose that -- how would you achieve that? >> we will be working that over the next couple of months. host: and organizing press conference right after the election. "we will be working on that all over the next couple of months"? guest: is a very challenging issue. on a short-term bis, you cannot define all the spending cuts that you need. there is inner shut in the

federal government. so when we do set the debt limit, there are some things that can be done bookkeeping increase flexibility and buy some time. will congress said that it needs to be done so we will do it, or will they use that as an opportunity to say, look, if we are going to take a difficult vote to raise the debt limit, we need t buy some cooperation from the white house to agree that we can cut spending, that we can address some of the immediate and long-term challenges so that we do not need to do this again soon, so we can begin to turn the tide anlower debt,ithout raising taxes. i think it is hard to imagine a scenario where they will not increase the debt limit, but i think it is important to use that as an opportunity, as leverage for a broader discussion about where we are and really to give the white house to come to the table and

discuss meaningful spending reductions. i think we have a real opportunity next year for bipartisan compromise along the lines of the historic balanced budget agreement of the 1990's, and i hope that president obama will react to this election the way president clinton reacted to the 1994 election and do that in a constructive way. host: we begin in kansas city, missouri. sherry on the democrats' line. caller: one of the things that really bothers me about your organization is that you are like a front group for the biggest corporations. the top 2% that you are trying to fight for these tax cuts primarily are the people who outsource our jobs and to pay no taxes. by closing the tax loopholes, we could cut taxes on small business by 10%.

but the people like -- guest: what do polls? caller: you know -- guest: what loopholes? caller: you know, they have been going on for decades. george bush gave businesses incentives to move their jobs overseas. these are the so-called small businesses you are trying to protect, not the american businesses. guest: that is false. we are funded by ideologically committed individuals. we get very little corporate support. less than 10% of our funding comes from corporations. you are using talking pois that i don't think apply. we are advocating lowering the deficit, getting the cost of government back in line. i think that in particular, our

regulatory agenda of yo reducing the cost -- the official estimate from the office of advocacy is that federal regulation now costs $ 1.75 trillion in compliance costs. for small businesses, it costs tens of dozen $500 per employee per year. -- it costs $10,500 per employee per year. we belve philosophically in what john kennedy believed, that a rising tide lifts all boats. we believe everyone is better off. host: overall, do you believe the u.s. tax code needs fundamental reform? guest: we would love to see fundamental tax reform host: what would that look like? guest: i think the principles of transparency and taxing income once and only as close to the source as possible are the best principles for determine what the base should look court and what the rate should be, which

in my view is flat. the movement over whether we should have a sales or flat tax, i think that is a basically obsolete 1. we should have a flat tax in t short term, and if we ever repealed the 16 , which have a sales tax. at a flat rate on a broad base, -- if we ever repealed the 16th amendment, then we should have a sales tax. we have a long way to go to get rid of things like the capital gains tax and the death tax. there is a lot of double and triple taxation now that causes huge distortion, and there is a lot of hidden taxation, for instance with the corporate tax, which gets passed to individuals. there is a lot of room on tax reform. we need to start by holding the line a all these tax hikes at a scheduled for january 1.

that should not be an end goal. we need to talk about broader tax reform. host: is there any country that does it better in terms of taxing appropriately to support the kind of government that works, encouraging prosperity for businesses, etc.? guest: there are about 25 countries globally that have e flat talks. -- the flat tax. they've been great in econoc responses to the foreign investment that floods in. hong kongthe flat tax is very efficient. that has been deleted and that the center of the world. host: berkeley springs, west virginia, car of on the republican line. caller: i have changed my allegiance from the republican party to the tea party. i have a warning for all these folks we elected to congress. if you do not do something about shrinking the government at lowering the debt, you will not

be there long. i wod like to say something about your first topic, about this country being exceptional. yes, we are an exceptional country, but we have organizations in this country that are chipping away, like the aclu. they are the most dangerous group in this country, and they are chipping away at what has made us a great country, and i am hoping one day the "washington journal" will add number for the tea party, because we are a growing organization and we are only going to getetter. thank you. host: let's pick up on the last comment. what do you see as the future of the tea party along with the republican party overall? guest: i think the caller is exactly right. the teparty is now a potent third force in american politics. it is not loyal to the

republican party, per se. in the election, the tea party activists came out and did a huge amount of work to defeat democrats, but they did that because they were so concerned about the growth of government under democrats, not because they trust republicans, who did rather poorly on the same measure of fiscal responsibility when they were in charge four years ago. i think the key party activists were optimistic at republicans really get it this time and will deliver on fiscal responsibility, but they're watching carefully and closely. if republicans do not deliver this time, if they go back to the same busiss as usual on the things like year marks and overall federal spending, or any of the other key fiscal issues, the tea party will turn on them. there is not much question about that. they are loyal to ideology, not to party. host: "the washington times" leads with an opinion piece,

"michael steele must go." does your organization have a concern about this? guest: we do not get involved in that at all. from what i have seen, michael has done a fine job. that is a decision for the committee to make, and has nothing to do with us. host: how about leadership inside congress? "the washington times" front page -- do you have a position bachmann vs jet had -- jeb hensarling? guest: pattison that we do

not weigh in on. i think she did a fine job. host: the picy interests after their success -- akron, ohio is next. mike, it dependent line. caller: good morning and thank god for c-span3 i have four questions, if you could answer perhaps to the dope or three of them. first of all, how can a grass- roots organization support trickle-down economics? i can see why people like you and dick armey and the cooke brothers do, but the rank and file just boggles my mind. number 2, all of you are aware that the british tea that you were drinking was bought and paid for by china. ird, can small government, in such a large diverse country, with so many bigusinesses buying up smaller ones and the strongt military in the world should be before and by the people? my last question, will the tea party become the tail that wags the dog of the gop?

ho: thanks. grassroots and trickle-down economy? guest: this is not a radal new idea. john kennedy understood that a rising tide moves all boats. it creates more opportunity, more jobs, and i think that is a formula that will work, unlike what we have been doing with failed stimulus spending and big government regulation and intervention the the market. people believe in the free enterprise system. host: number 2 was british tea paid for by china. guest: i will pass on that. its coat is a good subject to talk about china's overall. -- it's a good subject to talk abou china overall. guest: it is not stable for the long term. it will reorient towards domestic consumption and they

will raise living standards, so they will stop being as export-oriented as they have been. they have to manage that in a way that will not ignite inflation domestically, which will be a major challenge for them. when they do that, but we'll have a challenge in the u.s. because we will not be able to run such an enormous budget deficits. foreign demand for treasurys will n be able to support it at that point, and i do hope that we do not get a bond market crisis. i hope that we cut spending in the interim. so that when china does restructure, which can withstand that. stay with china, the treasury secretary has been trying to pressure them with regard to their monetary policy. what are your views on the policy of that? guest: china has to manage a very difficult transition to a domestic consumption without run away inflation. i do not think pressure from the united states is helpful for

that, and it is also dangerous that we threatened trade retaliation, because we could ignite arade war. i think that we need to back off a little bit. host: you talk about the tea pay and the gop earlier. the test of a small government with a large military? guest: i think the defense needs to be on the table for cuts, but some conservative groups think you need t spare defense. i think if we're serious about cutting spending, everything needs to be on the table. there is a lot of waste, a lot of unnecessary weapons programs, and i do think that needs to be on the table. that said, we cannot cut the fence and only defense. i think is reasonable for republicans to reject that from the white house. it needs to be part of the answer but not the whole answer. host: "the washington post" reported that americans for prosperity spend $1.3 million

on campaigning this year, 96 percent of that to republican candidates. we're talking about policy objectives with phil kerpen. this is dale on a republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. three quick points. one, we need to get back to where we are supposed to be -- and god we trust -- in god we s.ust on our monetary fund' if we do not trust in god, we are going nowhere. number two, you made a point about defense spending and you had several callers talked earlier about how great other countries were. one of those reasons those other countries are so great is because our gross domestic product expenditures on their fense -- they spend less than 3% on their gdp on defense because we are defending them with power bases.

that is a true point. -- with our bases. that is a true point. the washington monument -- that will take you back to -- and i am not a religious fanatic, but i am a believer. and god is what made this country great host: thank you, dale. god in american politics? guest: well, there are a lot of very religious people engaged in the political process. i think that is a good thing, but i think the basic principles that we need to he in government, the principles of limited government, of government staying out of our lives, our principles that are really universal. people that are secular and religious ought to be comfortable wh a government small enough not to interfere with whatever they want to do in their private lives, so i hope that we can build a consensus for the types of libermalimited government politics that we would like to see.

host: everyone who looks at the situation with the u.s. federal budget and our deficit and debt talks about the impact of an aspect of it. there is an editorial in open with the new york times", now that -- in "the n york times," specifically, what will he do for up -- from theolicy perspective of your group, entlement programs, what is your prescription? guest: i think paul ryan's road map foamerica's future, really the only serious attempt at solving the entitlement problem while keeping an overall government at a manageable size. i think that needs to be the starting point for a conversation on this, and i believe it will be if mr. ryan is the chair of the budget committee in the house. i think in the long term, we

have got to get back to peonal accounts for social security. that is the only option that can give workers a better deal than what they have right now. cutting benefits and raising the retirement age and taxes makan already bad deal for workers even worse. the real solution, the one that will get people to build a nest egg that will give them a prosperous retirement is to slowly transition into a system where money is invested and gets a real return for a better retirement benefit. host: martha, democrats line from flint township, michigan. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a question, but then i would like to make a statement. what is your position about unions and minimum wage and all those kinds of gains that unions gain for the worker? gut: i think there was clearly a need for labor unions when they first arose, and they did enormous amount of good in improving working conditions and the lives of workers in this

country, but i think they have got away from that and have become largely political activist organizations that support democratic policy objectives without regard to what actually benefits workers. in many cases, they have pushed companies into bankruptcy and out of business by having such over the top the man's -- over the top demands. but at what happened in the airline industry. that has become a real disconnect between unions and the interests of their workers, and that is why they are looking to force people to join who do not necessarily want to join, by changing laws like these so- called employee free choice act. union leaders need to take a hard look at what they have been doing and offer real value to workers so they would want to join rather than trying to force people to join and be largely a political activist organizations. host: martha, my apologies. i pushed the next button and you had a statement. this is josh, cambridge, new

york, republican line. caller: i am a libertarian, but i lean more towards republicans and liberal democrats because i think liberalism is a brain disease. you are a really sharp, smart, a brilliant guy, and i cannot agree more with all the things you're saying. what do you think about getting rid of the federal reserve and with this inflation of the american dollar, which clearly caused the great depression? also, i know a lot of tea party years, and they are genuine nice guys. it is not that we hate barack obama and we want to tear our government down, we kind of understand that there ia left- right paradigm between republicans and democrats, being two different wings of the same bird, being powered and funded by these big corporations. it is basically fascism when the corporations sell them to

, hi.overnment and say h they take trillions about tax dollars and dump it to the bankers' hands. i can littoral remember news stations going up to banks and saying, ok -- i can literally remember news stations going up to banks and saying, are you giving out loans? and they say, we reversed our banks, new offices, new windows. and they're going, the government never told us how to spend that money, and they still were not giving loans to all these people. we paid back all the bad loans whether we like it or not. we pay off our debt to them. host: let me jump in. thank you for your call. guest: i think monetary policy reform is enormously important. i agree with you that the fed intervention in policies have made things much worse than better. they think they can eliminate the business cycle, and there

intervention has caused enormous asset bubbles and collapses. the housing bubble was a product among other factors, but primarily a factor of excessive money creation, keeping the rate as low as it did for as long as they did. now they are doing more of the same, and it will create another bubble. we are repeating those same problems. i think we should look at monetary reform that gives the fed a much narrower mandate, grow the money supply at a constant rate of increase and stop trying to manage the business cycle. i would like to see monetary policy reform be on the congressional agenda. i know there are some republicans who agree with that. host: a, from yesterday, "pelosi delivered." the need a response. nancy pelosi has been not only a

master of the house but in moving force for generations to come. the gop that demonized for will not succeed in the undoing those changes. with a legislative toward a force from somebody who plainly believes that the purpose of politics goes beyond serving the self-interest of politicians, from the stimulus that averted a second great depression to wall street reform to the transformation and expansion of college student aid, polizzi and the president have written more landmark legislation that anyone in nearly half a century. harry reid did his best in the sclerotic senate, and a critical moments change squeaked by the republican blockade." guest: he is right. nancy pelosi and the democratic congress passed a takeover of the industry, created the most powerful agency in the pro- government, the consumer protection financial bureau, which has sweeping powers to regulate about every financial

transaction anywhere in the economy. the past the health care bill that in my view gives politicians and democrats more control over health care than patients and doctors. from their perspective, these accomplishments -- from my perspective, outrages -- are likely to last for a vy long time in for bob goods are not able to somehow undo that. it will be very difficult to undo that was brought about in the white house because he can veto a repeal of these measures. i think the democrats are paying -- are playing long game here. obama said we are going to take our lumps this cycle, but we're playing and long game. margaret thatcher was never able to take on the national health service in britain for all the other privatization that she did because the national health service is the third largest employer in the world, after the chinese army and the indian railroad. it creates a huge political constituency, and we will see the same thing here if they're

not undone pretty rapidly. all that could come down to the 2012 election if barack obama does not budge on any of these things. we are in a very high-stes enviroent for the long term, and these programs may stand for the long term, and they may change american life. it is hard to disagree with that. as much as i disagree with these policies, they may in fact really alter american life for a long time. if they do, certain they to polizzi, who believes in big -- certainly nancy pnancy pelosi, o believes in the government, accomplished it. we'll see. i would not count on it. i think we need to keep the heat and the pressure on congress to revisit this as well. host: about 10 more minutes with phil kerpen from americans for prosperity.

rachel is next on the independent line. caller: yes, we know that china helped fund the wars in afghanistan and iraq. but then you find out that bush made deals with china so they could mine the gold in afghanistan. our soldiers are over there risking their lives so someone can get rich off bad deals that we made. to think we are over there protecting these commies and our boys are putting their lives on the line -- what do you think about that wityour tea party? guest: i am not familiar with this issue. i do not know about any deal that was made with china about gold in afghanistan. foreign policy is really outside our area anyway. host: this your ass, "what do you think will happen with the working programs -- this view were asks -- quote what you

think ll happen to the working programs?" guest: i think we could do with many fewer federal workers. you could do it with retirement incentives, simply not replace departing worker we have right now in the federal work force the same thing we have in the private work force, which is a l of baby boomers who are close to retirement. we have a historic opportunity to reshape the federal work force in a way that will require a few if any layoffs. i think there's a way we can transition to a smaller, leaner, more transitional government that it regulates less witho having mass layoffs of federal workers. we happen to be in the fortunate position where a lot are due for retirement. host: darcy, democrats lied. caller: good morning. my concern with the tea party -- d'arcy, democrats line.

caller: good morning. this country will not begin until every american comes together to make it great. my concern with the tea party -- if you have to go on a job and do an interview, they ask a lot of questions. the tea party did that on a lot of candidates that they chose. i understand about -- what you do not research or anything, you did not research on health care where the next year 85% of the money would be returned back to the customer if an insurance company do not use all that money. you keep saying policies. a lot of americans do not understand policy, period. you have to point out policies that you do not like. i feel that you guys were not around when bush -- the tea

party needs to stand up for what they really believe or what they actually want, and that is all i have to say. thank you. guest: we were around and we were major critics of spending duringhe bush years. we did a national ending expressed or. -- express tour in 2006. we were critical of spending under president bush. we got a lot more adherents over the past couple of years as the fiscal problems have accelerated, but we have been out of th -- we have been in this for some time. the tea party activists have dug into the details of these policy proposals and legislation that has passed. i know many activists actlly read the health care bill, they split it up in some groups to read different sections to understand what was in there, which was more than members of congss did before they voted for it. something like the medical loss ratio -- i think most tea party

activists understand that regulation that restricts profit restricts capital formation, the restrictive lot of economic growth that benefits the economy overall. it is not that they do not know about provisions like that, it is that they do not agree that as a proper role for government. i think the understanding of legislation, especially health care legislation, which creates hundreds of new federal bureaucracies, can interfere with patients and doctors. that is the real crux of what people objected. thats really understood by activists. i rsonally think they are right in their opposition. host: in addition to his role with americans for prosperity, our guest is also an opinion columnist for fox news.com. i am wondering, since one of the races you target was a brick boucher of it -- was rick

boucher -- net neutrality dead? guest: i think that was really about cat and trade. -- about cap and trade. he had an interview in the roanoke times last week where he said that there are these signs all over the district at -- it is unfair because i have a four- step model process to explain my vote. when you need a fourth step process to explain a vote, you will have to trouble getting that message across. that was a bad vote and i think cap and trade had a huge setback. on net neutrality, the most significant step tuesday was the gressive change campaign to become a forward left-wing organization. they had a pledge to support net neutrality, signed by 95 candidates.

all 95 candidates lost. they went 0-95 on people who thought that was an important issue to sign a pledge on. that is an enormous political signal that there is no grounds wel supportsl. i hope that chairman genachowski is paying attention to that and will not disregard the wilof the people and congress and do it by backdoor reclassification. host: greg, the republican line. caller susan, you are my favorite host for one thing, d the man that you have on there today did not, nor did you, answer the question as to what was on the top of he washington -- the washington monument. the man that was on there, we could have used them in the house to filibuster. he is great. thank you.

host: text for the call. -- thanks for the call. do you know what is on top of the shington monument? guest: i think it is a wiwinged liberty. host: who most influenced your thinking? guest: my long term mentor was steven moore, who now works for -- and host: are your parents conservative? guest: my father was conservative, my mother was very liberal. host: next call. so i went on the website, and he was against the president from

day one as far as his policies when. there was a meeting in june of this year where the oil people, the natural gas people, you had al people in t shipyard people -- so the richest of the rich got together in june, and they were planning on how they were going to handle the 2010 elections. they are going to meet again in january for the presidential elections, so of the 200-some people that were there, every last one of them were millionaires and billionaires. do you know anything about this? guest: yes, i w at the meeting that you are talking about. it is an off-the-record meeting, so i cannot speak about the content that was discussed, but

i can tell you that the ia of donors on the right and court meeting and talking about ideas and policy priorities is really t nefarious and it is really nothing new. types of meetings like this have gone on for a long time across the political spectrum. there are a number of problem once on the left, with groups like the democracy alliance and other umbrella organizations. i do not think that people who have money should be excluded from getting involved in the political process. ine ideas that they believe an a. the ideas that people can get out there and make their decisions about the ideas, we had a $4 billion election cycle here. it was about $2 billion on each side. and that every idea on every side got out there. democrats and left-wing organizations outspend republican and right-leaning organizations in house races. people voted for republicans anyway because they agree with the ideas they were hearing on

the right. it is not something to be feared, it just means that all the ideas get out there into a marketplace of >> we have more can paid coverage coming up today. "weekly standard" is holding a panel discussion. we will have that live at 12:30 eastern. election results continue to come in as some of the closely contested races are being called. late last night, the associated press announced that murray has defeated rossi. the alaska race has yet to be decided. >> every weekend on c-span 3,

experienced american history tv. it is 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. there are eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums, historical sites, and college campuses as professors and leading historians delve into america's past. that is all weekend, every weekend on c-span 3. >> now, a discussion on the results of the midterm elections. >> "washington journal" continues. host: hello, michael kinsley. michael is now a columnist at politico. we have seen him over the years in various posts as he has been commented on this town r years. i tell people that you argue against the concept of american

exception was in but did not expect that did not explain your reasoning. guest: well, what is to explain? i was trying to make a point in this column not that america is not a great country, but that the concentration on it being the greatest country ever, and people's insistence on that, as a negative side, which is that americans sometimes think this gives them a free -- exceptional a means they have a free pass, and we cannvade any country we want, ignoring the u.n., various treaties that we have signed. and we can spend as much as we want and run up a government deficit, a national debt that people will be paying off for generations, and that we are not exempt from the rules of

mathematics, among other things. host: how are you processing what happened on tuesday? guest: well, there is not a lot to process. it isare that an election sort of leaves the pundits with nothing to say, so clearly people rejected -- i think wrongly, but it is a democracy -- the obama agenda, or the parts of it that came up in the first two years, mainly the stimulus and health care. host: why do you say wrongly? guest: because i favor both. host: what do you think the stimulus has done? guest: well, you pour $800 billion into an economy, and jobs are created. there is a debate going on about how many jobs were created, but

it has to have helped. some people think it was not enough, and some people think it was a necessary at all. it was unnecessary at all. i think the street keynesian thing, you put money into the economy, and that was supposedly the lesson of the great depression. i think it was -- well, i think we had to do it. it started out in a very bipartisan way. the bush administration was gearing up to do something like that and had started doing it. i would have done it differently. i think the idea of taking the money and cutting the fica tax -- the social security tax for employers and employees -- it

would have been a tax cut, which would have made it hard for republicans to oppose it. that fight the tax is a tax on the decision of a worker -- that fica tax is a tax on the decision of the worker and an employer to create a job, so it woul directly improve the jobs picture. so that would have been my preference. but no one asked me. host: let's stay with the u.s. econom. alex franklin is sitting on two separate panels. one is with pete domenici. she is also a big part of the big debt commission. both are due to release reports. given the current state of politics andhe disagreement between democrats and republicans on what programs are important, how do you see the work of these commissions influencing things?

guest: commissions can do two things. they can take something that has to be done that ought to be done that they do not want the -- that the congres of people do not want to support and sort of give them cover, as they say. and then it can also sometimes give cover again to put decisis off that they do not want to make. this is the first one, and, you know, it is a little bothersome, sort of anti-democratic, the idea that on a really important issue we should ignore politics and let a bunch of older wise men and women make the decision r . but if it works -- host: a two-part question, and then we will go to calls. how do you feel about the state of our country today?

guest: there is a piece i wrote that reflects -- well, i am a pessimist by nature, i suppose, but i'm also pessimistic because -- about our couny a little bit because i do not seem to be willing to grapple with certain problems. you know, i even the national debt and the entitlements and everything -- if you add it all up, it is a few percentage points of gdp, and it would put -- if we could do this, which we cannot -- if we could take 5% of gdp and just take it away a use that to solve all these longterm problems, it would push us back to -- i do not know, i have the spreadsheet from yesterday. it would push us back to our

life style of 1987 or something. or 2007. life was not bad in 2007. it should not be beyond us to solve all these problems. but i sort of worry that it might be host: where do you see us, the trajectory of the next two years? guest: well, nothing is going to happen legislatively, but the economy seems to be coming back a little bit. that is the question. is it going to be another double dip? i do not know it, let's ask the pessimist -- what is the one bright spot -- i don't know. host: let's ask the pessimist -- what is the one bright spot for the country? guest: technology. you're using an ipad, i say.

i think there will be great things come along that will improve our productivity. host: i use that to look up questions that the viewers were talking about in the last segment, which is what is on top of the washington monument. i think the caller was probably -- on the internet, it suggests that all four sides of the obelisk at the top of the washington monument have different inscription's. guest: i was puzzled by that. i thought he meant a statue or something, and i was pretty sure that there was not. host: welcome to our conversation on this friday morning with michael kinsley. caller: od morning.

michael, i am very disappointed in the american people and the way they voted midterm. what has me most upset is, i guess the fraudulent projection that the tea party and the republicans put forth on the american people. by that, i mean that the tea party claimed to be against the spending, and i do n know what happened to them, but it was bush and republicans that were all spending for eight years and they put nothing on the books. they pay for nothing. they ran up the debt, a drop in obama's lap, and then they blamed obama for what they had done. i have one more point to make. this issue about bailouts -- tax

cuts for corporations have been going on since the 1980's with reagan. we do not know exactly how many millions of corporations filed for all those tax cuts, and a tax cut is a mini-bailout. if they are against bailouts, then they should be against those tax cuts, and ty have not even paid what was due on the cut that they originally got. host: thank you very much. we have to go. guest: she makes a fair point, i think, which is that a tax credit or tax cut for a corporation or an individual is essentially a subsidy to them. that gets a lot of people riled up, but it is true. i think a lot of corporations took advantage of that, as they should, for their shareholders. if we allow it as a country.

took advantage of everything they could. host: how do we stimulate jobs? guest: well, as i was saying, i think the way to do is pure keynesian -- put money into the economy and not try to have this little special break and this little special program. the democrats like programs, and the republicans like tax cuts and both of them cost money. i liked alice rivlin cost idea -- go to the problem, which is creating jobs, and lower the tax on the decision to create a job, which would be the fica tax. host: we are also getting mixed messages, that consumer spending has dropped, and therefore there

are not companies producing things that we need to buy. how do we both spend in order to prop up the economy and savor properly? guest: it's a tough problem, but it is one we bought ourselves into. host: how so? guest: well, by living beyond our means andunning up this large government debt. reagan said it, and he was basically right. an indidual cannot do it indefinitely, and neither can the government. having said that, reagan did not go act on it. but i guess with the help of newt gingrich's congress, reagan did. and the technology, which also helped bail out the economy last time. they did it. so it is doable. host: ohio, matthew, republican

cecum i have one question for you. last week politico ran an article about sarah palin canceling states with john handy and marc levin -- with sean hannity andar levin, and it turned out to be a lie. is that your company's policyme? guest: well, i work for politico, and i will look into it. it's certainly not the policy to lie. host: what you think about sarah palin, her immediate future?

guest: her immedia future is to make a bundle of cas her long-term future, i think the bundle will get smaller and smaller. i do not think she has any political future. host: why not? guest: well, for a variety of reasons. the establishment republicans wish she would go away, and also the press i think, which created her, is ing to get sick of her. the story always has to change. that is one of the cardinal rules of the media. and the media also tends to take sort of exciting scenarios and exaggerate their likelihood. it is very exciting. as a journalist, i would love it if she ran, but i think all of the speculation now is just -- host: on friday we always wait

for the labor department numbers. the most jobs in october with educatioand health-care sectors leading the way. but the unemployment rate by a households remains at 9.6% for the third stight month. the labor department said friday it survey of employers showed a net gain of 151,000 jobs last month, the most since may. wall street and now -- wall street analysts expected a smaller gain. guest: would you call that, a be-plus report? the -- host: i have an ongoing twitter feed here. a number of people who follow you regularly have been tweeting questions to ask how you are feeling, how you are doing?

guest: that is because i have parkinson's, and i'm doing pretty well, i think. host: someone mentioned a cutting edge treatment and wonder how that is going. guest: well, i had brain surgery five years ago, and has gone very well. and thanks for your concern. host: kalamazoo, michigan. republican line. caller: i would like someone to explain to me with all this rigmarole why is that we do not want to tax the malta million people -- the multi million people that have millions and millions of dollars, but we always want to cut the middle man, a senior citizens, and what they have worked for otherwise. when i got on the job force, i had no choice, i had to pay social security. it is not my fault that the

government stole from social security and put us in danr. why is it that they do not tax the big shots? is it because they get money in their pockets so they can do this outlandish parties and stuff, and they are afraid to tax the billions of people that they owe that much money so they will lose their support so they can get back in? money talks, and most of us, the more money you can put in, not taxable, into whatever party is, i am disappointed in all of them. host: a couple of things there -- first of all, the future of social security and the influence of money. guest: my view is basically the caller's view, that money talks.

i agreed with the supreme court on citizens united, the case that sort of unlocked all this money, big corporations and unions have free-speech rights. but i believe in the first amendment and i do not think there's anything you can do about that. but there is no question that money talks. guest: on social secity, its future? guest: well, the republicans are going to try to revise privatisation, which i think it's a terrible idea. i would encourage them to try it. at's it. host: you wrote a column in october about daniel patrick moynihan. why were you thinking about him? guest: they published a book of his letters and notes to

himself. he was the senator from new york for many years, and before that he was an intellectual professor at harvard. although not a very professorial type. this book is wonderful, and it really captures him that makes you think who in the senate today could produce something likethis, a life's work this? who in the senate today is sort an interesting person with ideas? host: what is the answer? guest: well, i could not think of any in particular. host: do you think the american litical process to attract different types of people, or has society chged? guest: running for office must be so awful, and i think is going to tend to attract more and more people who are just

sort of narrow the ambitious. host: while we are talking about great political figures, do you have a president during your lifetime to look to to say that this -- guest: the one that works best, i have to say, is clinton. i would not say his use of the presidency was 100% admirable, but he did do a lot of good. host: next call from michael kinsley. good morning, waned. teacup it is an honor, mr. kn -- caller: it is an honor, mr. kinsley, i have been falling you for a number of years. guest: do not say how many.

caller: it seems to me in the last election, you had a lot of people voting republican, voting right wing, and it just boggles my mind that they are continuing to vote against their own interests. these are people that i'm sure benefitrom things like social security, social security disability, medicare, yethey are electing candidates that will go up there and try to cut those programs, undermine them. i think they are also going to benefit ultimately from the health care, the president paused health care reform, and yet they are against that. -- the president's health care reform. and yet they are against that. what do we need to do to get the message out to these people that they are indeed not voting for people that will represent their interests? i will take my response off the air. thank you, michael. guest: you are welcome. thanyou. it is a puzzle why intelligent people disagree with you.

and also why they would act agnst their own self-interest. but throughout people -- throughout history, people have. the medical reforms, unfortunately, there is a problem with ting. the good stuff has not had time to affect people, and i think -- well, if the republicans try to repeal that, i think that would backfi. host: next is laguna woods, california, mike on the independent line. seek out good morning, susan. good morning, michael. i used to enjoy "crossfire, quote and i read your paper, the reason one on american exceptional was. once -- one thing that struck me as out of town with "crossfire"

and your service for the "l.a. times, up was the term "teab agger," and it pointed to the jon stewart comment, th america works every day except for the politicians. since "crossfire" struck me as very civil, lively fun, it has generated que a bit since the argument ad hominem, character assassination. it struck me that it happened with the transition from where it was liberal vsus conservative, to democratic operatives begal and carville,

to conservatives. i could look at my watch and predict within 60 seconds it one of them, -- either one of them, were they on the show, would have -- it is immediately character assassinatio of democrats versus republicans versus liberals and conservatives. host: civility of debate on television? caller: on cable. guest: well, cnn sort of killed crossfire. john stewart was very influential in this because he went on "crossfire" and sort of ndbag them by getting very serious and saying that

"crossfire" was wrecking america because it was not a civil debate. i think in retrospect, maybe "crossfire" looks better. i thought crossfire was a vigorous debate that rarely got uncivil. as to this word "teabagger," i have gotten blindsidedy it. i was not intending to insult anybody by using that word, although i was very critical of the tea party movement. but i was not aware that "teabagger" itself was an insult. host: beyond the cnn and local qualifier," of the discourse on tv -- fox bested all of the news

channels, getting a higher rating than the networks for news coverage. what about -- then cnn and msnbc for news coverage. guest: it is not a bad arrangement. i think fox news was a healthy development. i'm going to get in trouble for this. basically honest in that they are out front right wing, except that they then say fair and balanced in the end, which is ridiculous. and msnbc came along, and they tried -- i worked with microsoft when that arrangement -- of originally it was msnbc and microsoft together, and they struggle to find a format that work and lo and behold they found it and it is being overtly liberal. i think it makes for good tv.

host: you live in both washington, d.c., and washington state? where do you vote? guest: washington state. host the project -- >> guest: that was nice. host: cameron, a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call and the morning, mr. kinsley. i have enjoyed your debate over the years. and i will say you are recovering and barely noticeable and keep of the good fight. i first wanted to debate you a little bit when he said there is sort of a zero sum ge between tax cuts and government spending. i think the reality is if there was not so much government failed spending, the tax cuts would not even be an argument because we would not have the big bill to pay at the end of the month. as an example, the post office was established in 775 and they had 234 years to get it right and it is broken. social security was established

in 1935 and they had 74 years to get it right and it is broken. fannie mae was established in 1938 and they had 71 years to get it right and it is broken. war on poverty started in 1964, 45 years to get right, trillion dollars confiscated every year, broke. medicare and medicaid establish 1965, 44 years to get it right, it is broke. host: i will stop you because we understand a trajectory of the remark. what is the bottom line? caller: i wanted to point out if you look at things by the history and the facts and not the political side, you can see that what the left has done to the country is build up the tax debt and it has got us nothing. host: let's have michael kinsley respond. guest: i am actively working on a piece now on what the government does right and what it doesn't do right and should lead to the market. the post market -- post office is a good,mall example.

it is very dispiriting to go into many post offices. and i do think that that is the kind of thing that private enrprise does very well. delivering goods and services efficiently. what the government does well is writing checks. and these checks go to middle- class people, mostly, not for the poor. i mean, i could go through your list of others -- fannie mae is -- was always the scam. we had a piece in slate in 1997 saying that it was a scam and that it was inherent government guarantee although they denied it. and then they get in trouble, and of course, the government has to bail them out. >> one of the other items was the war on party. that leadsack to your discussion of daniel patrick moynihan who was an influential thinker inhat time period.

guest: he was labeled a both impish when welfare reform came along, trying to fure out where he stood. it was important that he was one of the first important thinkers about it. host: welfare reform is something -- first of all, it came during the clinton administration after the republicans took control of congress and it is something people -- republicans, in particular, are pointing to right now as an example after a big election how parties can come together to make change. what do you think about the welfare reform laws that were changed in that time period and the effect on society? guest: i have not followed that, i am ashamed to say, but my impression is that we no longer carry on about welfare of the way -- it is not robbing people all the way it used to.

it could be because issues come and go. but i think it is probably because of some of the things that they didn't like about it and were eliminated. host: does thasuggest anything for the period we are going into? guest: yes, if they are going to find one thing they agree on both parties will be better off, i think probably, but i don't know what that would be. host: 10 minutes left with our conversation with michael kinsley. philadelphia. john, democrats' line. i think have to push the button. my thought. warren, ohio. mark, go ahead. are you there? caller: i am here. host: you have a question or comment? mccaw i have a question, and i am hoping michael with his expertise can shed some light on maybe what the future will bring. i think the initial posturing from both boehner and obama do not show direction for

cooperation working together. if we don't continue to build an infrastructure of manufacturing, i am curious as to how we will grow and come out as a phoenix om the ashes of our recession. guest: well, that's the question everybody wants to know the answer to. the manufacturing base, i don't think that reestablishing that is necessarily the way to go. i think we have to find ways to educate people and train them to do the higher level jobs, because they're always going to be people in distant lands who will do these manufacturing jobs cheaper. you know, someone might have

said at the turn of the 20th century, how can we live without farmers? they provide what we eat. but, in fact, farmers were -- i don't know, one third or something of the economy now and now it is one percent or 2%. host: this is a philosophical question from twitter -- guest: well, capitalism is a system that is supposed to turn self interest into the general interest. and it works very well. in that sense, he is right. host: philadelphia, here you are now. john, democrats' line. the caller: when the republicans start bringing again about

privatizing social security, i want you to write a column on what happened to the nra employees, the people who were retired -- enron employees win monday 401k was worth 400,000 and next was zero. what were they living on? fast forward to today. the supposedly evil nancy pelosi pushed through the house against a republican in transit since a bill that would have made it more difficult for american corporations to send american jobs overseas. it would have madit more beneficial for them to bring jobs back. the bill went to the senate and the republicans killed it in the senate. there is in the evil nancy pelosi, supposedly evil. right wing free-market capitalists that got us into this economic tsunami we are in

today. and it was clanton and phil gramm and the white house at the time -- clinton and phil gramm. what they are able to do, the evil free-market capitalists, they are able to convince the completely of this rusticated american public to build a gallows that the capitalists used to hang them. all you have to do is look at pennlvania today. what did they do? it put in the senate a u.s. senator for six years that guy pat toomey, the club for growth pat toomey. whenever the pennsylvania voters get, they deserve what is coming to them down the road. guest: he referenced giving the rope to hang themselves. a very clever twist on it beuse he is saying the capitalists do that to ordinary working people. i think that is from trotsky or linen or someone, he said this is what capitalists would do f communism.

i don't know whether -- i am not going to get into whether that analogy makes sense or not. host: talking about people and politics, you wrote about eliot spitzer and remarking in a profile suggesting he had not read a novel in many years. guest: he says it to the person writing a profile. host: what are you reading? guest: i just finished "freedom ," the jonathan franzen novel that is getting all the publicity. other than that, i like trollop. it's good you do, after all these years? guest: it is just about politics. there are a lot of very heavy 19th century novels. he is not that. host: the next call is from charlotte.

calvin, independent line. what is on your mind today? caller: i want to tell mr. kinsley that i hear the tea baggers complaining about that particular word and it seems destined to me that nobody brings up the fact that they have no problem saying obamacare. i think that is just as much of an insult. guest: i think that is a good point, but could anyone explain why that is offensive? truly, i am curious, and it might -- nicknamed tea baggers? st: westwood, new jersey. caller: the fellow answered the phone who says to me, what would i talk about? what i wanted to talk about was that somhing we could agree on. what we could agree on is that life is good. life is very, very good.

tuesday, the turnout for american peoe, le is very good. on the abortion issue, which is a life issue that is very important to me, 30% said it was very important. more than 20 percent said ty were pro life. the people will vote on tuesday were largely pro life. the pro-death people, which killed 52,000 babies. if we even chile are successful in killing all of -- if we are successful in killing all of the pro-death people there will only be pro-life people left to vote and that will be that. now, as far as tea baggers, it is insulting because the bag is something you throw away. obamacare, what is wrong with that is de stripped out

conscience rights, the stripped out what bart's tupac wanted, and lippen steve -- stepped out what bart stupak wanted. but here is the good news -- like as good an america has become a pro-life nation. hallelujah, thing good. >> but we are going to break away and take it over to a national press club, reporters from "the weekly standard" for a discussion. live coverage on c-span. >> welcome. we are customer locations, owned by the same corporate structure, and it is a pleasure to collaborate on this event. if you wanted to learn more,

these are both top of the line publications, and there are fact sheets in a little packet you have. most of it is true. that me introduce my fellow panelists who need no introduction. michael barone is a common this -- is a columnist with "the examiner." . he is the editor of the almanac of american politics. i often say this and i will get michael to do this, the author of the best book on the history of american history in the 20th century, called, "our country." it needs to be updated, so people should nag him to

update. my colleague fred barnes, who helped me start "the weekly standard". obviously, one of the leading political journalists of our day. he is the author of an important book on the bush presidency, also a stallworth on fox news. byron york of "the washington examiner," before that at the "national review." he is now at "the washington examiner," and has a platform he

deserves. he is a leading reporter and commentator on elections and politics in general. and to my immediate left is susan ferrechio, the chief congressional correspondent for "the washington examiner." before that, susan was that cq and "the miami herald." she is a first-rate, careful, penetrating congressional correspondent, and she has been a great asset to "the examiner" as well. i will throw a few questions at them and then we will have a discussion and have time for discussions and your questions at the end. i thought we would begin quickly, i assume everyone on the panel has now written about the election, analyzed the result, said everything they

want about the findings. let me summarize what happened. and then let me ask each of our panelists, what strikes and the most about what happened, is there anything that is not as noticed as it should have been. let's begin with bair newark. what strikes you most about last tuesday? >> i spent the week before the election covering the senate races in illinois, wisconsin, and finally in the nevada. what struck me is the atmosphere for republicans was so favorable, and we know in 2006 broke forncts democrats, and this time the numbers were reversed. the atmosphere was reversed. ron johnson in wisconsin could knock off a legendary figure and

ross frankel in wisconsin. if you ran a pretty good campaign in illinois, but were troubled, suffering from allegations that he embellished his resonate in ways that did not bring him any benefit. he has a good resonate anyway. but this brought him a lot of grief. you had to run a pretty undistinguished campaign as sharron angle did to lose, so much so that the number that struck me in nevada exit polls was pollsters ask, you approve or disapprove of the job harry reid did as senator? 55% disapproved of harry reid's job performance. 44% approved, and yet he still won because of his incredible organizational skills, strength

out there, and the clout of the casino industry. the thing that struck me over all was victories were out there you ran aen, and yoif pretty good campaign as a republican, you could win. >> most polls -- the one debate that ankle did pretty well, she was a problematic candidate, but you were out there a day or two before the race. did you expect her to win? >> the stuff i saw on the ground track perfectly with the polls. the six prior polls for the election had angle up, everywhere you went, people would be splitting accept one or two for angle against harry reid. my reporting experience out there seemed to perfectly lined up with the polls, which were wrong.

>> the ground game? >> we should give credit to the reporter who covers nevada politics, who predicted before the race for the election that harry reid was going to win. the level of organization in the early voting was incredible, and harry reid was -- harry reid's campaigned worked with casinos. i worked -- i went to michelle onma's appearance for reid monday. everybody was handed number sheets, the numbers to call it. harry reid did not miss any opportunity to work the polls, and that is what happened. >> ed, what struck you? >> i was surprised by a few of the outcomes. republicans had not targeted

some races, and were surprised when there to candidates won. oberstar was beaten in minnesota, and that was a lot -- and that was a surprise. one of the house members that targeted over the years was a representative in illinois . she was a moderate democrat, and did joe walsh actually won. it has not been declared, but it looks like he is ahead. the race in north carolina now etherege, essman where he allegedly put somebody in a headlock on capitol hill -- >> he was asking the congressman

a question. >> he lost to a nurse, who republicans have not figured they were going to win that. there are about six actual conservative democrats in the house, and five of them are gone. i counted them this way. it did not seem to help them that they voted in most cases against cap and trade, obama care, and they still lost. jim marshall in georgia. the only one that survived was the representative in oklahoma. his father was governor, and he is president of the university of oklahoma right now. republicans did not target him.

i do not think they targeted gene taylor. were wiped out. the survey did not say that the republicans would expel the democrats from the south. three seats in virginia, four in florida, one in alabama, one in louisiana. in most of the states that also won senate seats. the south is gone for the democratic party for the time being. >> what struck me about that -- we will go to michael and a second. even if the republicans had not won a seat in the sow they still -- in the south, they still would have won the house. the damage in virginia was

considerable. michael, what struck you? you are from michigan. >> yes, i grew up in canada, and grew up in detroit. i struck historic numbers. we have had two historic elections in a row. he used the metric of the house of representatives. the state of california takes five weeks to count its votes, so we do not have the full popular vote get. they had elections in sunday on brazile, and they counted and hours. i in five in any case -- and it looks like if you go back to years in 2008, democrats won by 54%, the popular vote for the house. there is a little bit of wiggle

about how you tabulate votes for people who are unopposed. that was an historic high. back in 1986, they were winning the south 60%-40%. of course they did not do that anymore. if you take the 36 non-southern states, democrats two years ago got 57% of the bed. that is the highest in history that never before was achieved. that was a high point for the democratic party. this popular vote looks like it is going to be 53%-44, for republicans. that is equal to republicans in 1994 were little better. before that you have to go back to 1946, when it was 54%-44%. one should add in the 1920's

this out cast very few popular votes. the democratic primary was tantamount to election. in fact republicans, if you could somehow virtual allies the southern vote for the preceding -- in some respect this was tied for the best republican performance in the house pvote for history. it is unusual for american history. he did not find many times we see a party lose 10 points or gained 10 points in an election. i brought obama's election was an historic first and so forth. the performance of the democratic party in house elections during the first two years of his presidency is maybe a historic first as well. republicans perform even better when you go down the ballot. senate seats, they lost a couple

senate seats with problematic candidates, in my view. they lost a heartbreakingly close what in the state of washington. when you go down to the state legislatures, republicans seemed to have gained about 150 seats in state senates and more than -- in state houses. this is more than any time in the 1920's. they gained control of redistricting. i am going to be writing about this for "the examiner," and others have mentioned it. in texas, pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, and also among other states, wisconsin and north carolina, where the legislature -- the governor does not have a veto and the republicans gain

both houses of legislature. in state after state of those i mentioned, republicans outperformed what the insiders expected. in my home state of michigan, republicans gained 13 seats at a 110 to take over the house. the political insiders were take tests were saying that was impossible. just before the election, there was a report that said they had the chance to win them all. they won 20. this is a deep thing. two small points. one possible relevance to 2012, when it is possible that we could have a third-party presidential candidate or a third presidential candidate, which raises the question of, could the presidential election go to the house of representatives? this question was raised in 2000. if so, it is voted on by state

delegations. if you have a majority of members of the state delegation, your state's vote goes to your party's candidate. going into this election, democrats had a big had a majority of state delegations. more than 26. now republicans have 33 state delegations. that may change before the next congress, but it probably will not change a lot and gives the republicans a backstop. finally, i saw the ambassador from finland last night and it occurred to me that we saw a major swing in the distance of large numbers of finnish- americans. bart stupak retired. we have a republican winning in northern wisconsin. david obey retired.

in the minister that 8, jim oberstar lost to republican, a former northwest pilot who was described as a stay at home dad. lake superior is bounded by republican congressional districts. >> the editor of "the examiner" will have an article in monday's issue on the importance of the voters report -- voters were embracing republican positions.

they would say i feel it is time for a change. we need something to be on it the expectations have been built up in 2008, that they saw that congress would function differently this time around, that they would wo together ction rolls economy going. e around and the economy is still in the dumps and, chris -- and ever has been.rs were truly exa. one case that was clearly an example of that was in west virginia, where governor mansiochin won. he was headed for a loss, and he had approval ratings in the and they did not want him to go to washington, because they thought he was got to

follow the democratic agenda. he saved himself by firing a bullet to them markey legislation of the democrats, the cap and trcde lettuce -- trade legislation. things turned around for him shortly after that. he really got the message. throughout this date i traveled and the people i talk to, or folks who democrats, independents, republicans, saying vote the bombs out. you can see in the polling, fascinating polling that came out. 85% of respondents said they would like to toss everybody out in congress and start over. there is an intense level of disgust in the electorate right now. republicans are keenly aware of that, and said there is going to

be pressure on them to try to change the image of congress or the next time there is an election they are going to be the bums that will get thrown out. the question is what they can turn the ship around to improve their image. that is the most significant thing i saw on the campaign trail, the urge to start a new in congress. >> the challenge that john bair and harry reid faces and the administration faces. i was at a panel in the kennedy school -- can you imagine a republican shooting and had -- shooting a gun in an an?

the examiner was shrewd about this of a couple levels. senator robert byrd died, and governor manchin appointed a replacement, and then said he would run for the seat. you can be a popular governor but they may now want to send you to washington if your and the wrong party. if you support legislation by the president of your party. three or four weeks later polls showed that the race was manchin ahead, and voters did not seem like it wanted him in washington. he is an intelligent guy, and he

pivoted very sharply and decided that in politics you cannot be too subtle some time, and i am not going to be -- president obama shopped the cap and trade bill on the air. manchin shooting a gun, and it turned out to be a very shrewd tactic. he ran an excellent campaign to survive in west virginia. now he is the senator from west virginia, and fred wrote a piece about this on thursday. we have democrats who survived the on flight, several of them from distancing themselves from the administration. we should talk about the democrats, their challenges, and the republicans, who had theirs. >> there are a lot more

democratic senators up in 2012. there is a target-rich environment for republicans. it gives them a pretty good chance of winning the senate in 2012. right now the pressure is on a number of these -- manchin being one, incumbent democratic senators up for reelection in 2012 who are either in fairly conservative state or states that trend it in a republican and conservative direction this year. you can think of both nelsons , nebraska and florida, clare macaskill in missouri, one of the most smashing victories was by roy blunt, who won by 19 percentage points.

some of the things that did not hurt candidates, the connection to the bush administration did not hurt anybody. the most successful candidate in in country was roab portman ohio. there was nobody you had a stronger connection to the bush administration. he won by 20 percentage points as well. i am trying to give the other states -- virginia, where you have jim webb, and republicans have already started to talk to these democrats, and what is going to happen is there will be republican senators plus some democratic senators will give republicans operational control of the senate. you can think of spending

issues, tax issues, many other issues, even health care issues, on which you will have 55 senators forming a majority, most of them republicans, and eight or nine been democrats. that is certainly something that i look to see, expected to see, and will not make kerry reid happy. >> already, there is a group of moderates in the senate, the faction that harry reid has already had to deal with. even last year, you had people like ben nelson running the show in the senate. things will come down to ben nelson because they needed that one vote, and just with that type margin. now with the senate, forget it. 46-54, whenever they have. you will see these coalitions building between the republicans and these moderate

democrats, who are up for elections. everyone does not want to happen what happened to blanche lincoln. that is the warning for democrats that they need to moderate what they did. it will become a difficult thing for the senate not to swing right, and i think that will happen. >> the house passes legislation that comes first of the senate, the house will define the parameters, there will be pressure on the moderates to the house legislation, which puts republicans and house in a better position. if it dies in the senate, it dies in a senate controlled by the democrats. if it passes, it becomes bipartisan legislation. >> this is a good dynamic for republicans because they can

pass whenever they want in the senate. they have a 30-seat margin. democrats -- this is exactly what the democrats did to them years ago, and they can blame it on the president. it is a good dynamic. it will be hard to see harry reid -- for instance, the house will pass a bill seemed let's repeal the health care law. can you see harry reid taken that up in the senate? no. then he will be blamed for not getting it done. >> how about we should talk about republicans in the house who have their management problems, and the obama administration? what the fink, byron? -- what do you think, byron? >> house republicans take the pledge to america seriously.

the big features are cutting spending to pre-bailout levels with the common sense exceptions with seniors, veterans, and our troops. cuts on discretionary spending, cutting congress' budget, and repealing obama care. in wisconsin, ron johnson, had not run for anything before, went around the state and every time he appeared he said i got two things on my platform -- i want to repeal the health care long and i want to cut the deficit. all he said. he actually means that. for a white house, just go back to the fund-raiser that the president attended in massachusetts not too long before the election in which he said the country is afraid and

that when people are afraid we are hard wired not to think clearly. he clearly believes that the country made a wrongheaded decision and everything that he has said both in his post- election news conference and in the '60s -- "60 minutes" interview says that he will put the blame on -- in spite of the fact that he gave 50-plus i think you have a recipe for irreconcilable differences because republicans, a lot of these new lawmakers really believe what they are saying. ron johnson said the health care bill was the single greatest bill was the single greatest assault on