america. that is lower taxes, less government regulation, more individual freedom. stop the spending. i know all of you will remember that we all have the right angle for government here in america. that right ankle is -- once more, our constitution. we needed to thank god every moment that we live and breathe, thank god that we have a nation under god, that we have a nation and in god we trust. i think god for this evening. i thank god for my country. i think god for all of those men

and women serving and who have served our country. [applause] i thank god for my family. i think god for my husband ted has always been a strong support for me. my daughter, joy. she came with me this evening, and my grandson, jacob. i have two children and 10 grandchildren. these of the 12 came to represent our family. i thank god for all of the families here in this united states, but most of all, i think god for you. i think you for this incredible experience of being your friend and serving with you. thank you so much for being here this evening. thank you. thank you. [applause]

. ♪

[chanting 'harry'] >> thank you, everybody. thank you. >> thank you, everybody. thank you, thank you, thank you. yes, we did.

the day nevada chose hope over fear. -- today nevada chose hope over fear. moving forwards, not backwards. nevada made this choice because we know it is not about us against them. it is about everyone in nevada in this together. today you made possible what many called impossible. and i am grateful that you did. not for me, but for the future we all share as the people of nevada. first, let me thank my wife. [applause]

my wife and my best friend. i wanted you biocide since the first time that i saw you. and you have been there ever since. every step of the way. to my family. my tireless family. and all of my generous volunteers. i wish my voice could convey what is in my heart. that thank you, thank you, thank you.

you never gave up. because you know that the people of nevada and never give up. i know how hard that she worked. i appreciate each minute the two spent. each hour, day, week, month, and here. i thank the people for that. it has always been my honor to represent, serve, and fight for the state. to fight for each of you. and, friends, i am not finished fighting. in fact, tonight i am more determined than ever. you see, i have been in some fairly tough fights in my day.

in the streets, in boxing rings, and in the united states senate. i have to admit, this has been one of the toughest. but it is nothing compared to the fight that families are facing all over the state right now. this race has been called, but the fight is far from over. the bell that just rang is not the end of the fight, it is the start of the next round. i know i love the people of nevada feel like they have been counted out. but you know that i know what that feels like. i have taken on powerful forces that no one dared to challenge. i ran into tough elections that no one thought that i could win. i know what it is like to have the odds against you curia i

know what it is like to take a plunge. more importantly, i know what it is like to get back on your feet. my story tonight approved the difficult is not synonymous with impossible. -- my story tonight proved that the difficulty is not synonymous with the impossible. my career and this campaign have been driven by a simple belief. if a port kid from circa i can make it, anyone can make it. everyone in nevada deserves a chance. everyone in america deserves a chance. nevada is going to recover and prosper. nevada is going to leave.

we are going to bounce back stronger than ever. i think that to know that about me. you'll also know that the balloons and ballrooms are not my style. they are not my thing. remember tomorrow. you see, tomorrow morning there will still be too few jobs with too many people. still too many foreclosure science in too many front yards.

to many kids in crowded classrooms with too many students wondering how they can afford college. but your hard work, and it has been very hard, has given the that of the chance to believe again. tomorrow is not impossible. before i finish here tonight, i would like to invite on stage just a handful of those that made tonight possible. my family, my friends, my staff, they all made tonight possible. because of view, because of you

tonight, we did not make history, but we did make and other futures better. because of you, we did it. thank you. ♪

♪

♪ ♪ >> in california, barbara boxer won a fourth term, defeating

carly fiorina. first we will hear the election night comments from senator boxer. then, remarks that were made on wednesday by carly fiorina. ♪ >> thank you. thank you, senator feinstein, for being my friend, my supporter, my legislative carter, and the chairman of my campaign. diane.

[applause] i think that the best thing that i can say now is feinstein, 2012. it took me a while to get down here. hours ago we were called the winner by every single station, every single publication. we were going to win this race. we just pulled out to raise several point lead. and that was before los angeles and lme the county came in.

so, i am thrilled. i want you to listen. i want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for this victory. after the toughest and roughest campaign of by life, this is my 11th straight election victory. what a sweet victory it is. [applause] from the time that i was elected to that first office, way back when -- you have got to listen, i only had one reason that i went into politics.

that was to make life better for the people i represent. that is who i am and what i am about. there is no other agenda than to make life better for you and the people of california. listen, listen. everything was thrown at us. including the kitchen sink. and the stove, the oven. everything. millions of dollars in negative advertisements from known and unknown opponents. millions of dollars. because of the people of california, we matched those secret, undisclosed ballots of the special interests, dollar by dollar. because of the tens of thousands of small donors. i say to you, $145,000, we

matched those special interests. when the people of california step up and fight for their rights, their jobs, and their freedoms, we will beat any monied special interests that comes into our state. there was so much out of state special interest. i was so excited when the san francisco giants beat the texas rangers in the world series. guess what i knew that that would get too excited, but not that excited. here is the deal. the giants beat the rangers. and we beat the texas polluter''

tonight. now, this campaign was never about me. although i never saw so many horrible features of myself on television. honestly, where do they find those photographs? i kept telling my grandchildren not to watch television. my worry was that they would say first -- that is not grandma. but then they would say -- but what if [laughter] it is] -- what if it is? [laughter] every time that i thought our voice would be drowned out, you came forward. the $5, $10. 20, 30, 40, 50. an extraordinary campaign. i have never seen anything quite like it. i have had some tough ones

before. you came to us, to this campaign. from all over this great state. the young, i can see you out there tonight. the old. i have seen you out there tonight. middle-aged. i have seen a lot of you out there tonight. men and women, gay and straight. african americans. whites, latinos, asians. all of us together. we are california. that is what this state is about. that is what we said tonight. listen, listen i want to give

special thanks to the veterans for boxer. who stood with main and were proud of what i had accomplished. for our great men and women who put everything on the line. we need to bring them back for more. it is time. we need to rebuild america. and tonight? tonight we all came together. because we have a new governor. jerry brown. [applause] hello, gerry. that is ok, i am not jealous.

i wanted him to win so badly. listen, i want to thank my beautiful family. they are here behind me tonight. they are behind me every single day. in the darkest moments of this campaign, the brightest moments of this campaign. i would like to thank the most incredible campaign manager known to humankind. where is rose? where is she? rose, i ask you to come up on this stage. she will not come up on the stage. [applause]

she has managed four winning campaigns. well, our victory tonight belongs to the people of california. democrats, republicans. yes, we got a bunch of republican votes. and i am proud of that.

these votes are precious. i want to tell you a story. some of the people on the other side wanted to depress voter turnout. we even had a group that cut a television advertisements, they wanted to play and latino communities, telling them to stay home and not vote. thank goodness the television stations would not run the advertisement. that was good. this is what i want to share with you. i need you to listen because it is an important story. in the first generation american another side. my mother never graduated from high school because she had to work to support her family. she became a naturalized citizen in the late 1930's. after she passed away and i went

through her memorabilia, i found turn--- naturalization certificate. this was the only document that was wrapped in saran wrap to protect it. i started to think, in the heat of this campaign. it was so important that everyone voted. that we have a good turn out, regardless of the outcome. i thought back to what i was a little girl. my mother would take me by the hand and she would take me into the polling booth. in those years it was very mysterious. there was a black curtain. you would push the levers. you remember. my mother would look at me and say -- honey, this is what america is about. do you know how many people all over the world would give up almost everything to be in a booth like this one in america?

she said -- our vote is secret. it is a secret ballot. so, do not even tell daddy how i voted. [laughter] that is what america was to my mother. freedom to choose a government, to have a secret ballot. and when i saw the depressed voter turnout, thank you for voting. thank you for coming out in a large numbers that you did. let's say a big thank-you to california tonight. for voting. for exercising your rights. [applause] listen, you put your faith in

me. i am going to keep my faith in you. working my heart out to create jobs and turn this economy around. focusing on small businesses that create the jobs. extending tax breaks to companies that create jobs in america. i want to see the words made in america again. that's what this campaign is about. it is not about giving tax breaks to companies that shift jobs overseas. that is wrong. we want to create tax breaks for companies that make jobs here at home. i will keep on working to protect your rights. to pass comprehensive immigration reform. including the dream act. i am going to continue to work

for equality of all fronts. including marriage. and don't ask, don't tell. that is what you want me to do. you have always wanted me to protect a woman's right to choose. you can count on me to do that. we will make sure that california is the hub of the new clean energy economy. we beat those texas polluters. we are not going back. we will get off the billion dollar for day habit of foreign oil. you know, one day my opponent said that i was an extreme environmentalists. well, i readily admit, i was

extremely clean air. extremely clean water. and extremely safe drinking water. that is what we are going and have. that is the environment in the public works committee. i will keep pace with our veterans. i know that times are tough. i know the times are tough. i have never sugar coated it once in this campaign. and i said that when the press asked, how do you expect to win, being an incumbent senator a in an anti-incumbent situation with a bad economy? i said i had two ways that we were going to win. the first is to tell the people that if we ever needed a fighter in the senate, it is now and it

is me. the other way, thank you. the other way, the other secret plan that i had to win was to tell the truth. just tell the truth. that is what we did in our commercials. i particularly want to say, to the four hewlett-packard employees who had the courage to go up on the commercial and tell their story, thank you from the bottom of my heart. we do not want anyone else to feel the pain of having to train their replacements. now, i was so proud to have president obama come out here for me.

and the vice-president joe biden. and michelle obama. i spoke to the president tonight. i spoke to the vice president. can we hear a cheer for them? there really helped us. i am going to tell them how loudly you cheered. they were handed a situation, when they took the keys to the oval office. the worst recession since the great depression. bleeding 700,000 jobs each month. you know what? we walk it back. it is still not where we wanted it to be, but we are pushing the car out of the ditch. we will continue to do it until the is going in the right

direction. yes, we will. so, listen. not all of the votes have been counted, but they are moving in our direction. and i feel really good about it tonight. so, i wanted to share that with you. i wanted to tell you that this has been quite a campaign. someone said to me after having seen -- ever having seen me for the first time that they didn't know i would be so little. i told them i was 6 feet tall before i started this campaign. tonight i feel happy and proud. grateful and humble. as well as excited.

nell, the politics are over cornell. the politics are over for now. the governing will begin. i will cross and the divide to get things done for california. senator feinstein and i do it every day. you need to know that it will always stand up to anyone who tries to hurt our stage -- tries to harm our state. i will say this, we stood up to karl rove and we won. we did. we stood up to sarah palin, and we won. [applause] we stood up to special interest in this country who did not one

to a fight for consumers in the senate. they did not want a fighter for the middle class in the senate. we won. thank you. god bless you. god bless california. god bless america. thank you. ♪ ♪

♪ [applause] >> good morning. well, good morning, everyone. thank you for joining us. last night when i spoke to hundreds of our supporters, the outcome of this election was not yet clear. this morning the outcome is clear. i have spoken with senator boxer, congratulated her, and wished her well. so many republicans across this state work hard, got out, voted. getting others to vote we won

independence. in the end of the could not overcome the advantage the democrats had. particularly in los angeles. i will not engage in a game of could have, would have, should have. i am proud of every moment of this campaign. crowd as well of every person. who has contributed to our efforts. proud of every single one of our staff. we had a fantastic campaign. i am proud of every single one of our volunteers. getting out the vote, sitting in phone banks, knocking on doors. i am proud of every single one of the tens of thousands of people that put their heart,

their hope, their passion, and their commitment into this campaign. i am also proud of every one of our tens of thousands of donors. people up and down this state and across the nation who gave generously to our cause. i have said this on many occasions throughout the campaign. win, lose, or draw, i would not trade a single moment. that remains true this morning. this has been a great privilege of frank and my life. we have seen california in a way that so few people have an opportunity to see it. . rightly called the golden state. yes, a state with many challenges, but a golden state because of the heart and soul of the people.

i have met so many and been touched by every single one of them. it has been a privilege as well. because of all of the people who have poured their love, there freres, and their support into our cause, but i first started this campaign about one year ago, almost exactly one year ago, when some of you might remember -- i was bald. i have ever more here now. one thing we have accomplished. when we started this campaign one year ago, i said two things. the first was that i believe ours was intended to be a citizen government. and i am so proud of the fact that so many citizens step forward to run for office for

the first time. all across the nation. i also said that i was running because i thought that the american dream was becoming too hard for too many people. i hold that concern today. our country was founded on a truly radical idea. the idea that everyone has the potential. that everyone has the right to fulfil their potential. that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in this country we believe that those rights come from god. not from man. they cannot be taken away by government. to live the american dream, people need opportunities. they need the freedom to pursue those opportunities. they need a government that is working on their side and listening to them. to live the american dream,

people need jobs. we need to put millions of people in california back to work. we cannot have a government that continues to spin out of control money that is not its own. but is the taxpayers' money. in particular libby cannot have a government that continues to spend the treasure of our future generations. so, i hope for everyone who is victorious last night, everyone, from barbara boxer to all of the many people that one last night across our nation. whether they are democrats or republicans. i hope that they will all come together in the capital of our nation, in washington, d.c.. in the capital of our state, sacramento. i hope that these people will come together and redouble their efforts to make sure that californians and americans have opportunities to live the

american dream. because when we destroy jobs, when people are unemployed is not just that they do not have a paycheck. they are missing their chance to build a better life for themselves and their families. so, i hope that everyone will dedicate themselves to building those opportunities and i also hope that democrats and republicans will come together now in our nation's capital as well as the state capital and say, you know? we need to work together now to do the people's business. we need to get out of control government spending under control we need to always remember that it is not our money spent by the government. it is the people's money. when we spend the money of future generations, we are doing harm. this has been a great ride. a great adventure. a great privilege. i would not trade a single mom and.

for every single person who gave of their time, who gave of their hard, who gave of their money, who give of their passion, frank and i want to thank you from the bottom of our hearts. this fight is not over, it is just beginning. let's go and make sure that we know to be true is true going forward. but the american dream belongs to everyone and that the government works for us and not the other way around. god bless you all, thank you. thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next, president obama talks about the midterm election. that we will have a news conference with house and senate republican leaders joined by

haley barbour. after that, remarks from its mcconnell. >> it is harmless if someone is making a star out of the theory. but when someone takes this notion of stardom as a national security, it gives more dangerous. americans eventually get was as the stars have withered through the dream team's of the best and brightest not being what they are cracked up to be. in that time, chaos and mayhem can rein. >> just a few of the foreign- policy leaders critiqued by the author tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> wednesday, president obama met with national news media to discuss the changes resulting from tuesday's elections. first, in 1994, president

clinton faced a similar power shift in congress during his first term. he also met with the media to talk about it. here are some of his remarks. >> won the republican party assumes leadership in the house and senate, they will have a responsibility. i reach out to them today and i asked them to join me in the center of the public debate. with the best ideas for the next generation of american progress must come. democrats and republicans have often join together when it was clearly in the national interest. they have often chosen to put international affairs above politics. i urge them to do so again while passing the agreement this year. our prosperity depends upon it. there can be no compromise in

the livelihood of american households at stake. last night the voters not only voted for sweeping changes, they demanded that a more equal be divided congress work more closely together with the president for the interest of all of the american people. so, i hope that we can do that and that by doing so, we will pave the way for further cooperation on welfare reform and health care reform. on a continued investment on people's occasional opportunities and the continued strength of our economy. we must also take more steps to restore the people's faith in our political institutions. and agreed that further in the best tradition of our own foreign policy cups politics will continue to stop at the edge of the water.

for those that believe we must keep moving forward, i will do everything in my power to reach out to the leaders in this new congress. it must be possible to make a more effective and functioning institution. it must be possible to give the people like government that is smaller, more effective, reflecting our interests and values. to those that would use this election to turn us back, let me say this. i will do all in my power to keep anyone from jeopardize in this economic recovery by taking us -- jeopardize thing this ever -- this economic recovery by taking us -- jeopardize thiing s economic recovery by taking us backwards.

there is too much at stake for our children and our future to do anything else. well, much has changed since yesterday. what has not changed is the reason i was sent here. and the reason many of the members of congress rescind year. to restore the american dream, to make this city work in the interest of ordinary americans again. that is what the american people expect of us. last night they said they were not satisfied with the progress we had made. that the democrats had been in control of the white house and congress and that they were going to make a change. and they did make a change. but that they still wanted the same goals. today i have pledged to work with all members of congress. especially republican leadership to achieve that goal.

we can make great progress for this country. we should be optimistic and work to make that optimism real. >> now, president obama's news conference on the midterm election results. this is just under one hour. >> last night i reached out to those that won and lost in both parties. i told them that i look forward to working with them. thanking them for their extraordinary leadership over the past few years. after what was a long night for a lot of view, needless to say that was for me, i can tell you that some election nights are

more fun than others. some of them are exhilarating. some of them are humbling. every election, regardless of who wins and loses, the power rests not with those in elected office, but with those privileged to serve. over the last few months i have had the upper charity to travel around the country, meet people where they live and where they work. from backyards to factory floors. i did some talking but mostly a lot of lifting. yesterday's vote confirmed what i've heard from people across america. people are deeply with the pace of economic recovery and the opportunities they had hoped for for their children and grandchildren.

the one job to come back faster, paychecks to go further, and the ability to give their children the same chances and opportunities they had in life. the men and women that sent us here do not expect washington to solve all of their problems, but they do expect washington to work for them, not against them. they want to know that we will not leave our children debts. they want to know that our voices are not being drowned out by a sea of lobbyists, special interests, and partisan bickering. they want business to be done openly and honestly. i ran for this office to tackle these challenges and give voice to the concerns of everyday people. over the last few years, we have made progress. clearly too many americans have not felt that progress yet.

as president, i take responsibility for that. yesterday they also told us that no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here. that we must find common ground in order to make progress on some uncommonly difficult challenges. i told john banner and mitch mcconnell last night that i am eager to sit down with members of both parties to figure out how we can move forward together. i am not suggesting that this will be easy. i will not pretend that we can bridge every difference or solve every disagreement. there is a reason we have two parties in this country. both democrats and republicans have certain beliefs and principles that each feel cannot be compromised. what i think that the american people are expecting, and what we owe them, is to focus on those issues that affect their jobs, their security, and their future. reducing our deficit, promoting

a clean energy economy, making sure that our children the best educated in the world curium making sure that we are making investments in technology that will allow us to keep our competitive edge in the global economy. because the most important contests that we face are not the ones between democrats and republicans. in this century the most important competition that we face is between america and our economic competitors around the world. so, we need competition and continue the economic leadership we will have to be strong and united. none of these challenges lend themselves to simple solutions or bumper sticker slogans. or the answer is found in any one particular ideology or philosophy. no person or party has a monopoly on wisdom. that is why i am eager to hear good ideas, wherever they come from.

whoever proposes them. that is why i believe it is honest and important to have a debate that is simple about the problems that we face. which is why i want to engage democrats and republicans in serious conversations about where we are going as a nation. with so much at stake, what the american people do not want from us, especially in washington, is to spend the next few years refining the political battles of the last few. we just had a tough election. we will have another in 2012. i am not so arrogant as to think that everyone will put politics aside until then, but i do hope to make progress on the serious problems facing us right now. this will require all of us, including myself, to work harder and building consensus. just under one month ago we held a town hall meeting in richmond, virginia. one of the more telling questions came from a small-

business owner that ran a tree care firm. he told me how hard he worked and how busy he was. he does not have time to pay attention to be back and forth in washington. he asked if there was a whole for returning to civility in this course. to a healthy legislative process. so, as i strap the boots on again tomorrow, i know that you have it under control? hard to have faith in that right now, he said i do believe that there is hope for stability. i believe that there is hope for progress. that is because i believed in the resiliency of a nation that bounced back from much worse than we are going through right now. a nation that has been made more perfect in our struggle for individual rights and freedoms.

progress has always come. most of all because we believed in ait because this is not the party, the region, or the faction, but because we may be proud republicans or democrats, we are all americans. that is something that we need to remember now and in the coming months. i have no doubt that we can continue this nation's long journey towards a better future. with that, i will take some questions.

>> who is speaking to the true voice of the american people right now? you or john boehner? >> what they were expressing with great frustration over the fact that we had not made enough progress. we have job growth in the private sector. people across america are not feeling that. so the jobs are being created and the mill class feels secure. moving forward, i think that the

question is going to be, can democrats and republicans sit down together and address those concerns. we have people who think we should not be working on energy independence, but democrats and republicans can come together on natural gas, energy efficiency, or how we can build electric cars in this company -- this country. everyone in this country seems eclipsed in their backgrounds to compete in this new global economy.

the overwhelming message we heard from the voters is that we want everyone to act responsibly in washington to will arrive at consensus. we wanted to focus completely on jobs and the economy growing so that we will ensure a better future for our children and grandchildren. there is no doubt that as i reflect on the results of the election, it _ as for me and i have to do a better job. just like everyone else in washington does. i think that john boehner and i, mitch mcconnell and harry reid, nancy pelosi, we are going to have to sit down and work

together. i suspect that if you talk to any individual voter yesterday, they would say that there are some things they would agree with democrats on, some things that they agree with republicans on. i do not think that people carry around with them a fixed ideology. the majority of people go about their business and their allies making sure that we're making progress. .

arguing to get back to the situation where they live naturally spend something we know how to pay for as opposed to tracking of the credit card

for the next-generation. the other thing that happened is that, when i won the election in 2008, one reason i think people were excited was because the prospect that we retain town business is done in washington. we were in such a hurry to get things done and we did not change how things got done. i think that frustrated people. the earmarking progress -- process is not the american people want to see when it comes to making tough decisions about how taxpayer dollars are spent. and we were in such a hurry to get things done, that we didn't change how things got done. and i think that frustrated people.

you know, i'm a strong believer that the earmarking process in congress isn't what the american people really want to see when it comes to making tough decisions about how taxpayer dollars are spent. and i, in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them, which was contrary to what i had talked about. and i think, you know, folks look at that and they said, gosh, this - this feels like the same partisan squabbling, this seems like the same ways of doing business as happened before. and so, you know, one of the things that i've got to take responsibility for is not having moved enough on those fronts. and i think there is an opportunity to move forward on some of those issues. my understanding is eric cantor today said that he wanted to see a moratorium on earmarks continuing. that's something i think we can - we can work on together. >> but do you still resist the notion that voters rejected the policy choices you made? >> well, you know, savannah, i think that what i think is absolutely true is, voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. i mean, if -- if right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9. 6% unemployment, then people would have more confidence in

those policy choices. the fact is - is that, you know, for most folks, you know, proof of whether they work or not is, has the economy gotten back to where it needs to be? and it hasn't. and so my job is to make sure that, you know, i'm looking at all ideas that are on the table. when it comes to job creation, if republicans have good ideas for job growth that can drive down the unemployment rate and we haven't thought of them, we haven't looked at them but we think they have a chance of working, we want to try some. you know, so on the policy front, i think the most important thing is to say that we're not going to rule out ideas because they're democrat or republican. we want to just see what works. and ultimately i'll be judged as president as to the bottom

line: results. >> thank you, mr. president. health care. as you're well aware, obviously a lot of republicans ran against your health-care law. some have called for repealing the law. i'm wondering, sir, if you believe that health-care reform that you worked so hard on is in danger at this point and whether there's a threat as a result of this election. >> well, i know that there's some republican candidates who won last night who feel very strongly about it. i'm sure that this will be an issue that comes up in discussions with the republican leadership. as i said before, though, i think we'd be misreading the election if we thought that the american people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years. with respect to the health-care law generally -- and this may go

to some -- some of the questions that savannah was raising - you know, when i talk to a woman from new hampshire who doesn't have to mortgage her house because she got cancer and is seeking treatment but now is able to get health insurance; when i talk to parents who are relieved that their child with a pre-existing condition can now stay on their - their policy until they're 26 years old and give them time to transition, to find a job that will give them health insurance or the small businesses that are now taking advantage of the tax credit they're provided, then i say to myself this was the right thing to do. now if the republicans have ideas for how to improve our health- care system, if they want to suggest modifications that would deliver faster and

more effective reform to a health-care system that, you know, has been wildly expensive for too many families and businesses and certainly for our federal government, i'm happy to consider some of those ideas. you know, for example, i know one of the things that's come up is that the 1099 provision in the health-care bill appears to be too burdensome for small businesses. it just involves too much paperwork, too much filing. it's probably counterproductive. it was designed to make sure that revenue was raised to help pay for some of the other provisions, but if it ends up just being so much -- so much trouble that small businesses find it difficult to manage, that's something that we should take a look at. so there are going to be examples where i think, you know, we can tweak and make improvements on the progress

that we've made. that's true for any significant piece of legislation. but i don't think that if you ask the american people, should we stop trying to close the doughnut hole that will help senior citizens get prescription drugs, should we go back to a situation where people with pre-existing conditions can't get health insurance, should we allow insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick, even though you had been paying premiums, i don't think that you'd have a strong vote for people saying, you know, those are provisions i want to eliminate. >> according to some exit polls, sir, about one out of two voters apparently said that they would like to either see it overturned or repealed. are you concerned that that may embolden those who are in the other party, perhaps? >> well, it also means one or - one out of two voters think it was the right thing to do. and obviously, this is an issue that has been contentious. but as i said, i think what's going to be useful is for us to go through, you know, the issues that republicans have

issues on, not sort of talking generally, but let's talk specifics. you know, this particular provision when it comes to pre- existing conditions, is this something you're for or you're against? does that make sense or not? if we take that approach, which is different from the campaign. this is now governing, that i think we can continue to make progress and find some common ground. >> thank you, mr. president. they say this was about spending. they say it will be that it will be when hell freezes over that they accept anything like the stimulus bill or anything have out there to stimulate job growth through spending.

do you accept the fact that any kind of spending to create jobs is dead at this point? and if so, what else can government do to create jobs, which is the number-one issue? >> well, i - i think this is going to be an important question for democrats and republicans. you know, i think the american people are absolutely concerned about spending and debt and deficits, and i'm going to have a deficit commission that is putting forward its ideas. it's a bipartisan group that includes republican and democratic members of congress. hopefully they were able to arrive at some consensus on some areas where we can eliminate programs that don't work, cut back on government spending that is inefficient, can streamline government, but isn't cutting into the core investments that are going to make sure that we are a competitive economy that is growing and providing opportunity for years to come. so you know, the question i think my republican friends and

me and democratic leaders are going to have to answer is, what are our priorities? what do we care about? and -- and that's going to be a tough debate because there are some tough choices here. we already had a big deficit that i inherited, and that has been made worse because of the recession. as we bring it down, i want to make sure that we're not cutting into education that is going to help define whether or not we can compete around the world. i don't think we should be cutting back on research and development, because if we can develop new technologies in areas like clean energy, that could make all the difference in terms of job creation here at home. i think the proposal that i've put forward with respect to infrastructure is one that historically we've had bipartisan agreement about.

and we should be able to agree now that it makes no sense for china to have better rail systems than us and singapore having better airports than us. and we just learned that china now has the fastest supercomputer on earth. that used to be us. investments,g because they know those investments will pay off over the long term. and so in these budget discussions, the key is to be able to distinguish between stuff that isn't adding to our growth, isn't an investment in our future, and those things that are absolutely necessary for us to be able to increase job growth in the future as well. now, the single most important thing i think we need to do economically -- and this is something that has to be done during the lame-duck session -- is making sure that taxes don't go up on middle- class families next year. and so we've got some work to do

on that front to make sure that, you know, families not only aren't seeing a higher tax burden, which will automatically happen if congress doesn't act, but also making sure that business provisions that historically we have extended each year that, for example, provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the united states, in research and development, that those are extended. i think it makes sense for us to extend unemployment insurance, because there are still a lot of folks out there hurting. so there are some things that we can do right now that will help sustain the recovery and advance it, even as we're also sitting down and figuring out, okay, over the next several years, what kinds of budget cuts can we make that are intelligent, that are smart, that won't be undermining our recovery, but in fact will be encouraging job growth. >> but most of those things that you just called investments, they call wasteful spending, and they say it's dead on arrival. it sounds like -- without their

support, you can't get any of it through. >> well, what is absolutely true is, is that it -- without any republican support on anything, then it's going to be hard to get things done. but i'm not going to anticipate that they're not going to support anything. and i think that part of the message sent to republicans was: we want to see stronger job growth in this country. and, you know, if there are good ideas about putting people to work that traditionally have garnered republican support, and that don't add to the deficit, then my hope is and expectation is, is that that's something they're willing to have a serious conversation about. when it comes to, for example, the proposal we put forward to accelerate depreciation for business, so that if they're building a plant or investing in new equipment next year, that they can take a complete write- off next year, get a huge tax break next year, and that would then encourage a lot of businesses to get off the

sidelines -- i mean, that's not historically considered a liberal idea. that's actually an idea that business groups and republicans, i think, have supported for a very long time. so, again, the question's going to be, do we all come to the table with an open mind and say to ourselves: what do we think is actually going to make a difference for the american people? that's how we're going to be judged over the next couple of years. >> thank you, mr. president. after your election two years ago, when you met with republicans, you said that -- in discussing what policies might go forward, that elections have consequences, and that you pointed out that you had won. i wonder what consequences you think this election should have, then, in terms of your policies. are there areas that you're willing- can you name today areas that you would be willing to compromise on that you might not have been willing to compromise on in the past? >> well, i think i've been willing to compromise in the past and i'm going to be

willing to compromise going forward on a whole range of issues. let me give you an example: the issue of energy that i just mentioned. i think there are a lot of republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the house last year, and so it's doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the house this year or next year or the year after. thereat doesn't mean isn't agreement that we should have a better energy policy. and so let's find those areas where we can agree. we've got, i think, broad agreement that we've got terrific natural gas resources in this country. are we doing everything we can to develop those? there's a lot of agreement around the need to make sure that electric cars are developed here in the united states, that we don't fall behind other countries. are there things that we can do

to encourage that? and there's already been bipartisan interest on those issues. there's been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases. is that an area where we can move forward? you know, we were able over the last two years to increase, for the first time in 30 years, fuel-efficiency standards on cars and trucks. we didn't even need legislation. we just needed the cooperation of automakers and auto workers and investors and other shareholders. and that's going to move us forward in a serious way. so, you know, i think when it comes to something like energy, what we're probably going to have to do is say, here are some areas where there's just too much disagreement between democrats and republicans. we can't get this done right now. but let's not wait; let's go ahead and start making some

progress on the things that we do agree on. and we can continue to have a strong and healthy debate about those areas where we don't. >> is there anything in the "pledge to america" that you think you can support? >> you know, i'm sure there are going to be areas, particularly around, for example, reforming how washington works, that i'll be interested in. i think the american people want to see more transparency, more openness. as i said, in the midst of economic crisis, i think one of the things i take responsibility for is not having pushed harder on some of those issues. and i think if you take republicans and democrats at their word, this is an area that they want to deliver on for the american people. i want to be supportive of that effort. >> thank you, mr. president. i have a policy question and a personal one. the policy question is, you talked about how the immediate goal is the bush tax cuts and making sure that they don't expire for those who earn under

$250,000 (dollars). >> right. are you willing to compromise and say the expire for those earning over 100 -- $1 million? when president bush went for a similar thing, he said that this was a thumpin'. i'm wondering when you call your friends, like congressman area low or governor strickland and you see 19 state legislatures go to the other side, governorships in swing states, the democratic party setbacks, what does that feel like? >> it feels bad. you know, the toughest thing of the last couple of days is

seeing really terrific public servants not have the opportunity to serve any more, at least in the short term. and you mentioned -- there are just some terrific members of congress who took really tough votes because they thought it was the right thing, even though they knew this could cause them political problems, and even though a lot of them came from really tough swing districts or majority-republican districts. and -- and the -- the amount of courage that they showed and conviction that they showed is something that i -- i -- i admire so much i can't overstate it. and so there is a not only sadness about seeing them go, but there's also a lot of questioning on my part in terms of could i have done something differently or done something more so that those folks would

still be here. it's hard, and -- and -- and i take responsibility for it in a lot of ways. i -- i will tell you they've been incredibly gracious when i have conversations with them. and what they've told me is, you know, i -- we don't have regrets because i feel like we were doing the right thing. and you know, they may be just saying that to make me feel better, which, again, is a sign of their character and their class. and i hope a lot of them continue to pursue public service, because i think they're terrific public servants. with respect to the -- the tax cut issue, my goal is to make sure that we don't have a huge spike in taxes for middle-class families. not only would that be a terrible burden on families who

are already going through tough times, it would be bad for our economy. it is very important that we're not taking a whole bunch of money out of the system from people who are most likely to spend that money on, you know, goods, services, groceries, send -- you know, buy a new winter coat for the kids. that's also why i think unemployment insurance is important. not only is it the right thing to do for folks who are still looking for work and struggling in this really tough economy, but it's the right thing to do for the economy as a whole. so my goal is to sit down with speaker-elect boehner and mitch mcconnell and harry and nancy sometime in the next few weeks and see where we can moveha exts those tax cuts that are very important for middle-class

families, also extends those provisions that are important to encourage businesses to invest and provide businesses some certainty over the next or two. and how that negotiation works itself out i think it's too early to say. but, you know, this is going to be one of my top priorities. and my hope is, is that, given we all have an interest in growing the economy and encouraging job growth, that we're not going to play brinksmanship, but instead we're going to act responsibly. >> so you're willing to negotiate? >> absolutely. [inaudible] >> you said earlier that it was clear that congress was rejecting the idea of a cap-and- trade program, and that you wouldn't be able to move forward with that. looking ahead, do you feel the same way about epa regulating carbon emissions? would you be open to them doing

essentially the same thing through an administrative action, or is that off the table as well? and secondly, just to follow up on what you said about changing the way washington works, do you think that -- you said you didn't do enough to change the way things were handled in this city. some of -- in order to get your health-care bill passed, you needed to make some of those deals. >> yes. >> do you wish in retrospect you had not made those deals, and even if it meant the collapse of the program? >> i think that making sure that families have security and that we're on a trajectory to lower health-care costs was absolutely critical for this country. but you are absolutely right that when you are navigating through a house and a senate in this kind of pretty partisan environment, that it's an ugly mess when it comes to process. and, you know, i think that is something that really affected how people viewed the outcome. that is something that i regret: that we couldn't have made the

process more -- healthier than- than it ended up being. but i think the outcome was a good one. with respect to the epa, you know, i think the smartest thing for us to do is to see if we can get democrats and republicans in a room who are serious about energy independence, and are serious about keeping our air clean and our water clean and dealing with the issue of greenhouse gases, and seeing are there ways that we can make progress in the short term and invest in technologies in the long term that start giving us the tools to reduce greenhouse gases and solve this problem. the epa is under a court order

that says greenhouse gases are a pollutant that fall under their jurisdiction. and i think -- you know, one -- one of the things that's very important for me is not to have us ignore the science, but rather to find ways that we can solve these problems that don't hurt the economy, that encourage the development of clean energy in this country, that in fact may give us opportunities to create entire new industries and create jobs that -- and that put us in a competitive posture around the world. so i think it's too early to say whether or not we can make some progress on that front. i think we can. cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. it was a means, not an end. and i'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem. and i think the epa wants help from the legislature on this. i don't think that, you know, the desire is to somehow be protective of their powers here. i think what they want to do is make sure that the issue's

being dealt with. okay. ed henry. >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to do a personal and policy one as well. on personal, you had a lot of fun on the campaign trail by saying that the republicans were drinking a slurpee and sitting on the sidelines while you were trying to pull the car out of the ditch. but the point of the story was that you said if you want to go forward, you put the car in d; if you want to go backwards, you put it in r. now that there are at least 60 house districts that seem to have rejected that message, is it possible that there are a majority of americans who think your policies are taking us in reverse? and what specific changes will you make to your approach to try to fix that and better connect with the american people? and just on a policy front, "don't ask, don't tell" is something you promised to end. and when you had 60 votes and 59 votes in the senate, it's a tough issue; you haven't been able to do it. but do you now have to tell your liberal base that with maybe 52 or 53 votes in the

senate, you're just not going to be able to get it done in the next two years? >> well, let me take the second issue first. i've been a strong believer in the notion that if somebody is willing to serve in our military, in uniform, putting their lives on the line for our security, that they should not be prevented from doing so because of their sexual orientation. and since there's been a lot of discussion about polls over the last 48 hours, i think it's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of americans feel the same way. it's the right thing to do. now, as commander in chief, i've said that making this change needs to be done in an orderly fashion. i've worked with the pentagon, worked with secretary gates, worked with admiral mullen, to make sure that we are looking at this in a systematic way that maintains good order and discipline, but that we need to

change this policy. there's going to be a review that comes out at the beginning of the month that will have surveyed attitudes and opinions within the armed forces. i will expect that secretary of defense gates and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mullen will have something to say about that review. i will look at it very carefully. but that will give us time to act in -- potentially during the lame-duck session to change this policy. keep in mind we've got a bunch of court cases that are out there as well. and something that would be very disruptive to good order and discipline and unit cohesion is if we've got this issue bouncing around in the courts, as it already has over the last several weeks, where the pentagon and the chain of command doesn't know at any given time what rules they're working under.

we need to provide certainty. and it's time for us to move this policy forward. and this should not be a partisan issue. this is an issue, as i said, where you've got a sizable portion of the american people squarely behind the notion that folks who are willing to serve on our behalf should be treated fairly and equally. now, in terms of how we move forward, you know, i think that the american people understand that we're still digging our way out of a pretty big mess. so i don't think anybody denies they think we're in a ditch. i just don't think they feel like we've gotten all the way out of the ditch yet. and, you know, to - to move the analogy forward that i used in the campaign, i think what they want right now is the democrats and the republicans both pushing some more to get the car on level ground. and we haven't done that. you know, if -- if -- if you

think i was engaging in too much campaign rhetoric saying the republicans were just sitting on the side of the road watching us get that car out of the ditch, at the very least we were pushing in opposite directions. and -- and so -- >> so you're summarily rejecting the idea that your policies are taking the country in reverse? you just reject that idea altogether, that your policies could be going in reverse? >> yes. and i - and i think, look, here - here's the bottom line. when i came into office, this economy was in a free fall, and the economy has stabilized. the economy is growing. we've seen nine months of private-sector job growth. so i think it would be hard to argue that we're going backwards. i think what you can argue is we're stuck in neutral. i think we are not moving the way we need to to make sure that folks have the jobs, have the opportunity, are seeing economic growth in their communities the way they need

to. and that's going to require democrats and republicans to come together and look for the best ideas to move things forward. it will not be easy, not just because democrats and republicans may have different priorities, as we were just discussing when it came to how -- how we structure tax cuts, but because these issues are hard. you know, the republicans throughout the campaign said they're very concerned about debt and deficits. well, one of the most important things we can do for debt and deficits is economic growth. so what other proposals do they have to grow the economy? if, in fact, they're rejecting some of the proposals i've made, i want to hear from them what affirmative policies can make a difference in terms of encouraging job growth and promoting the economy because,

you know, i don't think that tax cuts alone would -- are -- are going to be a recipe for -- or the kind of expansion that we need. you know, we - from 2001 to 2009, we cut taxes pretty significantly, and we just didn't see the kind of expansion that is going to be necessary in terms of driving the unemployment rate down significantly. so i think what we're going to need to do and what the american people want is for us to mix and match ideas, figure out those areas where we can agree on, move forward on those, disagree without being disagreeable on those areas that we can't agree on. if we accomplish that, then there will be time for politics later. but over the next year i think we can solidify this recovery and give people a little more confidence out there. hans nichols. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to ask if you're going

to have john boehner over for a slurpee -- [laughter] but i actually have a serious question. >> i might serve a - serve - they're - they're delicious drinks. [laughter] >> the slurpee summit. that's good. i like that. [laughter] >> since you seem to be in a reflective mood -- >> yeah. >> do you think you need to hit the reset button with business? how do you plan to set that reset button with business? would that -- would you include anything beyond your cleveland speech, those proposals, to get them off the sidelines, get them off and cash their hoarding and start hiring again? thank you. >> yeah, i think this is an important question that we've been asking ourselves for several months now. you know, you're right. as i -- as i reflect on what's happened over the last two years, one of the things that i think has not been managed by me as well as it need -- needed to be was finding the right balance in making sure that businesses have rules of the road and are treating customers

fairly -- and whether it's their credit cards or insurance or their mortgages -- but also making absolutely clear that the only way america succeeds is if businesses are succeeding. you know, the reason we've got a unparalleled standard of living in the history of the world is because we've got a free market that is dynamic and entrepreneurial, and you know, that free market has to be nurtured and cultivated. and there's no doubt that, you know, when you had the financial crisis on wall street, you know, the -- the bonus controversies, you know, the battle around health care, battle around financial reform, and then you had bp, you just had a successive set of issues in which i think business took

the message that, well, gosh, it seems like we may be always painted as the bad guy. and -- and -- and so i've got to take responsibility in terms of making sure that i make clear to the business community, as well as to the country, that the most important thing we can do is to boost and encourage our business sector and make sure that they're hiring. and so we -- we do have specific plans in terms of how we can structure that outreach. now keep in mind, over the last two years, you know, we've been talking to ceos constantly. and as i planned for my trip later week to asia, the whole focus is on how are we going to open up markets so that american businesses can prosper, and we can sell more goods and, you know, create more jobs here in the united states. and a whole bunch of corporate

executives are going to be joining us, so that i can help them open up those markets and allow them to sell their products. so there's been a lot of strong interaction behind the scenes, but i think setting the right tone publicly is going to be important and could end up making a difference at the margins in terms of how businesses make investment decisions. >> but do you have new specific proposals to get them off the sidelines and start hiring? >> well, i already discussed a couple with chip that haven't been acted on yet. you're right that i made these proposals two months ago, but -- or three months ago, but it was in the midst of a campaign season where it was doubtful that they were going to get a full hearing, just because there was so much political noise going on. i think, as we move forward, sitting down and talking to businesses, figuring out what exactly would help you make more -- make more investments that could create more jobs here in the united states, and, you know, listening hard to them in

a context where maybe democrats and republicans are together, so we're receiving the same message at the same time, and then acting on that agenda could make a big difference. >> last question. >> matt spetalnick of reuters. >> thank you, mr. president. how do you respond to those who say the election outcome, at least in part, was voters saying that they see you as out of touch with their personal economic pain? and are you willing to make any changes in your leadership style? >> you know, there is a inherent danger in being in the white house and being in the bubble. i mean, folks didn't have any complaints about my leadership style when i was running around iowa for a year, and they got a

pretty good look at me, up close and personal. and they were able to lift the hood and kick the tires, and you know, i think they understood that my story was theirs. i might have a funny name. i might, you know, have lived in some different places. but you know, the values of hard work and responsibility and honesty and looking out for one another that had been instilled in them by their parents, those were the same values that i took from my mom and my grandparents. and -- and so, you know, the -- the -- the track record has been that when i'm out of this place, that's not an issue. when you're in this place, it is hard not to seem removed. and one of the challenges that we've got to think about is -- is -- is how do i meet my

responsibilities here in the white house, which require a lot of -- a lot of hours and a lot of work, but still, you know, have that opportunity to engage with the american people on a -- on a day-to-day basis, and know -- give -- give them confidence that i'm listening to them. you know, those letters that i read every night, some of them just break my heart. some of them provide me encouragement and inspiration. but nobody's filming me reading those letters. and - and so, it - it's hard, i think, for people to get a sense of, well, how's he taking in all this information. so i think there are - there

are - there are more things that we can do to make sure that i'm -- i'm getting out of here. but i - you know, i - i mean, i - you know, i think it's important to -- to point out as well that, you know, a couple of great communicators, ronald reagan and bill clinton, were standing at this podium two years into their presidency, getting very similar questions because, you know, the economy wasn't working the way it needed to be. and there were a whole range of factors that made people concerned that maybe the party in power wasn't listening to them. you know, this is something that i think every president needs to go through, because the -- you know, the responsibilities of this office are so enormous and so many people are depending on what we do. and in the rush of activity, sometimes we lose track of, you know, the - the ways that we

connected with folks that got us here in the first place. and that's something that - now, i'm not recommending for every future president that they take a shellacking like - like i did last night. [laughter] you know, i'm sure there are easier ways to learn these lessons. but i do think that, you know, this is a growth process and an evolution. and the relationship that i've had with the american people is one that built slowly, peaked at this incredible high, and then during the course of the last two years as we've together gone through some very difficult times, has gotten rockier and tougher. and, you know, it's going to, i'm sure, have some more ups and downs during the course of me being in this office.

but the one thing that i just want to end on is, getting out of here is good for me, too, because when i travel around the country, even in the toughest of these debates -- you know, in the midst of health care last year, during summer when there were protesters about, and, you know, when i'm meeting families who have lost loved ones in afghanistan or iraq -- i always come away from those interactions just feeling so much more optimistic about this country. we have such good and decent people who, on a day-to-day basis, are finding all kinds of ways to live together and educate kids and grow their communities and improve their communities and create businesses and work together to create great new products and services. and, you know, the american

people always make me optimistic. and that's why during the course of the last two years, as tough as it's been, as many sometimes scary moments that -- as we've gone through, i've never doubted that we're going to emerge stronger than we were before. and -- and i think that remains true. and i'm just going to be looking forward to playing my part in helping -- helping that journey along. all right. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> with model -- with most election results final coming years d.c.'s ban video library to see with the candidate said on the campaign trail. search, watch any time free.

it is washington your way. house republican leader john boehner and other leaders spoke with the media on wednesday. this is 15 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. as you have heard me say last night, we are humbled by the trust that the american people have placed in us. we recognize that this is a time for us to roll up our sleeves and go to work on the people's priorities -- creating jobs,

cutting spending, and reforming the way congress does business. it is not just with the american people are demanding. it is what they expect from us. the real question now is this -- will we listen to the american people? republicans have made a pledge to america and our pledge is to listen to the american people and focus on their priorities. that is exactly what we are going to do. last night the president was kind enough to call me. we discussed working together on the american people's priorities -- cutting spending, creating jobs. we will continue to work together. the new majority in congress will be the voice of the american people. i think we clearly expressed that last night. we will continue to renew our efforts for a smaller, less

costly, and more accountable government here in washington, d.c. i want to say thanks to my two colleagues. as most of you know, senator mcconnell and i have worked very closely together over the last five years or so. mr. barber and i have been friends for the last 25 years. i am proud to stand here today with both of them. >> at the rest of this sound like a mutual admiration society, let me say what a pleasure in has been to work with john and in the last four years in our leadership roles. i have known haney for 20 years and he is a great friend. this is a happy day for the three of us. let me make a few observations as well. we are, indeed, humbled and ready to listen to the american people. we are ready to lead on the issues that they have clearly indicated that they care about.

we are determined to stop the agenda the americans have rejected and to turn this ship around. we will work with the administration when they agree with the people and confront them when they do not. i think what our friends on the other side have learned that choosing the president over your constituents is that a good strategy. this election yesterday was clearly a referendum on the administration and the democratic majority here in the converse. ignoring the voters and their wishers, as you can see during the entire two-year period, reduces predictable results. the health care bill was a metaphor for the government excess witnessed over the last two years. the american people watched the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies, taking over the student loan business. now they are taking health care

and it became the tipping point during the course of the last two years. i say to our friends on the other side of the aisle in listening to what they have had to say this morning, they may have missed the message somewhat. i get the impression they are thinking that we have not cooperated enough. i think what the american people were saying yesterday is they appreciate us saying no to the things that the american people indicated they were not in favor of. so, i think, the group that should hopefully get the message data yesterday's election is our friends on the other side of the aisle. i think we should give it in a different direction, work with us on things like spending, debt coming trade agreement from a nuclear power, clean coal technology, and other things the president said he is for the most of my members say they are for. the question is how do we meet

in the middle? it seems to me the strategy for the other side would be to listen to the voters yesterday made a clear statement about what they would like to have done. at the president comes in our direction, we, obviously, want to make progress. with that, i turn to gov. barbara. -- gov. barber. >> think you to match and john. on behalf of the republican governors, while the races may have been thought of to be separate for very different than what is going on in the washington, in this case even in the gubernatorial races this election was a referendum on the obama policies and the policies of the obama administration, nancy pelosi, harry reid, and they were repudiated by the voters. voters -- governors, and i believe democratic governors will believe, of the governors

believe that we can work with the congress to try to set things in a better direction. voters yesterday voting -- were voting against excessive spending and piling up deficits with the trillions of dollars of new debt being voted off on our children and a grin -- grandchildren. there is a huge tax increase right around the corner in january. we, governors, because almost all of us have to have a balanced budget have to cut spending. i can remember when my career in washington was going on, a spending cut was if the department's budget was only supposed to go up 8% but it went up 5% so that was a cut. and the state department's, we have learned to make real costs while providing services. i hope that will be something that will be an example for the new congress. we look forward to working with

them and appreciate their support in helping us get here. thank you. >> how do you see yourself in the grading well with ntt party activism and to the pressure of the house? -- integrating well with the tea party activism? "she left me a voicemail this morning. i suspect we will have a smooth transition with her office. what unites us as republicans will be the agenda of the american people. if we are listening to the american people, i do not see any problems incorporating members of the tea party along with our party in a cost that is really the same. they want to cut spending and focus on creating jobs in america. >> would you be open to the bush

tax cut renewal? would you be open to a less than permanent continuation? >> we believe extending all the current tax rates for all americans is the right policy for our economy at this time. >> what made you cry last night? do you think you can bring stability back to the house? >> it is difficult to talk about my background or my family. i thought i was going to be in good shape, but not as good as it turned out. >> the exit polls last night said that 53% of americans have an unfavorable view of the m -- of the republican party, near the same members of the democratic party. how does that tell you how you have to govern? >> it tells me we need to listen to the american people. they sent a very loud message last night. they said the to the house, the senate, but if you look at the number of republican governors

that one and the number of republican legislative bodies that one, it is clear the american people want a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government here in the washington, d.c. as the american people see us doing things that they tell us they want us to do, i think we will be just fine. >> i know that all of you, and senator mcconnell, i know you are reading about 1994. what are you taking away from that? how will you govern differently this time? how will this affect what you are doing in the senate if you do not have a majority? >> it is important to listen to the american people. there are more americans engaged in our government today than i have ever seen in my lifetime. i think the real key to having a real success for the american people is to keep the american people engaged in this process

beyond last night. the government will do exactly what the american people demand every day -- nothing more, nothing less -- if they stay engaged in the process. i am hopeful that they will. >> let me address that. clearly, the election yesterday did not transfer full control of the government to the opposition. it is the first step in the direction of changing what we have been doing in washington. there are two opportunities for that change to occur. our friends and the other side can change now and work with us to address the issues that are important to the american people that we all understood or further change can happen in 2012. in the meantime, we were sent here to work on the people's business. in the senate where a majority is not enough in any event and it takes 60 votes to get most things done, clearly we will

have to have some kind of bipartisan agreement. hopefully that will be on the issues of spending and debt which is what the american people are asking us to address. in other words, i anticipate, but we will see, enough democrats to come in our direction on spending and that so we can make progress. >> there were differing points of the view about what to do about earmarks. there is a vote up or down about to raise [inaudible] there are differing views in your caucus about what to do. >> we will figure out how to do the big things that need to be done on behalf of the american people. >> can you talk more about your conversation with the president? did you discuss any agreements? >> the president and i had a

very pleasant conversation. we agreed that we need to listen to the american people, to work together on behalf of the american people. i look forward to having the opportunity to talk with him about those areas where we can move together. >> the next congress, the tea party candidates will likely oppose raising the debt ceiling. how will you do that? >> we will work that out of the next couple of months. >> will you try to get back to 2008 spending levels during the lame-duck spending? >> operating under 2008 spending before the bailouts and stimulus is a responsible way forward. >> will you continue the u-cut issue?

>> we will continue to talk to the american people every day and we will continue to listen to the american people every day. on programs like america speaking out and u-cut will be intended to provide the american people a forum and a vehicle to speak to less so that we can, in fact, listen every day. >> we know house republicans' pledge to repeal health care reform. and have an upcoming appropriations process. do you plan to try and use that preparations process to keep funds away from the lot? >> i believe the health care bill was enacted by the current congress will kill jobs in america, ruin the best health- care system in the world, and a bankrupt country. that means we have to do everything we can do to try and repealed this and replace with common-sense reform to bring down the cost of health insurance.

last question. >> about financial reform, do you have plans to try and change that? [inaudible] >> i think one of the things the congress has not done a good job of over the last 15 years is real oversight. i am not talking about "gotcha" oversight but real, solid oversight which is a constitutional responsibility. when it comes to the financial- services bill and the three had a 58 regulatory filings required under that bill -- and the 358 filing is required, it will take a tremendous amount of oversight. thank you all very much. . .

republicans gained control of the u.s. house while democrats held control in the senate. this is about 40 minutes. >> good morning, ladies and

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

opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. through every policy battle, we fight alongside our allies for the success of their ideas. yesterday we released our top priorities in the form of a checklist for washington. tough spending to repeal obama care, protecting america and stopping by dwayne regulation. -- stopping right wing regulation. mitch mcconnell boldly said that in many cases he was successful in holding the line against the initiatives in what would have moved the country in what we believe is the wrong direction senator mcconnell has led the good guys in battles over health care, campaign finance, campaign

reform, a sensible foreign defense policies and so many other policy issues. senator, for all of that, we are grateful. we are excited to work with you and your reinforcements as they arrive in the capital of the next few weeks. we look forward to the policy battles and discussions in the months ahead. mitch mcconnell was first elected to the u.s. senate in 1984 and has been the republican leader of the senate since 2007. it is my great pleasure to welcome back to the heritage foundation senator mitch mcconnell. [applause] >> thank you. let me start by telling you again how grateful conservatives

all across america are that you helped to found this organization and have led it so exceptionally and successfully these many years. thank you so much, we really appreciate it. obviously, i would be remiss if i did not congratulate you on your good judgment in having amongst your distinguished fellows the most conservative secretary of labor in american history. and the only cabinet member of the bush administration that served from beginning to end. [applause] over the past two years, the american people look at what was going on in washington and

became increasingly worried. not only were democratic leaders ignoring our nation's ongoing job crisis , out of control spending was causing some to wonder about the future of the american dream itself. worried about the consequences of a $14 trillion debt. about a health care bill that created 159 new bureaucratic entities. including two massive new entitlement programs. they worried about all of the bailouts and every other piece of legislation that seemed like it was designed to kill jobs rather than create them. the most of all worried about what some have called the

that it would continue unchecked and that our grandchildren and grandchildren would not have the american opportunities we have had. two days ago those worries gave way to a new optimism. for the past few years democratic lawmakers chose to ignore the american people. tuesday the american people chose to ignore lawmakers. for the past they have held their elective representatives to account. that is what the founding fathers had in mind with midterm elections. demonstrating to all of us that constitutional conservatism is alive and well. there is no reason for republicans to gloat. rather it is time for both parties to realize who is in charge. the people. be grateful for the opportunity

that we have to turn the ship around. tuesday was indeed a referendum, not a choice. it was a report card on the administration and anyone that supported its agenda, plain and simple. it does not take a roomful of political scientists to figure that out. americans voted for change in the last two elections because of the long and difficult mores and they hope that the changing of the guard would get america moving again. and then the people that they elected said about dismantling the free market, handing out political favors, expanding government, and creating more precarious of a future for our children. in other words, democratic leaders used the crisis of the moment to advance an agenda that americans did not ask for and could not afford. and then they ignored and

dismissed any one that spoke out against them. so, the voters did not suddenly fall in love with republicans. we know that. they did fallout of love with democrats. while many may have voted to send republicans to washington, they're sending us here with very clear marching orders. stop the big government freight train. respect the will of the people. as churchill once observed, courage is what it takes to sit down and listen. i cannot think of a better way to sum up tuesday's election. this morning i would like to talk more about how we got here and the task ahead i wanted to do it here at the heritage foundation because for 40 years

that have played a crucial role in promoting and defending the principle of free enterprise, limited government, freedom, and in other words the very principles that the american people voted to uphold. first, how we got here. let's cast our minds back towards too early 2009. i think that the newsweek cover from early february of that year sums up the conventional wisdom in washington at that time. at least amongst many democrats. this was the headline. it read -- we are all socialists now. i will note that newsweek was recently sold for less than the cover price of a single copy of the magazine. hopefully the democrats will not bail them out as well.

anyways, while the media was still groping to define the election, republicans were taking stock. we knew that the principles that made our party great with the same principles that made america great and that if we were going to solve the problems of the day, we would have to embrace and explain those principles. not discard them or conceal them. we renewed our commitment to core principles, win, lose, or draw. if we had not done this, the administration would never have suffered the consequences for pushing policies the americans proposed. americans would not have had a clear alternative. which is why this, in my view, was the single most important thing the republicans in congress did to prepare the ground for tuesday's election. by sticking together in the principal opposition to policies

that we viewed as horrible, we made it perfectly clear to the american people where we stood. we gave voters a real choice on election day. at the same time, we made it clear from the beginning that when president obama's proposed policies consistent with principles that we had, we would work with him. two days after the inauguration i made a public offer to accept the president's campaign promise of post-partisanship by working with him on a number of goals that he, himself, had suggested. such as reforming entitlements, reducing the debt, increasing energy independence and lowering taxes. as well as creating jobs. but it turns out that the white house had different plans. their strategy from the start, as i said, was to govern hard from the left and used it majorities to push through the

most left-wing agenda possible. squeezing unpopular proposals through by the slimmest of majorities, hoping the americans would forget the details and the unseemly process over a long period of time. the democratic idea of consensus was for republicans to do whatever the administration wanted. which was why they plowed ahead from the beginning with one piece of legislation after another written by liberals, for liberals. so, by the spring of 2009, they had given us ample opportunity to stand up for the principles of limited government, lower taxes, and a strong defense. first they called for the closing of guantanamo bay without a plan for housing the terrorists that were held there. they had forced to their stimulus, tripling the national deficit, bailing out automakers

that should have been allowed to reorganize or fail. the only one that refuse the bailout, ford, is the one doing the best day. as the democrats govern from the left, republicans stood together time and time again. making the case for conservative alternatives. over the course of 19 months democrats added $3 trillion to the debt. more than 2.5 million americans would lose their jobs. republicans would win races in states that had been solidly democratic since 2008. of all places, massachusets. clearly the democratic agenda was not the change the american set out for. republicans were offering a clear alternative. it was the message of those races and the message on tuesday. the message, nell, is whether

americans that were wise to trust republicans with the task of reversing the debt. -- the question, now what, is whether americans were wise to trust republicans with the task of revising the debt. we have already been added for two years. we have shown that we share of the priorities of the people. we have fought to defend them. now we are ready to get back to work on their behalf. which raises a practical question. what can americans expect them from republicans now? let's start with a big picture. over the past weeks of the blebs said that it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny president obama a second term. the fact is that if our primary

legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill, and the bailouts, cutting spending, shrinking the size and scope of government, the only way to do those things is to put someone in the white house that will not veto those things. we can hope that the president will start to listen to the electorate, but we cannot plan on that. it would be foolish to expect that republicans will be able to completely reverse the damage that the democrats have done. there is just no getting around it. by their own admission, leaders of the republican revolution in 1994 think that their greatest mistake was overlooking the power of the veto. they gave the impression that they were somehow in charge when they were not. after president clinton vetoed their bills, making it impossible for them to

accomplish their goals, they were viewed as failures and sellouts. today they not only have the white house, they have other parts as well. while it the same time recognizing that they should not be confused with capitulation. on health care, that means that we can and should propose in a vote on straight repeal repeatedly. but we cannot expect the president to sign it. so, we will also have to work in the house on denying funds for implementation and in the senate on boats against these most egregious provisions. at the same time we have to continue educating the public about the bad effects of this bill. affecting families and small businesses. this is why overside plays such

a crucial role in republican efforts going forward. we might not be able to bring about a straight repeal and we might not win every beat -- every vote against a targeted revisions. but we can compel administration officials to attend to defend this indefensible health spending bill and other costly government driven measures like stimulus and financial reform. we think that groups like heritage should continue to study the bad effects of the health care bill and how it hurts seniors and small businesses theory at limiting choices and making us less competitive. we welcome any help that we can get in reversing the damage this bill has done and will do in the future. through oversight we will keep a spotlight on the various agencies that the administration is going to use to advance to regulation but it cannot through legislation. potential back door efforts that

include new national taxes for the epa now the attack -- cap and trade is dead. additional health care provisions and card checks through the national rate -- national labor relations board's, and a former immigration change through amnesty and selective enforcement of our laws. good oversight can also make more accountable the policies are is that the administration has installed without any accountability to congress or the american people. another obstacle is the temptation to over reached in our task. it is my view that americans are no more interested in a republican plan for using the government to reengineer society than they were in the democratic plan to do so. government has limits. thank heavens. voters want us to respect them. that is why republicans will focus on doing a few things and doing them well.

we will stop the liberal onslaught. we will make the case for repeal of the health spending bill even as we vote to eliminate the worst parts. we will vote to freeze and cut discretionary spending. working to fight to make sure that senate bills on the floor can be amended so that members can vote for the cuts that americans are asking for. we will push to bring up and vote house passed spending decisions bills. on the economy we will work hard to make sure that the account -- democrats to not raise taxes on anyone. especially in the middle of a recession. we will oppose future stimulus bills that always opposed the deficit and fight further job coming regulation. we will fight on behalf of americans struggling to create jobs. when it comes to educating the public, we will fulfil our constitutional obligation

through smart, aggressive oversight. we will scrutinize legislation and forced democrats to defend it. making the case that freedom and prosperity may benefit some in the short term, it exposes everyone to calamity down the road. if we do these things well over the next few years, the voters will be pleased with what they did on tuesday. republicans will be in a much better position to reverse the excesses of the past, laying the groundwork for the kind of change that we want and need. meanwhile, republican governors will help of the state level with the kind of change that we want being not only possible, but effective. showing the government can work for the people, not against them.

farming us with ideas like tools in this week's check list. tea party activists will continue to energize the party and challenge us to follow through on our commitments. the american people reminded us this week that we owe it to them to find solutions to present troubles. as we can see it, the invention that -- the white house has a choice. they can change course or they can double down on a vision of government that the american people have roundly rejection -- rejected. if they choose the former, they will find a partner in republicans. if not, there will be more

disagreements ahead. when the administration agrees with the american people, we will agree with the administration. when it disagrees, we will not. we intend to stick with it. there is no reason we cannot work together to prevent a tax hike on small businesses. no reason we cannot work together on energy independence. giving our armed forces around the world whenever they need to accomplish their mission. this morning i have extended the offer that has been on the table for years. to cooperate.

ultimately, this is not about an election. it is about doing what republicans think is best for the country. putting aside the left-wing wish list, working together on creating jobs and restoring the economy to the wealthy and prosperous. there is no reason we cannot work together on these goals, but whether or not the administration has a midcourse correction, the republicans have a plan on following through on the wishes of the american people. starting with gratitude and a certain humility for the task that we have been handed. it means sticking ever more closely to the conservative principles that got us here. it means learning the lessons of history.

if we all do this, we will finish the job. thank you very much. i[applause] >> thank you, that was wonderful. all right. questions? please keep them short, pointed, and no speeches on the floor. >> please state your name and affiliation. >> max from cnn news. the fed announced $600 billion in federal that funds.

will republicans tried to pass legislation to prevent the treasury from selling its that? >> i cannot hear you. u.s. about the spending and the debt? there are two pieces of the puzzle. the first is discretionary spending. >> of the republicans going to try to prevent? >> i have no opinion on that at this point. >> senator? >> do you think that tax reform is an issue that we can work with democrats on? >> the first thing that we have got to do is make sure that

taxes do not go up. we have a tax rate that has been in place for a decade. the friends on the other side, some of them were divided on this issue. they thought it was a good idea to have a tax increase on what americans think of as a recession. before the end of the year we will have a very serious question about whether we can prevent a tax increase on anyone or anything at the first of the year. that needs to be resolved first. tax reform is a huge, complicated issue. something i am always interested in tackling in the short term. but we must make sure that taxes do not go up on anyone. there is bipartisan opposition on raising taxes to anyone. there was a letter that went to the speaker then said that we agree with republicans and we should not raise taxes on

anyone. that is why they shell that that argument after september, kicking over to the lame-duck. you have heard the president and others say that this is just a tax increase on the rich. when you get down to defining what that means, a tax increase on the top two would affect 750,000 small businesses in this country that pay taxes as individuals and not corporations. affecting 25% of the work force. this is a serious tax increase in the middle of a recession. i hope that what happens is we will come together during a lame-duck session and extend the current tax policy for everyone. >> what you think right now is the top priority for the people out there? what you think that the people who voted in this wave of

conservatism one done first? >> people are interesting in spending, as well as private sector job creation. they have taken a look at the effect of borrowing money from foreigners that will have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren and the impact it had on job creation and they do not see much evidence of it. most americans think we should be stimulating job growth in the private sector. spending, debts, job creation in the private sector. those are the things that americans are significantly upset about. and i think it is at the root of the electoral success that my party last tuesday had. >> senator mcconnell, a voice of american television. you are quoted as saying that the election gave you the mandate of being the backside of a mule. can you explain what you meant by that? >> i do not remember saying

that? >> you did not say that? [laughter] can you explain the mandate that the voters gave you, then? in burbage's that i can use on television? >> look, you know, i think i mentioned this earlier. the truth of the election was not about republicans, it was about democrats. they got a report card. they gonna t an f. we will not misread the mandate. you did not see john boehner or myself spiking the ball in the end zone. acting like this was about us. it was about them and everyone knows that. so, the mandate, if youi8çno ca3

the president and 23 senate democrats are now in the cycle. we are optimistic that maybe those democrats will take the same message out from tuesday's election. we are pretty clear the voters gave it.

>> do you have any asians within the administration on foreign policy? particularly in policy towards china? china has been seen as a very important factor in american economic recovery. >> most republicans, in fact virtually all of publicans in the senate supported the president's approach in iraq. frankly, it was a continuation of president bush paused policies. the agreement with the iraqi government being implemented by the current administration was signed by the previous the ministration. members of the conference have supported the surge in afghanistan. where i think that we have some problems with regards to the president is over this entire issue of being expressed with

american exceptional was some. whether america are truly is an exceptional country and if it is a good idea to go abroad and kind of, you know, suggest that we have been wrong on a variety of different things. that is kind of a macro observation. kind of a broader observation of differences. with regard to any particular country or china policy, i do not have any particular observations about that. let's i wanted to ask, what specifically could you find common ground on in terms of energy independence? also, if senator rakowski is reelected in alaska, which he continued to be the top republican? or might there be another bid on that? >> on energy, the president talked about nuclear power. we are for nuclear power. the president has said he is

for clean coal technology. so are we. there is bipartisan enthusiasm for things like a plug in hybrid cars. producing carbon emissions by automobile changes. those are areas of potential cooperation. with regards to alaska, it is clear to me that we will have a republican senator from alaska. the process will unfold up there over the next several weeks or months and we will finally determine who won. whoever it is, the candidates that may have come in first or appears to come in second, they will be conferencing with the republicans. committee issues will be served -- sorted out in the coming weeks. the ratios, the size of the committee's, we will go through a process, internally in the senate, where the members of the committee's select the ranking chairman and it is

ratified by the full conference. all of that will be determined in the coming weeks. we will just have to wait and see what happens. >> senator, you mentioned repealing health care reform. what parts of the dog franc bill did you want to change? >> sorry that i left that out. you can not cover everything. i also think that was a horrible bill. i cannot find a banker in kentucky that wants anything to do with the financial crisis of 2008. they think that this bill remotely addresses that. it was a terrible piece of legislation. health care was the worst piece passed in my time.

the senate financial services bill is somewhere close to that. we will be looking at it and trying to figure out how we can improve it. one more. >> thank you. >> i work for america on the border region. how is it republican control of congress affecting foreign policy? secondly, the military aid recently placed by the united states for the pakistani military comes through the congress. >> i think that senate republicans are generally supportive of the administration's policies in pakistan and afghanistan. i do not anticipate the change

of composition having an impact on the current policy of this administration in afghanistan or pakistan. all right, thank you, everyone. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thank you, senator, for taking time out of your schedule to be with us this morning. ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourn. -- adjourn ed.

>> it is harmless if someone is making a star out of britney spears or share. but when one takes this notion of stardom into the realm of national security, after a while americans get why is that the stars and the dream team's of the best and brightest might not be what they are cracked up to be. in that short amount of time, chaos and mayhem and rain.

>> henry kissinger, donald rumsfeld. just some of the foreign-policy leaders critique by the author tonight on a "q&a. >> georgetown university hosted a discussion on friday on the midterm election results and what is that for democrats, republicans, and the tea party. speakers include dennis kucinich and dan rather. this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> one more guest? i got everyone. who did i get?

do it again. [laughter] hold up the book. [laughter] anyone who did not hear this, and i say this for our c-span listeners, you have a deal going? i just want to make sure. did i get everyone? adam keeps me straight. i hope i did not do anything wrong, but forgive me in advance if i did. the question, and i want to throw this out there, tuesday, republicans won 61 house seats and came very close to controlling the senate. this is the third change election in a row. i would like to hear from panel members what message was sent on

thursday night? >> there is no ego like the one of an anchor man. but i think it is clear that the electorate is saying to both parties, if you want to include the tea party movement, listen. economically we are in trouble. as we look around the globe at iraq and afghanistan, we think that the country is in trouble and we expect you people in washington to do what you can to make this better. that is one message. i think it is economic growth and jobs. i think that that is basically what this election was about. in president obama's case, he

promised a lot. maybe he over-promised. in our view he clearly under- delivered. there's also a message for the republican party, although republicans will probably disagree with this -- i do not care about your title, republican or democrat, republican, democrat, tea party or mugwump, we expect things to get better in a hurry and in 2012 if it is not better, there will be another turnover. from a historical perspective, i would respectfully disagree with the term tsunami. it is more like a hurricane. in that the republicans did not take control of the senate. the message? economic growth, jobs, and unless you address that problem directly and boldly with some

audacity, if you will, we will be turning out from washington in the foreseeable future. >> we have done a to rescind -- terrific job of summers asian there. my sense is that there are people on the fringes who are going to talk about the size of government. i think that people are not as concerned about the size, large or small, so much as the effect. and they have not seen effective government in their view. having said that against a backdrop of what is going on, it is hard to have effective government instantaneously in the sense of creating jobs and engines that will be required to pull this country back to where it was. my sense is that there was a

huge swing in independence. a 28 point swing of independent voters. democrats had an 8% margin in 2008. it is that group of voters that are saying -- we are hurting. we are petrified. we are frightened. we do not think that things are going well. this is not a lease on life for the republicans. they have a very short lease on those offices. about two years. if they do not produce, it will be fascinating watching the republicans trying to figure out how to drive the rhetoric of their hard line key party people with trying to get something done. basically, you could claim that

they are in charge of both houses with the 60 vote requirement, they can block whenever they want. effective government, that was the message. >> t m jim? >> this was the issue of government as effective post- katrina. my brother says that in that context, katrina is more significant than 9/11 as a force in american politics. we came together on 9/11, katrina, we fell apart. look at this. i have been to these meetings all over the country. i have experienced things i have never seen before. this is the first generation of americans, we know from our polling, that no longer believes that their children will live the standard of living will go up. there is a ceiling on how far

you can go. the collapse of the dream. the shock to the system and collapse of financial institutions, the collapse of the housing market. the overall collapse of the economy that resulted in more people than in my memory not only out of work, but the ring that they would be out of work, causing a tremendous strain. the loss of government's ability to solve that has taken a toll. i have a ph.d. in religion. dealing with issues of religion under stress. what happens to cultures under tremendous stress? as a social organism, i think that what happened in 2008 was the reverse of what happened now. i do not recall a situation where an orgasm under the stress

that we were, the economic collapse that we experienced -- the collapse of the dream of the middle-class, the people that responded by voting for hope was in a way unexpected and irrational. similarly, the response this year was equally irrational. people voting against their own economic interests. doing so out of the same kind of fear and anxiety that made them believe that barack obama could bring a different order in process to work in washington. using this one last example, after 9/11 i got death threats from people in my office. we have police protection. so frightening that some people in my office building -- not my staff, but other offices, came

to provide us with lunches. one day a woman came and security met her. she said that she made brownies for us. i completely lost it. in a sense, her act was gratuitous and undeserved. i did not deserve her kindness in that way. nor did i deserve the threats? the system was in shock. people responded this way, then that way. looking at one point for a target to direct their hopes. i agree with harold. republicans have a short lease on life. just as quickly turning the other way. >> henry? >> in large measure i am in

agreement. this is the first where the incoming party is as unpopular. where the republicans took power for the first time after 2006, democrats were then swept into power and voters had a positive opinion. today republican opinions are average. this should not be interpreted by the republicans as an endorsement of them. there's definitely a pox on both your houses. let's work together for the common good fortune of the electorate. those on both sides are numerous and strong, but in the middle there is a swing vote that once effective government. on the other hand it is hard to look at the election without declaring it primarily advanced

by the president. the group using us throughout the election was the white working class. defined very broadly between whites without a college degree and whites that are virtually stuck with democratic candidates for the house in very similar margins, dropping back to their historic voting patterns. if you look at the whites with a college degree, they moved in a republican direction.

voting in a 10% margin. boeing republican by a 29% margin. not just a southern white rural voter at the top of the ticket. that breed was completely annihilated. democrats represented largely -- largely as dominant in the congressional party, now virtually extinct. there are more republicans in the house from new york and new england than there are white democrats representing the rural south. but it is also the new norm. throughout northern, working-

class areas that voted for clinton, john kerry, obama, many of these districts have returned republicans to congress for the first time in decades. districts like the mining district far north of minnesota. like illinois 17, a working- class district. these are not republican voters, these are historical democratic voters. when you look at the polls is not hard to figure out why. president obama's approval but -- approval rating among some white, working-class men, the elections poll shows that it is below 30%. to put it in perspective, the george bush national rating was about 26%.

the white working class is extremely upset at president obama. hard to see this as anything other than a repudiation of the president and his policies. >> let's hear from someone that got elected again. rep. kucinich? >> one of the problems with this analysis is that it is insufficient. keeping it at the level of democrats and republicans, we must work with economic systems. people who have worked their entire lives to go home to have their retirement, security, pension lost or on the verge of being lost.

charged with being able to create the jobs. there's a reason that there are 15 million americans are unemployed. consolidating well through jobs and performance with laws of cellaring jobs from the country. there is tremendous downward pressure on wages. people can say that the stimulus helped to create a few million jobs. that is insufficient. we had an historic mandate in 2008. the democratic party blew it. it's that simple. i sat on the riser is looking at

2 million people during the inauguration. we had a moment that could have transformed america and the rest of the country, putting millions of people back to work. we would not have had to take this minimalist approach with health care in getting the economy moving again. minimalist in terms of dealing with wall street and the bailout. this loan modification that could have helped main street, when the health-care system that was performed only in the context of leaving people at the mercy of insurance companies. energy policies that pay homage to oil and coal without recognizing that the environment is in jeopardy and that our children are in jeopardy. look, the economic system is set up so that whether it is democrats or republicans in charge, we are continuing to

take jobs from the country with a monetary policy that just yesterday the fed gave $600 billion to the banks. basically they have been holding on to their cash. businesses cannot get money for capital and have dried up. . .

its impact and accelerating wealth to the top. we can talk to democrats and republicans from now until the kingdom, . it is not going to matter. by 16, this country to be ready for an independent movement that really relates to people's prodigal aspirations, jobs, health care, retirement

security, and peace. >> ms. sweet, your thoughts on this? [applause] we have equal time for everybody, it so everyone will have to the applause. are these the concerns that your readers have? as you are the washington bureau chief and also white house correspondent, what is your feeling about what exactly is the issue? >> well, the issue, and several of the palace have said it, it is jobs and the economy. -- and several of the panelists -- nhave said it. i just want to take a quick look forward and the where do we go from here part, because the message that was delivered on tuesday step, and the obama

white house now knows that they will have to deal with speaker john boehner. they will have to deal with a republican-controlled congress. they will have to restructure and go into a defensive mode, when they have been in an offensive mode, bracing for this new arrangement. now, while it may be harder to govern, it may be easier politically for obama after he gets through these few weeks of the shellacking on that. why do i say that? i say that because the republicans now have to be accountable. after the john boehner, speaker is dealt with, the obama team will start dealing with the 2012 election. a few weeks after that, they will open the headquarters come apart in washington, and you will then have not only the tea

party critics, the regular republican establishment critics, the new aggressive gop leadership, but you will have the republican presidential candidates traveling around the country, opening up new fronts all over the country, so you will have an obama white house that will have to deal with the new political reality as well as the new members of congress. now, the republicans now have to share in the miserable economy. if, as the months go by, the jobs rate is still high, if people's homes are still being foreclosed on, if mortgage modification does not get simpler, and if people do not understand quickly that there is any bright spot in the economy, then the obama white house can use this contrast to argue probably all long broader lines than they have about what the situation is. now, the republican leadership

will have to show something in this era of new government korea we know that speaker mcconnell has already said that one of his goals is to make president obama a one-termer -- this era of new government. we know the speaker has already said that one of his goals is to make president obama have one term. we will have a new era of gridlock with some off ramps here and there with narrow focus issues that were to lead both sides focus on gains, so while the message of the shellacking came through, at the moment, the reality of just having to deal with been divided power now, we do with the divided power now, the white house knows -- the reality of just having to deal

with the divided power now, the white house knows they had their own problems with the democratic base. like dennis kucinich just said, he is one of the members that the obama white house has to deal with, so they have their internal problems, and that is one of the messages of the election. >> before i asked adam -- ask adam boulton, and, harold, you were there during darrent -- during those days, how you deal with the fact that, hey, let's see you do it. let's see you do something crucial. i would really like to hear adam boulton. he is so keen and glued into

what is going on here. i would like to get your thoughts. >> thank you very much. as you cover politics, as dan knows, you get into a few scrapes, and it is one day to talk about politics in your own country, another to talk about politics in someone else's country. there are three questions which the rest of the world, including britain, is asking following these midterm elections and the swing against the democrats, which i think the first big question everyone is asking is is president obama finished? is he going to be a one-term president? and as you know, with the exception of george w. bush, presidents probably have higher popularity ratings abroad. that is still the case in the

case of barack obama. i think the conclusion is everyone is experienced with off-term reactions and the reaction against incumbents. they know or at least can be reminded of their history, of what happened to clinton or what happened to reagan, so the short answer is they know that president obama is not finished. he can come back. that said, i do not think people are particularly impressed by the reaction since the defeat or even the build up to the defeat, as there probably is from the rest of the world a desire for leadership, and i think it is a real question as to whether a rueful response, which the president has given so far, while speaking to his principles, is one in a relatively short space of time

is going to be particularly inspiring. probably, and i think this applies for the rest of the world, he would be helped if there could be some real test site where he succeeds abroad. obviously, people are looking for ratification of the arms reduction treaty. people are clearly interested in his involvement in the middle east, but it has to be said that if you look at iraq, which seems to be going back to the bad again, or afghanistan, neither of these look to be particularly heroic, and it does leave a problem certainly for the british government, which, as you know, it is led from the right of center as to whether to look for friends in washington in the future. start reminding republicans that

they, too, are conservative. that said, i was reporting of the rally for sanity over the weekend, and what struck me is that whether as david cameron or nick clegg -- politics is probably in a different ways. the rest of the world, the influence of the tea party, is it a good thing, is it a bad thing, where is it leading american politics? i know that many people inclined to the center-left have condemned the tea party -- condemned the tory party. our sister station is the fox news. i think they make a very strong

analysis, which is probably a significant moment which helped republicans, i think if you looked across the board on all of the elections, this was when the tea party decided to basically promote republican candidates. there is no doubt that that energized republican base and contributes to the scale of the republican victories, particularly accepting what has already been said. if you recognize it, that there is a growing group of more that describe themselves as independents, which volatile in politics, i think this is across the democratic world, but here, we basically still of a bipartisan system. until 2016, at least -- we basically still have a bipartisan system.

then the question is about the economy, and the united states remains the engine of the economy, certainly britain and much of europe, and it is astonishing that you do appear to be straddling the two questions at the moment. there does not seem to be much further stimulus if you accept that that was missed on the scale of the stimulus, and at the same time, it is very clear that there are not going to be dramatic cuts, which really leads the united states and to a certain step -- extend the presidency waiting for the outcome, -- to a certain extent,

the presidency waiting for the outcome. china has been a dominant economy. perhaps we are reverting to type. >> dan rather, i know you of something to say about that. >> i do want to point out that we should be concentrated on what is it that the majority of the people want, what they are worried about, taking into effect with the many special interests who contribute these overwhelming amounts of money to campaigns in both parties. i think the democrats had plenty of money this time. but in modern times, never more than the recent elections, including this 2010 election, is

to gives the most money to whom, expecting to get what? it is all well and good for us to talk about what we the people want, what the electorate wants, but there is a growing group of people in the country, and, again, it cuts across party lines, with their ability to contribute huge amounts of money. remember, this was a $4 billion midterm election, in midterm election of $4 billion, -- a midterm election of $4 billion. a lot of people who give that kind of money to expect something in return. that question, "what now?," "where do we go from here?," if you think this was a very loud

election, much of it of which was secret money, it influenced the election, stand by for 2012. the last presidential election alone was a two doubles billion presidential election. you can imagine what it will be in 2012, given what we have been through in 2008 and 2010, and that is in the background of everything we talk about today. there are incredible sums of special interest money. some of it comes from corporations and unions. it is growing, and one of the reasons it is growing is it is difficult to really put the sunshine on it as a disinfectant to say where it comes from. >> i can ask harold. i know you have some thoughts on this. is it the consultants you are getting it? who actually get this?

it is good for the economy then? >> i went to come back, and i agree with dan wholeheartedly. it is a huge and growing problem. there was united states disgraceful rolling -- ruling. gaining corporate contributions is disgraceful. i think it augers real concern about the federal cases that are going on with respect to the health-care bill. it does not, i do not think, have a severability clause in it. it could, and i am not saying it would, but it could -- if i

could wave a magic wands, what i would advise anyone to do, because here you of a group of tea partyers who cannot wait to get into government. there is irony. you have mitch mcconnell in john boehner, -- and john boehner, who has said that our task is to take the president of the united states down in 2012. that is our task. i do not think you can expect a lot of cooperation from them. i think john boehner has a bigger problem than mcconnell, who are going to be screaming and yelling. you can see somebody go into the senate.

you can see something getting through the senate. is a been accepted by the much more radical house? a really radical republican constituency? when you think about the politics of this and what needs to be done, the economy, economy, the economies. mr. bernanke's apparently thrown up his hands and has given up on the congress and the president and is now going to buy $600 billion of government bonds to try to stimulate the economy, " while there is trillions of dollars in their treasury. if you believe, and not everybody does, that we need more stimulus, we were way too

tepid on the stimulus bill. but that is let bygones be bygones. you're going to be hard pressed in finding democrats in congress, much less a republican who is going to vote for additional stimulus. you can blather about cooperation until you are blue in the face. i think we are in a very, very scary time, and if you look at what happened to japan, as they were starting to come out of their free fall in the late 1980's, early 1990's, they decided they had to cut the deficit, so what did they do? they increase the consumption tax, and those people who have studied in japan think that is the reason why it killed the government. >> thank you, harold. your thoughts? >> i am going to stick to what i know best, which is the voting

patterns. i think they are both conditioning to be the -- positioning to be the best for 2012. about one-third are partisan republicans, and the people in the middle would like to see elements of both parties' platforms implemented, not understanding why the each can sit down and sacrifice some of their sacred cows, so i think maybe not for the same reasons as congressman dennis kucinich does, but i think you are seeing the way to openness of a nonparty candidate, if not in 2012, certainly beyond.

>> jim? eeks to curb the excesses of its base to curry favor. >> i think that the points that dan and congr >> when i say this is an election about fuehrer? that was exploited in the way the campaigns were run about issues that had nothingo do with what the campaign was about. and part 51, for example, became the subject of campaign ads in several dozen elections. can you explain that? >> the part 51, the building of the islamic center in south

manhattan. a district in west virginia, unemployment 13.5%, mine disaster taking lives and fear of miners going back to work, the republican candidate challenging the democrat where do you stand on part 51? and then making a whole series of ads funded by big coal. and the very guys who the congressman in his role as committee chair of resources was putting regulations on, doing ads saying that he was a supporter of terrorism and that he was affiliated with radical islam, that he did this, that he took money from this that and the other. one might argue that issue had nothing to do with what this election was about. but hundreds of thousands of dollars were poured into this campaign and others, renee elmers and others who are going to be joining this next congress. wasn't the issue. and it wearnt -- wasn't what

big coal was ierested in. but it was the wedge that they used to build fear. and it played a big role in this campaign. at tude toward muslims among democrats, 55% favorable, among republicans 12% favorable, it's not the party of george her better walker bush and james backer any more. it's the par of those who exploited fear all summer long and literally unified their base around this issue and then were able to exploit it in the election. and i'm very concerned about how this played out and waiting to see what the next fear campaign is going to be. >> that would be interesting. do you think this will intensify? do you think they'll be more of these kinds of things? >> probably.

>> is it just naturally so or is this a difficult environme that creates even more of this kind of fear? >> well, i think some of it is situational. it will depend on the environment, it will depend upon -- let's just say if the packaging aboard that plane last week had exploded, we would have a different political climate today than w do. it would chae everything. and i think that the islam phobia that comes out of this, some of that is situational. i am interested just in the very short term, president obama left in a big international swing, he'll land inermany tonight and he will to indonesia. and one of the things i am waiting to see is if any of that strikes resurge nt about his life in indonesia.

i will be interested to see how his boyhood years in indonesia are played. that will be a teg point of something. but there's always flash points in campaigns that are ugly all the time. i see no reason w there will be a difference. >> kind of an underimplicit assumption. remember, i want to bring out to the open, that it's in the interest of the unemployed to have dramatic restructuring of the economy. we can debate that as a matter of policy preferences. i might take a different view. but the polls sugge that, among at least white working class voters, that they don't share that. that two to one believe that less government, -- that more government is more harmful to the economy than less government. and that's an abstract level.

but i think the argument that you are making is that it's a distraction from whawhat they really care about. ey're really concerned that the government that sth see coming from washington is not in their long-term economic interest. and that could be a failure, they could be misinformed. i don't believe they are but they could be misinformed. but that's a perception issue that's real and it's something that if you're trying to interpret what's going forward and what's st happened and where we're going forward has to be taken into account. the very people who were most affected by the unemployment and the economy did not believe that the remedies that are being advanced were adequate and not because they weren't too ttle but because they were too much. >> congressman, your thoughts here. >> well, we could talk about post election anlitches but it depends on what questions you ask the people. if y say too much govnment. look, i know about white

working class people. my father was a truck driver. i grew up the oldest of seven. my parents ver owned a home. and as the family expanded we kept moving. by the time i was 17 we lived in a couple different places including a couple cars. i know about the experience of america. the idea that government just doesn't work. government works. the question is who is it working for. it sure is working for wall street. it sure is working for international metary systems. it's working for multinational companies. it's working for arms marchents. when people look to the government and they say, well, look, where is my right to organize? i was promised that. how come we're not out of iraq?

the democrats promised that when they took over in 2006. how come my wages are frozen? why is my pension in trouble? is social security going to be in trouble next? when you create that kind of uncertainty there is going to be a backlash. and the democratic party, which based on the new deal, won the affection of working class people, that white working class, frankly where i grew up, there were african americans having the same kine of economic problems in the same boat. we can talk about less government. but let's talk about less government in terms of this new congress. if we don't have any government stimulus and private sector isn't providing jobs and we're talking about cutting taxes, looking at dedeflation. there's just no other path possible. so i know a little bit about that working class.

i live in the same house today in ohio i bought in 1971. working class neighborhood. people want government to produce results. and, frankly, temporizing, minimalism. great speeches. well, to quote walter mon dale from many years ago, where is the beef? there was no delivery that was adequate enough to be abl to meet the size of thehallenge. and the american people had every right to expect that would happen. so again, where do we go from here? well, if we're going in the direction of tax cuts and stop stimulus and reduce the deficit at the expense of social spending and we stay in iraq and afghanistan, god help us. >> i note, i'm going to have one more thought from adam. i'm going to ask him for his --

there is a huge movement, a coalition government in great britain, and he can testifies to that, he was tre. but there's also a real interest in cutting services and spending as a solution by the coalition government. adam, just quickly, what parallels do you see and how is this country going down that particular path? and will it be beneficial? will it be a detriment? host: well, the short >> >> >> i don't see big parallels. i think we have got a right of center government in britain which isrying out a very different experiment, which is basically trying to cut the structural deficit over the next four or five years. a lot of people are worried in exact thri same way that the representative is worried that this will simply strangle any sign of ecovery.

re we are seeing welfare cuts, support for defense, support for education being cut. and even within our national health service, our socialized medicine, we're seeing a stand still in the budget there, which of course given that there is still medical inplation -- inflation, means effective cuts. and we are doing that in britain because we don't have the advantage of being a reserve currency and the argument has been made, and for the time being accepted by the electorate that wasn't the room to borrow more to finance the further stimulus, because in an open economy like ours, the effect of that on the economy would simply be to postpone a worse reckoning. but, i would put a question

back, ifou'd like,o our panel is as we look at the way we go forward, let's assume that america does now have a decent recovery to a certain extent. is president obama right when he says if unemployment was half of what it is now, the democrats wouldn't have had a problem? or given the acsell ration of the political cycle, if that happens, could it actually be the republicans are given the credit for it? >> of course onef the most difficult things going forward must be dealt with that on the one hand you have election returns which indicate people say they want less government, want the government to get out of things. that would indicate at least slightly a trend line that says it favors the republican or the right, we need to get the government out of things.

and depend more on the private sector the kind of people who give this huge money to each election campaign. but when you get down to individual programs, the certain who says i want the government out of my life. you say, well, then we'll cut your medicare, wait a minute. i'm not talking about medicare. or if you say we want to raise the eligible for social security, you go to someone and you say i want to get the government out of my life. well, we'd like to raise your retirement age to 67, 68. wait a minute, i'm not talking about social security. this is what the elected officials and the rest of us must come to grips with. which way is it? do you want to go say raise social security the retirement age, raise that up? do you want to get control of medicare? some in the republican party, some in the tea party want to

get rid of medicare. but it's going to be done but it's going to be a part of a cut and thrust of the debate and the argument as you go forward. we can't have it both ways. if you don't want the governnt in your life, then medicare and the new health program, social security, will all be affected. i'm sure the other side will say, wait a minute, we're not talking about that. but if you want -- i don't want to be a one-note about this. we can talk about what needs to be done, what should be done, but if you want to know what is going to be done, follow the dollar. follow the money. find out who contributed what whom and what amounts in the last campaign, whether they be lynn or democrat, and you can just bet the rent money on it that that's the way the policy is going to go. you want to know where the

policy is going? follow the money, follow the dollar. that will tell you where we are going go, not necessarily where we should be going. >> thank you, dan. indeed sage advice. and if you think about raising the retirement level age, just look at our friends in france. take a lesson from some of the goings on. >> the retirement age has gone up. >> there you go. we've got two wonderful people here with microphones, and i'd like to spend the next 15, 20 minutes really listening to your questions. and if you will make them questions d not propaganda statements, would prefer that. and we'll keep them short and i will ask my distinguished panel to keep your answers short, too. becaus i'd like everybody to go. this man has been raising his hand since wednesday, so we want to make sure that he goes. yes, sir. tell us who you are and how you're affiliated. >> bob weaner, national columnist and jointly cover the

white house with you, john. >> that's not why i called on hibecause he covers the white house with me. >> and good to see some friends on the panel, too. one issue that hasn't been rayed, i wanted to bring it because i was a youth voter registration director in 1971 when the youth vote was first allowed in the constitution there were 15 million more youth 18 to 29 who voted in 2008 than 2010. but as cnn reported yesterday, the congressional election margin of republicans over democrats was 5 million. is there any way to build that turnout of youth but also minorities, especially here in the college setting, very appropriate to ask this question, in an off-year election? and if not this election, which had this kind of controversy, when? so how can that be done? >> we're going to ask each panel member to take about 30 seconds to answer that, because i'd like to get everybody's

perspective. and adam, we'll start with you. >> in an off-year election, i really think we're going to struggle probably the way to get young people involved is to have at the top of the agenda an issue which they think affects them, which again in britain we've got a lot of discussion now about university college financing. that does motive people. but in a sense that's why we're here. >> well, the way you positioned the question is presumes that -- you're coming from good governance and good civil behavior. might not be in the best interest sometimes to want to raise or the bow the boat depending on where you're running. what we saw in 2008 with the obama phenomenon, which was compared to a unique chapter.

>> the young person saw a ance for change. you'd see the turnout start to change. so you give young people a stake, that's what we should be doing. people say how are you going to pay for it. >> do you feel a stake in it? i see a few students out here. fair question? do youeel there was a stake in this election persolly for you that you got out and voted? i see a lot of thees and not a lot of thees. i see one yes, one no. that's interesting. bear that in mind. but they're hear meaning that they're here to participate. >> but the -- look, there are

so many you people right now who are stock piling debt or their parents are where by the time they leave school they will owe 80,000 and more. and so their whole lives then from the time they graduate until they're in their middle age period are going to be about retiring educational debt. we have a system that is just wrong when it comes to investing in our young people. so if you show them that you have a stake in the election because there will be education for all, everyone who is 18 or over will be out there to register and vote. at least those who want a higher education. >> do you see any similarities back in, you were a reporter in vietnam for the field. when i as a college student was scared to death i would lose my 2 s and if i did i would have to go to vietnam. that motivated us. we voted because we knew what

was at stake. it was a certain part of the anatomy i want mention here but we were really scared and we voted. there's no draft right now. your thoughts on that. >> one question, it raises a larger issue. i think that with young people, with people of any age, the question is how do we reach the percentage of people eligible to vote? i think we need to study what the experience of some other countries. for example, i'm not suggesting this but we don't even discuss it. some form of either you vote or you pay a price for it. i don't mean literally a price. for example, when you go to apply for employment, they ask you for your social security number your birth certificate. did you vote in the elast and some proof of that. i think the subject is broader than just young people because it's been a long time ago, it

isn't true that sam houston was still writing when i was young but it's been a long time ago. young people have other things to do. and we understand that. but i think the larger question is how to increase the, in the american style, there are some countries where it's mandatory to vote. there are others where there are high incentives to vote. i don't know the answer to this question. but i don't expect, frankly, that the percentage of young people, hower you define that, will be significantly higher in 2012 than it was in 2008 depending on the race it could be lower. and i don't think the mid terms of 2014 will reflect much higher percentage of young people voting this time. it's just in the nature of our particular american advance of democracy. >> the short and the long answer is no. >> i forgot the question,

haro. >> to his question. no. >> no. >> i would agree with dan and harold, that we had a high turnout election this time by mid-term standards we had about 42% of eligible who cast ballots, about 5 points higher. andor decades we've seen voter participation increase with age and the degree to which you're settled in the community. so unless you move to a compulsory system that many european. >> australia. >> i don't think you're going to see mobilization of young people in what we've seen in the past. >> the republicans nationalize this election on the president on fear and insecurity, and to some degree it worked those who were coordinated national campaign. democrats tried in t last month to sort of put the president back out there and ke it an election about

supporting him to get first-time obama voters the votes, who turned out in 2008, back to the polls. but he wasn't on th ballot. and the hope wasn't there, fear was. but 2012 will be different. and i think that you will see a replay of the kind of turnouts that qued we had in 2008. >> that may be good news for certain people. the young lady down here. >> thank you. i'm a student at the center. the panel discussed a lot about how the election reflected the american desire for an effective government and how we're really looking for congress and the white house to do what the people are looking for. i'm wondering, in recent years not just the 2008 but just recent years there's been record numbers of phil busters and presidential vetos. how can we ensures that with

the numbers that congress is facing now that there will be action taken in 2010 and that people will work across partisan lines to ensure that the very real american issues get dealt with? >> i'd le to answer that? very good question. >> i think you vote republican. if i could put it that way, that certainly in the 30 odd years i've been covering american politics it's no news that there has been a polarization, that the republican party and the democratic party are more clearly defined. and, you know, if we look abroad, we can see that party structures are more volume tile with their forces do come into creation. one of the other things that's been going on in the 30 odd

years that i've covered british politics that our sector has grown from being a couple of percentage points to really just about if you put all the liberals and the nationals together on a par with the other two main parties, now you haven't had that take part in your american, in your political system, and if bipartisanship is going to become almost a dirty wor in here in congressional polls, someelationship between congress and the president, somethinhagot to give. because it does point to fairly parallels put in the system. >> good one. >> my name is elizabeth and i'm a student in the democracy and governance program here at georgetown. and my question has to do with the spending and the wars in

afghanistan and iraq. shortly before the election, reported on a poll that said voters in this election were obviously prioritizing the economy and that the war ranked lowest if at all on theirort of list of priority issues. and i was wondering if you could commint on why they focused on the economy and how much we're spending seems divorced from how much, as congressman kucinich mentioned, we're spending in the wars. >> let's have someone beside congressman kucinich. i think we have an idea of how he stands. >> people can be concerned about a few things at once. i don't take so much stock in the poll that just puts the concerns. it doesn't mean that it's not there. but until you have a mortge you can't pay, a house you can't sell, a retirement you can't have, and a job whose pay may be chopped, or you're

furloughed, you have to deal with that right in your face. and that is why the economic situation is so tough. and so important politically. >> a good answer for those. the gentleman right here. tell us who you are. >> i'm chris. i'm a freshman at the for foreign service. president obama said back when he was president elect said that he liked the majority to be inclusive, that the minority to be constructive. and my question is, which side of this has been more true? i don't think it can be true without the other being true. >> thank you. >> good question.

>> sum rising. >> back to barack obama's statement. >> so barack obama said the majority has to be inclusive and the minority has to be instructive. and i'm wondering, has the democrats over the last two years been as inclusive as ty could have been? have the republicans been as constructive? how does that play into voters what perceived. >> i'll put that to congressman kucinich. >> the dynamic that the country was expecting with stronger leadership from the white hou was then pull the congress along, and if the republicans had a plan to basically

frustrate the president, the president could go over their heads to the american people and some of the support and you would have seen a different result in the election. that didn't happen. so >> is that called a bully pull pitt? >> again, i want to go back to inaugural day, 2008 -- how many of you staw inauguration and were there? i had this chance to just sit up and right at the back rise where i could see it all and it was an amazing thing and i could feel the energy. and i was thinking, my god, we're at the moment of real transformation here. and thenergy dissipated. it was squandered. and so we didn't have to -- it didn't have to be that way. >> well, it didn't have to be that way, congressman. here's what president obama does, he has to be accountable on this. which in sports, in basketball,

you don't try to sit, you try to get up and pull it off. in military terms, every even noncommissioned officer knows, exploit success. and i agree that in there was an aura about inauguration day, not just in washington, but around the country. and even many people who had not voted for barack obama felt stroly that this is a new day we can move forward with something new. and when the president got into office, having run a bold ah dashese campaign, he began to play in the public perception, at least if you were here we argued this he began to play it safe, got a reputation for playing a little soft. an example. instead of saying to congress, i want a big stimulus, and if the republicans resisted i'm taking it to the people. in the case of health care.

rather than let congress write the health care legislation, i'm going to lay out some parameters of what i want and i'm going to fight for it. now, again, justifiab or unjustifiably, he developed very quick and said -- the young man's question is what happened. what happened is that the perception got out that president obama was not willing to really stand up and fight i harry truman fashion, if you will. that he might be trying to do a bit of more bill clinton, triangulate a little bit. and ain, rightly or wrongly, this helped lead to the, well, what does he stand for? what is he willing to stand up and fight? is he willing to take on directly? >> again, there's one element that i ask be added. and that is that congress, the democratic leaders in congress were waiting to see what the white house would do. stead -- you wouldn't know it but we're a co equal branch of government. >> well.

>> and you wouldn't know it because we're waiting to see what the white house would do. the white house testimony prizing, we done tetch a program. so the american people have every right to be upset that neither the executive or the legislative branch produced the results they were demanding. . >> when congress adjourned, went out around the country. the summer before, on these health care town meetings it was very clear what the agenda was. it was to disrupt. and people behaved in vandal bully like fashion and violence actually ensued in a number of instances. what was really troubling i think to those of us who wanted to see health care reform was that there was no pushback in a real sense. so that we had a briefing at the white house toward t end of the summer about health care. and still were not sure at the end of an hour and a half discussion what the white house really wanted in that bill. and then there were those

endless meetings in theenate trying to win over one vote in the republican side. didn't happen and the bill got compromised down and down and down and down. still didn't get is the vote. so i think that the democrats were inclusive to a fault. and i think that republicans were obstructionists to a fault. but republicans were able to spin their obstructionism better and democrats, until this day, i think don't know what happened to them last year. and didn't realize even after they passed health care and the bill was passed that they had the job to do to explain that bill to the american people, which frankly most people still don't understand. "new york times" did a better job of trying to explain it than congress did or that the party did. and the result is that the guys who were playing the game won and the guys who were sitting the sideline lost. >> much wisdom in what you're

saying. there'a lot of talk about the power of the presidency. one of the major powers of the presidency is the power po to persuade. that's what leadership is about. pick whatever fight you want, health care reform, stimulus bill, whatever. at some point the president is expected to and he wants to do well in future elections to lead and to take on -- this is what you say if there's no push. what president obama in at least the public perception is he doesn't really have the stomach for the cut and thrust when it comes down to it's either going to be this or that. as for congress waiting object white house, what you've described is what's known in baseball is alfon gas stone act. the bawl falls somewhere in between -- ball falls somewhere

in between. >> i remember who is ofirst too. >> i want to move, a couple of our distinguished folks have to get on trains and planes d automobiles. but i want to go this to this gentleman and then that gentleman there. and we'll keep the answers briefly. >> i'm a senior in the business school literally here in this building. just first before i ask my question to return to this issue as a young person in this election. i vote because er day there are meand women overseas making sure that i can vote. but my question today is i think the most intriguing thing to come out of this election is it seems like the republican party exists in name only. and it's sort of reserved down. we have the southern, the northeastern entrepreneurials from the george bush area. my question is it seems there's no national republican figure who can come out and take the

nomination for the 2012 presidency. mike pence, jim demint, they're all great in the republican party. can they come out and take a sweep in the primaries in the states that they need? additionally, what would the selection of that candidate mean, particularly talking about mike bloomberg who i think in his public comments has made it seem that he would be considering the run. >> good question. harold. >> republican party hasn't nominated who wasn't already nationally famous since 1940. so for them to nominate somebody who can walk into a diner and get blank stairs if you mention their names is probably not going to happen. >> sara palin. >> well, sara palin would get

very nonblank stairs, particularly if it was full of men. there would be four people who would fit that test. mitch -- mitt romney, huckabee, sara palin and going rich. so i think one of them wins and then the question is which ever one comes on top, the question would be how does the tea party feel about that person? i think if huckabee or palin came on top, the tea party would be very happy but the establishment wouldn't necessarily be happy. so not the elite but voters, to an establishment style bloomberg candidate. i think if romney were to win in the wrong way that many tea party would be unhappy. we won't know for about a year. >> one quick question and then we're going to lose two of my distinguished friends here. and if the other folks would like to stay for a few more

minutes, we can do that if that's all right with the powers that be. >> we will take this question, and then i will lose mywo friends here and then we will continue for a few more minutes. >> thank you. >> who are you and who are you with? ? >> i'm sam stine and with the "washington post." harold, u can't pass on this question. it was announced about 30 minutes ago that speaker pelosi will be making a run as and i'm wondering if this is a good thing for the democratic party considering they just lost however many. >> it's all yours. >> i missed the name. now that she's going to what? so your question is? well, i think she's been an extraordinarily effective leader. there are those who say that

there would not be a health care bill. you can debate the merits of the health care bill but there are those who say there is not a lot of opinion in washington there would not have been a health care bill without mrs. pelosi. so i think she has been an extraordinarily effective leader. my view is that she has a real hold on the democratic calks. it's a much more liberal caucus than it will be in january than it was before the election because of the loss of the blue dogs. my view is that if she wants to continue as leader, she should continue as leader. and i don't think it will hurt the democratic party. i take issue i think with hey on the themic tt he struck that this is a votegainst policy. i don't think this is vote -- really is against policy. i suspect if you ask most

people what policy did they vote against, they might come back and say too much govement. there's a lot of talk about the health care bill is not very popular. but according to some exit polls at least, 50% of the country want the health care bill. they don't even know -- that's 50% that doesn't know what's in the bill because the administration has not done a good job of saying wt the good things are in health care. there's some bad things. the answer is yes. >> we democrats have not done a good job of selling at. by contrast, if you were to ask and virtually anyone who voted with the republican program is, other than shrinking government and cutting expenditures in a time when even martin feldstein, an eminent economist, thinks there ought to be more

stimulus. even when someone like that is saying there should be more stimulus, i do find anyone to articulate what the republican program is going forward. i do take some issue with you on whether they were voting against policy or against the fact that they are picked off. they are frightened and they think the government has not done anything. >> only in a jesuit institution could harold ickes get away with that. i want to thank dan rather. [applause]

>> let me just say in a car less articulate that my opening comment was trying to make the same comment that harold was. there is the way that people interpret this election on top. underneath, there was a public that was frightened, ages and bolting their fear and anxiety. -- anxious and voting their anxiety. speaker nancy pelosi should stay. it was a great kindness. you cannot look at the legislative record and not feel proud of what the first woman speaker in history accomplished. i think it was shameful and to some degree blatantly sexist the way she was characterized. it was wrong.

she should not pay the price for the sins of those who tried to target her in a disgraceful way. >> i do not think walter banks -- voters responded in a way of this or that. clinton was able to summarize it with the phrase, "it is the economy, stupid." according to the exit polls, 52% are for the health care bill. 48% want to repeal it. i think what happened was people do not what the rapid government and -- rapid and extensive movement of the government. there are other americans who

share that view. i do not think the election showed that the majority of the people share that view. it is consistent. it has happened a number of times in american political history. when there is a rapid expansion of federal policies in good economic times or bad, the american middle-class votes for the republicans. >> i only response to that would be that i am on bass that, given the license the republicans had to bad mouth and characterized the health care bill that big government is raising your taxes, etc., in contrast to what i consider not a a very vigorous selling by the administration and the democratic leaders. i am surprise that 50% are for it.

>> we can take a new question. >> i will make one point. i have to say that i am not bury clear on what the democratic agenda is. >> i am an undergraduate at georgetown. my question is about the tea party. i would like to ask the opinions of the members of the panel. do you think that if miraculously within the next few years we will see big economic growth, is there a future for the tea party? >> there is no tea party with a capital t and a capital p.

it is a movement. it is a movement that gravitate it and became allied with the republican party. it may be absorbed by it. it may not be. there has been movement in local areas in the 2010 election. one of the things that existed in 1996 was something called ross perot. there is no perot movement that exist anymore. the people with and went somewhere else. you got the people who come and go in the electorate independent or swing voters. here you have people who seem like independent or republican voters. the tea party phenomenon will

not become more structurally headquarters in place because that is not what the people in the movement wants. >> we have time for another question. that gentleman. >> my name is gavin bates. i am a freshman year at georgetown. i want to touch on a subject that was addressed before. that is campaign finance. i want to get an elaboration. since a lot of figures in the democratic party, including president obama himself, have criticized the citizens united pace as a travesty in our democracy, we have seen probably an equal amount of push back from the right say corporations

do have these rights. my question is, is this really a threat to our democracy? does this threaten the legitimacy of our system to have all this money flooded into the elections event it is just a midterm election cycle we're just less than -- where less than 50% of the people get out to vote. perhaps -- >> harold, you will have to get in here. >> i did not have anything to add except i strongly agree with the ruling. they struck down 100 years of federal law. it is not easy to figure out what to do. i, myself, would prefer to see all the elections funded by small money. the rules are the rules.

i think you are going to see more and more big money involved in elections because of the citizens united pace. it does not serve democracy well. i understand it. i read the whole decision. it is a constitutional decision. in order to overturn that, it would require a constitutional amendment. there are some who know more about that, i hope. i do not think they are going to convene a constitutional convention to deal with this issue. their work congressmen who tried to put a bill through that would require more disclosure, and full disclosure about who gave what to whom. that bill did not go anywhere. i do not think it is going to go anywhere in a republican congress. i do not know what the remedy is. >> we have time for one more question. it better be really, really good. who would like to ask the best

question of the day -- the last question of the day? adam, would you like to ask a question? >> no, i would not. >> i question is best, the president came out the other night and he did not look terribly happy. no matter what your politics are, we saw a wounded men. he said he feels bad. the question is, was it the democratic party and this white house that was not able to sell the policies, or did the american people not understand the policies. or did they reject the policy? is it about policy or politics? i think we will not really get an answer to this question.

i would like to take 10 seconds from each panelist to get final thoughts. that is what this roundtable is about. let's start with henry olsen. >> i think it is about policy although it is hard to divorce message from substance. the republicans made massive gains in congress and there is always reaction to large, rapid expansion of federal power. republicans ran as the party of saying, "let's stop them." i do not think it is coincidence. it is something about america. they do not want rapid expansion of federal power. >> let's go across the pond. >> what i will say is what struck me from the contributions from all of the americans here all over the

political spectrum is the common level of disappointment in the obama presidency. >> lynn? >> american samoa all of us have said, the message was jobs. the political science community saw a big republican gains early in the year before obama's popularity started dropping as low as it did. i think this was a message about the economy more than anything else. >> jim? >> a lot of different people voted in this election. if he did a random sample, you will find a lot of different people giving direct answers about why they voted. there is enormous

disappointment, to put it mildly, in the results. they do not like the policy. people are saying, open " we expected more." -- "we expected more. something happens -- something has to be done to take our --cumstances proposed change our circumstances." >> i want to thank all of you. jeff, may you recovered quickly and get back onto the soccer field. thank you very much. [applause]

[random conversations] >> it is harmless if one is making a start out of britney spears or cher, but americans get wise that the stars and the wizard and the dream tames might not be what they are cracked up to be. it takes time.

pay hamas and mayhem may come to rain. >> there are policy leaders critique by derek leebaert. >> this week on prime minister's questions, prime minister david cameron is challenged on budget cuts for education and the decision to put his personal photographer on the government payroll. he will talk about cuts in health spending. prime minister questions, tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. now, a discussion about who came out to both -- to vote on tuesday. this is "washington journal," on

c-span. >> we are going to get into some of the numbers. what are some of the headlines from today's elections.

>> 49% said the health care bill should be overturned. you had 33% saying it should be expanded. there were different at this -- different messages coming out of the republicans about the deficit and taxes. it is going to contribute to the gridlock that we are talking about. >> let's look at some of the numbers. voting by males and females and democrats and republicans, 42% of the men bolted -- voted for democrats. females cast ballots for the republicans 48% -- 49% to 48%.

>> the denver gap as we know it began around 1980 with the first -- gender gaps began in 1980 with the election of ronald reagan. you still see that gender gap. they could only get an even split from women. >> between 18 to 29 years of age, 57% voted for democrats and 40% or republicans. the republicans had the edge, and a significant age among the elderly, those over the age of 65. >> we have seen all year in the

polling that older americans, 65 and older, have been the most resistant to health care reform. they have been the most resistant to barack obama's pat -- obama's erhaps presidency. young people continue to be the democratic party's best age group. this goes back to 2004 when the 18 to 29 age group was john kerry's best 8 group. our young people voted republican.

the majority of them went for democrats. looking ahead, young people seem to be sticking with the democrats even though they have been hurt by the recession. host: in mother jones from 2006, not -- nonvoters swing toward the republicans at 56%. those over the a of 65, they swing 21% or the republicans. guest: catholics have aswing constituency. if you look at white catholics,

they have been marginally republican. in 2004, george w. bush made an appeal to that constituency. catholics are a diverse and heterogeneous group. you have a growing share of the catholic electorate that is latino. that helps them in the overall cap -- overall catholic vote. host: if you are making a call, you can call the democratic, republican, or independent line. you can also reach us through twitter. one of the headlines that one can take away from reading what you have written about the

result is that the republicans may have one day a victory, but they did not get a lot of support from -- won a victory, but they did not get a lot of support from the electorate. guest: one of the most interesting findings in the election poll is that both parties have a negative evaluation. they were asked if they have a negative or positive opinion of either party. over half said they had a negative opinion of the republicans. this was an election that said, we do not like the way things are going in washington. we want to see change. ast -- it looks like it this point to be a hard electorate to satisfy given the divisions we see. when other way to look at this

is illustrated in an interesting charge about the trends in exit polls -- chart about the trends in the exit polls. if you look at the democrats, the republicans, the liberals and the conservatives is the stark degree of polarization. people are consistently voting for candidates in their own party. the same is true for liberals. the same is true for conservatives. that degree of polarization as to the difficulty that members of congress are poised to have in bringing the country together. host: what surprised you the most? guest: i was expecting that conservatives would turn out at a high level in this election. i was surprised by the degree.

i was surprised by the 40% who said they agreed with the tea party. that is not the whole story. the exit polls also show that only 22% were voting to send a message in favor of the tea party. this message we have been hearing all here register with a lot of people who showed up. host: there were 20 million americans who voted the 2008 that did not vote in two dozen 10. ? guest: the electorate is much more republican and much older. host: we have someone on the democratic line. caller: i have a question and a

small statement. i was kind of baffled by people who were unemployed or the last six months and without help from the obama administration, they would not have made it. if you look at the stimulus and the money that goes to the states, which was one of obama's policies, i was wondering if he did a poll looking at how the unemployed voted compared to the employ? host: thank you. guest: it is difficult to get a good reading on that. we know that a significant minority, about half of the households in the country, have been affected by layoffs and cut in hours. the exit polls included a question that asked if you or someone in your household had

been laid off during the past year. interestingly, among that group, the vote was fairly divided between democrats and republicans. many people have been hurt by this recession, unlike in the packed with people or damage by the economy, -- in the past, with people damaged by the economy, they think the parties should both take responsibility for it. guest: men between 18 and 29, african americans, the americansvoted -- the hes -- hispanic vote, whites in the

south and all whites lending heavily toward the gop. guest: many of the losses occurred in part because the 2008 democratic surge that obama brought along with him allowed the democrats to recapture some of those moderate conservative southern seats. you had a lot of people in the districts where maybe obama won by only a look a bit or obama did not win, thmost of those members were wiped out. we can see in exit polls that republicans and democrats split among southerners. the split was larger than it has been in the exit poll history. host: nebraska is joining us on

the independent line from florida from-- annie is joining us from the independent line from florida. caller: i am wondering what certain areas, like low income areas, -- i am thinking from what i see on television that you are not going in all types of areas, areas of color, or minorities. i do not think you go into areas where there are low income minorities, hispanics or african americans. guest: let's make a distinction between the telephone survey that the research center conducts prior to the election and the exit poll. the polls that we do prior to the election call telephone

numbers all over the country. we also include cell phones. one cell phone is called to every let alone a phone. -- landline phone. there are income groups that are more likely to have a landline telephone. there is an effort made to cover all kinds of reasons, including lower income ones and those that have more of a concentration of latino walters -- latino voters. what happens is that elections get determined by who shows up. the polls are clear that lower income voters did not turn out in great numbers. that is always the case in the

elections. it is especially true in off- year elections like this one. the african american turn out looks to be down from two years ago. the latino turn out is a little hard to gauge. it may have been up in some states like nevada and california. host: my guess is a former professor at the virginia commonwealth university. he is the director of research at guipure research center. we talked earlier about how people over 65 voted overwhelmingly republican. a twitter power was to know what percentage of the turnout was

over 65. guest: "the new york times" says the turnout of people over 65 was 62%. they turned out at a higher rate than voters under that age. that is the key in an election. host: our next caller is on the republican line. good morning. caller: there was an article that alluded to the awakening of the giant in the american electorate. personally, is also a political scientist as well. i know where you are going with your political data. we are all americans now. we need to get past the black, white, hispanic, gay and think of ourselves as americans.

i just wanted to get your take. do you think it is part of a new awakening where americans are starting to examine the foundations of what our country is built on and the implementation of other political ideologies and if this is somewhat of a conflict of the people you all -- conflict of the two? i say aware of the conflict of ideology going on in the united states and that is widely tea party -- wny the -- why the tea party is coming out? host: what was the title of the article?

collar -- caller: it said that we awakened to civil-rights and the american public had gone back to seek -- got back to sleep. will they awaken this time and continue what they started to recapture the american fundamental dream of how we were founded? guest: there is a lot to disentangle their. it is an interesting question. those of us who study public opinion has always been struck by the fact that american politics seem to swing back and forth in -- back and forth toward contradictory american values. we had a strong commitment in this country to opportunity.

that has come with limited government and the freedom to pursue the dream and go out and take some risks and live with the consequences. we also have a strong commitment to equality and economic opportunity, equality of economic opportunity as well. a lot of the debate in the last few years in this country has been over which of the two poles of this thing by should be preeminent at one time. -- divide should be preeminent at one time. in 2008, thought the quality should be paramount. this time it is independence. it is a part of the characteristic pendulum swing in american politics. it seems to come with national conditions. i cannot prove it with the polling data, but it's in our

history. the democratic changes that are happening in the country -- there is no giant awakening in the country and the other side is going to go away. i do not see that happening. host: scott keeter is from the pew research center. caller: i am a democrat living in a red state. there were a lot of questions on the ballot. questions like obamacare and questions that actually skewered the voting public. any red states is growing in numbers. the question actually prejudiced people in terms of their voting. a lot of us did not bother to

vote cause we knew there was no point. is there a poll that reflex the people who -- reflects the people who refuse to vote. guest: we ask a random sample of everyone 18 years of age and older about where they think the country should be going and what they think about issues and things like health care reform. last week, we actually posted on our website, pewresearch.org, something called the study of nonvoters. what we find is a confirmation of what you are saying. a lot of people who did not show up are more liberal. they are more democratic.

this year, they were more democratic. they were, on balance, supportive of the health-care reform package. they were much more opposed to continuing the bush tax cuts in all income groups. you would have had it for outcomes on election day if everybody had showed up vote. you can see how this would be if you take a look at that piece. 42% of the public turned out to vote. that means the majority of americans did not turn up last week and their voices were not hurt. host: on pewresearch.org, there are many statistics like this one.

the republicans will be on a short lease if we do not do what they said they would do. guest: you have ample evidence from the polls and ample evidence from history looking back to 1995. if you go back to other congresses, you can see with the public made a change by deciding to vote on way or another and did not stick around which the people who took office and rejected them because of a lack of results. we'd like to say that the public is results oriented and not all that ideological. history bears that out. host: here is a twitter comment. obama turned his back on the coalition that he nurtured doing his -- during his run for president. it proved his undoing.

good morning, caller. you are with us. caller: i have been falling c- span since 1984. -- following c-span since 1984. i am a long time before. i appreciate what you are doing. scott, out here in california, i am in ojai, california pate is north of los angeles and below santa barbara. there is -- i am a political junkie. there is an interesting atmosphere of extreme fear. i am in a good financial situation. it is not so much about what i

have to suffer through. i have never seen more for sale signs for properties, for sale signs for cars. to me, as a political junkie, you can taste be here in the atmosphere out here. i think that is related to what you do. i do not really have a question per se. i was disappointed in our president's commentary after the election. there are a lot of things going on. out here in california, there is a lot of tension. and i just wanted to communicate that for your discussion and so

forth. again, with c-span, thank you for what you do. one of the first items i bought on the internet was a c-span mug. host: do you still have it? caller: yes, i do. host: in the "los angeles times" there was an article about a jobless benefits. caller: banking for keeping me on the line. that is part of the year. how what is totally broke. we have the fourth largest economy on the planet and we are broke. the government and the federal reserve just printed $600 billion of paper.

you can print up as much as you want. that is what it is. what i am choosing to do financially is by physical assets. -- buy physical assets. why should i hold money in a bank account because it is all going south. guest: the point is a fascinating state. it has been for a long time in american politics. it has been a trend setter. given your description of the dire state of circumstances there, it shows the mood of the election and should give everyone a shiver. it was a distant in this election, too. unlike other states that are having these kinds of but it troubles, california did not decisively reject the democrats. your democratic statewide candidates won by comfortable

margins, larger than the polls have indicated. the exit polls indicated that barack obama has the majority approval, unlike in most states. you have simultaneously this unease with what is going on in circumstances you mentioned, as we all know, about the financial troubles. a democrat was elected. a democratic senate and a democratic governor. a democratic senator was sent back to washington. it is hard to know what to make of that message. one thing i thought was interesting is the latino vote there. it was up from previously --from previous elections. they voted strongly democratic.

i am not sure what message to take away from the election there. host: 1 twitter fall recess when has an economy been restored in two years. ? caller: thank you so much. i always enjoy your show. i am calling from florida. you mentioned the latino vote, which turned out for democrats. i am -- i have seen burying the tell reporting about rick scott and his major -- very little reporting about rick scott and his major issue. he fought a bruising battle with a popular republican guy who wanted the job.

he also beat a popular democratic candidate. know what is saying it is amazing what he did. we do not want to go the way of california. illegal immigration is an issue. the pollsters shy away. i will tell you my opinion of california. meg whitman was crowned an h1b visa queen. she said americans had to get used to shipping jobs overseas. why the republicans thought either one of those women thought -- women could get elected is beyond me. they are telling us. trade is good at using h1b visas to take jobs away from america. thank you so much for letting me

make a comment. host: in the miami herald, there is a story about rick scott and how he will lead. it is also available online. guest: florida is a bottle or other -- model for other states in the country. this is a significant conservative cuban population. while it might not be a surprise that marco rubio received a majority of hispanic votes, it was 50 are%, -- 55%, it was a surprise that rick scott was able to get half of the hispanic vote. florida, because of the division of the votes with kendricke mee

ks running as a democrat, it ended up as a divided situation. the democrats were unable to talk kendricke meek from getting out of the race. host: you are on the democratic line. caller: the democrats -- you hear rush limbaugh the clear barack obama's presidency a failure. that has a lot to do with it.

guest: i cannot give you any polling evidence on this. i do know that in 1994, which was the first big election in which talk radio think it heavily, we were able to find evidence that talk radio helped to energize the conservative and republican base. they certainly may be doing that. you are right. there is no exact alternative to it on the democratic side. what i hear from a lot of people on the democratic side is that the democrats did not have consistent messaging this year from their own candidates in terms of the things that congress had done. one of the things we do when we study public opinion is -- the public has attitude. they have a point of view.

leadership matters. unless you have a consistent message that says, "what we done is good. we are going to be spent it." you did not happen -- you did not have public opinion about it. the republicans had message from the beginning. they did not like what obama was going to do. it was easy for them to vote their majority on issues where people were undecided or ambivalent. host: one caller will make a comment in -- and start a robust discussion on line. this is typical of what has happened with regard to the bed. this fall were -- follower says, "we have the fed doing whatever

it wants and this government has nothing to say about it. game over." guest: there was an interesting finding in the exit polls. they were asked who was to blame for the economic troubles in the country. only a small minority a -- a small minority picked bankers. and only a small minority of those who picked bankers voted republican. the story is that the republican party was supportive of wall street. the democratic party have come to be associated with those policies because most of the bailout of the banks was evident

on their watch. it began with george w. bush. the democrats are being held responsible for it. barack obama is being held accountable. host: this is stella to letting us from new jersey. so identify democrats voted for the democrats 90% of the time. 95 percent side of republicans voted -- 95% of republicans voted for a republican. stella, go ahead please.

caller: we need to understand that this method of the ideology that seems to be driving the country to the extreme has a stranglehold on our whole political system. the only ideology that really count is the ideology of globalization. that brings me to our next point. the only color that matters is green. there is a systematic evaluation of the dollar, which is going to continue, which is setting the corporations up to continue developing their economies overseas. we need to understand that the only ideology that matters is globalization. all they talk about in politics is -- you guessed before it your speaker here, and whenever you

read on the news and on television about the gridlock which has been created by this ideology -- is say that our government is in gridlock and it's completely irrelevant. if c-span.org wants to do a service to this country, let us focus on the only ideology that matters, which is obligation, the devaluation of the dollar, and i honestly communicate to the american people that our way of living is going to be brought down. inflation is going to be giving us a double tammy. -- double whammy. i doubt there will be any tax relief.

the cost of living and the lifestyle that we are used to it is going to be brought down without globalization. guest: the president has now embarked on a limping overseas mission to a number of our trading partners. i think the post-mortem on the elections that we are having today will continue for awhile. we will be talking about what washington is doing. some of the conversation is going to shift to america's role in the world in terms of trade. one of the things that the caller said, if i understand correctly, is that trade is an issue that belies both party's constituency. this is an issue that we have been tracking.

there has been some interesting polling on it. we will take another look at it this week to keep your eyes peeled for that. host: the treasury secretary in the clinton administration says based on our twitter page. rober rubin -- robert anyone? caller: mr. keeter, a good point about the electorate. in a virginia, -- in virginia, what you set up the people and the government is true. congress is the level of management that we have in place to do our running of the organization as a whole, the country itself. our tax dollars are going toward

a management program that spends for all kinds of different reasons. the electorate is going to stay, in my view, attentive because of things like the government extending the tax level. the laws that we are taking are causing great concern -- loans that we are taking are causing great concern about our children. guest: what has happened in the last few years has caused concern about our economy. people do not like the way congress went about doing its business. that has been part of the

frustration. we will have to see where it goes from here. host: scott keeter is with the pew research center. thank you for sharing your perspective. >> the president of the league of conservation voters discuss this energy policy under a republican congress. and drew thompson will talk about the nixon administration. >> it is different from making a start out making -- star out of britney spears or cher.

americans get wise that the stars and the wizards might not be what they are cracked up to be. after a certain amount of time, chaos and mayhem reighn. -- rein. >> this week on prime minister's sessions, david cameron is challenged on the government's response to terrorist threats, and the prime minister's decision to put his personal photographer on the government payroll. they will also discuss government spending. >> this week on "newsmakers,"

our topic is government spending. we have a reporter from the "los angeles times." jennifer, you have the first question. >> a lot of people are wondering what exactly happened in the hours and weeks leading up to the explosion on the bp rig in april. the blowout preventer is sitting in a nasa facility waiting for tests. there is some disagreement in the investigation that your agency and the coast guard is

leading. what does the dispute due to the timeline? will we get answers? >> i am hoping it does not affect the time line. we had delayed that put us a little bit behind schedule. we were required to request an extension in the time the report was going to be issued. we have had to ask for an extension until the latter part of march. i am hoping backed -- i am hope and that it will not lend and the time line. some people are threatening to go to court about it. we are discussing issues with them this factor alone. we hope to be able to resolve it. it.