of the president judges the strategy is working, he can begin in july to withdraw based on the situation as suggested. if he judges it is not working, i would hope he would make a more significant change and change our presence to one of counter-terrorism. .

>> he thought that pakistan, if they did not come to an understanding of the situation and they need to be on site, from their own self-interest, we could force them into -- the first and leading descent was one on prejudging what the president should do in july. we should not be in it the business of prejudging what the president does or does not do. that is fair up two. , but we are watching this, and there is a question as to how sustainable this is.

>> former senior officer in that part of the world, i gather that you have fundamental questions about the viability of what we are doing in afghanistan. perhaps you could lay those out. >> i do have very serious reservations particularly about the sustainability of what we are doing. it comes down to a point that mr. arledge made very eloquently, and that has to do with sustainability both on the u.s. and the afghan side. focusing on the karzai government, particularly the afghan national army, for the reasons that mr. arledge pointed out, i don't think that is sustainable. the afghan government does not have and will not have the resources to sustain such progress as we make in building up a huge national army.

similarly, the u.s. effort, which i think needs to continue, cannot continue on at this level of material and human resources. it is clear that the current approach is not going to be able to succeed on the timeline that we have given it. i think we have seen enough and we need to shift to plan b period. >> do you want to say more about what plan b is and if it is doable? >> many of these judgements really need to be made by people in the field. it is very difficult for us to come to the tell conclusions from this removed. that said, we need to be focused on continuing to train and afghan national army, but hopefully a much smaller afghan

army, one which can actually be sustained by an afghan economy that we could conceivably see in the out years. i think that our effort therefore needs to be shifted much more to a bottom up approach. we need to focus on tribal leaders who have real weight in their districts and their provinces. that is primarily a special forces mission, not conventional forces. i think we can make slow, incremental progress over time with a smaller -- lower investment in u.s. human and material resources. it will take many, many years. therefore the u.s. effort needs to be resources at a level that we can actually maintain for many years. if we are not willing to do that, it is better for us to fold our tents and leave now. >> thanks to all four of you for that introduction to the report.

it is a very thoughtful, careful, and i must say, painful report to read, because these are really tough choices. i want to turn now to the audience for your questions. please wait for the microphone, identify yourself and any affiliation, and we will look for hence. >> that gentleman there. >> in the morning. in your presentation and a quick perusal of your report, i don't see much mention of human rights and how the u.s. can be promoting this effectively as part of our strategy in both countries. another question, considering the dynamics of religion and how it animates many of the actors we are confronting, has the task force considered ways to engage

them to promote our long-term goals? >> we certainly knowledge the role of ngo's. i think have already mentioned the fear of sacrificing the small gains already made in that reconciliation brought -- process. my point of view is, this is very much part of our report. i did not catch the second half. >> the extent to which religion plays into the broader dynamic in the region. >> that was not a central element of the report. i think we all come into this with an understanding of the context in which we are playing in this environme, but i don't think that since the report is primarily based on a question of what can the u.s. government to, that is the fundamental question

that we ask. what should our strategy be? the u.s. government is not well positioned to play on religious issues. i think that was driving a lot of this. it might not be the right tool, and it was not something that was central to the argument that we had. but this debate will continue. >> countries to the north have expressed concern about narcotics flowing to the north. what do you think is the right balance in terms of countering narcotics strategy in afghanistan, and what would you like to see to the north in terms of counter narcotics cooperation facilitated by the eu and nato and others? >> i think he fully knows the answer, having served in asia and having some strong views. i don't know what the balance is

in terms of how much effort, but we have to have an effort directed against narcotics. we did see a bit of low back when we had the russian participation because i think the new car explode -- that narcotics flow -- how much ever we should put into it are defer to general petraeus and his colleagues to see how much that distracts from other areas of endeavor. >> i would say the report may be interesting on the counter narcotics ankle to the extent that it holds that into the question of counterinsurgency. the fundamental thrust of the report is that narcotics is a flow of corruption, a flow of money, and something has to be treated within the larger question of how to address this raging insurgency in afghanistan, not something that could be addressed apart from that. i think you have identified

great opportunities for cooperation in the region to the north, but also potentially iran. this is an area of convergence in our interest, and certainly with respect to pakistan. we should not lose sight of how narcotics begich counter narcotics needs to be fitted into our broader counterinsurgency effort. >> i am from the woodrow wilson center. what if pakistan does not get on side? i take it your responses we ought to unilaterally start [unintelligible] against thelet. you did not mention the afghan taliban. should that be included also?

what do we do every cross a red line and they shut down the transit route across pakistan? >> if they shut down the transit route again? just to make a point, it is not totally unnecessary that those are the only weapons you have against let. my view is we ought to use all means necessary to root them out. in afghanistan, they are killing us. i take it personally.

>> i have not had a chance to scam this, so i don't know if it is covered in here. one of the problems i see or one of the challenge is to dramatically changing the strategy is how it plays at home. we have already spent nine years there. there are thousands of lives lost. did you consider how you introduce this big introduce this to a domestic audience and how the administration would be able to get people to back this without feeling like the last time it -- the last nine years have been for naught? >> we started with a and we were dealt. if you had asked us individually whether we like a july 2011 date, i would say no, we don't want to give that the enemy any more information than they need. we did not have that luxury to

second-guess that. that was already given to us. it has led to a perception of perhaps some shortness of breath on the part of the united states in the region. this is one of the things we need to discuss the we have done it in the last couple of strategic dialogue. we should not be in the business of winning domestic support. we in acknowledge the importance of it and we acknowledge the and sustainability of the present course. that is just common sense. there is a backdrop to all this. thank god we have been successful in the international community, somewhat successful in stopping about a dozen attempted terrorist attacks. we have done it through law enforcement and we have done it with intelligence. we certainly have disrupted it with our military.

we think there is the ability to fashion something that will meet the approval of the congress and the people. >> to draw your attention to the conclusion of the report, i think it addresses the question of the need for public support. the acknowledgment that this has been a long war and a long struggle, and instead of cutting into it as we would need to reshape public opinion, it is working in a democratic society. we need to be responsive to public opinion and recognize what the constraints are on u.s. foreign policy and defense policy and respond to those. it also calls for a certain amount of leadership. a demonstration that if we can succeed, we need to keep at this. i think report -- we should not shortchange the fact that the report suggests that it supports an approach, if it shows signs of progress.

>> in recent days, senior u.s. officials, military and civilian, have been speaking about the the but 2014 time frame for deployment of u.s. forces in afghanistan, in part, one assumes, to deal with this perception of shortness of breath in the region and the corresponding actions that people have taken. do you think that is why is an appropriate? 2014 obviously is the time frame that karzai himself has established for transition and the departure of foreign bourses. is inappropriate for us to be endorsing that in saying we will be on the ground until 2014? >> our nato allies are involved. we had discussions with them,

and this is more of a consensus. it does key of the president of afghanistan is own comments that the security situation should be in such states that afghan fces would take that over. i think it is the better part of wisdom to just embrace it. it does get to that shortness of breath question. >> we understand the council on foreign relations to be recommending in its report that u.s. forces, in whatever configuration, should remain until 2014. >> we did not address that. we have discussed the need to continue training, so i guess implicitly we do. i don't remember explicitly putting it in. >> when you are holding a tiger

by the tail, one thing you might try to do rather than strengthen the tiger is give it something else to do. in the case of pakistan in particular, we have a situation where yesterday's in karachi, 18 people were killed in the latest bomb attack. 18 million people were not. there is no country in the world that is developed with aid and military assistance as a pathway to democracy. what has worked its private- sector development. i am wondering why u.s. strategy for development in pakistan does not reflect what has worked in the u.s. and what has worked elsewhere in the world, which is the sort of thing we are doing with opec and why that is not a 0.1, too, and free in our strategy in pakistan. >> people are trying to kill us

in pakistan, but it certainly is a point well worth including. we need you that -- developed as more and more. faugh you have a nation of 177 million people who are extraordinarily on. 20 or 21 is the average or median age. whether under martial law or democracy they have not gotten the governance they need, and those in karachi who have succeeded have done it in spite of the government. they are starting from way behind. you are pushing on an open door. >> the report does make a case for emphasis on supporting and

driving private sector activity as being fundamental to development there both political and economic development. i think there is a line about how u.s. assistance could be better used but it will never be enough to finally turn the tide unless they turn it to the private side. we had a robust discussion of the following. if they enjoyed 2% growth rate, it would be a death sentence for pakistan. that is the enormity of the problem. >> the report as a very good job of summarizing the state centric

challenges we face both here in the u.s. in terms of our policy with respect to pakistan and with respect to afghanistan. the thing i have not seen in the report is a deep dive into the non state actors, specifically the taliban. i am wondering, given the emphasis on counterinsurgency and a proposed alternative, which taliban are we talking about? how can we tell the difference between them, and what criteria should the united states and its allies be using in distinguishing limited spoilers from the total spoilers? >> i think what general petraeus's strategy is to get the rented taliban out of the business. i think it is pretty hard --

most americans would acknowledge notwithstanding how much experience we might have had in south asia that we did not understand entirely what was going on. i was involved in the beginning of this, and we did approach the taliban and we did talk to them about us just getting out of the way, and we were totally rebuffed. that is when they came into our target zone. to my knowledge, no significant taliban has wanted to remove themselves from the target set. >> the report notes -- it sounds a significant alarm with respect to the increasing coming together of various groups in ways that are more

internationally threatening that they might have been five or 10 years ago. that is a shift that i think should be emphasized in the context of this report. >> it has taken a squad while to finally realize we are fighting a flat enemy, not a hierarchy. flat emmys take a different approach. general petraeus and others have got it. we get it, but it took us a lot of time to get to that point. >> it seems that general musharraf is back again. any comments? [laughter] i am having lunch with him today at 12. he is back. he has been speaking out on larry king and other things.

i look forward to seeing what he has to say. >> i was struck by a couple of things that ridgch armitage sai. i wonder what could persuade him to double little more deeply. there is a clear difference in priorities and perhaps objectives between ourselves and pakistan. their objective is to have what they refer to as a friendly state, which looks suspiciously like a client state. that have shown the will to go after that, among other things, by picking up one of the relatively few senior taliban figures who looks like he was

freelancing in discussions with president karzai. how do we mesh our concept of a happy ending in afghanistan with pakistan's? is there a version that will be acceptable to bo? it seems that both face fairly severe discrepancies from what they would like to see, and this is probably the most fundamental political problem that we face. >> i could be corrected by those who are smarter than i on these matters, but i thought we were in relatively good place with pakistan in 2000. one reason is i think we had a pretty clear dialogue with pakistan about exactly what we were doing and why we are doing it. the 2005 timeframe, i thought

maybe the coalition was not going to prevail. they went back to more traditional approach against india. lately, the u.s. has been pressuring pakistan to try to do something about the hakani network. we will not be pressuring them until we know what they are in a state is. if it is one that is going to leave them open for civil war in the future, for five years from now, you are right. they know that others are born to involve themselves in that civil war. i think it starts with making sure they know how far we are going to go in our pressuring of the network and what we can

reasonably expect them -- if we can get by into our end state. i don't and we have got that yet. i think we talk past each other a good bit. that is my view. >> let me commend the report. it is a year ago that many of us were coming to the end of a process, an insider review of our own, looking at these things. some of that is recorded in mr. woodward's book. that leads me to a follow-on that was very pregnant last year when this was all being reviewed. i think it is still not really been resolved in the report in a manner that is clear. when you talk about that pakistan need to understand the u.s. in the state, having to go

to counter terrorist less heavy footprint, a positive approach of the two countries, how does that give pakistan any comfort that we are not going to again abandon them to afghanistan's civil war? we would have less exposure in that type of internment, potentially. can you rationalize that against saying we would make it difficult for anybody associated are like footprint in afghanistan to continue in that vein if they are wrong to put us in that position of not being on their side. >> we do suggest that if we go to a somewhat smaller footprint and we concentrate on counter- terrorism, that includes

everywhere. at one time pakistan was whistling in the graveyard about the pakistan the taliban. in our view it represents an ultimate threat to the state, and it is not beyond the ken of our military and diplomats to bring this home to the pakistan thesis. the key to it all is to let them know we are not looking at another 10-year divorce. if they cannot be brought to understand, you cannot coerce them into doing something. >> of the way in the back, please. >> and from the congressional

research service. let me congratulate the task force on a great report and the provocative discussion this morning. from my perspective, the discussion this morning has been very rich in terms of ways and means. current approaches and potential alternatives. can be difficult to think about what progress really means unless you are measuring against a very clear in that state. my question for the palace this morning is about the ends specifically for afghanistan. how good a job has the government done of defining a clear and state? what are the minimum conditions we would have to see on the ground in order for afghanistan with some international support to be able to sustain stability? >> the president at least twice has been very clear about what he considers our mission, the

mission of dismantling and destroying and disrupting al qaeda. unfortunately, because we feel that taliban is still more inclined to be hospitable to al qaeda, we cannot be sure that absent our endeavors, they will not again welcome al qaeda. we find the disarray there is still a threat to the united states. that leads me to something short of nation building as an end state. i cannot define it any better yet, without knowing what the facts on the ground actually are. i am personally looking forward to an nie, given some of the bad history in the past.

i happen to know jim clapper pretty well and i can guarantee he will pay a lot of attention and he will call it whatever is in st. g.i. language. >> the report does have a section on u.s. objectives. notes that in both pakistan and afghanistan, our objectives appear to have waxed and waned over the last decade. i think that is useful, because it basically lays out the spectrum of potential objectives we might have at the maximum and minimum. the report concludes specifically on the afghanistan side at a relatively low bar. as suggested, it is a situation where afghans with relatively low level of outside assistance can fend off the prospect of international terrorism. this is not the expansive view

of democracy building and state building, although we would of course like that. we would all like to see that, but what is the realistic prospect of that in the near term? it is open and sets the bar at a lower level. >> my question is related to the future. if there was a successful track that emanated from this region, how would you see that being a game changer for current strategy? >> if it came from afghanistan, i think we would be it -- continuing our efforts in afghanistan. the near miss in the times square bombing is what precipitated the comments that pakistan's government would be held to account. what the u.s. government then does, i don't know.

i think there is no fooling around on this matter of terrorism from mr. gates, ms. clinton, and the president. >> it is not a question of whether the attack comes from pakistan, but what does pakistan do in response? if we have confidence that they are not doing what they need to do, then there is no fooling around. >> the secretary of state said there will be consequences. i took her at her word. i thought she was serious. >> we have time for just a couple more questions. we will get both questions and then let our speakers conclude. >> i have three of my company on the ground in karachi and yesterday there were three blocks from the explosion the gentleman referenced. we are moving them around to get them some provision of safety.

i want to identify with his marks -- his remarks. throughout the middle east, where i have been in palestine or jordan or now pakistan and iraq and other places, the business sector is completely left out of the dialogue. therefore they have to operate on a totally different track. they work around the government's, and the governments ignore them in return. i would like to just urge you to contemplate an actual strategy about business. it is big business, existing business, and american business. you really need a full strategy. >> we fully agree with you and you have articulated very well. one point the report makes in the pakistan context, it identifies working with pakistan partners.

it concludes that they are a central component there, recognizing that our u.s. government out reached to those groups is far less than it ought to be. >> as a point of information, to my mind is a scandal that a simple piece of legislation aimed at encouraging investment in the tribal areas has been hung up for more than two years in what are the petty is of political differences. you could argue that there is something broader, but it is astonishing given our national security risks that this simple piece of legislation is being caught in the gridlock. >> thank you for that last comment. the exports in pakistan to the u.s. are things we do not even make any more. it is not as if we would be

disrupting jobs. has been criticized, but the reason i raised my hand was to speak to the other gentleman. could you clarify, we will hold pakistan accountable? if there is a times where type of thing happening. how do you draw a line between that and the government? how do we hold them accountable? >> of course it is the government to hold accountable. i am simply repeating the words of the senior members of our administration, trying to make the point to the governor of pakistan that they have scant in this game. i certainly did not mean to hold individual citizens of pakistan to account. what that accounting is and how deep it goes and what it consists of would be something i would imagine the

administration would address at the time. >> that brings us to the end of our hour. i think we got a good preview of the report. now you can all go home and read it. thank you very much to our speakers. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> next, president obama meets with reporters following the close of the g-20 summit in south korea. then a discussion on the trade and currency issues that came up during those meetings in seoul. after that, a forum on the impact of the midterm elections. >> this weekend, c-span3 visits the eleanor roosevelt papers project to learn how the longest serving first lady use the media to communicate her ideas. we will see how very different thinking american and british leadership work together to defeat the nazis. live saturday november 20, a daylong symposium on the civil war from the national archives, as prominent historians discuss the international impacts of the war. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, on c- span3.

>> monday, a house ethics committee holds a hearing to determine whether any of the 13 counts against congressman charles rangel have been approved by clear and convincing evidence. the hearing begins at 9:00 a.m.. we will have live coverage on c- span3. at the closing news conference of the g-20 summit in seoul, obama criticized china's currency policy amid criticism that she chinese exports are costing american jobs. he also answered questions on whether he will extend the tax cuts introduced by the bush administration and on the failure to reach a free-trade agreement with south korea. this is just over 45 minutes. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. before i discuss the g-20, i want to briefly comment on the agreement in iraq that has taken place on the frameworkfor new government. there are still challenges to

overcome, but all indications are that the government will be rep, inclusive, and reflect the will of the iraqi people who cast their ballots in the last election. this agreement marks another milestone in the history of modern iraq. once again, iraqis are showing their determination to unified iraq and build its future, and those impulses are far stronger than those who want iraq to descend into sectarian war and terror. for the last several months, the u.s. has worked closely with our iraqi partners to promote a broadcast -- broadbased government. now iraq's leaders must finish the joof forming their government so they can meet the challenges that a diverse coalition will inevitably face. going forward, we will support the iraqi people as they strengthen their democracy, resolve political disputes,

resettle those displaced by war, and build commerce and cooperation with the united states, the region, and the world. here in seoul, once again we are very grateful to our hosts, the president and the people of seoul and south koreaor your extraordinary hospitality. we came to seoul to continue the work that has taken us from london to pittsburg to toronto. we worked together to pull the global economy back from catastrophe, to avoid the old cycles of boom and bust that led to that crisis. we committed ourselves to growth that was balanced and sustain, including financial reform and fiscal responsibility. the actions we took were not always easy or popular, but they were necessary. as a result, the global economy is growing again. some economies, especially emerging economies, or experiencing strong economic growth. trade has risen.

jobs are being created, as in the united states where we have had 10 consecutive months of private sector job growth and created more than 1 million private-sector jobs this year alone. in short, we succeeded in putting the global economy back on the path of recovery, but we also know that the progress has not come nearly fast enough, especially when it comes to highest priority, which is putting americans back to work. nor have we yet achieved the balanced global growth that we need. many advanced economies are growing too slowly and not creating enough jobs. some countries are running large surpluses and others running large deficits. put simply, we risked slipping back into the old imbalances that contributed to the economic crisis in the first place and which threaten global recovery. here in seoul, the question was whether our nations could work together to keep the global economy growing.

another commentary tends to focus on the inevitable areas of disagreement, but the fact is, the 20 major economies gathered here are in broad agreement on the way forward, an agreement that is based on a framework that was put forward by the united states. for the first time, we spelled out the actions that are required in four key areas to achieve this sustained and balanced growth that we need. first, we agreed to keep focusing on growth. at home, the u.s. has been doing our part by making a historic investments in infrastructure and education, research, clean energy, and our economy is growing again, even as we must more to ensure that that growth is sustained and translates into jobs for our people. here in seoul, we agree that growth must be balanced. countries with large deficits must work to reduce them as we are doing in the united states, where we are on track to cut our deficit in half by 2013 and

where i am prepared to make tough decisions to achieve that goal. likewise, countries with large surpluses must shift away from heavy dependence on exports. going forward, no nation should assume that their path to prosperity is paid simply with exports to the united states. second, we agreed that exchange rates must reflect economic realities. just as the major advanced economies need to keep working to preserve stability among reserve currencies, emerging economies need to allow currencies that are market- driven. this is something i raised yesterday with the president of china and we will continue to closely watch the appreciation of china's currency. we all need to avoid actions that perpetuate imbalances and give countries an undue advantage over others. third, we took further steps to implement financial regulatory reform. at home, we are implementing the

toughest financial reform since the great depression, and we are expecting the same sense of urgency rather than complacency among our g-20 partners. here in seoul we agreed to new standards similar to those we have passed in the united states to make sure the banks have the capital they need to withstand shocks and not take excessive risks that could lead to another crisis. we agreed on an approach to assure that taxpayers are not asked to pay for future bank failures. fourth, we agreed to focus on development as a key driver of economic growth. the work we did here today builds on a new develop a policy that i announced in september and recognizes that the most effective means of living people out of poverty is to create sustainable economic growth, growth that will create the markets of the future. we also agreed on an action plan to combat corruption, which in some countries is the single

greatest barrier to economic progress. finally, we reaffirmed the need to avoid protectionism that stifles growth and pursue trade and investment for open markets. that is why we will continue to work towards a u.s.-korea free trade agreement in the coming weeks. not just any agreement, but the best agreement to create jobs both in america and korea. that is why i spoke very frankly to my g-20 partners today about the prospects of the doha round. they must embrace their responsibilities to open markets to the trade and investment that creates jobs in all our countries. again i want to thank our south korean host for a very successful summit and i want to thank my fellow leaders for their partnership. here in seoul we have laid out

the steps we must take to sustain the growth we need and now and in the days ahead, these are the commitments we will have to meet. we will take a few questions. >> the question on the south korea free trade agreement. if u.s. concerns on autos and beef are not adequately addressed over the next few weeks, at that point would be better to just have no deal at all? >> i have always said that i am not interested in signing a trade agreement just for the sake of an announcement. i am interested in trade agreements that increase jobs and exports for the united states and hopefully also increase opportunities for our trading partners. i think that is achievable between the united states and korea, but the whole issue here, from my perspective, has always

been over the last couple of years, do we have a deal that works for us? that is my first obligation. i think we can get a win-win, but it was important to take the extra time so that i am assured that it is a win for american workers and american companies as well as for korean workers and companies. i am the one who will have to go to congress to sell it. from my perspective, again, i am not interested in an announcement, but then an agreement that does not produce for us. we have had a lot of those in the past, a lot of announcements, but at the same time we see american manufacturing deteriorated. as a consequence, there is a lot of concern back home. understandably, there is a lot of suspicion that some of these trade deals may not be good for

america. i think this one can be, but i want to make sure that when i present that trade agreement to congress, i am confident that we have the kind of deal that is good for both countries. >> after the midterm elections, you said that you were open to compromise on the bush tax cuts. i am wondering if you are prepared today to say that you are willing to accept a temporary extension for the wealthiest americans. in an unrelated question, do you feel that the election has weakened you on the global stage? >> the answer to the second question is no. i think what we have seen over the last several days as we travel through asia is that people are eager to work with

america, eager to engage with america on economic issues, on security issues, on a whole range of mutual interests, and that is especially true in asia, where we see such enormous potential. this is the fastest-growing part of the world, and we have to be here and we have to work. i am confident that my administration over the next two years is going to continue to make progress in ensuring that the u.s. has a presence here not just for the next couple of years but for decades to come. with respect to the bush tax cuts, what i have said is that i will meet with both republican and democratic leaders late next week, and we will sit down and discuss how we move forward.

my number one priority is making sure that we make the middle- class tax cuts permanent, that we give certainty to the 98% of americans who are affected by those tax breaks. i don't want to see their income taxes spike up, not only because they need relief after having gone through aranda's recession, but also because it would be bad for the economy. i continue to believe that extending permanently in the upper income tax cuts would be a mistake and that we cannot afford it. my hope is that somewhere in between there, we can find some sort of solution. but i am not going to negotiate here in seoul. my job is to negotiate back in washington with republican and democratic leaders.

>> it came to asia talking about the deep frustration in the economy and over your travels in the past 10 days you have been talking about sustainable growth. the american people don't seem as interested in gradual growth as much as they want noticeable help right now. can you promise that there will be noticeable job growth during your term, and do you think the unemployment rate will still be north of 9% when you run for reelection? >> we have grown the economy by a million jobs over the last year. that is pretty noticeable. i think those million people who have been hired notice those paychecks.

in order to speed up job growth, we have put forward a range of proposals that i hope to discuss with democratic and republican leaders. i don't think we can just and pat. i continue to believe that we need to invest in the infrastructure back home. as you travel around asia, you start seeing other countries investing in infrastructure. that is what the u.s. has done in the past, but we have been living off the investments we made back in the 30's, 40's, '50's, and '60s. it is time to make sure we have upgraded our roads and railways. that will make us more

productive and will put people back to work right now. i continue to believe that it is important for us to work with businesses to see if we can incentivize them to invest now rather than holding cash waiting for the future. they've got cash to spend. and so we've put forward a series of tax proposals that historically republicans have supported. and my expectation would be there's no reason for them not to support it just because i'm supporting it. and so that's a conversation that i hope to have next week. but we have a recovery. it needs to be speeded up. government can't hire back the 8 million people who lost their jobs. ultimately that's up to the private sector. but i think we can set the conditions whereby we're seeing significant improvement during the course of the next year, the next two years, and we can chip away at the unemployment rate so that we get back to the kinds of levels that reflect a growing middle class and increased opportunity for all people. jake tapper. >> thank you, mr. president.

this communiqué has a commitment that all countries will refrain from competitive devaluation of currencies. i'm wondering what you think that means concretely when it comes to china's behavior, what you expect from them? and also i'm wondering, when it comes to congress, if you think your party, the democratic party, would benefit from new blood, new leadership? >> i've been very clear and persistent since i came into office that we welcome china's rise; we think the fact that china has grown as remarkably as it has, has lifted millions of people out of poverty, and that is ultimately good for the world and good for america -- because it means that china has the opportunity to be a

responsible partner. it means that china can be an enormous market for the united states, for korea, for countries throughout asia and around the world. and it's just good to get people out of poverty and give them opportunity. what i've also said is that precisely because of china's success, it's very important that it act in a responsible fashion internationally. and the issue of the rnb is one that is an irritant not just to the united states, but is an irritant to a lot of china's trading partners and those who are competing with china to sell goods around the world. it is undervalued. and china spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep it undervalued. and so what we've said is it's

important for china in a gradual fashion to transition to a market-based system. now, this is something that china has done in the past. and china has also acknowledged that it needs to transition to a more balanced growth strategy internally where they're focusing on their enormous domestic market and giving their people the opportunity to buy goods and services and consume -- all of which will promote their growth, but also will reduce some of the imbalances around the world. and so what this communiqué i think communicates -- not just to china but to all of us -- is letting currencies reflect market fundamentals, allowing your currency to move up and down, depending on the role that you're playing in the international trading system, is the best way to assure that

everybody benefits from trade rather than just some. and the communiqué strongly communicates that principle. my expectation is that china is going to make progress on this issue. president hu is going to be visiting me in washington in january, and our hope and expectation is, is that we will continue to see progress on this front. it means some adjustments for china. and so we understand that this is not solved overnight. but it needs to be dealt with and i'm confident that it can be. sheryl stolberg. oh -- i think that what we will

naturallsee is a whole bunch of talented people rise to the top as they promote good ideas that attract the american people when it comes to jobs and investment and how to grow the economy and how to deal with our challenges. i think speaker pelosi has been an outstanding partner for me. i think harry reid has been a terrific partner in moving some very difficult legislation forward. and i'm looking forward to working with the entire leadership team to connue to make progress on the issues that are important to the american people. sheryl. >> thank you, mr. president. i'm hoping to get you in a little bit of a reflective mode. you spoke in your press conference in d.c. about your relationship with the american people. you said then that it had built slowly, it peaked at this

incredible high, and then during the course of the last two years it had gotten rockier and tougher. and i'm wondering if you think the same could be said of your relations with foreign leaders, who maybe were just a teensy bit falling all over you when you first arrived on the world stage. >> that's not how i remember it. i remember our first g20 you guys writing the exact same stories you're writing now about the exact same issues. don't you remember that, sheryl? [laughter] . .

>>but let's just reflect on this summit. the framework for balanced and sustainable growth is one that we helped to originate. the financial reforms and basel iii are based on ideas that came out of our work and reflect many of the principles that are in dodd-frank. the development document that

was set forward in this communiqué tracks the development ideas that i put forward several weeks ago in terms of how we can encourage not just aid, but also self- sufficiency. the corruption initiative that's reflected in the communiqué was prompted by recommendations and suggestions that we made. so sometimes, i think, naturally there's an instinct to focus on the disagreements, because otherwise, these summits might not be very exciting -- it's just a bunch of world leaders sitting around intervening. and so there's a search for drama. but what's remarkable is that in each of these successive summits we've actually made real progress.

and sometimes the progress -- charting the progress requires you to go back and look at previous summits, starting off with -- let's say, on financial regulatory -- in toronto, we said, here's what we need to do; let's have this ready by the time we get to seoul. it wasn't real sexy back in toronto and nobody really wrote about it, but it actually moved the ball forward in terms of a coordinated response to financial regulation. imf reform is something that the united states has said we need to get done. and in previous summits, we said we're going to find a way to get that done. and lo and behold, here we are at this summit and we've actually achieved what is a huge shift in how power is assigned in these international

financial institutions. so the work that we do here is not always going to seem dramatic. it's not always going to be immediately world-changing. but step by step, what we're doing is building stronger international mechanisms and institutions that will help stabilize the economy, ensure economic growth and reduce some tensions. now, last point i'll make on this: part of the reason that sometimes it seems as if the united states is attracting some dissent is because we're initiating ideas. we're putting them forward. the easiest thing for us to do would be to take a passive role and let things just drift, which wouldn't cause any conflict. but we thought it was important

for us to put forward more structure to this idea of balanced and sustained growth. and some countries pushed back. they were concerned about what might this -- is this somehow going to lock us in to having to change our growth patterns or our trade policies or what have you. and that resistance is natural. it arises out of the fact that the u.s. is showing leadership and we are pushing to try to bring about changes. >> -- leaders and if you had noticed any change during your time in office -- >> and i guess what i'm saying is, is that i actually think that my relationships have grown much stronger with the people who i've worked with here.

when i first came into office, people might have been interested in more photo ops because there had been a lot of hoopla surrounding my election. but i now have a genuine friendship with prime minister singh of india and i think that he and i share a level of understanding and interest in working together that didn't exist when i first came onto the scene. i think the same is true for chancellor merkel; the same is true for prime minister erdogan; the same is true for president lee. that doesn't mean that there aren't going to be differences, but -- the same is true for my relationship with president hu. it wasn't any easier to talk about currency when i had just

been elected and my poll numbers were at 65 percent than it is now. it was hard then and it's hard now. because this involves the interests of countries and not all of these are going to be resolved easily. and it's not just a function of personal charm. it's a function of countries' interests and seeing if we can work through to align them. all right. savannah guthrie. >> a quick follow-up. some are interpreting your senior advisor david axelrod's comments to a newspaper back home that your compromise position is to temporarily extend the bush tax cuts. is that the wrong interpretation? >> that is the wrong interpretation because i haven't had a conversation with republican and democratic leaders. here's the right interpretation. i want to make sure that taxes don't go up for middle-class

families starting on january 1st. that's my number-one priority -- for those families and for our economy. i also believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high- income tax cuts. i think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our republican friends saying that their number-one priority is making sure that we deal with our debt and our deficit. so there may be a whole host of ways to compromise around those issues. i'm not going to negotiate here in seoul on those issues. but i've made very clear what my priorities are. >> oh, sorry, that was actually my quick follow-up -- >> oh, i see. [laughter]

>> -- but this leads me right to my real question, which is, speaking of fiscal responsibility, given the fact that the bulk of the expense of extending the tax cuts to the middle class would be trillions of dollars, in the interest of telling the truth to the american people, can we afford that? thank you. >> well, the middle class in the united states saw their real wages go down 5 percent over the period of 2001 to 2009, at the same time as all their costs were going up. and so giving them permanent relief is good for those families. i also believe strongly it is good for our economy right now, at a time when we are still in recovery. the costs are significant and we are going to have to have a discussion about over the medium and long term how do we match up our spending with our revenues -- because right now they are way out of balance.

that's why we have a deficit. that's why we have a debt. and it is our responsibility to the next generation to make sure that that gets solved. i don't start thinking on the revenue side. i start thinking on the spending side -- where can we potentially save money? i'm looking forward to getting the official bowles-simpson recommendations. i'm going to study those carefully, consult widely, and see what we can do on the spending side that will have an impact. and then we've got to see how much of a shortfall do we have. and then we're going to have to have a debate, which will probably be a tough debate and has to be an honest debate with

the american people about how do we pay for those things that we think are really important. i think it is really important for us to invest in research and development because that's going to be the key to innovation and our long-term economic success. but we've got to figure out how to pay for that. i think it's really important to invest in our education system. that's going to be a key to our long-term economic growth and competitiveness. how are we going to pay to make sure that young people can go to college? i think it's important to make sure that social security and medicare are there not just for this generation but for the next. how do we make that sustainable? so that's going to be a series of tough conversations. what i know is that if we're spending $700 billion -- if we're borrowing $700 billion to pay for tax breaks for folks like me who don't need them and where i'm least likely to spend that money and circulate it in the economy, that's probably not a great approach. but, again, i know that the

other side feels very strongly about it and i'm willing to have a tough, hard-headed discussion with democratic and republican leaders about that issue. chip reid. >> thank you, mr. president. i know it's not your habit to comment on fed decisions, but there's been quite a bit of reporting, if you believe it, and i'm sure you do, that there's quite a bit of unhappiness among g20 countries over that decision. and i'm not asking you to comment on the decision. but did you get an earful from other leaders here on the fed decision? could you share with us what some of them said? and if you're not willing to delve too deeply into that, what was the number-one complaint, concern, or piece of advice that you got from foreign leaders about the u.s. economy and your stewardship of the economy? >> what about compliments?

you didn't put that in the list. there was only complaints, concerns, or -- [laughter] you know, there was not a lot of discussion about the fed decision in the leaders' meetings. i think a couple of times there were some veiled references to monetary policy that may have effect on other countries. but it wasn't central to any of the discussions that we had. i know that on the margins, there was a lot of discussion -- and in the press, there was a huge amount of discussion about it. but i have to tell you that wasn't part of the discussion that we had inside the leaders' meetings. most of the discussion had to do with how do we translate this idea of rebalancing into concrete steps. and the communiqué accurately reflects the consensus. it's puzzling to me that the reporting is all talking about conflict when the communiqué

actually reflects a hard-won consensus that the world's 20 largest economies signed up for and that gives us some mechanisms to start monitoring, looking at indicators, seeing how countries are doing on this front. it doesn't provide an enforcement mechanism that says to korea or the united states or germany obrazil you have to do something, but it does give the international community the ability to monitor and see exactly what countries are doing, and to see if the policies they're pursuing are fair to their trading partners. and if they're not, then it gives a mechanism to apply at least some peer pressure on those countries to start doing something about it.

i think when people talk to me about the u.s. economy, their main concern is, is it growing fast enough. because a lot of countries, including south korea, depend a lot on exports and the u.s. is the world's largest market. they want to see us grow. they want unemployment to go down in the united states. and so i think they're very interested in what are additional strategies that can be used to encourage take-off in the u.s. economy. and i described to them some of the steps that we're taking and that we're going to be continuing to take in order to make that happen. i guess the last point i would just make about the fed decision, when i am asked about

it my simple point is to say that, from everything i can see, this decision was not one designed to have an impact on the currency, on the dollar. it was designed to grow the economy. and there's some legitimate concern that we've had very low inflation, that a huge danger in the united states is deflation, and that we have to be mindful of those dangers going forward because that wouldn't be good for the united states or for the rest of the world. beyond that, that's just an observation about what i think the intent was. last question -- scott horsley. >> one of your top advisors said this morning that the challenges facing the g20 now are much more manageable than they were at the height of the

crisis. how does that affect the dynamic? is there some taking the eye off the ball among your fellow leaders? >> i think what it means is that in the absence of crisis people probably are willing to hunker down a little bit more on some of the negotiations. speed seems less of the essence, and so people think, well, if it doesn't get solved now maybe we can put this off for another day. what's remarkable to me, though,

is despite some of those impulses we're still getting stuff done. and as i emphasized before, we should not anticipate that every time countries come together that we are doing some revolutionary thing. instead of hitting home runs, sometimes we're going to hit singles. but they're really important singles. and i just listed some of these out. imf reform -- this is something that folks have been talking about for a decade or more. it's gotten done. financial regulatory reform -- huge lift -- that we talked about in my first g20 summit, it is now coming to fruition. we've still got some more work to do but we've made enormous progress in a huge -- really short period of time. basel ii i think took a decade to negotiate; we got this done

basically in a year and a half. the development agenda that's been put forward will make a difference. this rebalancing is still a work in progress, but everybody is on record now saying surplus countries and deficit countries both have to be mindful of their policies and think about the adjustments that they need so that we can sustain economic growth and keep our borders open to goods and services over the long term. so those are all positives, and i think that's an indication of the seriousness with which people take these meetings -- even if, as i said, it's not always going to be revolutionary progress but sometimes evolutionary progress. i feel obliged to take maybe one question from the korean press -- since you guys have been such excellent hosts. anybody? this gentleman right here -- he's got his hand up. he's the only one who took me up on it. go ahead. and i'll probably need a translation, though, if you're

asking the question in korean. in fact, i definitely will need a translation. [laughter] >> unfortunately, i hate to disappoint you, president obama, i'm actually chinese. [laughter] >> well, it's wonderful to see you. >> but i think i get to represent the entire asia. >> absolutely. >> we're one family here in this part of the world. >> well, your english is better than my mandarin also. [laughter] but -- now, in fairness, though, i did say that i was going to let the korean press ask a question. so i think that you held up your hand anyway.

>> how about will my korean friends allow me to ask a question on your behalf? yes or no? >> well, it depends on whether there's a korean reporter who would rather have the question. no, no takers? >> [inaudible] >> this is getting more complicated than i expected. [laughter] >> take quick, one question from an asian, president obama. >> well, the -- as i said, i was going to -- go ahead and ask your question, but i want to make sure that the korean press gets a question as well. >> okay. my question is very simple. you mentioned interpretation. i know part of the difficulty being the american president is that some of the decisions that you take, actions you make will be interpreted in a way that are not what you thought they would be or what you meant they would be. for instance, some of the actions you've taken were interpreted as anti-business, domestically, in the united states. and as someone just mentioned, some of the actions taken by the u.s. government that you represent as well were interpreted as sacrificing other countries' interests for america's own benefit. so you find yourself constantly being interpreted in a thousand different ways. how do you address these interpretations? >> with a wonderful press conference like this that give me the opportunity hopefully to provide my own interpretation. but, look, you make a valid point. we live in a connected world. everything i say, everything my administration does, anything one of my aides does is

interpreted in one fashion or another. in america we call it spin. and there's a spin cycle that is going on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. and i think that in this media environment, it is in some ways more challenging to make sure that your message and your intentions are getting out in a consistent basis. but i think that if i'm consistent with my actions and i'm consistent with my goals, then over time hopefully people look at my overall trajectory and they can draw accurate conclusions about what we're trying to do.

with respect to business, for example, we've had in the united states some battles between myself and some in the business community around issues like financial regulation or health care. at the same time, i've said repeatedly and i said on this trip, we can't succeed unless american businesses succeed. and i'm going to do everything i can to promote their ability to grow and prosper and to sell their goods both in the united states and abroad. and the fact that the economy is now growing and trade is expanding and the stock market is up i think is an indication that i mean what i say. and hopefully by the end of my administration businesses will look back and say, you know what, actually the guy was pretty good for business -- even if at any given point in the road they may be frustrated.

so -- all right, now i'm stuck with this last one but i think i've got to go fly a plane. >> [inaudible] >> right. >> what led your administration to decide to try and extract further concessions from korea on imports of american beef? and did you miscalculate the extent that this appears to be non-negotiable here in korea? do you really think you can convince people living in korea to buy more american beef? >> well, first of all, beef was not the only issue that was of concern. in fact, a larger concern had to do with autos. and the concern is very simple. we have about 400,000 korean autos in the united states and a few thousand american cars here in korea. and people are concerned about whether the standards, the non-

tariff barriers with respect to autos is something that is preventing us from being able to compete with very good products. now, i think that we can find a sweet spot that works both for korea and the united states. but i repeat, i'm not interested in trade agreements just for the sake of trade agreements. i want trade agreements that

from south korea, president obama travel to japan for the economic cooperation meetings. he returns to washington on sunday. continuing coverage on the president's trip on c-span that works. >> now, we continue with a conversation. from today's washington journal, this is about 45 minutes. continues. host: let me introduce you to bryce. over the years, he was a consultant to the office of trade commission. he worked at the senate government affairs committee and was a co-ftor for the presidential affairs commission.

i want to show you what i am describing as tough headlines today. what are your thoughts about what happened in asia. >> i want to be careful here. we still haven't seen the g-20 statement. this is quite preliminary. i think, you have to move this out. the set of reasons, the times headline about economic views being rected.

in terms of korea fta -- guest: free trade agreement signed in 2007 under president bush. what seems to have happened is that this is the first trade agreement, if you will that the president has put his own personal stomp on. he said he wanted it done to get a personal involvement. possibly because of distractions

they really haven't gotten to serious notiations until after november. i also would have to say that the administration was wrong they tried to amend it and change it. it become too late. host: we don't have a lot of time but let me take each one separately. we'll put the phone numbers on the screen.

when you look at the papers, many of the labor unions are happy that the president did not forward. give us some context about this. guest: labor, for over a decade, this goes back to issues with president clinton. the korean agreement is part of a line of agreements that they have opposed. we can talk about specifics of the korean agreement, whether it is the correa agreement or the central american free trade agreement specifics of the agreement, whatever. in terms of the commissions you mentioned. the point you made is correct

particularly automobiles. the other thing to keep in mind is that the europeans, particularly the car deal. they have signed a free trade agreement, which it wipes out the tar i haves. what the koreans got is what we really wanted. the standards in korea have been hurting us and other international scar makers. if we don't sign this agreement, we'll be in even worst difficulty because automobile manufacturers are doing quite well and will have a real leg up on that. on these, it's a question of the whole health issue and the barriers related to the health

of these coming in. koreans have backed up a great deal on that so really the beef associations, cattle are not real unhappy. they would like to have a total opening but what they have gotten really allows them to exporter a great deal. those are not major issues. i just thin the administration, we don't know enough yet about these last couple of days but they had a good deal. the president seemed to be saying he couldn't get the deal to change without ngress. republicans have been in favor of this for three years it pushed the presidento do it. the situation with the president is always a lot better. you could always get enough for

democratic senators to go along. >> on l this, corng from south korea with the president has a new piece and headline with the failure, a lost opportunity for obama. here is what she writes. mr. obama will have to deal with a democratic senate and hostile of working with him and skeptic al of trade deals. guest: neither i or anybody right now kno the position of the tea party candidates. it remains to be seen, there are

a number of committees that have not found an anti-trade stance. secondly, as i said before, you have had for the last decade under bush who they didn't like maybe, democrats have had an anti-trade stance. there have been enough democrats in the house to go along to pass the bill. >> i'll take some calls and get our viewers invved in this and come back f more. the big back drop for all the nations in this. and also u.s. china trade. >> good morning, josh. good morning. thank you for c-span and taking my call. i have one major point.

i'm not sure but i believe personally that trade and currency are just the underlying issues. there have been several things going on that are at work here. there is a subtle w that they tie together all of these in an underlying st. it's all the central bankers that have poluted the system. they think that they can show off -- well, we are not going to have it anymore. we are the ones funding them. it's hard to see that they have gone on. i'm wandering your comments on

that. thank you for taking my call. guest: despite that all banks get a bad wrap these days. most economists would agree that central banks perform a key function, particularly those that are independent and can step back and take a look at the overall administration, whether you talk about the european centrabank, the bank in japan or federal reserve. one can disagree with this or that policy. to get to something you are getting at more specifically. without getting into the arguments back and forth about the virtues and deficit of what the federal reserve did last week. it is true to pump overtime over

$600 billion certainly under cut the president's trip to this degree. you have bankers not just in asia but in europe, particularly the germans that argue that the united states cannot cricize the chinese when the affect of what bernanke and the federal reserve did ultimately to lower the value of the u.s. dollar. this is not their major gl but we were willing to accept a lower dollar so what you did domestically had a big affect and badly under cut one of the

reasons for the "new york times" of how obama's world economic views were ejected on the stage. >> the comments were from global leaders. the decision to call the easing. first in getting with the brazil president elect who sd the last time there was andy valuation of currency, it wenteded up in a world war.

host: when you hear that, what are you hearing? guest: one of the things you are hearing is cheap shots. most of the people quoted there are fairly sophisticated there. they have a point the president in a more informal way was that ultimately the goal is to jump start or push forward greater

growth while the short term affects may be to lower the value of the dollar the lonr term affects will benefit the economy and actually help these countries. i think -- i feel for him he says we are in favor of a strong balance. it looks fairly foolish with what the fed has done. guest: good morning as far as

free trade, we have been doing this since pearl harbor. half of the people coming in dwsh the money coming in is from other countries because they are helping us get out of debt. wh is it that we can't charge them just like they charge us i used to work for chrysler. all of our parts was coming from japan anyway. we would take their packaging and put it in our packaging and say it is ours. i feel like the government is doing the same thing we need to charge these people like they

are charging us. at some point now that everybody is hurting, now the world is seeing it. what are we really going to do about this trade? or is it going to be the same charge decades after decades guest: what has happened with the world trading system is not just the world war. other nations had high charges in the terms that you use.

those have gone through the developing companies coming down dramatical dramatical dramatically manufactured goods. our trade in relation to the united states and europe and japan and china to cover that the government deficit. if you don't save enough at home to pay for what you consume, somebody else will do it for you. that's all the trade balance is. the place to look for changes and the fact that we have a trade deficit or current account

deficit is at home. we are talking trade deficit. what happens this week with a debt commission. central to what will ultimately happen in a trade balance down the road all the pieces and parts recommended and where we ought to be looking in terms of competitiveness to compete with others. we are talking china and currency. host: this viewer writes,

>> i've been clear since i came into office that we welcome china's rise. we think china has grown and lifted millions up out of poverty. that is good for the world and america china has a responsibility to be a partner and countries around the world. it's good to get people out of poverty and get them an opportunity because of china's success, that they act

responsiblily. the issue is one not just to the united states. selling goods around the world. it's under valu. china spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep i under valued. what we have said is it is important for china in a gradual fashn to transition to a market based system. rising to china and the united

stat trying to pushhis off. i'd like to see this pushing harder i hope that will continue. they have a very good case about chinese intervention. we can argue about the degree to which this is way under valued. the problem is that it goes back to why the germans intervene in this. again, the action of the federal reserve which smed to actually mirror many who are not economists, really under cut the president. the germans have a different

view of how one gets outf the world crisis. the german's think you are to really slash the budget and not pump up the economy at least administration thinks by and large. the comment is just an argument there that the united states thinks that the way they are doing things are right and the way we are doing things is not the way to go. you add into that the whole china currency business at least nobody was going to directly accuse anybody of anything then

you get to the situation there to allow otherso come in. we haven't seen the statement they have one on a temporary basis. host: back to the phone on the democrat li. guest: thank you. spring of 2001, we had a surplus as far as the eye could see. free trade is zero. understand what the zero means my question is, what happens to the u.s. economy if the

republicans repeal . do you think the president is smar enough to read and understand guest: i do believe se smart enough. is a very smart man and rational man. whether one agrees or disagrees with him. he is mpetent. having said that, there is a foot note here. when one looks back with the lead up to this break down of the negotiati with the free agreement. inco tense seems to be a part of it. a lot of this will let go until

too late. as i said before. this is one case where the president has his own stomp on something. it's bound to be a blow to him personally. going back to the first questions you talked about. the key is to go back, you mentioned in 2001. the move really toward rebalancing at home. we did not have a trade balance of zero. we were still on deficit. we were on the way to a rebalancing of our internional transaction. what has happened to the bush administration and the internal budget and now continuing in the obama administration. creating the external imbalances. the key to this, while very easy

in to blame trade policy for a lack of competitiveness. the key to the change is internally. the fault there lies in ourselves you it is when we do here. .

caller: i came in here in the mid-1980 when general motors was still here, when manufacturing was still here. companies employed 20,000 to 30,000 people and they just disappeared, i mean, just gone. this was with policies that were created in washington with nafta, created by the repuicans and signed by a democratic president. we have got to get back to taking care of the american people, taking care of all of them. host: thanks, darren. guest: i do not agree that it was trade agreements that cause

the problems in detroit, or in any other industry in any other states. trade can have a negative affect, but in this case, if you look at what has happened in the last 30 to 40 years, much more than anything else it has been corporate mistakes and an alliance of unions, and corporate -- an alliance of unions and corporate leaders, which made the industry and competitive with the rest of the world. i agree that it is time to look to -- maybe i would not use your phrase, but you do not do that by closing off the a u.s. economy to international trade. we had it apparently wide open under president clinton, just to take a democratic administration.

but through a whole decade we treated tens of millions of jobs, much more than other countrs who had csed borders and less free trade. i do not think that is the place to go. i keep coming back to the fact that we can debate the particulars of changes in domestic policy, but that is where we have got to start. whether is changing our tax structure or changing the education system, or changing the balance of our budget as t debt commissioner has done, that is where we ought to look. trade is important. as a matter of fact, it was president obama who has been skeptical of trade before, who has in the last year put forward a u.s. export initiative. he wants to double efforts. andpoint is he understands

that trade is important. it is unfortunate that he allowed the free trade agreement with korea, the most important trade agreement that we signed -- at least, for the moment -- to go down. host: here is a headline, "oma's eckman view is rejected on world stage." -- "obama's economic review is rejected on the world stage." and here is a tweet. the next call is as surely, from abilene. caller: there are agencs of the government. this is probably the murky as. the american people, i think, are being sold a bill of goods. we have 14 acting trade agreement, i believe, and we ha trade deficits with every one of them. the people that word -- that we

are in these agreements with have no compunction when it comes to putting terrorist of -- tariffs on us. it seems the sinister to the american people, that we are getting our country of industry. -- putting our country of the instry. guing oure are bettin country of industry. i do not think we know who the american enterprise institute is. we do not know who is negotiating these terrorists. all we see it -- these tarriffs. all we see is the homogenizg of our country and there is an assault -- there is no end in sight.

host: we have your point. thanks. from abilene tx. let'look at the current members in the difference between u.s. and china exports. the 2010 numbers from th u.s. census bureau, and this is just through september. mr. barfield? guest: a couple of things. as i said before, and i'm sorry to repeat myself again, the u.s. balance with china or any other cotry or group of countries is based upon internal economic policies that we have. in other words, we are not saving enough to cover investments and consumption. inevitably, we will then import people who will pay this for us. if it is not china, it would be someone else.

the deficit or surplus of the country does not have a lot of economic meaning in the overall span of things. given the fact that we will have to get it from somewhere, if we do not get it from china, then it would more likely be singapore, malaysia, taiwan, korea. that is the key there. that is not to say that the chinese have not taken actions that impede exports to them. all nations, including the united states. but i would like to go back to the point the caller made about columbia. -- columbia. this has been true with number of our free trade agreements. and i think it is certainly true with korea, that we have talked about. colombia, we have already left

everything for them to be free. columbia is a developing country. colombia is a developing economy. we are working to open up their economy more to our economy. presidents, both republican and democratic, have lowered our terrorists for them. it goes back to somehow it is -- tariffs to our terrorist them. it goes back to these trade agreements. yes, in the earlier part of the 20th century were moving to be part of these different and particular sectors, but much of that is local. let's look at, say, textiles.

if you were in massachusetts you would have thought, it is terrible that they moved it to the south. or other areas within the united states. the key is to keep the u.s. competitive through policies, sensible economic policies and education policies and other return policies that allow our men and women to compete effectively. host: one of the places, perhaps unexpected, that mr. bernanke is getting criticism is from the former fed chief, mr. greenspan. he said this recently --

the "financial times" today said -- and that we will never weekend our economy to grow do you believe that? guest: i believe that, but the statement compounds mr. geithner's problem. you have disagreements within the federal reserve. yet disagreement in t federal government. and then mr. greenspan comes in and says flat out that we are innovating to lower the value of the dollar. you can understand why obama and geithner are in great difficulty when they try to defend this. geithner is correct in this sense, the u.s. -- and the other complication is that geithner is defending something from an

independent agency, the federal reserve. he is not the person who took this action. but he is arguing that the reason the fed took this action was not to deliberately undercut the dollar so that we would be -- so that we could compete more effectively with other nations, but to grow the u.s. economy. and over the medium term and the longer-term, if it is successful, the u.s. will grow faster. that means it will actually consume and produce more. that will help not just the u.s. citizens, but other citizens. to that degree, one can disagree that it will actually work, but i think he is right about the motivations of the fed. the problem is, as i said before, this came the week before the g-20 where we were tually making a big deal -- and by the way, it has been said that the chinese were a response will in -- were irresponsible

in the way they handled it. we were trying to focus on china, and suddenly we seemed to be doing the same thing the chese did. that is not correct, actually. if you look at it technically, it has left us very vulnerable. one of the rsons behind the "new york times" headline saying that it was rejected. the "new york times" is not a newspaper that has been negative. it has been quite supportive of president obama. host: our next caller on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: i have called in before and i'm so upset about the free trade ises. i have been in business in houston for 30 years and it is as clear as a bell to me what is wrong with our economy. nafta and cafta, with their passage, we immediately started seeing this decline with the american economy.

every successful -- successive trade agreement since then has added to our problem. i think the american public is being lied to. i think that the manufacturing jobs for the tip of the iceberg. i think we are in a race to the bottom and as long as the american work force is going to be put into competition wh third-world labor, the working person in america has absolutely no hop and one thing i find very interesting -- i'm on the internet a lot and i'm always trying to find ways to aggregate free trade and return my tight those words into the internet, what i always get is someone trying to offshore jobs. even the internet is being taken over. when the lady said is sinister, it is. it is malevolent in taking our

country down and you cannot change the american public's mind on this without bringing jobs back to america. guest: a couple of things. let's go back to nafta and subsequent free trade agreements since then. the negotiations of the world trade organation, which brought barriers to u.s. exports down -- after nafta in the 1990's and again under president bush who negotiated other free trade agreements, we created more jobs than any other country. everyone has been involved in the financial crisis, but the financial crisis did not come from trade policies. it came from other financial policies and internal domestic policies, or lack of regulation in the u.s. and both parties could be faulted here. i know it seems as if it might

be a trade issue, but it is not really. the republicans just one house, but they lost a house in 2006 and they lost the presidency. i do not agree with the opinion that was just offered about the effects of trade. but one thing i do agree with is, you know, -- i do not think this is sinister. i think is pretty open. congress has to vote on these things and give the arican public does notgree with it, and if the republicans and democrats who believe in free trade and more trade agreements, if they cannot convince the public, then they will be swept out offfice. i think it will be unfor >> tomorrow on washington

journal, the washington bureau chief looks at the influx of bt partly on the 100 well congress. douglas holtz-eakin discusses the bush era tax cuts. usa today correspondent dennis cauchon talks about employees and political issues. that is why the 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, a forum on the and that of the midterm elections. then, details of a report examining u.s. strategies in iraq and afghanistan. after that, a state by state look at the financial help of the united states. >> booktv this weekend, george w. bush on his memoir "decision points. "he discusses the decisions of

his administration and his personal life live from miami dade college on c-span2. >> now, a review of the results of last week's midterm elections. the politico held this panel at the museum in washington d.c.. this is just over one hour. our postelection analysis. welcome to our c-span audience

carrying u live, and we are also streaming this live on "politico." we're going to keep it up there fothe weekend, so we'll have a big audience today. my name's john hris, i'm the editor in chief of "politico," and i also as we get started want to thank very much our sponsors for this event, the national cable and telecommunications association with "politico," we've done a number of great things with them. they're great partners. thank you very much. [applause] i do think it is the time of year whene should be willing to take a minute and reflect on and thank the people who take risks in the name of american democracy who are willing to put themselves and their reputations out on the line for all the rt of us. i'm talking, of course, about washington political pundits. [laughter] it's not easy trying to analyze

events, make predictions, make sense of the chaos of politics. i know this personally. in 2006 i wrote a book with a friend of mine and a colleague, mark hall person, he's now with time magazine, probably a lot of people in the room know mark. mark and i tried to do a book, it was going to forecast what was going to happen in the 2008 elections from a vantage point of two years out, sort of the insider's guide out politics. the book was called "the way to win. "you can still buy it. [laughter] you've got to look on ebay. anyway, it was good book. there was one problem: in its 400 pages there was one name that did not appear, and that was bara obama. [laughter] so it wasn't, it wasn't 100% rock solid guide to the -- i still think there was a lot of wisdom in that book. [laughter] definitely some things, some

things we missed. my, i've got a favorite quote about the hazards of predictions. it comes from the his story, arthur -- historian, arthur schlessinger jr., obviously, one of the giants of american history. he said the, you know, our record of bogus predictions should, quote, lead us all to acknowledge our profound and chastening frailt and to realize that the possibilities of the future are more various, more diverse than the human mind is is designed to conceive. the future outwits all our certitudes. and there was another quote on the same theme. it was by yogi berra. he said, prediction is hard, especially about the future. [laughter] i look back, so every week on "politico" we do a q&a, a video q&a with these guys, chris

wallace or fox also joins us, could not be here, in this which i press these guys, tell me what's happening. i look back and, you know what? these guys had a much better track record than halpern and i did. everybody makes fun of political pundits and all the rest, but we did pretty damn well this year. i think anybody watching these shows would have had a good sense of what happened, what is happening. and i like to think that's true of our "politico" coverage. so we don't always blow it,nd these guys hardly ever blow it. i want to go and introduce them, and we'll get this conversation going. christiane amanpour, of course, the anchor of this week with chstiane amanpour on abc news. she started this not too long ago. when did you start? >> august 1st. >> of course, news junkies like

us and probably most of the people in this room know her from her career at cnn, just recently joined abc. bob schieffer is cbs' news chief washington correspondent and, of course, the anchor and moderator of "face the ntion." bob has covered washington for more than 30 years, but i know that's not true -- >> 0. >> more than 40 years,ight? you neemore than 30 years to pick up laird stories. [laughter] both bob and i know mel laird, the former defense secretary. he's covered virtually every important beat in washington in that, in those years. candy crowley is cnn's chief political corps responsibility and anchor -- correspondent and anchor. she runs "state of the union" every sunday. she took the reins of that show in february, and in her role as chief political corresponnt she covers a broad range of stories including presidential, congressional and gubernatorial

races. i think we know candy is one of the real workhorses, you are going to see her on airplanes, out on the scene, the authority she brings to the summit. she's -- subject. shs earned that the hard way. i'd say that's true of all the people up here. david gregory is moderator of "meet the press," of course. he's been doing that since december of 2008, obviously, taking over one of the really esteemed chairs in this business from the late tim russert, somebody we all knew and respected and has very much lived up to tim's legacy with that show. in addition to his "meet the press" respondents, he's a regular on the today show and see him often on msnbc. been with nbc since 1995. i thought you were a youngerfy than that,day. >> not anymore. >> time marchs on. okay. i just figured we would open it up with everybody talking a little bit about their shows and flecting back. tell me, what was your biggest

kind of get of the cycle, the really illuminating moment that you said, ah, this is really telling me something i didn't know about politics. david, we'll go on down the line. >> i think in the political context there were two that stand out, when robert gibbs said the house could fall was a ment because it was a bit of truth telling that he wanted to dial back -- >> why was that such a storm, right? this. >> well, because -- >> ray charles could have seen it coming. [laughter] and he said it and gotn a lot of trouble. >> and i think we all like a real moment like that, a real moment of candor. by the way, he didn't say it was going to fall. he said, certainly, it is possible given how competitive these house races are going to be. i think that was interpreted by the likes of nancy pelosi as somehow, you know, tamping down the potential for democratic candidates to rally. so that became a bit of an issue. i think on the other side we had all the campaign chair, and i think it was striking and certainly something that the

president picked up on when you had pete sessions and john cornyn, the republicans, who weren't really in much of a position to talk about, you know, what areas they would actually cut, wha new ground they would break policy wise if they got control again in congress. and i think that was an area that certainly democrats picked up and made people stand up and take notice. >> right. candy, give us a -- >> i mean, i have to give you one that i disliked only because it has a slight story behind it, and it was early on the most visible man around but jim demint, but he was also quiet. and it was hard to get at him and hard -- and so, he one day sort of surprising us said, sure, i'll come on. so we had him scheduled for the show, and i came in -- i usually come in around 5. >> right. >> yeah. which you don't even want to know what time i get up. i'm one of those people who should just stay up. [laughter] so i got there, and somebody said lisa murkowski wants to come on. this was just after she said she

was going to run as a write-in. and i said, well, what do you mean? it turned out that one of her aides showed up at the guard station at cnn at literally 3 in the morning saying can i talk to candy crowley because lisa murkowski is looking for her, would like to come on the air. she's also someone that doesn't go on on sunday all that much. >> or probably not asked that much until recently. >> exactly. exactly. and, you know, what we figured was, look, she knows we're having jim demint who had just excoriated her. she was an appropriator which was a bad thing to be now. and so we had the two of them and just the tension between these two people who allegedly worked together, i thought, td us a lot about the tea party and how that is, how that was fitting into the mainstream where lisa murkowski -- >> will how often do you see that -- how often do you see

that on the show, i'd be curious whoo others think, the behind the scenes moment, hi, good to see you, sort of congeniality behind the scenes with people who have different political perspectives, how often is it obvious they can't stand one another? >> that's hard to hide. [laughter] >> uh-huh. >> it really is. i mean, i think we've all had the experience when you get on and you think, whoa. the tension in this room is a bit much. but they can't hide that generally. >> right. great. bob, what are some of the moments -- >> you know, i wouldn't pickut any particular program. we had a really good, i thought, fall going into the elections. and, you know, one week it would be somebody from one party, and another week it'd be someone from the other party. but i felt we made a decision early on in the summer that we were going to concentrate on nothing but the elections until the election. and i felt like, i felt like we did really well on that.

you're talking about they don't like one another. one of the kind of low points in the year for me that kind of underlined just the partisan divide that we have in this country is at one point when someone one -- from one party, one of his aides called up, and we were having his opposite number on with us and asked if we could he a separate waiting room for his boss because he didn't want to sit in the same room with the person fromhe other party. [laughter] and we told him, sorry, you're just going to have to suck it up. [laughter] we can't put up a tent out in the parking lot, you know? [laughter] but i thought that just sort of summed up where we were in this campaign year. and so while i wouldn call that a highlight -- >> right. >> -- it is one of -- >> that wouldn't have happened 30, 40 years ago. >> oh, no. to me, that's what made it such a telling anecdote.

>> i had an example from the other extreme which is we did a debate with alexei giannoulias, the illinois senate deba, and right before commercial break i had asked giannoulias a number of questions about his tie toss a bank that had loaned money to mobsters, it had been a tough exchange, and then kirk breaking . and we go to break, and kirk turned togiannouliaand said, don't worry, now it's my turn, you know? many that was surprisingly nice, i thought. >> well, john, it's really nice to be here. i would just gently say that i have not yet presumed to be a pundit in washington, i'm new to this, and it has been a really enjoyable learning curve. >> right. >> and i'm, obviously, coming to it ia much more reportorial world and with a great deal of curious and curiosity rather than instant expertise and delivering my prognostications which i'm studiously avoiding sensibly. i would say that my highlight

probably was my rst program when i interviewed nancy pelosi, and i thought that was a really good get and, obviously, i had met her in a different context, but i'd never interviewed her. and i was, obviously, struck as many of you know by her fighting spirit. and that, i wasn't too surprised when it turned out that she decided to fight for the leadership position right now because i think that's what she is, a fighter and be a true believer. one of the other interesting sort of combinations because i'm also doing a little bit more international and trying to put an international layer on policy and politics here, connect america to the world and the world to america. i had a program in which we had th secretary of state hillary clinton and the iranian president ahmadinejad. not that they were sitting together, but the fact was that they werealking about the same things from their separate worlds. incredibly interestingo me. hillary clinton was very determined, very hard line, trying also to straddle the line

of the administration which is engagement while, while staying very strong against iran. and ahmadinejad was as provocative and controversial as he always is. but he did tell me that they were going to go backo the nuclear negotiating talks which they planned to go back to. so i thought that was interesting. i know george will thought it was interesting because he sort of commented as i was on my conversation with him about stoning. if you remember the big controversy over this woman who was going to be stoned in iran. i was asking ahmadinejad about it and pushing him about it, and george will, i could hear him say, well, that's a fist for sunday morn -- first for sunday morning television, stoning. i thought that was good. >> to me, some of t most interesting answers are the ones that are the nonanswers that you keep sort of going back on and back on, and i loved at one point we had steny hoyer on, and i said, so when are you going to start throwing overboard the democrats that aren't going to win.

and he looked at me and said, you don't expect me to answer that, right? this. [laughter] okay. he gets the game, i get the game, and so this is just sort of the fun parts when you keep going and going and think, okay, we kind of got an answer in a nonanswer. >> right. >> john cornyn was interesting when he basically said on our show they weren't going to win the senate this cycle. so that was interesting. >> interesting. truth breaks out. [laughter] >> and as candy says, trying to get the details and trying to get the answers. you know, the election was a lot about the debt, obviously,hat was what the tea party was, deficit reduction, eradicated debt, and it's very, very hard to get a real answer about where the cuts are goingo be before this commission which is advisory, but it was very hard. so i spent practically a whole program last week trying to press them on that. >> i talked to somebody who's been in a previous white house, the clinton white house where the circumstances in 1994, there are someimilarities, some differences between the circumstances that barack obama

and his team face now in 2010. and president obama called the election results a shelacking, but this person said it's more like a death. and people in politics have to go through the stranges of grief, you know, first you have denial, then you have rage, and only over time do you have acptance, and in politics, unlike death, you do get a second chance. there's the sort of clarity about what action needs to be taken going forward for a recovery. where do y guys think of obama ite house is in the stagesf grief? are they still in denial? rage? acceptance? what do you think, dave? >> i think -- [inaudible] is where they are, and it's only getting worse. you know, this was not the most successful overseas trip that any president has taken. m. >> right. >> i mean, they went and thought

at the very least they were going to get some sort of agreement with trade on south korea, and that apparently has gone by the by. they're in a ge fight with germany -- >> just a historical note, november's always a pretty big travel month for white houses because they have various summits and often a peck is scheduled right around this time -- apec. i can remember the first president bush taking an awful trip after a bad election in '91, remember dick thornburg, clinton took this terrible death march after '94. >> well, and nixon, going back to nixon, you know, went off on those trips because he couldn't go anywhere. [laughter] >> right. >> but you're right, it is a tradition. but i think, i think the white house and i think the republicans to some extent are both in this just kind of holding patterns right now would be the kindest way to discover it. because republican leadership has got to figure out what to do and how to deal with the new

people who have come to their party. and the democrats, obviously, in totality array in the house -- total disarray in the house where they have this unexpected fight over the leadership. so i think until the two sides work out their internal problems, i don't think you can make any kind of prediction about what's going to come after it. but i think the fact of the matter the democratic party in washington is now going to be more liberal, and the republican party is going to be more conservative. so i think the partisan divide -- >> and you have a disappointed left, a disaffected middle and a resurgent right. and if you put all that together, it's a very difficult place for the president to be. you talk about bill clinton, i mean, what his calling card was and the reason why he's so well thought of now as a political figure is pause he was the guy -- because he was the guy, the head of the democratic party, who balanced the budget. president obama is the guy who has, you know, returned or restored the era of big

government at a time when a lot of people think the government is out of control. and is not responsive to what the economy actually needs. he's failed to win that argument that goverent is actually vital and part of the solution, not part of the problem. so that's where he's lost that middle of the country. and then, you know, whether it's the economy or whether it's the don't ask, don't tell policy, you've got the left that still wants a lot more from him. >> somewhere, i mean, as far as the republican party is concerne it seems to me that the leadership on capitol hill is is right now in their post election co-oping. i think, you know, they see they want to have this freshman position, they would really like christy nome from south dakota to go in that because sh had some tea party backing. i think all of this talk about health care reform, yes, i think they're trying to bring the aboves into it, kind of stop the funding. but the fact of the matter is they know very well they can't real health care reform. they don't have the votes for it

to override the veto, they don't have the votes in the senate, and they know they can't spend two years trying to repeal health care reform, so i think they're trying to play to that tea party side. i think as far as the president's concerned, one of the reasons -- and i think the main reason nancy peloswho was, at first, a little bit reluctant to take on this minority position was, in fact, urged by a lot of people to do it. and one of them said, you know, it's not that we're afraid of john boehner, we're worried about the president. >> right. >> you know, we're worried he's going to, you know, saw off the branch here, and she's the one that can, that can go at him and kind of hold the line. so i think, you know, the president's stuck in the middle -- >> so interest ising. in other words, don't try to pull a dick morris from the '90s. don't try to leave us out there. >> right. >> while you worry aboutour re-election. >> exactly. >> if so, you'll have her to answer to. interesting. >> somewhat counterintuitively, obviously, the narrative is that the republicans have won, and

it's a complete shift in the balance of power, and that possibly is what itis, but i was just reading this one article, and the quote by the alabama republican spencer bachus who said you think republicans are in charge in washington, you can wipe that thought from your mind. democrats are in control of the presidency and the sete, it would take 67 votes to override any veto. to what you're saying, i think that's interesting in terms of, really, what is going to happen in the future and whether it is just a rout by one party of another. and having covered some of the campaigns on the road, i was struck by how people, american voters were really turned off by thextreme partisanship and wanted more than anything their politicians to get together and solve these big solutions. because talking about compromise is not just a sweet little thing that we would like to happen. on the huge issues that face this country and the world, for instan, the deficit, they cannot do it with one party

alone. >> right. >> and it's really -- >> tap into some of your foreign expertise,christiane. a lot of americans like divided government, they don't want just one party to have the wheel. they like some tension in washington. from the perspective of capitals abroad, what do people think? do they worry about divided government, or do they see it as potentially a good thin >> i'm not sure that they look so much, you know, into the anytimety createty of the divided government, but they're certainly watching these results very, very closely. because capitals and people around the world want to know whether this means the united states is going to turn inwards, is there going to be more isolationism than engagement, is there going to beattles over free trade, over protectionism? this what's going to happen with certain treaties that are there in the, you know, ready to be ratified? many people hope the starr

treaty, will he get that through? if his senate doesn't ratify it, how is that going to make him look overseas? and then, of course, the afghan war. that's the highlight. and i think, paradoxally, stronger republican represention may make it easier for him to get -- and certainly for david petraeus -- to get the troops to get the sort o war machine going. although the president is, obviously, wanting to pull that back. it looks like it's going to go on for many more years than 2011. and i think that's going to be something that's very interesting. and you've heard the tea party candidates talk -- well, the most prominent ones, certainly, sarah palin and christine o'donnell who failed, talk about afghanistan in if very broad terms. i think people abroad are looking at the big unknown which is the insurgency in the tea party and how that is going to effect not just domestic policy

but foreign policy as well. >> some of my favorite imimagines from the campaign -- images from the campaign involve candidates almost like they're olympic runners making a mad dash for their car while the hapless reporters are chasing after them. and, bob, christine o'donnell, i believe, canceled an appearance on "face the nation" at the last moment. david, i believe that rand paul canceled on "meet the press "in may. virtually every local reporter in many of the states with contested races has stories of candidates just kind of shutting down. what do you guys make of this effort to try to escape press scrutiny? i mean, gosh, canceling on face the nation or meet the press is

unpatriotic. this is about unity and coming together. [laughter] >> look, they've obviously got a strategy about avoiding, you know, certain platforms where they're going to be held accountable in a certain way. and they know that. i think in the case of, you know, sharron angle, i think a candidate who says i'm not going to ansr questions until i'm elected is a joke, and they should be treated that way by the voters. i mean, if you can't take tough questions and you want to be a united states senator? you've got a problem. now, you don't have to love the press, by the way. you don't have to love our programs or us or all the rest. you should be able to take questions and be held account and not try to narrow cast your way to high office. and i think that sort of works itself out if you look at some of the results. you know, rand paul, i think, made an unfortunate decision, but he's, you know, he put

himself out there elsewhere in the campaign and will continue to, i assume. >> well, i hope that doesn't become a habit with rand paul because he's going to be on "face the nation" nday. [laughter] >> bob, i'm willing -- if he cancs, i'm willing -- >> i'll call you. [laughter] i mean, christine o'donnell, i think that the people, what adviser she had appeared she would simply make a fool of herself, and so they canceled her, or e canceled, and i don't think it's any more complicated than that. >> i think you're both absolutely right, but i think it's, it's -- it was, you know, they brought these untested candidates because they knew that, you know, they wanted some energy and that they wanted to put these candidates out. but it was, obviously, a deliberate strategy of not talking to the press. it was partly because they didn't want to, you know, expose themselves as you say. but so because they were not able to answer, you know, all of the big questions that were out there.

and as dade says, you know, in the -- david says, you know, the voters spoke, and that cost the republicans the senate. basically cost them the senate. >> christine o'donnell was a fluke. i mean, nobody expected her to win that. after she wothere were not very many people glad that she had won. and had she not won, it would have been much better for the republicans because mike cassel would have won that seat. >> it wasn't a fluke because we had tom ross on, the chairman of the republican party in delaware. he said mike stle was meant to win until external tea party support and forces came in and put her money wise and publicity wise and support wise over the top. >> are well, christine, a very small number of people turned out to vote, and no one expected, i mean, no one -- >> in the primary? >> yes, in the primary.

>> she won it. >> so i would just stick with it, it was a fluke. [laughter] >> candy. >> there's no legal requirement that they show up on national tv to do anything. that's certainly their right. and i think that for all those reasons that the guys have stated, they don't. they do have local press, and they have sort of talked to the local press which are much more important, as we know, in state races. it's much more important to talk to your big state newspaper or your big state tv station which they doesn't always do -- didn't always do. i think, tually, what's more troubling is, first of all, there are outlets these people can go to that are friendlier, and they can get their message out there in so many ways. they can just have a web site and pump stuff out, and they can go around and over the heads -- >> do you think that's sarah palin's strategy? >> sure, yeah. >> what strategy? >> you know, i think the other thing that's more troubling is a lot of them didn't do town hall

meetings, a lot of them wouldn't tell you what their schedule was. and why? because they're a little bit afraid of the public because every timeou turn on the tv particularly last summer, summer before were all these angry people, and politicians never look good when they're around angry people. and i think they sort of backed up. it's not just that they're not accessible to us sometimes, it's that they're not accessible to their ters. >> i think, in this my view and you guys feel free to object to it, that one reason we see our politics being so unstable with the republicans taking control and democrats taking control, and now we have a reverse of that is that the middle of american politics, the broad middle is frustrated in what they -- and what they most wnt out of washington is people to not throw away principles, but not approach everything through the perspective of iology. they want people to be mature,

sensible and focused on solving problems. and yet the incentives of our political system, bunch of different incentives, push people to the extremes of right or left. and so the middle is chronically ssatisfied. and there's a paradox what they want most, they get least out of washington. i'd be curious anybody's thinking on that, but answer it, please, in the context of are people going to get anything like governance over the next couple of years? and to put some historical context on it, newt gingrich and bill clinton fought, but ultimately they did pass welfare reform, they did pass a balanced budget. it's not clear to me what the dynamics are over the next couple of years. is it all conflict? is there room for compromise? >> i just think the calendars compress so that room for consensus is, perhaps, a little smaller. you also have the principles involved and whether they can restore some trust where there's been virtually none to get some

things done. they're the political -- do they have a grasp of the political theater in the way that the gingrich and clinton did, but i think the ground is there and i think the momentum is there r something on the budget and cutting spending and trying to restore some trust in washington. but i'd make two other points which is i think the disaffection of the middle is aggravated by the fact that people just lost faith in big institutions whether it's wall street or government or media. so that, that compounds the problem. the second thing is that the american people are not always consistent on these points. they say they want certain things, and a candidate stands up and says, you know, we've got to raise the retirement age on social security. whoa, whoa, whoa, we weren't talking about that adult of a conversation. [laughter] so that's kind of a mixed message. you can still be punished yearly as a politician for going into some of these areas. >> you know, the budget commission thaer skin bowles, the -- erskine bowles, the

clinton chief of staff just came out, they made the recommendation to raise social security and also raise the gas tax. my wife was traveling yesterday, and s saw al simpson at the airport, they were standing next to each other in line. they don't know each other but making small talk. she said, well, are you going back to wyoming? he sd, no, i'm going into the witness protection program. [laughter] >> i'm curious to ask just from a perspective abroad, you saw who was going on in france, obviously, battles on the street over raiding the retirement -- raising the retirement age just by two years. do you think, gentlemen and ladies, that they will succeed in raising the retirement age here? >> in the next two years? not a chance. i mean, that's just not going to happen. >> [inaudible] >> no. i think that what happens is they can do stuff around the edges, but i think if you're looking for major reform, change the nation kind of stuff, it's not going to happen in the next two years. i think there's some ground for debt as dade talked about in the budget -- david talked about in the budget.

i think there's ground on trade. i think they have some smolally there. seems to me they'll come, obviously, to some position somewhere on tax cuts. the president seems eager, i think, i mean, we've gotten conflicting signals, but he does seem as though he wants to be seen as compromising with republicans. but in big sort of move it immigration reform, that kind of thing, i think it's going to be smaller piece things. >> i would agree with candy. i think they're going to come to someunderstanding on extending the bush tax cuts with the upper levels extended temporarily or some sort of an arrangement there but, quite frankly, i don't see much else coming together. >> are right. and, bob went on face the face the nation, but here on the c-span audience can see it, please, explain your socks. [laughter] >> well, you know, my football team, tcu, is having a pretty

good year, and i thought i would just go ahead and wear purple socks until we find out how this season turns out. also pulling for alabama to beat auburn. >> some athletes do not change their cks for the entire season, but i assume you've got more than one pair of those. >> i've got several pair. [laughter] >> bob, are you going to dedicate the program if tcu doesn't get a chance to play for the championship, does this become a political question? >> it would be to do away with the hated -- >> right. >> i've already done one piece. [laughter] >> a lot of people would like to do away with that. >> i guess everyone should know, i'm not unbiased about that. [laughter] >> not on that question, no one's asking you. who, candy, are you really looking at for the republican nomination in 2012? i know, of course, we need to take a break from presidential

politics, so maybe not this weekend, but, like, take a break over thanksgiving, how about, like, the first sunday in december? that's enough of a break, then we can get back to presidential politics. who are you going -- who would you want on your show? >> passing up the obvious suspects, mitt romney, etc. -- >> right. >> look, i think you have to look a little bit at thune. i think he's - he's just interesting in and of himself, but he's -- senator thune. i think he's interesting. i know chris christie has said he's not running, but he's so interesting, and, you know, you've had him on. he's just a great get. he's the only politician i've ever seen in my life who actually can take on an audience and actually come out looking better. and, you know, i think you've got to watch marco rubio only because the republicans are so excited about him, and, oh, this is our barack obama, and i don't think in two years they're going to do the same thing that the democrats did with rubio having

two years of experience, but i think he's -- both of those guys are up and comers, and i think they will play a part in the presidential race, if not run. so i think they're interesting to watch. >> uh-huh. >> i think that newt gingrich will announce in january in iowa that he's going to run. and i think he'll be the first one to make the announcement. but beyond that i have no idea. i think it is totally de open. i don't think any republican has emerged and broken up -- do you have a hunch as to whether sarah palin would run? >> my hunch has always been that she wouldn't, but now i'm beginning to second guess myself and wonder if, in fact, she might actually do it. i guess if i were going to bet on it, i bet she wouldn't. >> i've been with bob for a long time, but i, too, am second guessing i do think a lot of that's out the window now and that she's enough of a rock star and doing enough now to position herself.

i think what bob says is very smart about newt gingrich. i'll havehe speaker on on sunday as part of my round table, i'll be spew sure to saw ask him again. [laughter] but i'll credit bob. but i think it's so important, too, which is we're such a different climate now with the republican party that there is nobody who's off the blocks with some sort of clear advantage. there's this very unsettled feel. i think the next year will tell us in terms of how the establishment in congress deals with the tea party. >> by the way, i have a different philosophy on predictions. i think you ve to, they're like stocks. you have to buy and hold, otherwise you can't -- [laughter] >> if you're going to be wrong, be consistently wrong. >> consistently wrong. otherwise, you chase it around and every day looks different. >> i mean, i'm with them o sarah palin -- >> somebody would have lost a lot of money, by the way, betting on my predictions. >> me too. but i thk sarah palin, i mean, i've always thought she wouldn't run, and part of the problem is

that running for president pretty much mirrors what you do to keep your speaking fees up and your books selling. so it's hard to tell what you're watching becausehe theater is the same and the moves are the same. >> go ahead. >> sarah palin because, obviously, the polls say what they do, you know, not many americans think that she's qualified. nonetheless, i remember, you know, being on a program and being asked about her. it was actually a comedy program in 2008 just before the elections, and people asked me about sarah palin, and i said, don't underestimate her. and i got roundly booed by the audience and roundly told that i didn't know anything. and the thing is one shouldn't, obviously, because look where she is today. whether she runs or not may not matter, but whether she has a major influence may be, may be more to look at. and, obviously, she did in this round of midterm elections. and then i think we have to see what the tea party candidates do, as you said, in terms of influencing senate, the house

and all the rest. i mean, rand paul taught us that far from the establishment republicans co-opting them as trent lott said we had to do, no, we are co-opting the republican party. maybe that's bravado and showmanship, but i think that's going to be interesting to she how that plays out. >> david, what do you think? is the tea party going to pull the mainseam of the republican party their direction, or are they going to get subsumed by just the process and the institutional apparatus of washington? this. >> i think it does depend. marco ruin quos' a good example of a candidate who isn't beholden to the tea party. he's got a lot more crossover appeal, and he's not going to have to listen to jim demint, you know, in the senate. i think there's probably a lot of house members who do have to sort of come in under the fold a little bit, won't have enough of a powebase on their own, but i do think they've made the caucus certainly more conservative, and i think independent voters are moving in a more conservative

direction. i think it's less about social issues, more about government war issues. so, yeah, i think they do pull them a little farther to the right, and one thing about palin, just take a look at, you know, working class whites, the ones who voted for hillary clinton and whether a candidate palin would have a shot at those voters. you'd have to say that she might have a good shot. that's part of how she'll look at that landscape. you've got to look at it in a narrower lane and think about her prospects. >> just an observation, if what candy says is true, that her incentives whether she really just wants to make money and sort of be a power brok or whether she wants to actually run for president, if it's true her incentives are the same, that going to freezep the republican field for a while because she's got every reason to leave this question open a tantaling for as lo as possible. now, i want to say something to the audience. we do not have provisions like we did at the last one of these events for you to write down

questions. i'm going to exercise the moderator's prerogative, though, and if people do want to ask questions, they should raise their hand. we'll go back and forth. would like to make sure that it is, in fact, a question rather than -- and crisply made rather than a statement. we should do that and have a little fun with that. do we have something? yes, sir. >> hank -- are we on -- what do you think, what are the prospects for the start treaty in the lame duck ssion? anybody want to take a stab at that? >> ion't think it'll, i don't think it'll come up, frankly. >> yeah. i mean, you know, let's remember the pressing christmas vacaon is coming -- [laughter] and the tax cuts are the big thing and the budget's the big thing. there's just not room for it between now -- >> not to mention if they can move on n't ask, don't tell which gateses and the president wants him do. it's only going to get harder if they put that off until later.

[inaudible] .. >> i do not take it the decides to do it -- >> absolutely. it's not a vanity. >> i'm going to go back and forth with the audience, along

-- would like to ask each of you if you can hink of it, and what it would be, you've got the ultimate booking, i guess probably the ultimate booking would be god or something like that -- [laughter] >> unavailable. >> unavailable. but i presume y'all have requests in and i presume at some point, one of you are all of you will have to -- president obama on the show. what's the question you most want to ask. >> perhaps just off the top of my head, i would ask, you know, where does he want to go and how does he think he's going to recoup? it's the obvious question that everyone wants to know. is he going to triangulate, whatever it is that bill clinton did -- >> it illegal, triangulate? >> it sounds like strange

elation. it's hard, but, you know, what, people are not sure what exactly he stands for. and i think that's a very interesting question. what is it that really motivates him in terms of what he's going to do to regain the upper hand for the next couple of years. and what does that mean to his governance over the next couple of years and how he will stand for the election. >> i think what i would ought to ask them, he seems to feel that all of his problems that he just wasn't a good enough salesman, that is not the product. and i want to talk to a little bit about that. and also about is timing. >> you're skeptical about it sounds lke. >> yes, i am. the republicans say it's about the product, and the democrats say it's about the salesmanship. and can think it's a little of both. i mean, i think basically what the president did wrong, he asked the country to bite off more than they could swallow in one goal. and i would like to talk to him about that. >> having taken the question, i

think it right now, at least if it were to be in the next week or so. i've never met a losing candidate or losing party that didn't say there was a messaging problem. he's not going to come out and say done, i shouldn't have passed that health care reform. he's just not going to do it. he's got to come up with some reason and the reason is a messaging. i think i might move to foreign policy only because there's 50,000 troops still sitting in iraq. whether or not that constitutes a withdrawal, and i would push of a little on the deadline r next june, the time to do that will be after december when the report -- put a report out there. but i think there have been certain signals inside the white house and certainly from the military that perhaps that whole is beginning to draw down, may not works well as they thought it wld even though they reman publicly -- [inaudible] >> the left the democratic party, and does he risk an antiwar candidate running for the nomination, even if it's a

symbolic candidate. >> another question, does he think hillary will run? [laughr] >> i would wonder whether he still believed that the american people want transformational change. i think poi you brought up, john, which has to do with what americans really do want. i think a lot of his election was about people want to put a bit of a governor on president bush's eight years. and yet, government has done, you know, things in terms of anything in the economy, started under bush but continued under obama, has been prettybig. >> in the front row. we'll get you a microphone, just give us a moment. >> i work in immediate in alternative media, to recover critical questions. one, the tea party, are the republican? because have i seen what has

been placed on the ballot as a separate party like the green party or the communist party. is the tea party republican? and the question to all of you in themedia, that i've not heard mentioned at all, the two largest indices that have been built in the world, in iraq and in haiti, i've not heard any of the media in terms of mainstream media talk about those at all. that's a lot of gvernment and money. >> i mean, you know, if you're concerned about the cost of building the embassy in iraq, you should take on the bigger issue of how much we spend on the worst. that's a huge issue. and, frankly, the money that has been spent on the emassy is st frankly a symbol of that, and our commitmentssue going forward in iraq. and has it has been and will be in afghanistan. if you're concerned about that, i think it goes well beyond building. i think the tea party's goal in life is to rehabilitate the

republican party. so yes, they are part f the republican party. >> and they ran as republicans. they ran in the republican primaries. i think one of the things that was a sigh of relief for republicans is that they did not try to run as independents. >> i think it is a pretty valid point, it seems like many of the tea party activist, those people most motivated in this election, care a lot more about their ideological agenda than they do the republican brad. in many cases they seem to me that they were contmptuous, republicans werewashington political professional as they were democratic. >> but they ran as republicans. they ran in the republican primaries and more elected republicans. yes, they want to change -- >> we would rather have people with principled and just any republican. >> thirty-two believers than 60

our inspectors spent we do have a lot of people have their hands up so we will ask questioners and answers to be crisp and we will get more. >> thank you. i question. in the last term we saw a lot of immigration, statesmen taking action because they have us in congress too much. a limited amount of time in a lame duck but i was just to see what your thoughts are and what might happen in the next term related to immigration. >> anybody want to take a crack at that? seems like it's a -- big problems can washington doesn't seem to respond to it. >> i don't think either party wants to go near it right now. there's a lot of incentives for the democratic party to do, and republicans to do. that i think they're both a bit afraid of the bot right now. >> not major reform. you're not going to see that in the next two years. harry reid has promised he will bring up the dream act which is a portion of the. and i think you will see a brought up. >> it's significant for the economy as wellbecause of

parfum all the obvious issues about immigration, america desperately needs a president, the smartest people from abroad, this poor student, the smartest engineers, you know, people that come over here and do what they us to do. a lot of that is caught up in the current sort of impasse, and appearance of being on friendly terms, pele -- >> a young man right here. >> good morning. i'm a freshman at george washington university. in 2008 we saw the emgence with the tea party with the republicans losing the presidency. now we see the democratic party having some sort of division, giving that there's a competition between steny hoyer and jim clyburn. do we expect further division within the democratic party? >> that's a pretty good question, and i