-- did any of the transocean people actually witness a phone call back to shore? >> no. that is what i was saying. he was supposed to be going down to call. the perception of our people seems to be that a phone call was made. >> if it was flown back to shore, that changes the whole decision making process. >> there are discussions we have had. mr. colusa went back to make a call. that is an open issue in our investigation right now. >> bp decided to use for

thousands gallons of displacer in the negative pressure test. circulation materials were still up on the reagan -- rig. is that correct? >> that is correct. that is what we have got in our report. 450 barrels. >> decision was it? >> i cannot remember the specifics of how the decision was made. i suspect that the wellside leader was involved. >> dino if anybody -- do you know if anybody had used the combination of these materials as a spacer before? >> i do not know. >> did your team to an analysis

about whether these materials could be combined? >> we look that what that material would be cave like, yes. >> what was your conclusion? >> we did not make that conclusion. we looked at what the material be paid like when combined. it was resistant and heavy. >> so i think one of your conclusions or hypotheses about why there was zero pressure in the fuel line was perhaps that spacer actually leaked and clogged the line? >> that is correct. the point of our work was, which you outline very clearly this morning, there is conflicting information. we are very interested to understand how could that have happened? one possible scenario was

leakage in the kill line, and the spacer could have done it, yes. >> to you think it was advisable to use the spacer with material that could clog up the line? >> i do not know if it was advisable or not. it was in place a -- with the b.o.p. >> t think it would have helped with the negative pressure test or been good practice to have flushed out all that spacer before continuing bond negative pressure test? >> i can agree with that, yes. >> mr. ambrose, what is your view?

anybody at transocean utilize this material for spacer before? >> in general use, i do not know. we did not look companywide. >> is any policy in place that would have required the transition -- transocean crew to circulate it out? to make sure they could get a good baseline for the negative pressure test? >> i cannot think there is a policy for that, no. >> do you think it would be advisable, a somewhat now? >> if you look at the first test on the drill pipe, whether there was space or not in the annulus, it was not really a factor for conducting the test, so long as the annular has been

closed. when you look at the switch to the kill line, mid-plan there, that assumption that the spacer may not have been a factor was overlooked. that might have caused the kiln line to be -- kill line to be over-balanced. >> mr. bly, what was the decision making process within bp to use this spacer? was there a rigorous vetting process? >> i am sorry. i simply cannot remember the details to your question. i will come back to you on that.

>> ok, is that change the subject to a rigorous process by bp? >> not necessarily. i think that is the type of decision where there are be pretty reasonable basis for the people on the rig to make a judgment and say, "we need a spacer." that material is of reprieve for a spacer. let's get it checked with the i.t. people. i think that would be within the bounds of what you would expect people on the raid to be able to make. i cannot see that as the decision that necessarily would have given you to a formalized process. >> to be fair, engineers made the decision, did check with the engineers in charge, right? >> i remember from our work,

there was a discussion. it was not a thoughtless act. they thought about it. >> mr. ambrose, i want to ask thomas question about the spacer. in our previous meeting, he suggested there may have been other problems used by this -- caused by this this this spacer. and that was in may have affected the pump. is that right? >> if you look back to the 19th when they were displacing with the cement, the plugs -- demanded -- they landed. when you look at the strokes, the estimated number are close to what actually happned --

happened. in our analysis of the mud pit data, what we saw ere lower efficiencies then what were being as sam, and not likely lead to a tvspacer being under the space. >> so, you think he might have affected the -- so you think thespacer -- the spacer might have affected the pump efficiency? but it could have affected the efficiency. the data showed approximately 400 barrels of fluid should have

been pumped. if you look at the data, 425 girls were pumped -- barrels were pumped. our conclusion was there was some inefficiency. >> later on, you may not have a good view of the amount of fluid being pumped, right? t >> he volumes would be hard to read, yes. >> do you have data on that? >> we complete our report, it will be made public.

>> could we put up the slide of the temporary abandonment procedures? particularly ones right next to each other? >> ok, i have got it. that is 70.

so, this is a version of a slide i showed during the presentation, which shows how the temporary abandonment procedures changed leading up to the blowout. mr. bly, you agree the procedures did change? >> yes. as i said, i cannot remember the details we looked at in the report, but i will take your word for it. >> ok. is it typical for something such as the temporary abandonment procedures to change significantly before they are planned to be used? >> i cannot speak -- i do not know. i do not know what would be typical in this particular detail. >> ok. is the temporary abandonment procedure something that would be subject to change within bp?

>> if there was something that was changed about the safety profile of the well, then i would say, yes. if it was a minor change, then you would say no or it would be an informal management change. >> to at bp would make the decision as to whether something -- who at bp would make the decision as to whether something was a risky? >> it would be between the engineering team and the operations team? >> as far as you know, did anyone in the engineering team have any input in the week before the blowout? >> i do not know. >> could we go to the picture of the displacement with only one barrier?

>> mr. bartlett, fred asked you questions, and i think you had a conversation about this. i would like to ask you about another aspect of the temporary abandonment procedures we identified as potentially more risky than necessary. that is, after the negative pressure test, the crew was to open the b.o.p. and displays all the mud and on the riser, ultimately leaving only see water and mud before. do you recall that? >> yes. >> do you agree that money -- when the b.o.p. opened, the the only other barrier was at the bottom? >> i agree the only other barrier was the cement job.

clearly, you have operational barriers, including monitoring the well. >> ok. but the only mechanical or physical barrier is the cement job at the bottom of the well? >> yes, that's correct. >> so would you agree that this design, whereby there is a nine- second mechanical barrier, was the real premium on both the cement job and the negative pressure test that evaluates it? >> helped me with what you mean by "premium?" >> you are going to want to make sure that is tested and proven? >> absolutely. if your point is the negative pressure test is important to test the seal at the bottom, i

agree with that. >> would you agree that it is more important in a temporary abandonment sequence, where there is no plan to put anything else in place? >> more important than a very important? >> yes. >> i do not know how to measure that. it is very important. >> ok. >> bp could have set a cement plug prior to the riser, is that right? >> yes. that could be made. yes. >> do you know why bp chose not to put in a cement plug? >> i do not remember all the evaluations, but i understand it

is a common engineering decision. i think that is common in the industry. the reason for that is, you have a better chance of getting a high-quality cement plug. setting the plug into the mud, which is the alternative, can lead to contamination. you have the chance of having a lower quality cement plug. >> to be fair, these operations are done more in times when there is see water rather than mud. what about a bridge plug or some other mechanical barrier? bp was concerned about setting up plug in my rather than see water, but it could have set up a mechanical barrier of some sort? >> you are asking me about alternatives.

if you want to set a plug in their, you can set a plug in there, yes. >> you do not think it was a risky design when all things are considered together? >> i do not have the notes to look at that. this is in need of a sign phase -- this is in the design phase. >> to you think it puts "a premium" on monitoring of that rig? >> as we have outlined in the report, and in our review, there were critical things that failed. the cement at the bottom. the monitoring. the time to activate the b.o.p.

all those were very important barriers to have a new place. >> but you were down to one physical barrier. these procedures were perhaps more dependent than others on humans honoring that test. is that right? >> that is fair. i am unclear about what the controls were for this operation? if you are asking me, is it possible to go and create more, you know, potentially another barrier -- yes, it may be possible. and in fact, if you look at the recommendation we have made, there are clearly things you

could focus on in the negative pressure test itself to put more protections in here. that is the point of your question, i can agree with that. >> ultimately, that is where we are going. doesn't make sense to reconsider whether -- does it make sense to reconsider whether another barrier is put in to protect against any problems down at the bottom? >> in the aftermath of an event like this, you have to rethink everything. the many protections and placed here. i think that is true. i demonstrated in my report which ones failed. yes, indeed, there are ways to put more control barriers in place. that may include the one you are suggesting. >> do you have any views on the procedures put in place on april 20?

>> from what we have seen, when you look at the evolution of the plans, there was a lot changing. i think there was a question of oversight in view of those plants along the way. the plan that was originally outlined -- to be clear, we do not understand the logic behind the changes. the plant that was typed out on the 14th was a much more conventional procedure those plans -- much more conventional procedure. those plans were never seen before the 20th, which adds the complexity of doing the displacement. the one on the 14th, had it run,

the consequences would have been much different than what they were. so, the evolution and the changes, and i think it is about multiple things and multiple changes along the way. the evolution of those procedures was whether it was recognized the risk that were changing. >> just one must follow-up with you, mr. ambrose. at some point, members of the crew understood what the procedures were going to be for going forward that day, correct? >> would have been in the meeting, yes. >> they understood what the sequence was going to pay? >> yes. however, this did not include the spacer that was added.

it was added into the plan. >> putting a side thespacer, -- the spacer, your folks knew what the procedures were going to bay -- be, correct? >> yes. >> did anyone from transocean voice concerns about the temporary abandonment procedures? >> so far that we have talked to, no. the ones that we cannot talk to, i do not know. >> as of now, you get no evidence that anyone at transocean, on the rig or not, voiced concerns about the riskiness of the temporary abandonment procedures?

>> i have no knowledge of someone speaking up. >> i would like to turn it over to sam. he is going to ask questions about cement. >> i would like to suggest that we take a five-minute break. >> 5 minutes.

>> i want to talk about the cement again. just to reorienting -- the cement at the bottom of the well is called the cement job. for now, we're talking about the final cement job. i want to ask a few questions and see if we'd agree on general 0.7 main -- general points that we need.

the first one was about the cement in general. many folks that we talked to in the industry said that a primary cement job should not be considered complete until it has been completely tested, pressure tested or otherwise. is that something we can all agree with? >> i think the final test are important, yes? >> mr ambrose? >> yes. >> i would agree. >> i would agree you cannot conclude a successful cementing operation until you of done all the testing. >> your position would be, on behalf of halliburton, that the negative pressure test need a cement bond. >> it is my opinion -- [laughter] ok? it is my opinion that there are a hydraulic isolation test. obviously, zonal isolation is

the other part. you can confirm that would be negative pressure test and the bond log, and i think the bond log is a better means. >> would you agree that mt would wait 48 hours before the bond log? >> that is correct. >> so the cement cannot be verified until 48 hours after the cement job? >> said is correct, sir. >> so can a primary cement job ever be relied upon until 48 hours after it is done? >> no, sir. it is my opinion that you use the data that you have.

one means of testing is to look at the pressure response. that is one indication, obviously, to see whether you have returns. once you've completed the operation, you close the floats. you have isolation in the float tube. and when you go back to the production phase, to go after the reservr, you run a bond log. if you were going to drill out the shoe, then you would run of formation integrity tests. >> so, i am sorry about the matter for. -- metaphor. are you saying you cannot rely on a primary cement job until

you have run a bond log? >> you cannot rely on zonal isolation until then. that is my opinion. >> so was the cement job itself the problem? >> prior to the operation, we had a good indication we were going to have channel during the cementing operation and that was going to create a problem with zonal isolation. that is my opinion. >> you are suggesting that with all the indicators being good, that a primary cement job cannot be relied upon until the bond log is done, which cannot be done until 48 hours after. >> achieve the tunnel isolation, yes. >> another point is about

whether this is a complex cement job. would you agree that the complex cement job -- with the accuracy of the placement? >> yes. i think our conclusion is similar to that. >> mr ambrose? >> this is outside our area. i would differ on that. -- defer on that. >> mr. andrews, is there anything that you're crew -- mr. ambrose, is there anything your crew does to learn about the cement job? >> are you referring to training or trust i am referring to situational awareness. is there anything that requires them to be aware of the kind of cement job well they supervise

the dueling monitor and screens. >> i think they would be aware of what was being done. what types of jobs were being done. for the specifics of the cement operation, as far as waiting time, channeling, any of those issues, typically we are not involved in those discussions or issues. that is not uncommon. we would have a general awareness of what was going on. >> so the drillers are not aware whether the cement job is being pumped, complex, simple, high risk for low risk? >> i do not know if we have those categories. i am not sure how to respond to

that question. >> do you think it would make sense for the drillers, the people monitoring, and to have some awareness of the complexity, riskiness of the cement job that is being pumped in situations where you are relying on the cement? >> where we aren the investigation -- we've not seen any indication that a kick or any major lost circulation event occurred during the cement job. whether that should be changed in the future, need a complete understanding in the investigation. >> fair. to return to the original question, do you agree that the accuracy of the placement was critical? >> i believe that the job was critical for placement. as far as calling it "

complex," i believe is more complex than a conventional cement job that includes nitrogen, but it was a fairly routine operation performed on a regular basis and in the gulf of mexico in deep water. >> i know you are from sperry sun, a subsidiary of halliburton, i will assume that you would prefer that i direct a question is tomr. vargo. -- to mr. vargo. >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> do you agree? >> i agree. >> mr ambrose? >> the casing, yes. mr >> . bly -- mr. bly, i

believe your reports as you believe the hydrocarbons were not flowing as well. is that correct? >> yes. we analyzed during the cement job, and we concluded the hydrocarbons were flowing at that time. >> mr ambrose? >> the same. >> i believe there was no flow after the cement job, that is correct. >> at the time the cement job was complete, when the mud was in the well bore, everyone agrees it was not flowing. there's no influx from the reservoir at that point. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> does anyone disagree on the point? one thing that i think we have

found in our investigation is that people advocate positions with some amount of certainty, and we have a somewhat neutral posture, and we have some difficulty finding the same level of certainty and some of the positions. on cement and in particular, the cement down here, it is a long way, a long way down from the well. it has been isolated by more cement in any well as self. any forensics are going to be hard to reach. given the fact that we all agree that the primary cement job fell to isolate, do you agree that there is no way why a the cement fell to isolate the hydrocarbon?

mr. bly? >> beyond a shadow of a doubt? >> to a certainty. >> i suppose it is impossible to know to a certainty, yes. >> mr ambrose? >> again, this is outside transocean's area of expertise. we have very little data. >> mr. vargo? >> i believe the operation did not isolate the hydrocarbon bearing zone. i would have no reason to believe we would have a isolation, especially as we had hydrocarbons' blowing out from the well. i believe there was no isolation of the reservoir. >> but does not answer my question. is there anyway to be sure?

>> because we did not have the ability to centralize properly. the hydraulic simulations indicated yet channelling prior to the operation. i believe a reasonable information to indicate we did not have isolation. it is my opinion, sir. >> i will take that as a no. you cannot be sure? >> do you believe there was isolation? >> i think we agree there was no isolation. my question is whether we can be sure. >> i believe we had pipe laying on the low side of the hole in that channel was created, which, there was a much panel that existed in the well. that channeled up and did not isolate the sun. and that is why you did not have isolation. >> is there a way to go down in the well and find out if that was in fact the case?

>> i do not believe there is. it is an abandoned well. >> we do have the two bids of forensic evidence that could be analyzed this coming winter. oneness -- one is rocks that landed on the banks. and some rocks landed on the ship, and they are currently being tested. i am wondering whether any of you have a position on whether or not the data from those rocks will be instructive about what happened at the bottom of the well? or if it is irrelevant? and why? >> it is difficult to answer. i do not know. >> i will just ask mr. vargo.

>> i do not know. we will just have to analyze it and see what comes back. >> there was one that was sent back to the lab just before the blowout and i believe is still in custody of halliburton at this point. >> that is correct. we have the cement and additives and monarch in our possession. >> about 1.5 gallons or so? >> i believe that is the amount remaining. >> to you believe it will provide any information about what happened? >> i believe, it is my opinion, that it could. >> mr ambrose? do you have a view on this? >> again, i defer to the experts on that one. >> as we highlight extensively a

new report, we looked very hard at this question about cement. based on what we saw in the early part of the investigation, the questions about the stability of the cement -- it is well documented. we did testing. we concluded in all likelihood, the cement was unstable. i believe the test was done on behalf of -- i believe it would be useful to do more testing. and then we have a clear understanding of what happened. >> i would like to ask a question about how bp treats its cementing contractors on these rigs. as awas halliburton's role

contractor at the deepwater horizon? >> we hire them to provide advice, cementing services, design services for these wells. for these deep water wells. >> is the design done by bp and executed by halliburton? >> pp provides the details, the providese wellb -- bp the details, the well, the well bore. halliburton provides the cement details to go with that. i do not know who determines the rate of cement flow. bp would typically describe what they would want the top of the cement to date. >> i guess i take it generally that bp contracts halliburton

to provide expert services in cementing. >> yes. especially when you aren't dealing with specialized products like foam products. -- when you are dealing with specialized products. >> when bp hires halliburton, what this halliburton view it's well as being? >> halliburton provides a cementing service as well as pressure pumping services. we provide the design for cementing the wells. we work with the operator, the engineer, we work with the cementing specialist from bp. it is a collaborative effort throughout the design and execution of the well to determine the best process for the product to be used to

create a seminal isolation. that is how we work together. -- create zonal isolation. >> you were together? >> we will make recommendations on procedures. to pricklybp = -- typically bp has the final call. >> you do give some advice? >> yes, sir. we can provide results of the simulations and give them what we believe is a reasonable estimation of the success of the primary cementing operation, through the simulations that we run. >> so simulations as like the primary advice draws that is one

of the avenues. yes, sir. >> i am curious. what does cement job like this, the primary cement job on deepwater horizon the, -- the deepwater horizon, what does it cost? >> 400, $500,000? >> i do see higher numbers in here. so, on one page here -- that is one number. $98,000. two -- i will go to the second page, which i will represent to you is the page on which the foment cementing process is, all

right. those are here. that is $88,000. correct me later if i am wrong about this. it seems the cost of this job was nearly $200,000. is that the right cost? >> i would say that is probably equal to the other type work that we do. there are two different kinds of the operation we conduct, usually on the surface. those are large type cementing operations. obviously, there is less costly in cementing less volume. this is what we charge bp. i would say this is probably relatively close to a typical foam cementing operation. >> approximately $200,000?

>> approximately. i do not know -- >> i do not know what each individual dead. what i am curious. >> i am curious. >> it comes from halliburton. they recommend the best way to do a job like this. foam, that is very good for dealing with pressure fractures. >> what is your view, who recommended foam to be used on this job? >> i am not exactly sure who recommended it. under these conditions, we have potential loss returns. this type of product, it is adjustable, so that we can adjust the design based on the fracture radiance that we see out there. we have the ability to adjust

that. ed i am not 100% sure. >> he said earlier, when you make a recommendation like this, you still do not make the final decision? >> right. we will make recommendations and they will ask us to continue or potentially change that. >> do you treat them with respect to -- do you treat them differently with respect to your level of experience with their services? >> i do not know if we treat them differently. as you mentioned before, we work with chevron. they have the rahm laboratory, a specialist. shell does as well. dps specialists. we of operatives we work with with -- we have operatives we work with with a little cementing experience. >> where would you put bp in the

spectrum of organizations, specifically with foam finessed in deep water? >> many of the deep water operators we work with tough, cementing in the surfacing conductor pipes. there are a couple of operators that use its in the latter stages of the well, which are in the deeper sections. >> so, we asked halliburton for the data. they came back with a spreadsheet. correct me if i have this wrong. we saw that there were 393 total jobs that have been done from 2009 until 2010. that seems like a large number, but if you look at 33, we understand -- only 33 of those

were on the final production in the deep water, where you are trying to achieve the zonal isolation of the hydrocarbon layer. of those three, only four were bp. the rest were shell. would you characterize bp being somewhat inexperienced with the use of foam cement in the deep water in the gulf of mexico? >> i do not know about an experience. >> from this point, would you say bp was relatively inexperienced? >> yes, we had to rely on halliburton to give us advice on the nuances of phone, yes. >> how would you rate their level of expertise? do you think that should have or

would have influenced the advice he gave them on this job? >> i think we are making recommendations based on what we think is the right job for the well. under these conditions, and the design engineer working with bp said this was the best recommendation, and that was recommended. and we worked with the drill team to prepare for it. >> this is probably very familiar to you. we spent a lot of time on this this morning. we were trying to communicate there were a number of issues the crew should have known about. there were forced to stop drilling earlier than planned. there was not all law of room

in an area called the raffle that is used pumping the cement job. i am simplifying somewhat. there were a host of other issues. i think that, mr. bly, your report says that a number of these things for risk factors, in hindsight at least. is that fair? >> i think some of those factors led to others. the first three suggest that you should be very focused on foam in a cement job that will work with a pressure gradient in that environment. i think that is exactly what we have done here. we asked for advice in how could we do that. i simply struggle with the notion of having these be random lists. i think some of them are contingent on others.

>> mr. vargo, were your team members aware of any of these issues ahead of time? >> yes, our personnel working in house with bp and the drill team, i would say they were aware of many of these things. >> were they aware there would be a low cement flow rate? >> i believe that the rate at which we were going to displace the job was reduced to ensure we would not exceed the fracture gradients, and i believe that occurred relatively close to the cement's -- ' >> you think that that -- you think that they were aware? >> that is correct. >> this was a relatively small volume, and the reason for that

was the cement shortfall on the previous issue. >> were you aware of the lack of circulation? >> yes, sir. >> were you aware they had difficulty converting the flow equipment? >> yes, sir. >> did your crew raise any of these issues with bp as possible concerns for the cement job? >> i am not certain if they did or they did not. >> they are raised the centralizer. >> yes. >> so the only issue you know they're raised was the low number of centralizer? >> i think the in house engineer that works with bp, i think they are continually discussing all of those things. some of those things occurred

right before the cementing operation, below circulating pressure. these did not occur before. some of these things were occurring as the cement job was being pumped. >> was it ever suggested that it might be difficult to achieve personal isolation? >> i believe that he did indicate to bp that he did not believe he would get zonal isolation because there are not going to use the proper number of central weiser's -- centralizers. >> so, i want to go to the report where halliburton first

model decentralize our issue. there's a lot of technical information. i just want to orient you so we are talking about the same report. you were saying that at least at that time, that model of cementing -- >> it is a model of cement placement. for cement placement. it does not say anything about stability or some of the other critical issues that i think you're beginning to surface here. >> do you agree that it predicts it some amount of gas flow? >> what that model will do, as i have learned to this investigation, is it will tell you were there is a risk of channeling and where the pipe is not centralized, the risk of channelling increases. >> do you think halliburton should have done more to flag

the information about channeling and gas flow for bp? >> i do not remember exactly what was in that report. yes, i think what we highlighted in our work is that there were things passing hands that there was no signaling about what was critical in these things. so, yes, i guess i agree with your point. >> what are the indications in this report that should have alerted the bp engineering team that there was a problem? >> the fact that there was a challenging -- channeling that was increasing the flow on the wall. >> so this drawing here showed a channel. several of your engineers explain to me that this portion of the drawing here indicates

that mudd will be left in the well bore. is that channelling? >> that is channeling, sir. >> is this the only indication in this model that there is going to be channeling? >> i believe this is the visual picture that shows the channeling. >> and it is on page 23, right? >> i do not know. >> how about this. [laughter] >> yes, that is where it is on. it is on page 23. that is where the diagram would be, yes, sir. >> it does not say anything about channelling on there. you just have to know that green is channeling, right? >> that is the interpretation of the data, right. >> so, there is another part of

this report -- and i see you nodding your head. this is about gas flow potential. right here, is set based on the above analysis -- this well is considered to have a severe gas flow problem. >> that is correct. that is due to the channeling. >> that is due to the channeling. is that the best indication to the pp design crew there is going to be a problem? >> that is one indication. the reason the gas flow potential is so severe is you are bringing the cement up higher. your gas flow potential is going up. i would say we do jobs that have severe gas flow potentials, and that is one of the reason we recommend the pump operations. >> this in itself is not a red

flag to year? >> it is a red flag, absolutely. >> was it called out anywhere else in their report? >> i do not know if it was brought up or not, sir. i know this was given to bp, but i do not know if it was planned out. >> this is the best model that was available at the time, but do you agree there was erroneous input data? >> i do not now. -- know. be talking about the directional profile? >> there are two issues i was talking about. the port pressure here -- in this standp at thisore pressure was -- i understand that this pore pressure was incorrect.

>> i do not know sir. >> was that due to channeling? >> that was the gas flow potential calculation -- >> i think you said earlier that you believe that our reason there was a problem with this job was this report, correct? >> yes, sir. >> if this were changed, that would change the report, right? >> i do not think it would have changed the fact that the job channeled. i think that would have changed the gas flow potential, but not the fact that the job would have channeled. >> i am going to show you the centralized specifications here. i am going to crop a fairly large section. hopefully you can see it. you see this?

>> yes, sir? >> do you see the top as the nominal diameter is 8.6? >> yes, i see that. >> bp's position is the diameter is incorrect. >> that is very possible. i will say this. at the time of the design, we do not always know the placement. . .

public when you do that model? >> the investigations is continuing into this. so i would assume that it would become public. >> i will take that as a maybe. >> man, we can go back and model it with the exact location of the centralers and the exact replication and model that, that's what we can do. >> i want to talk a little about the nitrogen foam cement in

particular. b.p.'s report as mr. bly mentioned that the pump down fact was unstable. halliburton, mr. bartlit, do you have a position that the boom was unstable? >> the results provided just prior to the execution of the job indicates stability. i know that there was testing done prior to that to the contrary. and prior to the results that i reviewed and you showed them from top to bottom. that would indicate and that an engineer looking at that would submit it as a stable system and execute the job. >> have you reviewed all the testing data? >> i have, sir. >> and based on the totality of the testing data that it was

stable? >> you put it up in february, and one thing that is valid to put out is that we are testing that cement up to the operation. the initial tests that were run, as you indicated and i have too, that our two zones are placement and zone isolation. in initial testing we are doing pilot testing to ascertain the volume of materials we need out on the rig to form the jobs. and those will provide for the chemicals on the rig, and we will continue to tweak those tests until we get the actual cement that we will use. and the last test that i showed, or the last test shown to me showed they had what i think a reasonable engineer would show as a stable system. and that they could move forward.

>> i will put up that data chart. and of course, as i mentioned this earlier today. this slide here shows a three-hour conditioning time. and who sets the conditioning time for the test? >> the engineer is looking at the job placement time and towards the end when they slowed down the job, that obviously increased the conditioning time. and that was probably the engineer that was working on this chose the three-hour conditioning time. >> was the job time changed from april 13-18? >> i don't know the exact dates but i know that they slowed down the displacement and needed the additional time. and why they used the three-hour conditioning time. >> do they derive the positioning time from the job placement time? >> yes, sir. >> if that's true -- let me ask

the question differently. why would someone use a zero conditioning time if that's the case? >> i don't know, that was in the early stages of the job, and they were doing preliminary tests. i don't know why they chose at that time. i don't think they knew exactly what they were going to do. maybe they didn't indicate or question a conditioning time on the slury. >> why would they chose a different conditioning time when they had no further information on the job? >> they were probably looking at how long it would take to place a job. and they reran a test with a two-hour conditioning time. and that probably would be a faster displacement test based on the test of april 18. >> would you say that this produced unconditional tests

from the lab? >> i would say that the results from february 13 would be data that i would not run in the well. the 17th indicates some stability, but again i don't think at this point that i would choose to run the slurry in the well. >> is it your position if you had gotten that data back in the lab in february, and you would look at that foam study and say, i would not run that down the well. >> on that day, there are several factors we consider, one is the pump time and stability test is another test we are running. based on those results i would not have at that time on february 17, chose to run that in the well. >> as an engineer at halliburton, if you had seen those results would you consider redesigning the slurry at that point? >> it depends. obviously you are going to

change the slurry. you are redesigning on the point of 17-18 of april. there is a redesign that occurs. you change the water concentrations as well. so there was a redesign process that did go on from the 17th to the 18th. >> is there anything in halliburton's documents that suggests that the redesign process caused the instability results? >> i am not aware of that, sir. we do a lot of testing on these cement slurries as we go through the process. many times we have parameters that are pump time and test strength, and other things that we test for. so we are doing testing in the background to achieve those

results. it may take several tests to achieve those results. and they are not all reported but obviously will then report it. >> do you have a sense if you do not report to the operator? >> if we felt like the data was not valid to what we were doing, then we may not report it. as you know that we are trying to place the cement and it takes four to six hours and run the test and takes only three hours to pump off. and that's a test we won't use and we will rerun the tests to report what we were to achieve based on their recommendations of their requirements. >> was that correct, that eventually this april 15th test was reported to b.p. and the february 18th was reported to b.p. >> i not that 18th test was. >> i will represent to you on

march 28, this test was sent out and would you indicate that in both cases that best results were reported than the alternative in the same time frame? >> i mean the results again, you know, the 5959 has indications you don't have settling but not the design density. and that's not something we would run in the well, and not the april 13. >> and that's not something that you would run in the well. >> but those were not based on the well in the job placement time and conditioning time. >> i want to ask that question again, this result on april 13 is not something you would run

in the well. >> not at that time, no. >> on april 18 did they have the test available? >> i don't know when that test was available. >> so standing here halliburton has no position. >> i think we knew the thickening times to place the job. and i believe that the stability tests were being run at the time. >> so halliburton does not know at this point whether or not it had any past foam stability results at the time it pumped the job? >> i don't know if we did or not at that point. i know that the test results were posted afterwards from what i understand. >> you agree that this test date was correct when they began testing the job on april 18? >> i believe tse were part of the results when the results were available on the 18th? >> i am sorry you agree that the results were available on the 18th? >> that's what i understand. >> all right.

>> again, i don't know exactly when the results were available, sir. >> just this point, this is where we the commission drew this, i should say that the investigator staff drew this from. there is a lab note, 2:15 a.m. on 4-18-10, it's our understanding that halliburton would have taken 48 hours from the point it was poured. and 48 hours from 2:15 would be in the a.m. >> i don't think that it takes 48 hours to pour the test. what we do is pour it up and the cement time may or may not take that long. i don't know the exact time period it takes to set up. >> this is testimony from mr.

tommy row, don't you agree, that we transfer that foam cement slurry into a pbs test. we sealed the top of the cell and we cured the sample in a water vat for a temperature for 24 hours. >> that's probably the procedure but it can be cooled earlier if you have a test. >> do you have indication that this test was pulled any earlier? >> i don't know. >> my apologies, i need to pick up -- this is a table here presented

to the national academy of engineering, and i focus on represent the 99ular -- 99 lab hours. >> i don't know when the tests were pulled, sir. >> mr. bly, if the test results had been reviewed carefully, would it allow halliburton to pump the cement? >> absolutely not. when we look at our report we saw a lot of aspect of the cement job mostly due with placement. the assumption is that the cement is stabl and not have fundamental problems. and these show that there was fundamental problems in the cement and that would change everything. >> do you believe that the engineers on the job at the time were available of the potential

issues with nitrogen, foam, cement? >> no, they were focused on aspects of the work, ecd and things, but no indication that they had been given notice or had concerns about stability of the foam cement. >> we look at the e-mails here and see an e-mail from jesse gagaline and this was days before the job. >> yes, sir. >> and here we see he is talking about lab tests and the small changes between the amounts of tarter. incidentally from halliburton's position would it change from eight gallons to nine gallons in foam stability? >> it would have to be tested out, we would ask the advice of

our lab manager by changing per sack if that would affect the foam stability? >> do you have a personal view of the likelihood of that? >> it would depend, you would have to understand 100%, i believe. >> and mr. bly, you see here mr. bria ranel, and i would prefer the pump time with the extra nitrogen. do you understand what he means by extra pump time? >> i don't know what that means. >> would it be fair to say that he was thinking about the nitrogen foam stability? >> i don't know. >> fair enough. were your engineers concerned about halliburton's confidence

at the time that the cement job was about to be pumped? >> not that i am aware of. as we went through the investigation, i did become of aware of some e-mails that were around for the embi. and nothing raised cautious but more about timeliness. >> would you agree that it's important to have confidence before the job is pumped? >> i would agree that it's important to know that the properties are sound and that's part of it. >> is it fair as a suggestion of the few of the engineers at this point, and jesse the halliburton cementing engineer was quote,

not cutting it. and that this leads that the halliburton person on the job was at least not being timely. >> i would agree with the at least not timely, and from what i saw that was the primary point. >> and here the timeliness is about lab tests, do you agree? >> from memory, that's right. >> do you agree that the concern to get the lab results from this cement job back in time? >> i would agree with the first two things, it appeared they had to push to get results done. and there had been an indication that this had happened before.

>> could we go back to the cement bullet's slide. i want to close briefly with a discussion about the criteria about evaluating success of the cement job. mr. bly, i believe that your report on the team used lift pressure and deterrence to determine that the cement was success. >> yes. >> and your report included based on engineer practices and those were sufficient and that a proper assessment would lead them to do more work. sorry, more evaluative work. >> yeah, we said that it was clear that they had thought through it. and they had a positive indication that the cement job was pumped correctly. >> what were halliburton's criteria at time that they pumped successfully? >> at the time of the execution

when we performed the job on the rig, we achieved the target density that we pumped all the additives that we associated. and had seen the design bump. those are criteria on the rig to determine success of the job, and that's execution of the design. >> and this to clear up impressions in the press, do you believe they received full returns on the cement job? >> yes, from what i determine. >> and mr. vargo do you agree? >> yes. >> mr. ambros, do you have a determination? >> we have studied it. >> if you don't mind. >> coming back to your area of expertise. >> it's an area and it does not

show sufficient losses as mr. bly mentioned. >> and it was sharing the cooperation by raising his hand even when not called upon in this case. do you all agree that it was not standard industry process to run a cement blog. i should ask the question better, is it common practice -- would it have been common practice in the industry to run an evaluation cement log? mr. bly. >> no, not at this time. >> and mr. gisclair? >> no. >> and mr. bly? >> i agree. so all the parties agree that -- maybe i should correct the question. given all the indicators here, even then it was not standard cement practice to run a blog at

the time. having changed the question, do you change your answer? i will take a two-minute break. is that ok? >> all right. >> all right, two-minute break. >> this weekend more than 90 soon to be members of the house began arriving in washington, d.c. tomorrow the member-elect will get instructions ethics and details on the offices.

and they will go over house rules and get new lay-out of the chamber system and expected to get their official blackberry's. and on wednesday new members and their spouses will attend a welcome session. and finally on friday, they will receive a suite assignments. no roll call votes are expected until wednesday. with the first vote of the week on national gas and electric vehicles. and other possible votes include wage discrimination and food safety. you can watch live coverage on c-span-2 at 2 eastern.

and also the case of charles rangel, accused of 13 violations and a series of inaccurate disclosure reports to congress. we will have that live on c-span 3. >> it's an ideal world and the fact that people were shortaging the mortgage market. and it would be a signal that there are a lot of smart investors that believe it will crash and burn. and the market was not opaque enough and you were not betting on real mortgages but the casino version of it. >> in 2002, bethany mclean wrote

about enron crisis. this is available on "q & a." >> president obama spoke in indonesia, from the university of indonesia, this is about 30 minutes. [speaking foreign language] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] >> [speaking foreign language]

thank you very much, thank you, everyone. it is wonderful to be here at the university of indonesia, to the faculty and staff and students, and thank you very much for your hospitality. [speaking foreign language] thank you for this wonderful welcome. thank you to the people of jakarta and thank you to th people of indonesia. [speaking foreign language]

>> i am so glad that i made it back to indonesia and that michele was able to join me. we had a couple of false start this is year. but i was determined to visit a country that has meant so much to me. and unfortunately this business is too short. but i look forward to coming back in a year from now when indonesia hosts the summit. before i go any further, i want to say that our thoughts and prayers are with all of those indonesians that were affected by the tsunami and the volcanic eruptions. and particularly those who have lost loved one. and as the united states stands in national disasters and we are

pleased to help as needed. as neighbors help neighbors and take the families in place and i know that the strength of the indonesia people will pull you through once more. let me begin with a simple statement [speaking foreign language] [applause] i first came to this country when my mother married an indonesian. and as a young boy i was -- [laughter] as a young boy i was coming to a different world. but the people of indonesia quickly made me feel at home. jakarta looked very different in those days. the city was filled with

buildings that were no more than a few stories tall. back in 1967-68, most of you weren't born yet. the hotel of indonesia was one of the few high rises. and just one department store, that was it. and how you got around, they outnumbered automobiles in those days. and you didn't have all the big highways that you had today. most of them gave way to unpaved roads and the compost. so we moved. some folks from menta-donma and we lived in a small house. we had a mango tree out front.

and i learned to love indonesia while flying kites and catching dragon flies. and buying from the street vendors. i still remember the call of the vendors. satay. [speaking foreign language] but most of all i remember the people. the old men and women who welcomed us with smiles. and children who made a foreign child feel like a neighbor and friend. and the teachers who helped me learn about this country. because indonesia is made up of thousands of islands. and hundreds of languages.

and people from scores of regions and ethnic groups. my time here helped me appreciate the common humanity of all people. and while my step father, like most indonesians were raised a muslim. he firmly believed that all religions were worthy of respect. and in this way -- [applause] in this way he reflected the spirit of religious tolerance that is enshrined in indonesia's constitution, and remains one of the aspiring characteristics. now i stayed here for four years. a time that helped shape my childhood. a time that saw the birth of my wonderful sister. a time that made such an

impression on my mother that she kept returning to indonesia over the next 20 years. to live and work and travel and to pursue or passion of promoting opportunity in the villag villages. especially opportunity for women and girls. and i was so honored when president last night at the state dinner presented an award on behalf of my mother. recognizing the work that she did. and she would have been so proud. because my mother held indonesia and its people very close to her heart for her entire life. [applause] so much has changed in the four decades since i boarded a plane to move back hawaii. if you asked me or my school mates who knew me back then, and

i don't think any of us could anticipate that one day i would cash-back back to jakarta as president of the united states. and few could have anticipated the remarkable story of indon indonesia over these last four decades. the jakarta that i once knew has grown into a city of nearly 10 million. with skyscrapers that dwarf the hotel indonesia and thriving centers and commerce. while my friends and i used to run through fields with water buffalos and goats. a new generation of indonesians are the most wired in the world, connected to cell phones and social networks. and while indonesia as a young nation focused inward. a growing indonesia plays a key

role in the asian pacific and the global economy. now this change also extends to politics. when my step-father was a boy, he watched his own father and older brother to leave home to despite die in the struggle for indones indonesia indonesia's dependence and i am honored to be here on this day to remember those who sacrificed for this great country. when i moved to jakarta, it was 1967, a time that followed great suffering and conflict in this country. and even though my step-father had served in the army, the political upheaval was unknown to me, because it was unspoken my by family and friends.

like my household like others, the memories of that time were not present. indonesians had their independence but not able to speak their minds. and since then they have charted a course of democratic progression of many indonesians embracing the peaceful transfer of power and the direct of leaders. and while your democracy is symbolized by your legislature, its sustained and fortified by democracy and engaged citizens who ensure that in indonesia is

there is no turning back from democracy. but even as this land of my youth has changed in so many ways. those things i learned to love about indonesia, that spirit of tolerance in your constitution. symbolized in mosques and churches and temples standing alongside each other. that spirit that is embodied in your people, that still lives on. [speaking foreign language] unity and diversity. this is the foundation of indonesia's example to the world. and this is why indonesia will play such an important part in the century. so today i return to indonesia as a friend.

and also as a president who seeks an enduring partnership between our two countries. because as vast and diverse countries, as neighbors on either side of the pacific, and above all as democracy. the united states and indonesia are bound together by shared interests and shared values. yesterday president and i announced a partnership between the united states and indonesia. we are increasing ties between our governments in many different areas. and just as importantly, we are increasing ties among our people. this is a partnership of people, grounded in mutual interest and respect. so with the rest of my time today, i would like to tell the story i told, of when i lived here. is so important to the united

states and areas. and i will focus on three areas, development, democracy and religious faith. first the friendship between the united states and indonesia can advance our mutual interest in developing. when i moved to indonesia it would be hard to imagine the future of families of jakarta and chicago could be connected. but our economies are now global. and indonesians have experienced the progress and perils of globalizati globalization. from the shock in the 90's and to increased trade and commerce. what that means and what we learned in the recent economic crisis that. we have a stake in each other's success. america has a stake in indonesia

growing. and developing with prosperity that is broadly shared among the indonesia people. because the rising middle class here in indonesia means new markets for our goods. just as america is a market for goods coming from indonesia. so we are investing more in indonesia and our investments have grown by 50%. and we are opening doors for united states and indonesia to do business with one another. america has a stake in indonesia that plays its rightful role in shaping the global economy. garner the days when seven or eight countries would come together to determine the direction of global markets. that's why the g-20 is now the center of economic cooperation. so emerging countries like

indonesia have a greater voice and responsibility for guiding the global economy. and through its leadership through the g-20 anticorruption group, indonesia should lead on the world stage by embracing accountability. [applause] america has a stake in an indonesia that sustains development. because the way that we grow will determine the quality of our lives and the health of our planet. and that's why we are developing clean energy technology to power industry and to preserve indonesia's precious initinatur resources. above all america has a stake in the success of the indonesia people. underneath the headlines of

today, we must build bridges between our people because we share. and that's what we are doing, by together to foster entrepreneurship. and i am pleased that we have committed to double the number of american and indonesia students studying in our respective countries. [applause] we want more indonesia students in american schools. and we want more american students to come study in this

country. we want to forge new ties and greater understanding between young people in this young century. these are the issues that really matter in our daily lives. development is not about growth rates and numbers on a balance sheet. it's about whether a child can learn the skills they need to make it in a changing world. and whether a country is growing into a business and not suffocating by production. and whether those are transformed in the jakarta that i knew, for trade in a better life for all. a life marked by dignity and opportunity. now this kind of development is inseparatable in the role of democracy. today we sometimes hear that democracy stands in the way of economic progress. this is not a new argument. particularly in times of change and economic uncertainty. some will say it's easier to take a short cut to development by trading away the right of human beings to the power of the state. but that's what i saw on my trip to india. and that's not what i see here

in indonesia. your achievements demonstrate that democracy and development reinforce each other. and like all you have set-backs. and america is no different. and we have endured civil war and we struggle to extend equal rights to all of our citizens. and it's this effort that allowed us to be stronger and more prosperous. and to be a more just and free society. like other countries that emerge from colonial rule in the last century. indonesia struggled to sacrifice for the right to determine your destiny. that's what hero's day is all about. an indonesia that belongs to

indonesia. and you decided that freedom does not mean replacing the strong hand of a colonyizer with one of your own. of course democracy is messy. not everyone likes the result of every election. you go through your up's and down's. but the journey is worthwhile, and it goes beyond casting a bailo ballot. it takes open markets to allow individuals to thrive. it takes a free press to rout out access and insist on accountability. it takes open society and active citizens to reject inequality and injustice. these are the things that will propel indonesia forward.

a commitment of transparency to give every indonesia a stake in their government. and a belief that indonesia have fought for is what holds this great nation together. that's the message of the indonesians to this story, for those who fought to the students who marched peacefully in the 90's. and to leaders who embrace the transition of power in this young century. ultimately it will be the rights of citizens who will stitch together this remarkable [speaking foreign language] that will stretch from [speaking

foreign language] and insistence that every child child is treated fairly. and indonesia has an open forum for countries to share their experiences and best-practices in fostering democracy. and indonesia has been at the forefront of pushing for human rights. the nations of southeast asia must have the right to determine their own destiny. and the united states will strongly support that right. but the people of southeast asia must have the right to determine their own destiny as well. and that's why we condemned elections in burma that neither free or fair. and why your society is working with counterparts across this region. because there is no reason why respect for human rights should

stop at the border of any country. now hand-in-hand is what development and democracy is all about. the notion that certain values are universal. prosperity without freedom is just another form of poverty. because there are aspirations that human beings share. the liberty of knowing that your leader is accountable to you. and you won't be locked up for disagreeing with them. the opportunity to get an education and to be able to work with dignit the freedom to practice your faith without fear or restriction. those are universal values that must be observed everywhere. now religion is the final topic i want to address today. and like democracy and development, it's fundamental to the indonesia story. like other asian nations i will

visiting on this trip. indonesia is steep in spirituality, a place where people worship god in many different ways. and it's also home to the world's largest muslim population. a truth i came to know as a boy, when i heard the call to prayer across jakarta. just as individuals are not defined solely by their faith, and we know that relationships between united states and muslim communities have frayed over many years. as president i made it a priority to begin to repair these relations. [applause] as part that have effort, i went to cairo last june, and i called for a new beginning of the united states and muslims around the world. one that creates a path for us to move beyond our

differences. i said then and i will repeat now, that no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust. but i believe then and today, that we do have a choice. we can choose to be defined by our differences. and give in to a future of suspicion or mistrust. or we can do the hard work and forge common ground and commit ourselves to the study pursuit of progress. and i promise you, no matter what setbacks may come, the united states is committed to human mr.iprogress. we know well the issues that caused tension for many years, these are issues that i addressed in cairo. in the time since that speech, we have made some progress but we have much more work to do.

innocent civilians in america and indonesia and across the world are still targeted by violent extremists. i made it clear that israel will never be at war with islam. and we have no claim to be leaders of any world religion, and not a great world religion like islam. but those who want to build do not destroy. and this is just not a task for america alone. here you have routed out extremists and combating such violence. in afghanistan we continue to build the capacity of the afghan government to secure its future. we are to build peace for no

safe haven for extremists and to provide hope for the afghan people. and we have made a core commitment, our effort to end the war in iraq. nearly 100,000 american troops have left iraq under my presidency. the iraq has taken responsible for their securityand we will form iraq as a government and bring all of our troops home. in the middle east we have faced setbacks but we have been persistent in our pursuit of peace. and we have enormous obstacles. there is no illusion that peace and security will not come easy. but have no doubt, that america

will have the interest of all parties involved. two states, israel and palestine living side by side in peace and security. that is our goal. the stakes are high in resolving all of these issues. for our world has grown smaller. and while those forces that connect us have unleashed great opportunity and great wealth. they also empower those who seek to derail progress. one bomb in a marketplace and obliterate the bustle of daily commerce. and one rumor can obscure the truth and set of violence between communities that once lived in peace. in an age of rapid change and colliding cultures, what we share as human beings can

sometimes be lost. but i believe that the history of america and indonesia should give us hope. it's a story written into our national mottos. in the united states our motto is [speaking foreign language] out of many, one. [speaking foreign language] unity and diversity. we are two nations which have traveled different paths. yet our nations show that hundreds of millions who hold different beliefs can be united in freedom under one flag. and we are now building on that shared humanity through young people who will study in each other's schools. through the entrepreneurs forging ties that with lead to greater prosperity. and through the grace of fundamental vallues and aspirations. before i came here i visited a

mosque, a place of worship that was still under construction when i lived in jakarta. and i admired its soaring dome and welcoming space, but it speaks to what makes it great. it speaks to independence and its construction was in part a testament to the nation's struggle for freedom. for many thousands of muslims was designed by a christian architect. [applause] such is indonesia's spirit. is the message of indonesia's inclusi inclusive philosophy. across what contains some of

god's greness, people choose to worship god as they please. islam flourishes but so do other faiths. ancient traditions endure even as arising power is on the move. this is not to say that indonesia is without imperfections. no country is. but here we can find the ability to bridge the divides of race, freedom and religion. ability to see yourself in other people. as a child of a different race, who came here from a distant country. i found this spirit in the greeting they received upon moving here. [speaking foreign language] as a christian visiting a mosque on this visit. i found it in the words of a

leader who was asked about my visit and said, muslims are also allowed in churches. we are all god's followers. that spark of divine lives in each of us. we cannot give into doubt or despair. and this should make us optimistic, because it tells us that unity is more powerful than division. and people of this world can live together in peace. may our two nations working together with faith and determination share these truths with all mankind. [speaking foreign language] [applause]

thank you.

♪ ♪

♪ .

>> the president returns to the white house today after his 10 day asian tour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this weekend, more than 90 soon to be members of the house began arriving in washington. tomorrow, they will give lessons on ethics and details on furnishing their offices. tuesday is the class photo for new members and a meeting with the house parliamentarian who will get new members acquainted with the layout of the lower chamber voting system. they are expected to get their official house black. berries.

on wednesday, they will welcome -- there will be a welcome reception and have new meetings. on friday, the soon-to-be member is it will participate in an all day office lottery. david plouffe, a university of delaware alumnus and political adviser to the president, delivered an el lecture. this is about an hour and 25 minutes. >> good evening, everyone. welcome back to the national agenda program. i am the director of the center for political communication. last week's election bore out predictions which had been made for many months about the

american people. they hate congress and they think the federal government is broken. so american voters picked up the remote controls and changed the channel. after voting overwhelmingly for a change just two years ago, the american people voted for change began last week. all across the country, republicans picked up dozens of seats in the house of representatives and a half dozen in the senate. the house majority leader will be republican in january and the change will mean a clear shift of power in washington. president obama himself called it "a shellacking." george w. bush called his near- term setbacks "a thumping." with the president traveling in asia, his advisers are trying to figure out what is next. what can be accomplished, if anything in the next two years? and how can it be done?

joining us is one of mr. obama is closest advisers, david plouffe. david was obama campaign manager in 2008. if you were a democrat, you might have received regular e- mails from david. after the 2008 election, david took time off to be with his wife and young family and to write his book "the audacity to win." is one way, david's book sale after the program tonight and he has agreed to sign copies if you wish. but taking time off did not last long. david was summoned back to active duty over the summer and he has been advising the obama team into them -- for the run-up in to this fall's election. if washington whispers are to be believed, he is expected to return to the white house next spring to help plan the president's reelection campaign which begins in formally right after new year's day.

there might be some of you tonight that do not know that david plouffe is a ud alumnist. along with vice president joe biden and new jersey governor chris christie, also went to to .d, i bet some of you thought i would not get that in here tonight. you do not know me very well. david has been generous with his time and his expertise for our students and for the center for political communication. please welcome david plouffe back to the university of delaware. [applause] >> thank you fun coming back to delaware after >> working with ralph and all the faculty

on the center for political communication and they're wonderful students who are going to be out there leading the way in both parties in the future coming out of delaware. now, if you turn on the tv or computer or newspaper for those of you who still do that, you know it's filled with people already predicting it is going to happen in 2012 what happened last week. i learned a long time ago not to, you know, partaken the prediction business so i'm not going to tell you what i think is going to happen. i'm just going to offer observations because none of us know what's going to happen. this time in 2006, right after the 2006 elections, there were very few people in quoting myself that thought a barack obama would run for president much less succeed, and in 2004 it was widely believed that the democrats simply faced an

impossible situation in the electoral college that they simply couldn't break through. four years later barack obama wins a landslide in the electoral college. in 2002 after the republicans had some to gains and after redistricting the conventional wisdom the republican party will never when the house of representatives in that decade and obviously in 2006 and 2008 we had huge wins and built a majority so many of the things being talked about today that they're going to be facts will come to pass. there's things we know now and many things we don't. so i will just offers some observations. first of all the republicans obviously across-the-board nationally had a very good light on november. not to me this is not a surprise and was something right after all the elections it was clear to us because we won so many races and 08 on top of what we've one and 06 we are going to have some hostile troops to spend to defend electorally.

even in a neutral political environment. and was pretty clear the economy the way it was and how would was likely to transpire we were going to face tough head winds, so none of that was a surprise. i will say this that i think the republican party who had a very good night could have had a much better night. first of all obviously this is nothing new. franklin roosevelt in 1938, franklin roosevelt of all people had the worst, lyndon baines johnson, ronald reagan, bill clinton, of years the tough elections particularly when you have a tough economy or some other event that has the country usually in those elections one party wins everything. now the republicans won a lot. i ran a senate race in 94 and i

think bill loss and unlike every other democrat against every other republican incumbent all across the country we lost. democrats didn't win anything anywhere. now, losing what may be 63 or 64 house races is not a lot of fun. or even the senate races but they didn't win back the senate. they lost races particularly out west that you might think in a race like this in a wavelike this many governors' races the most narrow, so i think they should be pleased about there not come. however, when you face a situation like that you have to make the best of it. and i think there are some reasons why they didn't do as well as perhaps they could have and again i want to stress the did well. first of all, they did nothing to repair their image with the american people. so, the way i view it is on november 2nd, independent voters, swing voters, the

republican party rented them for a night. that's always. it's not a vote for the republican party. and was basically we would like to change things up a little bit, we are unhappy with a variety of things, we are anxious, we don't like you put your going to give you another chance. now think of the republicans who had approached things differently and said okay, we heard the message of the last two elections when we got our clocks cleaned. so this is a new party. new ideas, we are going to be more constructive. had the republican plan and therefore the republican candidates been viewed more positively we would have been in real trouble last tuesday but the opponents do not strengthen themselves. we also saw weakness still with latino voters. one of the reasons we won the colorado senate debates and

colorado senate race in california where the republican party was still losing two-thirds of the latino vote it is her to be successful national party particularly residential elections without doing better than that. so the could have done better. the do very well. going forward what matters first of all let's not talk about politics or about the country. with the american people were shouting out in 2010 as they did in 2008 and as they did in 2006, of course the economy, very important. some people care about education or the care about energy policy or foreign policy. but talking it altogether is just a cry for the leaders in washington will you just get along? will you try to solve problems? will do start acting like adults? by the way, that is sent a message aimed only at washington or politicians, it's in the business leaders and academic leaders and the media.

people are wanting to have more leadership and stability. and so that is quick to be a test. because negative both parties right now or on probation. they are. and i think the american people are waiting to say okay. where you can find common ground, will you even seek to find it, much less achieve it. now i am not an expert in the republican party. the take my advice but if i were interested in maintaining what i gained last tuesday and showing a different face, but look for those opportunities and say there's some areas we are just not going to agree on but where we can we will seek to find them and i think is a big test because what you have in the republican party right now as you have a speaker, john boehner, the one back the house, you've got mitch mcconnell, still the senate minority leader. and before too long, you're

going to have republicans running for president. so you're going to have three different power centers. from an elected leader stand point. but then of course you've got the fourth is the activist and the republican party, who here in delaware showed their power and influence and nominating christine o'donnell, tignes. [laughter] how that plays out will be fascinating because in some cases i assume they will be commonality and viewpoint interest but in some cases they won't be. and so, that is an observation about that factor. how those different power centers and influences react reach out and try to find common ground where he will. he tried that in 09 and attended some cases with success and some not. he gets criticism from some people for continuing to try to reach out to the republicans to see if we can find common ground.

he's always like to do that because rebuilding public trust is always important and there is no monopoly on ideas and sometimes you're just not going to be able to find common ground or even agree on a problem but if you can come and you should seek it so he's going to do all he can to achieve that and hopefully he will find partners not just in the republican party the democrats because of course compromises and someone coming 100% of the way to your position. that is not compromise. it's trying to find the zone of common ground and if there is any number of issues, continued work on the economy obviously being first and foremost, debt and deficit where you think there could be shared values and interest, immigration reform, further work to create new energy, mechem education performing k-12 but also student loan reform, so there's a lot that can be done. and we will see. i think the american people are going to watch not just the content of the debate and the issues and the policies, but are you people going to work together and act like adults and

try to move the country in the right direction at a time that is so desperately needs to? so that is i think going to be very close watching. and i don't think that any of us know how it's going to play out. i think as americans we ought to hope where these folks can get together and i think it would inspire great confidence in the american people, as well as doing the right things from a policy perspective, would be very good for the country. extraordinarily good. cow that shakes out politically, not enough us know. the other observation i would make is that there's a lot of attention paid to the 2010 electorate. and of course, the 2012 electorate is going to be fundamentally different than the 2010 electorate in many, many ways. it will be much larger. maybe 55, 60 million more than voted in 2010.

will be under, 18% of the electorate in 2008 was under 30, it will be more diverse. there will be many more latino voters and african american voters and the electorate. and the independent who vote will be more moderate as a group than they were last tuesday when they were very conservative. so, our challenge will be obviously to try -- we will never recreate exactly what have the same dynamic as we had in 2008 to fundamentally change the american presidential electorate. remember, among the people who voted in the bush-kerry race, barack obama tied. it is to raise your used to, played on election night into the next morning, even the next month in 2000. but, the reason that the election was by modern standards the landslide was all the new voters that cannot, 20 million

new voters, barack obama bunning 73, 27. so, the electorate is going to be much more different in 2012. we are going to have to work hard to ensure that, but also just the electorate itself is going to be more diverse, moderate and gender. and i think that if you look at how those elections that happened last tuesday would have transpired in that kind of electorate, it still would have been not a good night for my party. but we would have done a heck of a lot better. and that is the we have slide you're going to have in 2012. and also, that the electorate is going to be less tolerant of some of the intolerance that i see in the republican party. and in some of the extremism. now, christine o'donnell, kenneth buck in california, sharron angle and nevada, these are prominent people in the conservative, supported by a lot of so-called tea party

movements. they all lost. think about that. had the republicans on those races, like casseaux, jean northen in colorado, any of the other republicans in nevada essentially, the senate would be tied. but rather than the course correction, they say they didn't work out so well, we've got to go back to the mike castle era. that's not going to happen. you are going to see littered across the american political landscape in 2012 in my view candidates for congress, senate, governor, maybe even president who do very, very well with the christine o'donnell, rand, sharron angle because that is where all the financial energy is. i think when you saw is the tip of the iceberg. you've been expanded electorate and also, the republicans are not just a party. you know, they are going to be held more responsible now. much more responsible for what

they do. and if you pull that together and i think this is when to be a rough ride in terms of the image particularly with younger voters and where there is more moderate independent voters. now again, if we don't do our job, if people don't have confidence and of course we will be able to take advantage of all of that. but if we do that, i think that there is going to be real -- that's going to be a big factor that to the electorate that we have to be a i think the republican nominating process is going to be fascinating. because the iowa caucuses, the south carolina primary, maybe even more than a hampshire primary this time, or a sarah palin candidate won the primary, these are very, very conservative voters. the delaware republican primary. and i think that it is highly unlikely a republican presidential candidate will emerge who doesn't do

exceedingly well with not just the christine o'donnell and rand paul voters the activist voters, that's where the energy is, and so therefore i think -- and by the way, they will probably be out there agitating and saying hey, these republicans in washington, it is a sin to even think about cooperating with obama and the democrats much less doing it. a very dangerous dynamic. and i think it is going to profoundly affect our politics the next two years, much less who comes out of the gate, because it is the likely republican nominee will be someone, who again, has done exceedingly well, if not the preferred choice of that element of the republican party. and as you swing into a general election with many latino voters and more moderate independent voters and a young voters, first-time voters, that's going to be a much harder sale and even john mccain was able to make and 2008. so, and how the economy is

viewed. of course this is always less about statistics than how people feel. dwight fillmore confident? blight and we are on the right trajectory? obviously you can talk to economists and get different views about what is going to happen. hopefully leaving the politics aside we want to see economic progress because the country desperately needs it. there are positive signs out there. we had the biggest private sector job last month in a very long time in this country. so how people view of the economy is going to be critical of the geslin. and if they feel that we are headed in the right direction, that is obviously going to have implications for the president and others who are running for office. if they still feel that we are stuck, then obviously that's going to affect the political wing as well. we don't know any of that. so my point is that i will encourage you all humble you to take the breath and let all of this unfold and follow it and

comment on it and, you know, really get involved in it, but not lead to the conclusions that while the democrats had a tough night in 2010 in pennsylvania so they are not going to have another win in 2012, that's crazy. or, you know, doesn't mezzanine the more republicans had a tough time out west that means they can't compete in 2012 out west. that's premature, too. in politics, you know, two years is like 200 years. particularly in this day and age, where things are moving so quickly. so, i think all we can do is with interested citizens hope our leaders can come together and take on some really tough issues, and they are tough issues. it's why they haven't been dealt with. it's like some of you support for the president is doing and others if you don't. but at its core is whether it be health care, whether it be energy, whether it be

immigration, k-12 immigration, the debt and deficit, we ultimately cannot keep kicking these problems on the field. we have to deal with them. with all of you kids here who in very short order are going to be leading this country are left as good and america as we can and to your good hands. and so, that, as americans, we've got to hope we say on something like immigration we can make progress. on the debt and deficit, given the campaign that was run on the other side there would be real interest in working on this. but we will see. some of these folks who ran and won in the house and even the senate in the republican party who are going to storm the gates, they're going to get to washington and look at the big office and all their staff and say this is pretty nice to refine kind of liking it here. i'd like to stay here. now what's interesting about that is a lot of the activists in the republican party, people in the tea party, they didn't think this was a game.

they believed a lot of what they said, and what these candidates said. so that's the other dynamic here is if some of these republicans aren't delivering. there's not a lot of patients out there among the republican activist community either. and so, they feel that these guys all of a sudden are trimming their sails see the earmark reform. rand paul, remember from kentucky, i'm going to be a post your marks. they aren't in the senate and he's reversed. the grassroots republicans don't like your marks, okay? mitch mcconnell says we are going to protect your marks. that's a dangerous thing i would argue for the country. it's a fundamental reform to make that it's also not healthy for the dynamics of this grant be a lot of things here. macro in terms of, you know, the economy, how people view health care over time, you know, afghanistan, the debt and deficit. you're going to have obviously huge issues within the republican party you have in the

democratic party, too. we have a minority in the house, moral majority and the senate and so how that all its initiated. but i think as the most important and mike really will be do people feel like we are headed in the right direction? and, you know, as i said i think both parties are on probation, so i don't know. maybe one party will elevate and say you know what, i have a little bit more faith and trust in them. that party will possibly do better in 2012 than the other party. whether it will be a gulf like the last party, it could be better. it could be they are unhappy with both of them and then you're going to have a really trivial the election, probably a very close election in a number of places. so we just don't know what's going to happen. ..

it was reported last week for the first time in this industry, the fastest computer is in china and not in america. that is an industry we invented and own. from an energy standpoint, from an academic standpoint, they are obviously -- it will be easier when you are not a democracy, but you know, they are deadly serious about where they are going. and all of you guys studying at delaware are not so much coeting with kids at upenn but with people going to school in beijing. and l of our companies and, too. make no mistake. we really have to be deadly serious about having a new energy economy. that is the best in the world. energy economy. best in the world.

we are in education, particularly sciences, you know, falling further and further behind. we do have to make sure that we get a handle on dad. deficits health care was part of that but with a lot more to do. we have to continue to make sure foreign-policy improves. so there's big stakes here. and that's what the american people understand we're not at a sedate time. and it's not just -- they understand particularly if you comb your spouse come your parents, siblings, neighbor is have an economic distress. you're going to feel that extraordinarily. even if you don't have it in your circle and most people do, you worry about your employer or your business or you haven't had a raise. so it is the present and acute economic situation. but the unrest is much deeper than not because people understand that we have a lot of

problems and opportunities and tough choices to make. and we really, really have to make progress or were not going to be as strong a country from an economic standpoint as we have been. and so that's where a lot -- and there's a boy, our leaders don't seem as capable or is willing to do with this at least in a cooperative fashion. you know, this is a place where people do see the present in a different viewpoint than i do congress. it even if they don't agree he's actually trying to work out long-term problems. they do ascribe some value to that. and they think that largely that's not shared by as many people in government should be. so that's where the american electorate is. this anxiety in both rapid and short and long-term concerns. they're still enormous optimism of their unbelief we can see ourselves through this. but there's concern of your.

and i think that we really do need to have the right policy prescription to show courage. by the way, all the things i talked about, immigration reform, expanding on the deficit, just coming in no committees are not not politically easy issues. which is the reason they get dumped all the time. because the short-term politics are really large. the media coverage is about how bad the politics are not tough it is. and people say well, not now, not the session. let's wait till the next election. and the american people say listen, and our wives, my family and my business, i don't have that luxury. i can't just say this festering problem, i'm not going to do with it right now. i'll take it to mccain for four years, 10 years, 25 years, 100 years. you've got to do with it. i think that's what they're really saying down there. and we have more often than not

one party does quite a bit better than the other. not all. 2000 was a pretty close issue. but in 06, 08 and 10, there was a real -- these are really volatile elections. democrats did much, much better than republicans and await. and until people feel solid state they are your contingency collectivity. eventually hopefully people say we have a set of leaders here working together and i have more confidence about the fure of my country in her situation and maybe things will settle in and will have less volatility. but that kind coupled with the fact that less and less people identify with either party, you probably are going to have elections with a lot more

volatility, where in some cases you have 20% to 30% of the electorate, state or district coming up every year. and so, you're going to have a lot of volatility in. so you know, pmc and i think if the american people realize unexpressed and their leaders. we are going to make a policy for the legislative standpoint, leadership, private sector, government around the world. home. and we can really have a wonderful, wonderful future that all of our young people so desperately deserve and need. but it's going to take a lot of work. and it's going to take a little bit longer ricin than just caring about the next poll, the next month, the next pundit, the next election. and if you don't do that, you're never going to do well to do tough things. because you see in washington, you know, some of the things the

president did over the last two years. when you turn on the tv or the internet, the substance is rarely ever discussed. although, what's the latest poll? with the political? the agency and aftermath of the election. should we have done x, y or z? simply, was it helpful in the election? and i think that's another maybe unstated message out of it, which is the american people and voters really are saying would like you to start carrying a lot more about our jobs and yours. and your essential responsibility as a member of senate or the house or the governor or the mayor is not to ensure your own reelection, but to beat and do the right thing. and if that changes a little bit, people will take that approach, then i too have a lot of confidence. but i'm sure we're going to have a question and answer session.

more than not come he might have some good ideas and thoughts so i'm anxious to hear all that. you've been kind to listen, but i think were going to get onto the more entertaining part of the program now. [applause] >> he made a point of talking about moderate in 2012. what makes you think moderates -- they played an important role in the selection obviously. what makes you think it will be less conservative or tilted more moderate in 2012? >> well, vicious going to be a lot more -- the turnout naturally will increase by at least a third. so you're going to have 55, 60, 55 million people, who didn't vote in 2010. and so, there's a lot more democrats than republicans. the independence that come out will tend to be a bit more moderate nature than those who voted in 2010, who might've been

independence in terms of either their voter registration or their sole profession, but they're really republican. bush is going to be more moderate voting members of the west in 2008. you know, and independents in 2008 compared to 2010 were much more moderate. and it's hard to compare -- it's not an apples to apples comparison. which is often made. but i think those independent orders are also those that will be really casting around. as i said i thought happened is they set republican x, y or z, will give your vote and then we're going to step back and we're going to evaluate. and we'll see who we think is doing what we think the best interest of the country. >> is the president going to have to attract his base or maintain his base as well, just as you described a minute ago

the republicans having to cater and particularly focus on the candidates on the republican side will be nominated has been essentially from the conservative wing of the party. as the president going to have to it that that in the democratic side, to? will yet to deliver for his base as well? >> he focused on delivering for the country. there will be a time for our campaign and it will not begin in earnest for some time. and honestly have come in campaign you figure out how to get 50% of the vote? obviously the combination of persuading enough of the people that truly art on the side of the voters as well as getting a strong turnout in your party. and so, you can never assume that. but i think the president will try and make decisions on the economy, foreign policy, from other pressing issues based on what he thinks is right for the country. i think that's what's required. i do have confidence because

support for democrat runs very, very high. we will be committed to an independent grassroots campaign we did last time. it will be heard. takes a lot of work. you can't just manufacture it. but i do think when the choice is between president obama, the direction is try to take the country and will continue to take the direction that sarah palin and going back want to take. i'm not being flip. the leaders of the republican party stay or not john mccain or john boehner and mitch mcconnell. they are paler and limbaugh and back. as for the voters are, the activism, where the donations are. and you ow again i don't think that's a recipe for great electoral success, but there's a lot we don't know. >> you've talked a lot about the aspect of the candidates in the stability of the tea party candidates to friend. as christine o'donnell is sort of prototype republican

candidate in your view for? >> there's like a 100 of them around the country. but we'll get that lesson. [laughter] let's leave aside, you know, the witchcraft and all that. i think that, you know, the position she took, very similar to sarah palin and these other republican candidates. again, i don't think there will be a wide audience for that in 2012 outside the republican party, particularly the electorate gets larger and more moderate, but also i think there's going to be more -- critical aspect of our republicans are saying and doing. i think there are republicans in congress, let's say, who do want to say okay, let's try and find common ground. you know, let's not just appeal to the people who believe everything they see on the glenn beck show. but you've got to understand

that it's difficult because all the energies for the people who are watching glenn beck show. so the question is, can i override that for the good of the country? we're going to try and seek common ground and try and find ways to move the country forward. so we'll see. i think if you look at how republican nominations are likely to be decided, you know, for the presidential level all the way down locally. i think you're going to see more candidates next time holding the views of the palin, o'donnell said he did this time. i really do believe that. >> that's going to make it easier for president obama selection. >> it could. we don't know. where the economy is, you know, how people view his leadership. but my point is i don't think it's helpful to the republican effort politically. but there's no stopping them. that's where we are headed and they're going to nominate very conservative candidates.

and listen, i'm not saying that necessarily means they're confined to electoral failure. a lot goes into that. but i think it doesn't make it any easier for them in the long term because i think, you know, that's not where i think the middle of the american electorate is. i think it's going to be a motivational terror. >> he focused a little bit on the economy and pointed out in 2012 on the state of the u.s. economy. does the party -- does the president think they should've done more rather than what they did on the economy. but that it made a difference? >> alessi said, obviously a responsibility to try and get the economy working again for many americans. and we have made progress obviously. and we could've gone off the cliff to a great depression.

now we're growing, but we're growing too slowly. so it's uncommon and leaders across the country to do all they can to grow the economy. i too think the steps he took will be seen, you know, as pivotal moments. i bet some people say you shouldn't have done the recovery act. well, without the recovery act they think the unemployment rate would be anywhere from 14% to 18%. we would've never had a quarter of positive growth. you know, would be if not integrated, close to. that would've been terrible for the country. also really, you think would've done better in the election with that circumstance? so, you know, from the auto principle -- >> first of all, republicans would've done none. these people brought you to create recession. if they'd had their way, would

be in a great depression and they're only trying to do the same idea. now, they had a good election. now they have some responsibility. and so it is incumbent on them to lead and try and work with the president announced that it just right spitballs from the corner, even though the problem is the central actor they're creating. they have some responsibility now. so the recovery act, all the energy jobs created in new sectors created, it was held for the auto industry which would save the auto industry millions and millions. we see health care now in terms of the economy. there is a lot of good things that have happened. and i think that largely we have to do that on our own. in some cases on financial reform, we had to help republicans in the senate, which is very, very important. of course you always need to do more, could do more. if you look at what we've done and really the stiff opposition to any of that, there really was

a remarkable thing. i mean, the republican party whose policies were a chief contributor to the economic collapse basically stood on the sidelines and said, you know, this is your problem. and now they can't just throw spitballs and pontificate. and i do think there's areas were now, let's obviously the job growth, the economic growth is going to largely come from the private or because the government has to do those things that can't do in partnership to spur that, to spur innovation, new industry. you know, there's been lots of discussions about various ideas that maybe can be done as it relates to payroll tax and other things. we'll see what becomes of all that. all leaders need to say look at the whole venue of things we need to do and where an urgent

situation and there's too many people out there who can't wait anymore for security and jobs. and so everybody has an obligation to look under every rock for a good idea to see if they can help. and i think a lot of the stuff that was done on small businesses in the fall eventually will pay real dividends in terms of job growth, but there's so much more that can be done. >> one of the other areas that have been discussed a lot in the last few months, the election year with the problem of the debt and the deficit and you mentioned it yourself. is there a possibility that deficit hawks and the republican party and extreme liberals in the democratic party who favor cutting things like the defense budget could find an alliance in the coming two years and worked together to cut the deficit and the debt and a very strange way i would think politically with the two ends? >> well, what's interesting is facing a lot of tea party at this talk a lot about cutting

the defense plans so it will become something that is in fashion in the republican party as well. listen, i think that to really be the kind of country we need to be in the long-term, we have to really get serious about the debt and deficits. and despite what you see when you turn on the tv, where out of the easy answers. so you know, there's obviously defense spending. this entitlement and revenue reform. and to really make the progress you need to make, those are the areas that have to be explored. semi hope is that enough democrats and republicans will come together at the federal level because i've been in a lot of states have balanced budget requirements and they're doing it tough work that needs to be done. but at the federal level, this is not fun. this political risk involved, but for the good of the country

for future we have to do this. i listened to you look back in 1993 when president clinon and that she probably covered this, ralph, past the deficit reduction act. i was politically tough. what a tough election in 1994 was not the only reason, but the reason that decade was so good economically for so many people in america. so i hope so. and it would be a shame if the republicans who of course, when president clinton left office, there was a record surplus. when president obama took office there was a record deficit. so, they were chief contributors to the fiscal situation. they became chief critics for the last two years and i was really their mantra. we need to get spending under control. so it is time for them to walk the walk. and if they don't, it's not good

for the country. i'm telling you, they're going to pay for that was deep unrest in their own parties. because as we've seen come a lot of people who got involved in republican operatives there were as motivated by what happened to republicans as when the democrats. they were up with the republicans quote, unquote losing their way, spending too much money or expanding entitlement. and so, it'll be interesting. to really make progress on this issue, it's going to be a really tough thing to do. and you're going to have to be willing to put the country first. and i hope enough of them do it. >> will get to your questions and alternate as usual between students and nonstudents. yes, sir. >> i was just wondering, in this election, the democratic party party -- [inaudible] their successes, hopes, dreams. it appears they were controlled by the polls, but whatever

everybody else said. how do you change that in the next two years? and do you think -- do you think president obama is so wounded now that he will be a one-year president? >> the answer to your second question is an enthusiastic know. >> everybody here the question? [applause] >> this'll be an eight-year period in american history. i think eight years that will be looked at because it's very important and meaningful. i would say that first evolved the most important event in any election is not what you see on national news. it's what happening in the state or district. that's what voters are seen, particularly those who are really undecided, who got traffic a lot in politics.

and some cases, there was great commonality and others there wasn't. i think if you look at what the president was thinking when he was campaigning and of course he wasn't on the ballot, but i think is a good narrative about the choices we had to make about who were fighting for, who they were fighting for, that we have to not just focus on the short term, which is absolutely essential, but also focus on doing smart things for the next generation. some candidates, you know, reducing the narrative other sport. others are more tactical. all i know is in 2012 will be our campaign. we will be on the ballot. we'll be running the campaign. we will have one upon it. that's much more dynamic than going out and making the case broadly when you're not, you know, not on the ballot, charging campaign strategy. now, i think that it's always easier to be successful when you're rolling a voter downhill,

right? serve the economy were better people felt more confident, they would do things like health care, student reform. that's great and not so important and i'm feeling good now. but when people are feeling anxious, those things can seem remote and academic. i think we ran a good campaign but you know, we say john mccain has that economic ideas come establish ideas coming out of touch, we were probably a boulder uphill. that kind of fit into what people already believe. and sometimes you got to understand which way the winds are blowing can affect your ability to be successful. i do think that, you know, in a way, you win the mythology sentence. i remember the day after the election, "the new york times" has obama, history made. and then his analysis is flawless delivers campaigns white house. is that i don't know what

campaign you're watching, but this one was flawless, i can assure you. so, even an outwait there were many ways we could have been a better campaign, communicated better. so we have to make big improvements. we do. but some of this is just the republicans had a very easy job has turned. you know, they kind of surf the wave of discontent. and that's always easier to do in politics. and so, i think for the president when it gets to be election time in world long way from that now, will be their confidently consistently and effectively say, here's what i've done. here's why i did it. more importantly, here's where were going. and by the way, there's a choice here and my opponent, you know, maybe there's some places where there is commonality. and i'm sure there'll be places where there's differences. and so, allow people to pick sides. just like in 2000 ezio people

are people are going to have more reasonable and adult. they can be in presidential years. oscars tend to be more rapid and they are more partisan. presidentially because you get so many people in and they pay so much attention to it. you can have a little bit more elevated dialogue. but again, i think on things like -- some people do say well, if you just message the accomplishments better. well, you could always must sound better. when people are saying time before, my sisters out of work. i'm very worried ages five to health care. and some of the things that they say gap, sure, but financial reform passed. there's parts of health care like. but it doesn't affect what i'm going through right now, then they're not going to be as interested and i understand that. but i would say this. if president oma and the democrats and republicans

continues to lead, than i do think as time transpires here, because he come with some hope to the democrats obviously staved up the great depression, latencies for recovery and hopefully will be a powerful one. i do think over time as wicked and later this decade, most people say hey that health care thing was better than i thought it was going to be. student loan reform, financial reform. the party wound down one war in iraq. eventually that will happen in afghanistan as people culpable and say okay, you know, that's some pretty important things. and people do admire that. even though, as i said, that don't agree with it, that he is willing to take on tough things. and i think it would be great for the country if some of the tough things that mentioned earlier could be taken on

together because i think that would send a powerful dignity of the american people, that their leaders are coming together. but i think, you know, if the economy had been in a different place, you would see the republican efforts not be as affect it. some individual rate was not up there. and you know, we were able to obviously win some key races out there, which we still have a really, really tough night. but we hold onto the senate with a little bit of a margin. we want some governors races out there. had we not when the messaging battle well enough. i was talking to senator reed today. he was famous and, ground effort in nevada, so many people were part got involved, that made the difference. and you know, all the polls that it was headed toa four or

five-point win. he easily won that race because he had a great effort on the ground. the kind of grass-roots effort was part of what we did in 08. >> let's take a question from a student. >> do you believe in the next few years -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> question is do you think and the next two years, if there's little compromise a little progress made on the issues he talked about at the democrats would take the blame blame because they so that the leadership and the senate and the president's? >> first of all, i hope that's not the case for the good of the country. i don't think we know the answer. if unfortunately there's not any or enough, then i think people will make their own evaluation about why that was.

and you know, if they view one party took been more unreasonable than the other or playing politics, but not party will pay more than the other party. if it looked them both in contempt, again i think you'll see a really, really interesting election. i do think given what just happened, most voters now up at the honors the republican. they have their election. they're promising all these reforms, there could do things differently. they hold the house and gave them the senate. i said to be just as voters, who would you hold more responsible right now if there was a congressional nonprofit, they would say the republicans because they have the senate moments in people view them as the ascendant power. but we'll see how it all plays out. i hope are not asking that question two years from now. but if we are, i think we don't know the answer to it because we don't know how it's all going to

if you are going to spend money in an election, you have to disclose who you are. that was defeated by the republicans. a lot of them thought, we will benefit from the spending. we do not want to put the brakes

on. so we will see. i think there needs to be more legislative effort. you could have a court rule specifically on disclosure down the line. and hopefully, they would. what happened to this election was there were tens of millions of dollars spent, in some cases, the campaigns themselves were secondary factors to the money that was being spent by the outside groups. now, by a factor of a or 10 to one, republicans benefit from this. what happened in 2010 it is going to be just a precursor to 2012, when you can see hundreds of millions of dollars spent. again, most of it on the other side, some on our side. i think this is a terrible thing for democracy. because what is. happened is, you know, -- because what is going to happen is some of these groups will go to congress. whether this is delivered directly or indirectly, the

message will be lost. you saw what we did last election. we spent $10 million and we knocked off senator x, y, z. we will spend $30 million against do if we do it -- if you do not do what we ask you to do. this will take you back to the days of robert barons were politics was controlled by a few individual groups. so if the money was disclosed, there still would be spending and that i'd be wrong too, but at least it would be a lot less of it. carl rove started a group for the republican party. i'm going to raise $60 million. it's a terrible thing for democracy. at the campaign-finance level we just need to encourage. some states to decide this by law. but to get more and more average people involved.

the president was the first presidential candidate, a nominee who never took money from a lobbyist or political action. the national party committees still did not. you know, these are very, very important things. but i fear that without reform, particularly on disclosure, american politics more and more will be the central actors of these very wealthy interesting individuals the campaigns themselves and candidates themselves become big players in the drama. and you know that the terrible thing for our country, whether it's happening to benefit the republican party or the democratic party. i think, you know, hopefully there will be some disclosures. i think these groups will be with us for a while anyway. and so hopefully it will be disclosed. at least if it disclosed, people will say i know it was fun in that group. and i mix a difference to people. we should have a little bit more

sunlight. >> in 2012, the atomic campaign will decide in the phone to disclose all contributions? >> well, we do disclose on contributions. bye-bye you have to disclose your contributor. we actually took the outside groups in supporting the president to do that. >> demand they do that? >> we think that disclosure to bear minimum is required and obviously would not control these groups. but i think our record position is pretty well known. one thing we did is we posted online, everybody raised money for us. so if you had a fundraiser for barack obama and raise $50,000, we said here you are and how much money you raise. having the more transparency there is this part of rebuilding trust. this is much more nefarious. you people saying we're going to try and by the united states senate held by the u.s. house.

that's not a good thing to do. what's interesting is this a big shared shared across all party lines. you know, i think 75% of republicans believe that there should be disclosure and citizens united. you know, independents and democrats, too. this is a place for this commonality that common sense dictates this is not a good thing for a country. tonight i'll take a question from a nonstudent. >> the republican party want to portray the election as a referendum on health care and obamacare was a frequently used at the fat used by sarah palin. and it's really distressing to me as someone who is a savor of the health care reform act, though not perfect, was a step forward. and i think that was terrific.

so stressing when john boehner said -- do not what is the question? >> the question is, do you see traction when seniors talk about making repeal of health care reform a cool. it's not the next two years, in the 2012? >> the question is what is your reaction to the republican repeal of the health care act? >> first of all, it if you look across the country, you know, there were not many republican candidates who had them at the center of their campaign. they might've had in the government out of control and too much spending. why is that? well, the individual components are quite popular. of course right now it is more -- it's not reality. and all the health care reform will kick in until 2014, two years after the president's reelection. so at some point, base 1618,

what people like me see mtv is not going to matter. for all health care consumers whether i like it, whether change or not. even in the next few years it is going to be this kind of piñata that the republicans try and design test panel for nefarious things too. it's going to make a positive impact to you and your family in the country. first of all, they can't repeal it. by the way, i think a lot of republican activists don't understand that. so they're going to have to explain what they said they were going to repeal and they did. is that not monaco almost certainty they can't repeal health care. so are they going to spend the next two years we litigating that in fighting it and trying to refund it? will see. from a policy standpoint i think it's terrible because the health care reform is going to be really, really important to a strong economic important to help your country in deficit

control is something we try to do in this country for 10 decades. most importantly maybe make sure no american has ever denied coverage again because of a preexisting condition. and we need to make sure people understand that's what they're going after. that's what they want to get rid of. they want to allow insurance companies to deny coverage to women who have been diagnosed with rest cancer based on some preexisting condition. they want to be opposed lifetime caps. they don't want to give tax to 4 million small business and millions of americans for health care. they don't want to do any of that. so i think from a policy standpoint, that's dangerous. but beyond that, the american people aren't really interested in a two-year battle over something that we just had a big

title over. i'm telling you. so if they want to spend the next two years, you know, you might've heard this guy from california say i'm going to hire all these investigators investigate the president. trust me, american people were not interested. they're not interested in the litigating old battles. what they want us to focus on me, on my problem. and so, i think this is something that would be political perilous in addition to being bad for the country. i don't hope they can help themselves. because they're really out of their skis as the expression goes on that. and we'll see. and i think that this is a place where there is disagreement, but again, you've got to think that even if some congressional republicans a-ok, were not going to do as much of that as they might've said were going to be a little bit more moderate, do you think the people who are out of

you were running for president are going to take that task? no, they're going to be out there running against president obama, but republicans and democrats in congress. so it's a very, very dangerous dynamic, i think. and so, we'll see. but that is not what the american people want. even on the question of straight repeal, in most places does not support it. most people do was let it happen. and if there has to be adjustments, maybe we'll make adjustments. but i think people are interested in spending another two years in the economist and they all have big problems fighting that battle. but i don't know. they seem quite enamored. and with them, my view is people are hopeful as they always are after the election and okay, maybe this time when she sees so far perhaps in the election as some of the republicans said they think some pretty encouraging construct things.

actually, marco rubio from florida did. you know, boehner has said some constructive things and not a constructive things. mitch mcconnell has said no constructive things. last night when asked what the most important thing of the next two years he didn't say strengthen the economy, creating jobs, cutting spending. it was to defeat president obama. i can tell you that goes over like a lead limit the american people. that's not the answer they want nor expect. >> will take a question from a student. yes, sir. >> you said you plan on running a grassroots campaign in 2012 like he did in 08. with obama running as the comments, how about change how you run the campaign? >> what kind of campaign? >> grassroots campaign. how about change? >> listen, let's see what they now say with any certainty i know about the campaign because the president will insist on that.

so, you know, we're just going to have to encourage as many people as possible to take entries, give themselves can take ownership of the campaign. our grassroots volunteers were our campaign in 2008. the one of the primary. they won us the nomination. and it's obviously going to be harder. you know, we were on the verge of history. history has been made. your governing, which means you're doing something people really like and some people don't like so much. but i think if our faithful to that, if we can inspire people for a campaign against the people we can run that kind of campaign again. and you know, it wasn't easy to do and their way. i talk about all the young voters that came out. that was the hardest thing we did. it didn't just happen. it was really, really hard to do and it will be just as hard if not harder this time. but that is the one thing i

know. because when you listen in 20 -- 2030, asking president obama about his eight years -- last night and he said take us back to 2008. he'll talk about that campaign. well, he's not going to say well, i was kind of interesting when john mccain picked sarah palin or a beat john mccain in all three debates and that doesn't happen very often or when indiana. he won't say any of that. he's going back about the people. that was the campaign and it will be again. so that's all i know. but it will take every ounce of commitment on behalf of our supporters on all of us to try and build it. but the thing about grassroots campaigns is first of all very few people try and do it. and it's not the most important part of most campaigns. it's still tv ads and soundbites

from about. into the president is always going to be nourished and there's no doubt that it's harder when you're in the white house to maintain that closeness of connection. but if you look at our campaign, we had in 2010 and again it wasn't for barack obama on the ballot. they were working for people they didn't know very well. they felt that it was important. we have 5 million people volunteer, which was a lot of people. and so, we have people who built a great relationships in thi communities some of the presidential campaign does start and i won't be for sometime. the republican campaign will start right away, i think they'll be ready to go. but it's going to take a lot of work. we want without it. that's my view. >> you talk about a lot of republican candidates last night. you have attention to. i would like to ask you about two of them. you think chris christie is a potential presidential candidate in 2012 i'd like to ask you what

you think my castle had to write content following the murkowski case. >> well, governor christie has said every way he's not going to run. so i take him at his word. it's obviously something has got great repeal of the republican party run the country. and so i'm sure if he's not a candidate, you know, he'll have to say. and you know, i think is actually done a lot of things. i don't necessarily agree with all of this remedies, obviously, but, you know, he has done some tough things. i think some republicans in congress would be wise to look at that and say okay, things like spending it on debt and deficit, some of these commonsense issues, we have to try and find common ground. i'm sure he's thinking about that everyday. given what happened in alaska. so i can't entertain why he

didn't wear how close he got or any of that. i can give to sort a clinical observation, which is set in delaware, you know, i think chris kunz had a pretty good debate. it wasn't like alaska where republican nominee dropped down into the mid twenties. i think chris kunz was going to get in before it. and so, the question is for my castle to what he'd have to get 44, 45 at least an o'donnell would have to go all the way down to like 12, 14 or 15. offenses that would've happened because she had a strong enough base of people. so my back of the envelope says it probably would've been, you know, chris kunz, 42, you know, and the other 3028. so i think he would've won pretty comfortably hardcastle decided to do a write in. either way, it's a great thing about politics because two years ago at this time we were all talking about the great joe

biden my castle senate race. last night so back to my think about what's not predict. >> okay, we have a question from a nonstudent. yes, ma'am. >> to see with what the president previously in particular managed to co-opt people into believing some of the outlandish places is very troubling. i'm wondering what needs to change in your opinion in the way democrats communicate with the public to make sure that people really can see the truth. >> okay, the question is what is the ease with which republicans were able to persuade their base in this campaign, to the democrats -- >> see, the republicans did not persuade swing voters that things like its always socialist plot. you know -- panels.

okay, the elements of the republican party -- to listen, when we win the election, the presidential election, you still have 15% of the people saying he's a muslim. you're a decent number saying he is a socialist. those numbers have grown a little bit only amongst republicans and are more apt to believe anything. hawaii is not a state and i want the government out of my medicare, some of these great things. last [laughter] this is not what the election is. the election was really about listen, i feel things. i feel change hasn't happened in last sunday's going to try again until i get what i'm looking for. it wasn't that they bought into that, but that has not happened. it is that an element of the republican party on some of the most extreme, irresponsible

lies. you know come a third of the republican party is in some states and by the way, that means two thirds republicans aren't all that comfortable with it. but you see how hard it is because even some of the other stuff, republicans, you know, it's a test situation for them because by the way i'm not at fault in him they don't knock it off. because huge elements of the republican party believes that. but let me tell you something. in terms of the election of 2012, the people who believe things like this is all some big socialist plot are really believe that the use of various health care motives or believe that, you know, we don't believe in american, you know, greatness. that's not where the people that really decide this election list, but it's a motivational think for the republican party.

and listen, my view is eventually, i may be wrong obviously, but eventually think there's going to be a real moment where the more reasonable rate center senate republicans try to take their party back. adobe after 2012. listen, if you're a moderate republican out there and almost any state in america, you are in all likelihood not going to run for office in 2012 and the republican primary because you're going to get to my castle treatment. and listen, what he said after his election, he said something along these lines, which is essentially, i last because a few times in my long career i decided to try and work with the other party. and you know, that is viewed as a send among some elements of

the republican party. not all. but think about that. listen, you know, when scott brown, my friend from massachusetts rose for the wall street reform act or susan collins or olympia snowe cast a vote on that, they need to be given enormous credit because they get absolutely excoriated for that. you might remember tom coburn from oklahoma. very conservative effort. i think he was a town hall back in oklahoma. someone said some really nasty things about nancy pelosi. tom coburn never supported us on anything, never will. he basically said listen, i don't agree with her, but she's a nice lady. as you remember, he got hillary from post to post to that. and by the way, there's been times in my party, probably through the years where i was

not -- i don't think it's never been that bad, but there's also been like hey, you can't work with republicans. it's very harmful for the country, but that is happening and you have to understand that to understand the dynamic. in my castle probably lost in some part of that. lindsey graham from south carolina had to work with us on these issues and that was desperately worried about losing in the republican primary. and again, i don't think that can last because i do think ultimately in the republican party reasonableness will will emerge again. not just as the minority, but as the majority here. but i think it will be. you know, i don't know. we'll see. it's a big test for these folks to collect it to congress to do have some responsibility. and most people in both parties don't run at least, you know, at the core simply to occupy the

office. they really would like to do something construct is. and so we'll see. and i think we all have to try and hold both parties and try and have fun. but you have to understand how hard it is the republican party with any kind of cooperation right now seen almost as a friend. >> i'll take a question from a studio. is there a question from a student? yes, in the back. >> at the republican party does nominate a moderate candidate, [inaudible] >> will republicans nominate a moderate candidate, how that change the way you will read the new democratic campaign click >> well, first of all, i think that's highly unlikely given what i just said about the votes come in the act of his uncommon energy in the party. the sword answer is listen, i don't know.

will have a nominee who will run against a sometimes in the spring and 2012 and the campaign will commence at that point. you know, that person is, the views they hold, that position will obviously take some of the debate. most important obviously will be the president talking about where he wants to take the country and why he made the decisions he made and why he wants to again make decisions in the future. so we'll see. i think it, you know, if they nominate someone who's only getting a third of the latino vote or not even that, who doesn't have a lot of moderates, doesn't have much ability to young voters, and et cetera let oral situation really, really hard. you really have to thread the needle. and there is one of the reasons people in my party here like john mccain for someone because he was the candidate a lot of people thought with some justification for most of his career to do well.

obviously the mccain of 2000 was not the making of 2008. but it's hard to believe that they would nominate someone to the left of john mccain. he was probably a moderate. and the republican primary collect drift and dynamic in 2012 will be so much more conservative than it was in no way. it's going to be like two different playing fields really. so we'll see. but the short answer for a lot of this is you know, politics is a very dynamic. the president have a lot of things to worry about the doughnut jewitt's reelection and will see. will have the chance to make our case. and i know something i look forward to doing because i think the stakes are really important. but we don't know who the nominee is. but again, there's a chance that not one of us in this room right now would say who the republican nominee is ultimately going to be because it could be somebody

who nobody thinks is going to run. it could be someone who wasn't politics, is not. we don't know. so the cast of people running will probably be a little bit different than we think it's going to be. but even if there's no surprises come with got to let the thing play out. the thing is going to be a fascinating primary. i wish i could set back at what a box of popcorn as an interested observer as it's going to be something. pressure by stock in fox news. >> question from a nonstudent. yes, in the back. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> the question is, i think

you've answered this amply. the question is in the past 21 months, prior to this past election, was very credible selection from the republicans about what to do about the economy if you could give a weak answer on that. >> i would say i think, you know, some of the ideas included the recovery act in the small business packages, there were some of those republican ideas that we didn't get much of their support, but there were some ideas in there. some of the tax cuts, you know, some of the small business lending. we got some republicans for that. some of them before the idea of a payroll tax cut for a period of time, which i'm sure will be abbreviated. i really do believe this, i don't sit on their meetings, but i do believe they say look, we're not going to participate. you know, they talk to economists just like we do. pretty clear as we took office on that glorious day in

january 2000 night that the economy was going to be really, really difficult for a long time. so they say we're going to sit back and they are going to pay the price for it. and you know, they couldn't be bothered really to listen with the exception of a few republican senators. in some governors out there. on the debt and deficit i have yet to see any concrete ideas. ..

out of the republican party that you say okay that's good. it sounds like, you know, and again, my party has to understand that doesn't mean okay we are going to cooperate and do exactly what you want. that's not what works and that's really important for the democratic party to understand, but there's also been moments of, you know, we're not that interested in cooperation and we are all about politics, so we will see. >> david, if the president had allowed an's lamp on the stage and he rubbed it in the country wishes, would be the three bridges you think he would ask for immediately? [laughter] >> well i won't even go there. i think that -- of think he, like most of us, wants to see this economy he also the we are growing what so the we are

creating jobs, we are creating a good and stable jobs that people are able to get appropriate wage and health care costs are brought down over time so that's eating up less of businesses and people's paychecks. and that we are also doing the smart long-term things so we are leading the world in green technology jobs. we continue to lead in innovation. we continue to lead the way in digital revolution. that our education system is really strengthened so that we are producing. the engineers and scientists that are economic competitors are. so those are the things -- but if you set a listen, the economy growing at the rate we used to slow the economy can heal coupled with doing the smart long-term things the way a foundation for a future, and

those would be -- there's no silver bullet for that. it's going to take a lot of hard work. some things work and some don't work as well as you would like to. and again, it's not just government. this is a partnership with the public sector of the american people to really make sure this happens. >> i guess you wouldn't wish for a silver bullet then. before we say thanks to david plouffe a word about the national program. next wednesday night we will meet a small professor of the university of utah who has also served in the israeli military. his expertise is how to handle domestic terrorism of the sort we saw at fort hood texas or on the times square. it's a national issue i thought would make an interesting twist in the semester of national agenda. a quick perlo for the global agenda, the international speakers see reason the spring global agenda begins february 23rd. watch the web site for details, udel.edu/globalagenda. if you're not on the list and would like to get on the list

for the notices of programs like this, print your name and e-mail address on one of the sheets of in the lobby on your way out. don't forget david will be signing books in the lobby at mitchell all right after this program. be sure to get yours and ask for his signature if you like and please, let thank our special guest tonight, david plouffe. good night, everyone. see you next week. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next weekend more than 90 new members of the house began arriving in washington, d.c. tomorrow they will get lessons on congressional ethics on --

and details on furnishing their offices. tuesday, the class photo for the new members and a meeting with the house parliamentarian to get them up equated with the voting system. they're expected to get their official house and blackberries. on wednesday and thursday, they will schedule further meetings with their caucuses and conferences. new members and their spouses will attend a welcome recession. -- welcome reception. from this morning's open " washington journal," r. brown tubal about the 112th congress. this portion is about 20 minutes. ues. host: our sunday round table with michael bocian and kevin madden, a longtime republican strategist. let me begin with the a look

session of "the washington post" -- the outlook section. won and done? president obama must decide how he wants to govern. in recent days, he has offered different visions of how we might appach the countries problems. he spoke of the need f a midcourse correction. the essence of the story is that if he wants to be a great president, he should not seek reelection guest. guest: i think he can move the economy ford and still seek reelection. the other story in "the washington post" today says that the president is looking for common grounds with republicans. guest: i agree with theremise of the peace which is that the president has a conflicting reactions to the electoral judgment you that he got last tuesday, but, i think there is a major flaw in the reasoning of

being a one-term president. these sorts of conversations used to be relegated to a three martini lunch and in washington, but now they find their way onto opinion pages. but if you were to decide if you become a one-term president, you would lose all leverage you would need with capitol hill, the senate, and the house. so i find it hard to believe that the president would ever take seriously this type of advice, even though, as provocative as it is. host: there are a couple political stories and "the new york times". a photograph of him from "the new york times". below that, democrats reaching an accord on the leadership in the house. this came yesterday where congressman jim clyburn agreed yesterday to fill a new leadership position, assistant to the speaker. in essence, we have a new congress, new members, 60 plus democrats leaving as congress and the same democratic leadership. guest: a lot of republicans are

cheering as from the sidelines. others are privately patting each other on the back. republicans would look at nancy losi's leadership am a say, beforehand, there were partisan liberal, and now they are a reduced minority, a reduced caucus, and they are even more partisan and liberal. republicans are relishing the fact that they are going to have two years to contrast our agenda with that of nancy pelosi, jim clyburn, steny hoyer, harry reid and president obama. host: this is from bill kristol. nancy pelosi for minority leader. he concludes by sing that nancy pelosi will be an exemplary house minority leader, may she live long and prosper in the b. guest: i do not think the optics

are good for democrats to have the exact same learship, but i think the reality is that the same people can very easily show zero rather different leadership's the -- can show a rather different leadership style. speaker nancy pelosi accomplished a lot. credit should be given to that. i think we have seen after past midterm stabbings in 1994 that president clinton, -- -- midterm stumpings, the president clinton was able to achieve a great deal. one question is do republicans want that? guest: or rect the idea of raising the profile of a leader in the house and the minority, because the public does not have a good sse of that person. but what is interesting here and what i think has created an advantage for republicans is, you have a minority leader with 100% name i.d.

she has seen -- she has been seen as a partisan individual. it is a much easier for oil. i did not agree to the idea of trying to elevate john boehner because the public did not know who he was. that will change. john boehner has a much better chance of managing his profile as he becomes a bigger than it nancy pelosi did. guest: there are two times in history that the speaker of the house has made -- has played a major role. nancy pelosi and nude gingrich. both in similar ways. in two years, things can change tremendously. i think the republicans look like an almost extinct courtesy, ago. 20 months i think the same can happen with the speaker and the leadership. host: michael bocian, a democrat

strategist. kevin madden, a republican strategist. the first republican presidential debate will take place next spring. dick pullman this morning, the 2012 gop field is quite a crowd. expect to see a grassroots starlight sarah palin and an established and picked. guest: i got my first call at 10:00 o november 3. a.m. i did not even have my coffee yet. i think pullman is a great observer of politics in a very important swing state in 2012. there are going to be different levers working right now. there are a lot of folks that are anti-establishment. they do not want to follow the

normal course of how any party would pick a nominee, which is, especially in the republican party, where history has shown that we have been prone to pick the person who is perceived to be next in line. if you look at this particular political dynamic, there really is no next in line. you could make a case for different candidates, whether it was sarah palin, mike huckabee, or governor mitt romy, who gave senator mccain a tough run. there are three arguments you could make that that is the person next in line. but then there is a great number of governors looking at the race and candites who have a lot of appeal because they are not part of the perceived status quo or establishment that could very easily break through in a crowded race. guest: i think one thing we learned from the primaries in 2010 is that the republican party does not have a lot of contro over its primaries right

now. so i am thrilled that you got a call that early, because as a democratic strategis the earlier the primary starts for president, the better off. guest: i am sure some democrats got calls, too. guest: the republican primary -- who can run up for this to the tea par. host: how serious is his potential candidacy? guest: are taken at his word. anybody that you talk to close to governor jindal says that he is not looking to build a national network that he needs should he decide to run. he has attracted profile for the republican primary voters. folks that are professional observers of the race here in washington, d.c., somebody who does not look like every other republican is something that is a very attractive. a conservative governor, somebody with a real record of

reform. all those made him an attractive candidate. i do not know if we will see him in 2012. but you could be sure that he will be playing an important role in any vp selection process or in future presidential elections. host: in, our, or maybe? mitch daniels? guest: maybe. host: mt romney? sarah palin. guest: maybe. sarah pali is a maybe. that is the question i get the most. . .

it would be a very formidable candidate. host: terrified that sarah palin could ultimately settle them -- saddled them with an unelectable nominee. guest: there will be a number candidates running as part of the tea party movement. whether they coalesce around center -- sailor -- sarah palin or senator demands -- demint, do

they have the opportunity to be seen as mainstream while appealing to the excited conservatives? you take a senator thune, they are clearly very conservative but do they have that excitement factor that says i am not part of the establishment? an open question that will be very interesting. politics. the next congress prepares to attack office in january. we will get to your phone calls in a moment and you can join us online with the twitter page or send us an e-mail. the "washington post" what are the issues that will come up i will read what is written. g.o.p. senators are planning an

internal vote on a moratorium proposed by jim demint to ban republicans from passing earmar earmarks steering money to pet projects in their home states. they are hraol -- lpooned and are seen as political liabilitiless. any president republican or democrat would like to have a blank check from congress to do whatever he chooses to do, says mitch mcconnell. he defended the earmark process that some it was within the power of the senator. when i first hardworking of on

capitol hill, i actually worked with someone who was an appropriate. a big part of what you did to perform as part of your congressional duties, was to make the case to your constituents that you were bringing back federal dollars to help build infrastructure in your state. we would call them appropriation achievements for the district. that has changed dramatically now. what i found in 2008 as the one around the country, and just how all where people were a something that seemed like such a good washington term, earmarks. they knew what earmarks were and they knew that they hated them. it will be an interesting debate between the old and the new, people making the intellectual argument that the power of the purse belongs to the congress and we should not cede that to the administration. then there is the new card --

new guard the believes the one of the reasons we have had so many problems with ethics and corruption is that the earmarking process has not been transparent enough or has not driven lawmakers to much as part of their official duties. we will have a fast and furious debate at the beginning of the new term. hate earmarks except the one in my community. let's wash that new fire truck my congressman got f me. guest: i think he is making the argument that they are a check on presidential power. i don't think that argument will take him very far. i think there is a reality that the earmark process has become a major problem, not just in the public's view but in reality. a lot of them are very parochial and not in the public's interest. at the same time i think there are ones that are great community projects. the fire station is important

and the federal government may in fact have an important role in making sure the firefighters have the funding and resources they need. i think the reality is that this will be an interesting battle because i think many people have run on earmark reform and ending wasteful spending in washington. i think those who sit in the highest seats of power like senator mcconnell are deeply tied to the process and rely on it in a state like ktucky which benefits tremendously from it and i don't think they will let it out of their hands very easily. host: you worked on a item of campaigns. guest: i worked on eight house races this cycle. four incumbent, three of whom were re-elected. i was involved in two senate races, alexi giannoulias who lost in illinois and was

involved from the democratic senate campaign committee side on the colorado senate race as well that electing for the first time michael bennett. host: anks for being with us. kevin, you are an old pro at this. let me ask in john boehner. he takes over as speaker of the house. what does he bring to the job? he is your former boss. guest: yes, so i have done this for a living before. one thing you haveo remember about john, it is true when you work for him reform is at the heart of erything he does. when he first came to washington, he reminds people of this every day and he has been here since the late 1980's, he told the people of his district if they wanted to send somebody to washington to rob the federal treasury vote for the other guy. he first made a name for himself as part of the gang of seven

that exposed the house banking scandal. he has great respect for the institution but sought to make it work better for both parties and be more transparent. so, i think that is something you are going to see particularly with this earmark ban. john was the last, when he was majority leader, worked hard to institute the last earmarkban. i think you will see more of that. he's somebody who takes a very team oriented approach. i think it is something drilled into him since he has grown up because he was one of like 12 brothers and sisters. you can't get along very well with other people and work very well in a team oriented way if you don't find a way to get along. that is something that i think -- and i think one other thing to remember is he was a small busine businessman. so he understands a lot of the pressure people are feeling in this economy, wther because of regulation or taxation.

he is accepts active to this -- sensitive to that as he works on legislation. host:e got pretty emotional when he declared victory but those of us who have seen him here and interviewed him that is not unusual. guest: it is not. he works on a charity for inner city schools in washington, d.c. and every year when we used to have t dinner to raise funds to help some of the inner city schools one year we made sure everybody had tissues in case they were the ones close to him but it is directed by things he cares about so when he talks about education he helped push through earmark reform and helping children, disadvantaged. it is something that hits him in the heart. host: marcus joins us on the democrat line from silver spring, arkansas.

hello? we will go to jim in fairfax, virginia. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i've got one question and one comment, please. that question is as a strong supporter of israel congress would not condone any illegal settments in any other country except israel. why does congress condone settlements, illegal settlements in occupied territory? not only congress but the press also? and the one comment, to the republican strategist, sir, when boehner is asked wl he compromise, i suggest that he says i will cooperate with the president when it enhances the american people. i will not cooperate with the president if it -- what is the

word i'm looking for -- if it enhances the liberal agenda. that is all he has to say and the american people would be behind him. guest: the first part of the question about israel, it is obvious that for a very long time israel is such a strong ally of the united states and has active constituencies within congressional districts and all 50 states. so, it is an issue that many americans -- i'm sorry -- many lawmakers pay great attention to. but they believe it is the most impoant footprint of democracy there. to the secd question that jim had, i think that it is emblematic of a lot of voters who voted for republicans and believe that we need to stop this growth of government, stop the spending in washington, stop

the size of deficits and they have very calcified opinions on it and they believe the leverage lies with a lot of republicans on capitol hill as we begin to contest some of the issues with the administration and democrats on capitol hill. guest: on isrl i would s it is one of the hardest issues that president deal with and i think under the clinton administration we were at the doorstep of piece with that and didn't get there. i think the last two presidents have struggled with it. i think that president bush largely ignored it the first seven years and tried to get very engaged at the ends and was unable to make progress and i think president oba has had a little trouble in his own right with signals getting mix >> tomorrow, all washed imposed

congressional reporters look at the agenda for this month's lame duck session in congress. we will talk with mike lee of utah about his election to the senate, the tea party movement, and the balanced budget amendment. and a discussion of the election to the house, legislative priorities, and leadership of the democratic party. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. new members of congress are arriving this weekend for orientation events on capitol hill. perry bacon joins us now. he is a political reporter for the "washington post." what is different about the new class? >> a lot of the freshmen have never been in any kind of political office before. not only have they not served in congress never served in these state legislator or city

council. they ran against the government. the new group will have to learn about the rules even more than previous new members of congress. >> you mentioned their goals during the campaign. you have a sense of what their legislative priorities might be? >> new members among the republicans, less about what they want to do and what they want to oppose more. everything that credit and obama proposes. they want to oppose spending and refill the health care legislative -- legislation. they want to undo the last two years of what president obama and the democrats in congress have done. >> do some of the tea party candidates had concerns about working with the gop already in power? >> they have some concerns. i know that rand paul has

expressed concerns about earmarks, this way the congress can expand specific spending in the bills. some have views to the right of the current republicans in congress and they are likely to be some tensions in that regard. >> how was the new class, which changes in leadership, how was the formal power structure of the g is changing? >> it will be the same pretty much. john boehner will be the likely speaker. eric cantor will be the no. 2. one new position may go to the freshmen. there will be a lot more republicans and a lot more are going to be conservative activist types. that will push the party to the right. >> any idea how this might affect democrats?

>> i think there are two different ways. president obama is already giving signals that he wants to find ways to compromise on the republican ground. earlier this year, he was opposed to allowing tax cuts for income over $250,000. he opposed that initiative. he is not suggesting he might allow some those taxes to keep going -- he is now suggesting he might allow some of those taxes to keep going. in the house, the democrats look like they will be as little as they were before. house democrats looking like they will keep nancy pelosi in place as the democratic leader. people thought she might move on but apparently she will stay on and fight to stay in place. >> a look it capitol hill with. bacon, jr., political reporter for "the washington post."

>> this weekend, more than 90 cent to be members of the house began arriving in washington, d.c. tomorrow they will get lessons on congressional ethics and details on furnishing their offices during orientation. tuesday, the class photo for new members, and the meeting with house parliamentarian who will go over house rules and get new members equated with the layout of the lower chamber's voting system. they are also expected to get their official house blackberries. on wednesday and thursday, members @-look forward can schedule further meetings with their caucus in congress -- conferences. they will also attend a welcome reception. on friday, the soon-to-be members will participate in an all-day office lottery. now, more on the revolt of the midterm elections with sunday

talk show host. the political is holding this event that they newseum in washington d.c.. it is a little over an hour. >> good morning and welcome to our post-election analysis. thank you to our c-span audience, and we are streaming this live on political. we will keep that up there for the weekend. we will have a big audience today. i and the editor in chief of politico.

as we get started, i want to thank our sponsors for this, the national caber and television communicators, they are greek partners and we appreciate them very much. -- they are great partners and we appreciate them very much. i do think it is the time of year when we 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 rest of us. i'm talking about washington political pundits. [laughter] it is not easy trying to analyze events come and make predictions, makes sense of the chaos of washington politics. i know this personally. in 2006 i wrote a book with a friend of mine and a colleague,

mark helprin. he is now with "time magazine." mark and i tried to do a book. it was going to forecast what would happen in the 2008 election from the vantage point of two years out, "the way to win." you can still buy it. [laughter] it was a good book. there was one problem. in its 400 pages, there was one named that did not appear and that was barack obama. [laughter] it probably was not 100% rock- solid. i think there was a lot of wisdom and netbook. [laughter] but there were some things that we missed. i've got a favorite quote about the hazards of prediction that comes from a historian arthur schlesinger jr. who became a friend of mine, one of the giants of american history.

he said, our record of bogus prediction should lead us all to a knowledge of profound and chasing frailty and the possibilities of the future are more diverse than the human mind is designed to conceive. the future outwits all of our services. and there was another quote on the same theme. it was by yogi berra, predictions are hard, especially about the future. [laughter] i look back and every week and on politico, we do a q&a with these guys. one could not be here today. i say, tell me what is going on in happening. and these guys had a much better track record than we did at predictions. i was looking at our political coverage, which everyone makes

fun of london's, but we did -- we did pretty well this year. watching their shows, weekend and week out, that would affect a good sense of what happened. and that is true of political coverage. we do not always blow it. these guys hardly ever blow it. i want to introduce them and get this conversation going. we're starting at the left, christiane amanpour, the anger of "this week." she started this not too long ago. when did you start? >> just this past summer. >> we get news junkies like us and most people in this room knowing her from her career and just recently joining abc to take over the sunday post. bob schieffer is the cbs chief washington correspondent and

monitor -- moderator for "face the nation." it has been about 40 years. you need at least 40. both bob and he has covered every piece in the washington during those years. candy crowley is the senior correspondent and anchor for cnn. she took the reins over of that chair in february. in her role as she political correspondent she covers a wide range stores including presidential and gubernatorial races. she is one of the real work courses you will see -- work horses you will see. i think that is true of all of the people over here. david gregory is the moderator of "meet the press.

david has been doing that since december 2008. he took over one of the really is deemed -- esteemed chairs from the late tim russert. in addition to "meet the press," he is a regular on "the today show." he has been with nbc since 1995. i thought you were younger than that. >> time marches on. >> i figure we would open it up with everyone talking about their shows and reflecting back. what was your biggest "get" of the cycle? the really eliminating moment they you learned something about politics. we will go down the line. >> in the political context, there were two when robert gibbs said the house could fall.

that was a moment. it was a bit of truth telling that he wanted to doubt. >> and ray charles could have seen it coming. >> it we like a real moment of candor like that. he did not say it would fall but he said certainly it would possible -- would be possible given how competitive the house races would be. that was interpreted as an 80 policy -- nancy pelosi tamping down the ability to rally. i think it was striking and is something the president pick them on -- text up on many have pete sessions and and john cornyn. i think that was an area that

democrats made them take up notice. >> candy? >> this has a great story behind it. it was, early on, the most visible man around, jim demented. -- demint. he said that he would come on one day. we had been scheduled for the show. i usually come in around 5:00 a.m. you do not even want to know what time i get up. i should just stay out. -- stay up. someone said lisa murkowski wants to come on. this was just after she was running as a write-in. one of her aides showed up at cnn at 3:00 a.m.

lisa murkowski is looking for her. she's not a sunday person. >> she probably was not asked don that much until recently. >> exactly. she was an appropriate, which is a bad thing to be now. we had the two of them. the tension between these two people who allegedly worked together, i thought it told us a lot about the two-party -- the tea party and how it fit in to the mainstream. >> how often did you see that on the show? the behind-the-scenes moment, good to see you, some sort of congeniality, with people who have difficult -- different political perspectives. how often is it that they cannot stand each other?

>> i'd think we have all had the experience when you think, "whoa." they cannot hide that generally. >> i would not pick out any particular program. we had a really good, i thought, fall going into the election. one week it would be someone from one party and another region would be someone from the other party. we made a decision early on that we would concentrate on nothing but the elections until the election. i felt like we did really well on that. you talk about how they do not like one another. one of the low points in the year for me that underlines the partisan divide that we have in this country is that at one point when someone from one party, one of their aides will

call up and we will have their opposite on with us. we asked if we can have a separate waiting room because he did not want to sit in the same room because -- with a person from the other party. we told them that they would just have to suck it up. we cannot put up a tent in the parking lot. i thought that it summed up where we were in this campaign year. i would not call that a highlight, -- >> that would not have happened at 30 or 40 years ago. what, and to me that's made it such a telling anecdote. >> we did the illinois senate debate. right before the commercial work i asked a number of questions about his ties to the banking and lending money to mobsters.

it was an exchange between me and him and kirk joined in. we go to break and it is as if nothing happened and kirk turns to him and said, "do not worry. now it is my turn." it was surprisingly nice, i thought. >> christiane? >> i have not yet presumed to be a pundit in washington. i am new to this. it has been an enjoyable learning curve. i am coming to this in a much more reportarial world. i am studiously avoiding giving my prognostications. i would say my highlight was probably my first program when i interviewed nancy pelosi. i thought that was a good get. i had not hurt but i had never interviewed her. i was struck by her fighting spirit.

i was not too surprised when it turned out she decided to fight for the leadership position right now. i think that is what she is, a fighter and a true believer. one of the other interesting, sort of, combinations because i am doing in little more international layer on a policy and politics here to connect america to the world and the world to america, i had a program in which we had the secretary of stock -- secretary of state hillary clinton and the iranian president ahmadinejad. there were talking about the same things from different perspectives and that was incredibly interesting. hillary clinton was very determined and trying to straddle the line of the administration which is engagement while staying strong against iran. in ahmadinejad was as provocative as he always is. he told me they were going to go back to nuclear negotiation talks.

they plan to go back to them. that is interesting. george commented as i was on my conversation with him about stoning. i was asking ahmadinejad about the stunning. he said, "that is a first for sunday morning television -- stemming." -- stoning." >> to me, the most interesting answers are the non-answers. at one point we had a steady whole year on and i asked when he was going to -- steny hoyer on and asked when he was going to start kicking them out. he asked, "the you know i am not going to answer that, right"? >> john cornyn was interesting

when he said they would not win in the senate this cycle. as candy says, trying to get the details and the answers, the election was a lot about the dead. that is what the tea party was about, debt reduction, eradicating debt, and it is very hard to get a real answer about where the cuts will be before the commission. i spent practically a whole program trying to press them on that. >> as spoke to someone who had been in a previous white house, the clinton white house, with the circumstances in 1994 with some similarities and differences that we face now in 2010 with the obama white house. president obama called the election results "a schellacking."

people in politics have to go through the stages of grief. first you have denial, then you have rage, and only over time do you have the acceptance. and the politics, unlike death, you get a second chance. there is a clarity about what action needs to be taken going forward for recovery. where do you think the obama white house is right now in the stages of grief? are they still in denial, rage, what do you think? >> it is only getting worse. this was not the most successful overseas trip that any president has taken a. they thought they were going to get some sort of agreement on trade with south korea. that has gone by the by. they are in a huge fight now. cracks in seems like this always happens. november is a big travel month. -- >> it seems like this always

happens. aipac is often scheduled around this time. president bush took a trip after 1991. do you remember dick thornburgh? it seems like we always have these death marches. >> going back to nixon, he could not go anywhere. [laughter] you are right. it is a tradition. i think the white house, and i think the republicans to some extent, are just in holding patterns right now. that would be the kindest way to describe it. republican leadership passed to figure out what to do and how to deal with the new people who come in to their party. the democrats, obviously, are in total disarray in the house where they have to fight over the leadership of. until the two sides work out

their internal problems, i do not think you can make any kind of predictions about what will come after. the fact of the matter is the democratic party in the washington will now be more liberal and the republican party will be more conservative. the partisan divide is widening. >> to have a disappointed left, a disaffected middle, and a resurgent right. if you put all that together, it is a difficult place to be in. you talk about bill clinton. what his calling card was and the reason he is so well thought of as a political figure is because he was a guy who found the middle. president obama is the guy help -- the guy who has returned the era of big government at a time when a lot of people think government is out of control. it is not responsive to what the economy are truly needs. he has failed to win the argument that government is vital and part of the solution

and not part of the problem. that is where he won the middle of the country. whether it is the economy or don't ask, don't tell, the left wants more. >> the leadership on capitol hill is in the post-election state. they want to have this freshman position. they would really like nome from south dakota to go in with tea party backing. the fact of the matter is that you cannot repeal health care reform. they do not have the votes. they did not have the votes in the senate, etc., etc. i think they are now playing to the tea party side. as far as the president is concerned, i think the main reason nancy pelosi, who at

first was a little reluctant to take on this minority position, was urged by a lot of people to do it. one of them said, "it is not that we are afraid of john boehner, but we are worried about the president." she is the one you can go at them and hold the line. >> do not try to pull a dick morris from the 1990's. do not strangulate us and the bus out there while you worry about reelection. if so, you have heard two answer to. >> republicans have won and it is a complete shift in the balance of power. that is possibly what this is, but i was just reading this article. this is a "buy -- quote by bacchus, "it would take 67

votes to override any veto." i think that is interesting and whether or not this is just a rout. coming from some campaigns on the road, i was struck by how american voters were really turned off by the extreme partisanship. they wanted more than anything for the politicians to get together and solve these problems. on the huge issues that face this country and the world, for instance the deficit, they cannot do it with one party alone. >> to tap into some of your foreign expertise, christiane, i think a lot of americans like a divided government. they like the tension in

washington. from the perspective of a broad, what do people think? do they worry about a divided government or do they see this as potentially a good thing? >> i am not sure they look too much into the nitty gritty of the divided government, but they are watching these results are very closely. capitals and people around the world what to know if this means united states will turn and would -- inward, will there be battles over free trade and protectionism, what could happen with treaties ready to be ratified? will the president be able to get them through? if he does not come how will he look? he personally negotiated the treaty. if the senate does not ratify it, how will that make him look overseas? then of course the afghan war. those are just the highlights. stronger republican representation may make it

easier for him, and certainly for david petraeus, to get the sort of war machine going. the president is wanting to hold that back. it looks like it will go on for many more years than 2011. i think that will be something that will be very interesting. we heard the tea party candidates, well the most prominent ones at least sarah palin's and christine o'donnell, but they spoke about afghanistan in the very strong terms. i think people abroad are looking at the big gun known which is the insurgency in the tea party -- the big unknown, the insurgency in the tea party. they say we are against big government at home and abroad. what does that mean? does that mean america pulls back? >> some of my favorite images involve candidates almost like they are the olympic runners

making a mad dash for their car where reporters are chasing after them. believe, o'donnell, i canceled an appearance on "face the nation" at the last moment. rand paul canceled on "meet the press" in may. every local reporter in many of these states with contested races had stories of candidates just shutting down. what do you make of this effort to escape scrutiny of the press? canceling on "face the nation" or meet the press"? >> do not try to divide us, christiane. this is about unity and coming together. >> they obviously have a strategy about avoiding certain platforms where they will be held accountable in a rtain way.

they know that. i think in the case of sharron angle, a candidate who says they will answer questions until elected, that is a joke. if you cannot take tough questions and you want to be a senator, you have a problem. >> you do not have to love the press, us, or anything else, but you should be able to take questions and be held accountable and and not try to get to office that way. i think that sort of works its self out. rand paul made an unfortunate decision, but he put himself of their elsewhere in the campaign and will continue to. >> i hope it does not become a habit with the rand paul. he will be on "face the nation" on sunday. >> if he cancels, call me. i am willing to come on.

>> christine o'donnell, i mean, the people -- what advisers she had said she would make a fool of herself so they canceled. i do not think it is more complicated than that. >> you are right, but they brought these untested candidates because they knew they wanted energy and to put these candidates out there. it was a deliberate strategy of not talking to the press. it was partially because they did not want to expose themselves but also because they were not able to answer the big questions that were out there. as david said, in the and the voters spoke in nevada and a delaware that cost the republicans the senate. that basly cost them. >> christine o'donnell was a fluke. no one expected her to win.

after she won, there were a lot of quieted people. had she not one, it would have been better for the republicans. cassel would have won. >> we had the chairman of the republican party of delaware on. he said mike was supposed to win until extern multi-party forces came in and put her over the top. -- external tea party forces came in. >> an extremely small number of people came out to vote. >> in the primaries? >> yes. i just stick with that it was a fluke. >> there is no legal requirement that they show up on national television. that is their right. for all those reasons that these guys have stated, 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 is much more important talk to your big state newspapers and television stations. i think, actually, what is more troubling is, first of all, there are out lets these people can go to that are friendlier. they can get their message out there. they can have a web site. they can go over the heads and everything. >> do you think that is palin's strategy? >> short. -- sure. >> a lot of them did not do town hall meetings. they would not tell the their schedule. why were they afraid to face the public? everytime you turn on the tv, there were all of these angry people. politicians never looked good

around a great people. i think they backed up. it is not that they are not accessible to us, but they are not accessible to their voters. >> in my view, and feel free to object, that one reason we see this being done stable with republicans taking control, democrats taking control, and a reverse, is that the middle of american politics is frustrated. what they most want out of washington is to not throw away principles but the threat -- but not to approach everything through the ideology. they want people to be mature, sensible, and focus on solving problems. yet the incentives of our political system push people to the extremes of the right or left. the metal is chronically dissatisfied bigger -- the metal

is dissatisfied. there is a paradox that what they want most they get the least. answer in the context of, are people going to get anything or any governance over the next couple of years? newt gingrich and bill clinton fought, but then ultimately they did pass welfare reform and a balanced budget. it is not clear to me what the dynamics are over the next couple of years. is there all conflict or is there room for compromise? >> the room for consensus is perhaps smaller. you also have the principles involved on whether they can restore trust to get things done, do they have a grasp of the political theater in the way newt gingrich and bill clinton did? i think the ground is there. i think the momentum is there. trying to restore trust in

washington, but i have two points. the disaffection of the metal as aggravated that people have lost faith in big institutions whether it is wall street, government, or the media. that compounds the problem. the second thing is the american people are not always consistent. they say they want certain things. ever was as many to have an adult conversation but here it is. we need to raise the retirement age of social security. "whoa, whoa, whoa." it is a mixed message that you can still be punished to dearly for going into these areas. >> erskine bowles and the senator from wyoming came out to make a recommendation to raise the age for social security. my wife was traveling and saw alan simpson at the airport. they were standing next to each other and she said, "are you

going back to wyoming? going into the'm witness protection program." [laughter] >> there have been a battle royales in tehe streets of france. do you think they will be successful in raising the retirement age? >> in the next two years? not a chance. they can do step around the edges, but if you're looking for major reform, changes to the nation, and will not happen. there are some grounds in that, grounds in trade, i think there are some commonalities. they will come to some position somewhere. the president seems eager, i think, of that he wants to seem

compromising. on big sweeping reform, i think there will be smaller things of the next couple of years. >> i agree with candy. i think they will come to an understanding on extending the above level bush era tax cuts. quite frankly, i do not see much else coming together. >> when we do the turn the table on politico, people cannot see it. but on c-span and at the museum, they can see it. please explain your socks. >> my football team, texas christian university, is doing pretty good. i thought i would wear purple socks until we find out how the team does. i am calling for alabama to beat auburn. >> some athletes do not change their socks.

i assume you have more than one pair. >> i do. >> if tcu does not get to play for the championship, does that become a political issue? >> do away with the bcs. i hate it. i've already done a piece on that. everyone should know that i am not biased about it. know that. >> not on that question. candy, who are you looking at for the republican nomination in 2012? i know we need to take a break, president of politics, so maybe not this weekend. the first sunday in december, that is enough of a break before we can get to presidential politics. who do you want to have on your show? >> the obvious suspects like

mitt romney, but i think you need to look at thune. he is interesting. i think he is interesting. i know chris christi -- >> i don't think in two years they are going to do the same thing that the democrats did it with rubio having to years of experience, but i did see both of those guys are up and comers and i think that will play a part in the presidential race. it will be interesting to watch. >> i think that newt gingrich will announce in january in iowa

that he's going to run. i think he will be the first one to make the announcement, but beyond that, i have no idea. i think it is totally wide open. i don't think any republican has emerged yet. >> you have a hunch as to whether sarah palin will run? >> my hunch has always been that she would not, but now i am beginning to second-guess myself and think she might actually do it. >> i have been with offer a long time but i to second-guess. i thought for a long time she was not doing this instead of things you would do if you were going to run for office. i think a lot of that is out the window. i think of is very smart about newt gingrich. i think it is so important -- we

are in such a different climate now with the republican party that there is nobody was a clear advantage. i think the next year will tell us a lot as far as how the establishment in congress deals with the tea party. >> i have a different philosophy on predictions. i think you have to buy and hold stocks. i could be wrong. every day looks different. somebody would have lost a lot of money betting on my predictions. >> i think sarah palin -- i always thought she would not run. part of the problem is that running for president pretty much mirrors what you do to keep your speaking fees up and your book sales. it is hard to tell you were watching because that the gator is the same -- the theater is

the same. >> i remember being on a program and being asked about her in 2008 just before the election. people ask me about sarah palin and i said don't underestimate her. i got roundly booed by the audience. the thing is, no one should and, obviously, because look at where she is. whether she runs are not may not matter, but wheth she has influence may be more to look at. obviously she did in this round of midterm elections. i think we have to see what the tea party candidates do in terms of influencing the senate, the house, and all the rest. we are coopting the republican party. maybe there is a little bit of bravado and showmanship. it will be interesting to see

how that plays out over the next several months. >> is the tea party going to pull the mainstream of the republican party in their direction or will they get subsumed by the process and the institutional apparatus of washington? >> i think marco rubio is a good example of a higher profile to party candidate who is not beholden to the tea party. he has a lot more crossover appeal and you will not have to listen to jim demint in the senate. i think there are a lot of house members who do come into the fold who will not have a power base on their own. i think they have made the caucus more conservative. that is where the prevailing wind is right now. i think it is less about social issues and more about government issues. one thing about sarah palin, just take a look at the working class whites, the ones who voted for hillary clinton, and whether

a candidate palin would have a shot at those voters. you have to say that she might have a good shot. that is part of how she will look at that landscape. you have to look at a more narrow lane when you think about her prospects. >> what can he says is true, whether she just wants to make money and be a power broker or whether she wants to actually run for president, if that's true, her incentives are the same either way. that will freeze up the republican field, because she has every reason to leave this question open and tantalizing for as long as possible. i want to say something to the audience. we do not have provisions for you to write down questions and i was going to read them up here. i am going to exercise a moderators prerogative. if people want to ask questions, we will go back and forth. we should have a little fun with that.

>> what are the prospects for the start treaty in the lame- duck session? >> does anybody want to take a stab at that? >> i don't think it will come up, frankly. >> is only going to get harder if they put that off until later. [unintelligible] >> i would repeat that because we did not have the mike there. the question was, bloomberg in

2012, and we talked about that disaffected centrist, if there is room for an independent and that i generally and bloomberg's specifically. >> i think he has the money to take it seriously and flirt with it and try to make a statement and take it as far down the road as possible. whether he does it or not may not be as important as the kind of impact he has on the party up until then, but i think he is taking a rather serious look at it. he won't do agree, it unless he thinks he can win. >> absolutely. >> i will go back and forth with the audience. i would like to ask each of you if you can think of it -- you have the ultimate booking. i guess the ultimate booking would be god, or something like

that. i presume you all have been questions and i presume that you will eventually have president obama on your show. what is the question you most want to ask? >> i would ask, where does he want to go, and how does he think he is going to recoup? is he going to try -- triangulate the word as bill clinton did? it sounds like strangulation, but anyway, people say they are not sure exactly what he stands for. i actually think that is a very interesting question. what is it that really motivates him in terms of what he has got to do to regain the upper hand for the next couple of years? what does that mean for his

governance over the next couple of years and how he will stand for reelection? >> he seems to feel that all of his problems, that he just was not a good enough salesman, is not the product. i would want to talk to him a little bit about that, and also his timing. >> your skeptical of that, it sounds like. >> republicans say it is about the product, and democrats say it is about the salesmanship. i think it is a little of both. basically what the president did wrong, he asked the country to bite off more than it could swallow in one gulp, and i would like to talk to him about that. >> the key question right now in the next week or so, i have never met a losing candid it or party her >> you have to come up with some reason.

with some reason an 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 for next june, the time to do at will be after december when there have been certain signals from people inside the white house that perhaps the whole june is beginning to draw down. may not work as well as they thought it would even though they remain publicly -- >> does he risk an anti-four candidates running for the nomination, even -- >> does he think hillary is going to run?

>> i think a lot of his election was about people wanting to put a bit of a governor on president bush's eight years. it started under bush but contingent in the continuing under obama it has been pretty big. >> i work in an alternative media and i have a couple of quick questions. the tea party, are the republicans? have i seen where they have been placed on the ballot as a separate party like the green party or the communist party. is that the party republican? question to all of you in the media that i have not heard mentioned at all. the two largest indices that have been built in the world, in

iraq and haiti. i have not heard any of the media in terms of mainstream media talk about those at all. that is a lot of government and money. >> if you are concerned about the cost of building the embassy in iraq, you should take on the bigger issue which is how much we spent on the war. the money that has been spent on the industry is a huge footprint as it has been and will be in afghanistan. if you are concerned about that, it goes well beyond those buildings. goal isthe tea party's to rehabilitate the 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.

>> it seem like many of the tea party activists, those people most motivated in this election, carol lot more about their ideological agenda than the republican brand. in many cases, it seemed they were contemptuous of washington political professionals as the word democratic. >> they ran in the republican primaries and more elected. yes, they want to change the republican party. >> we do have a lot of people that have hands up, so i will ask questioners to be crisp and we will get more of them. >> in the last term, we have seen a lot that relates to immigration. states have been taking action because they have not seen congress do much.

i know we have a limited amount of time and the lame duck but i am curious to see what your thoughts are and what might happen in the next term related to immigration. >> it seems to me it is a classic issue. washington does not seem to respond to it. >> i don't either party wants to go near it right now. i think as a substantial matter, they wrote a bit afraid of it right now. >> you will not see major reform in the next two years. harry reid has promised he will bring up the dream act. >> is significant for the economy as well. apart from all the obvious issues about immigration, america it desperately needs the president's reject the smartest engineers and students from abroad, the people to come over here and do what they used to do. a lot of that is caught up in

the current immigration impasse and appearance of being unfriendly to people coming in. >> now we see the democratic party having some sort of division, given that there is a competition between steny hoyer -- do we expect further division within the democratic party? >> i will add something to that. is that largely ideological competition we see or specific personalities, and who is the better person for the job? >> some of it is as practical politics. normally when a party loses the majority, the speaker tends to

resign. the disaster did, dick gephardt did. i think -- denny hastert did. i am surprised that nancy pelosi wanted to see it again. the democrats who got beat were not the strongest nancy pelosi supporters. she is sort of the leader of the liberal democrats. in that sense, that part is not surprising. >> if it was totally secret ballot, nobody had to make a commitment to nancy pelosi and nobody had to take a stand, just totally what they want privately, do you think the democrats would make her their nority leader? >> i think it would be less likely to. she is such a powerful inside player in terms of raising money. i don't think anybody wants to

have that overhanging them, what could be done to them in a race. i think like bob said, it is practical policies. the division right now, the biggest danger for the president is somebody moving in on the left because of war policy and the like. >> how does foreign criticism -- there was criticism on the federal reserve policy. we have a debt commission that is going to make recommendations in december. voters made their opinions known on the deficit. what is going to take to address this deficit, and how does domestic policy play into foreign criticism of our fiscal policy? >> surly extraordinary things

happen that just in the last two days. the chinese openly questioning whether america, is the leading economic power in world anymore. that is extraordinary. the germans calling the u.s. clueless about fiscal policy is extraordinary language, and it is not incidental, and it is very, very worrying. i think that is going to be a big challenge, and something i want to keep an eye on over the next months and years. you cannot underestimate, even though globalization is a dirty word at the moment, and people here feel that a lot of the economic woes are because of all the globalization outsourcing and rise of the -- it is here to stay. when america's challenge like that in a huge international forum, it does not bode well for the strength of the leadership. >> i also thought it was

remarkable hearing that criticism. does it bother anybody if the united states or obama is seen as back on his heels on the world stage? mitt romney wrote a book saying that president obama is sacrificing the idea of american exceptional listen. is that going to be one of the themes of 2012? >> maybe. i think we will see how it plays out in terms of the american people. if it is personal in terms of wind president bush was president, and people just hated americans. i am not talking about leaders necessarily, but in europe there were all those while protests and everything. i think americans don't like that. when another country criticizes u.s. policy, you get american saying who are you? you don't like that, but also have to say that, remember that

right now, president obama went over there weakened. let's remember in his first economic summit, people were questioning whether america, whether even the free market was the way to go. i think that question has gone on as the american economy has been terrible. it will be interesting to me to watch how we watch britain and france at this point. they went after the cuts in spending. you had the kids out in the street in london, etc. >> we might get a couple of quick questions in. >> there has been a lot of attention on the amount of money

spent in the elections, particularly on the republican side. how do you see this changing how campaigns are shaped in the years coming forward? >> this was the most expensive, $3 billion just for television commercials alone. there was a lot of money coming in on the democratic side also, from outside groups, so we should not overlook that. one of the interesting things is, these groups ever put together by karl rove and ed gillespie, they are going to stay in operation. they plan to keep going right on up until the 2012 presidential election. >> an interesting point, karl rove and ed gillespie are always saying we are supporting these groups, but there are others who are doing it. karl said he gives money to the texas game association and you

do not say he runs that. the more the cycle when along and more groups seemed to be going well, the less of that complaint i got. clearly this was an effort by the washington establishment to have a big effect outside the parties. >> it is almost all about money now. the money does not always mean a candidate wins. you have examples of that out in california, but money is such an important part. it just lets our system. it almost cannot think of anything else except the money -- it just floods our system. >> will make this the final one. >> "politico" had a good piece

this morning about the narrowing of states that will be in play in 2012. do agree with that premise or do you think the 2010 elections are not necessarily a prelude to what will happen in 2012? >> the c-span audience may be did not see that story. the point was that the 2008 map that president obama had showing states that typically is not win expanded, and the results of 2010 look more like the traditional map where the republicans have their part of the country and democrats have their part, and the playing field is relatively small. ohio, florida -- >> it is an important story, and we keep talking about this notion of realignment. we do see that our policies are just too volatile right now. independent voters are willing

to move en masse and swing back and forth. this is about the independent voter. in states like virginia or florida or the rocky mountain west that were with obama, they will be with him until they are against him. it does narrow its, but look at wisconsin and what the republican party did in wisconsin, an area that was obviously in the obama column. i think if the map does revert a little bit, he will have to play defense. >> one thing we have not talked about, all these governorships turned over to republicans and state legislatures. you have redistricting. it will be harder for democrats in 22 because of the redistricting that will be done mostly by these republican controlled legislature's. >> every week i talked with these folks and i finish up by asking them to give us a quick preview of their sunday shows.

that is how i would like to end at this session. if you could give us a preview of what you will be serving up for your viewers this weekend. >> we will be doing a debate between lindsey gramm and madeleine albright. we also be doing an economic debate with business leaders, and then we have our roundtable. >> we have rand paul who will give us the perspective from a tea party republican side. chuck schumer, democratic senator from new york, who has not been on sunday television in about six months. [laughter] >> remarkable. >> i don't have the vaguest idea what will happen sunday morning because my colleague is doing the show.

we have interview with george and jeb bush that will air at night, so i am doing that with the two brothers together. >> very interesting. next sunday at 8:00. >> my former colleague. >> i will be talking to david axelrod, his first interview since the election. also i will talk to senator mccain who is just back from afghanistan. we will to an economic discussion as well on the debt commission and the president oversees. monday we have newt gingrich and alan greenspan. >> i will have to block out my dad because those are all newsworthy sessions. thank you all very much for this session and for joining us every week -- i will have to block out my day.

i know the audience here appreciate your insights. thank you all to our sunday hosts. [applause] thanks to all of you for coming or for listing in on c-span. thanks once again to our sponsors. politico is a great show. these guys start in its every week. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> this weekend, more than nine need soon to be members of the house began arriving in washington d.c. tomorrow they will get lessons on congressional ethics and briefings during their orientation. tuesday is a glass bottle for new members at a meeting with charles parliamentarian who will go over house rules and get new members acquainted with the layout of the chamber. they are also expected to get their official house blackberries. on wednesday and thursday, they will schedule further meetings with their caucus. new members and their spouses will attend a welcome reception. on friday, the soon to be members will participate in an all-day office lottery. >> the c-span networks provide coverage of