problem by the fed or below posed by the fed. >> we have just one minute left. let's look at the larger financial services committee with the leadership of spencer bachus. what are the major things he is indicating to come out of that committee? >> this is an opportunity to go back to the debate of how much regulation we should have of the economy and the financial system. you can argue that there is too much or too little. most people think there is too little if you look at public opinion polls. this will be a test of what it makes sense to pull back. ron paul is a libertarian in his thinking. he feels we should pull back a lot of that regulation. it will be a test to see if there is traction beyond a small group of lawmakers. >> what do your readers tell you about that committee and what it will do?

we are just about out of time. we will use that as a thank you as we get to closure -- get disclosure in the area of financial services. thank you. >> justice elena kagan was nominated to the bench by president obama to succeed john paul stevens. she began officially serving on the supreme court on august 7. in her first interview, she talks about her reasons for becoming a lawyer, her first oral argument and her approach to opinion writing. we will get a look at her approach to her relationship with the chief justice and her thoughts on the confirmation process. she sat with c-span in her temporary chambers for this interview.

>> thank you for inviting us into your temporary chambers at the court for this interview. there was a piece in the slick magazine this month and it resonated with me -- slate magazine this month and it resonated with me. it said that once a lawyer has been nominated to the court, the next step is to become a great justice. tell me how he became a lawyer. >> i think i became a lawyer for all of the wrong reasons. when i was a law school dean i would tell people not to go to law school because you do not know what to do. but that is why i went to law school. i believe all of those things about keeping our options open. i was not at all sure i wanted to practice law when i started law school. i thought what could be wrong with having a law degree and

then -- and then deciding. when i got to law school, what i was amazed to find was that i absolutely love the law school and studying law in a way that i don't think i had loved any other part of my academic experience. i had been a good student, but i had not felt that passion for a subject matter. i like thinking about law. i like that law was something that was an intellectual challenge and a puzzle, but also had real-world consequences. you could think about using what you were learning to make the world a better place and to make people's lives better. i found it in as the interesting and challenging. in the end, i went to law school for the wrong reasons, but i was glad i got there. >> on becoming a great justice, you have had a lifetime to observe the court. what do you think makes a great

justice? >> i think people are great in different ways. some justices are great because they have extraordinary wisdom, they have an understanding of how to apply the law in their time in a way that completely is consistent the text of the law and the purpose of the law. and it is also completely write for the times that that judge lives in. there are some justices -- right or the times that that judge lance in. some justices have with them about the way the law operates in their society. one justice that comes to mind on that score is robert jackson. there are other justices who are great because of their opinions

and because there are so -- they are so a quick and moving and persuasive when they write about the law. -- so persuasive and moving when they write about the law. there are a lot of qualities that people have. many justices have been great in their own way. whether i can meet any of those standards is something to be seen and something that other people will have to say. >> you are the first justice to be nominated not having served as a lower court judge. does that matter? >> that is something for other people to decide. i am sure i come to the job with less experiences.

possibly, there are some other experiences that some of my colleagues have not had. i hope the court as a whole will be enriched by my presence. maybe you do not need nine former judges. maybe you can have some people on the court who have different kinds of experiences and who come to this job with a little bit of a different purse that -- a bit of a different perspective because of that. the learning curve is steep. there are many things i have not done before that i am doing with the first time. that is what makes the job so fun and so exciting. i hope i will be able to take whatever experiences i have had and whatever talents i might have and put them to use in this different kind of place. >> we are talking to you six weeks into the term. can you talk to us about your application process and what the

first six months have been for -- have been like for you? >> there is a lot to learn. the learning curve is extremely steep. sometimes it seems vertical. the people here have been so extraordinarily helpful. all of my colleagues have been wonderful, warm, and gracious. i think the experiences that i have brought to the job are going to help me a good deal. the solicitor general, you see the court in everything it does, just from a different point of view, from the point of view of the advocate rather than the judge. i am familiar with the practices and procedures of the court. it also familiar -- i am familiar with my colleagues and the way they ask questions and the things they might be interested in. it has been a whirlwind.

new and exciting things all the time. >> do you find a level of populist scrutiny you did not have as a solicitor general? >> that is for sure. when i was the solicitor general, i could walk down the street and nobody knew who i was. as a result of the confirmation process and your picture appears in the paper and on television, now i walk down the street and a lot of people know who i am, especially in washington, d.c. that is not so to when you get out of washington d.c.. people have been extraordinarily nice and kind. they yell congratulations to me, you go girl and all kind of things like that. i feel noted, scrutinize, in a way i never had before. -- i feel noticed, scrutinized

in a way i never had before. the number of photos thats -- number of photos get further and further away. people have been fabulously nice. >> i was reading on a blog about the court and someone noted that you were wearing blue jeans. >> it was what i was wearing and where i order a pizza from. >> justices could come here and resort into the anonymity of the court. in today's society with video everywhere, we will see. we will continue to follow you. >> it is a good thing that people talk about the court and people have awareness that is important in our society.

there is some uncomfortable nest that might go along with that. -- there is some discomfort that might go along with that. it is a point and that people understand the institution and have the ability to talk about it and the people who serve on it. >> what d.c. today as the role of the core? -- what do you see today as the role of the court to? ? >> frequently, this court decides constitutional issues. sometimes it might be statute that congress passes. it is to interpret the law and to ensure that the law is enforced and apply. that is a different role than the political role, then the role of the president and the congress. it is not a role where you are

trying to give voice to what you think are the general sentiment of the american people or public opinion. your job is to look at the law. and try to figure out its meaning the best you can and to apply it. that is often hard. there are difficult questions that arise when the court tried to do that job. tore are questions 0-- tries do that job. we are trying to do the same thing, which is to look at the laws that exist and figure out what they mean and to apply and forced them in the way it ought to be. >> speaking of court-watchers, everyone was interested to know when you would ask your first question and what that question would be? i am wondering about your own thinking in your first oral argument. had you planned what the question would-be? was it the intellect of the

moment that caused you to jump in when you did? can you tell us about that experience? >> i do not think i stressed about it too much. it was a bankruptcy case. i did not think it would arouse too much attention. i do not think it did. it was a complicated bankruptcy case. i tried to prepare for it as well i could. i tried to figure out the issues involved. what i have done for each case is to think about what questions are important to me. what don't i understand? what don't i know? what sorts of answers from lawyers might make a difference in the way i think about a case? as i prepare, i have a running list of questions that i would like answers to. i walk into an argument with some general sense of that list.

my colleagues will ask a question before i get to it often. i will not repeat what they do. but i will try to see what my colleagues are asking and try to figure out what some of them are interested in. i come in prepared with a set of questions. i also listen hard to what happens in the argument to figure out which of the questions i should ask and which would be important and which would be meaningful. >> it looks like you intend to be an active questioner. >> most of the justices are active questioners. i was a clerk on the court some number of years ago in the late 1980's. then, it was a much less active court. it was a much less hot bench. many of the justices on the

court at that time would not ask any questions. or they would ask a few questions. a lawyer could spin out an argument than in a way that is impossible now. most of us are at the questionnaires -- questioners. the lawyer is constantly trying to ask one after another after another. you know you will not have a large amount of time. i think it is a good thing about the court. maybe sometimes we take it a little bit far. sometimes you will see an argument where you think, that our lawyer. he never had a chance -- that poor lawyer never had a chance to tell us the basic theory of the case. all of us read the briefs carefully. all of us have an opportunity to say what he thinks about the case.

argument is for us to say, we have read the brief. we know what you think about the case. here are the questions that it inspired in us. here are the uncertainties you left open. we use oral argument to do that. it is important that you respond to our questions and our concerns. >> so you come in with a vast knowledge of the cases and what they are. that helps. >> it definitely does. sometimes it will have more of an effect than other times. some people come in and they have read the briefs and they have had experience in similar kinds of cases and they know what they think. other times, you will see a much more open, exploring set of questions. you can see that the justices are struggling with some new issue or some different aspect

of an issue that they have not confronted before. sometimes, it really makes a difference in terms of, help me try to figure this out. sometimes, a little bit less so. sometimes, in those sorts of cases where the people have figured it out a bit, the justices are using the questions as much to talk to their colleagues as to talk and get information from the lawyer. that is of value in oral arguments. we do not talk about the cases together beforehand. oral argument provides the first chance for you to see what your colleagues might see about -- might think about a case, what interests them about a case and for you to suggest to them what you think. parts of oral argument is that, too. the justice are -- justices are talking to each other through

the lawyer. person just happens to be there. >> it facilitates the compensation. having been in the world, what is your mindset about the government advocate? do you think you will be a little bit tougher on them because you know what it takes to stand there? >> i think they ought to be held to a high standard. frankly, everybody ought to be held to a high standard within come to the court. they ought to know their stuff and they ought to be prepared to answer our questions. i am certainly not going to give them any breaks. i know that they work hard. i do not think i will hold it against them that they work for the government. those lawyers are performing a service.

the solicitor general's office is important to the way the court works. the solicitor general post office appears in cases where the u.s. government is not a party, but has some interest and provide expertise. i think the court listens carefully to the government when it does that. the government does not give those arguments in the more respectful treatment than anybody else's. they understand that that is an important set of arguments to understand when one is looking at a case. >> i was listening to some of the recordings of last year's cases. it is interesting to hear your colloquies with the chief. i am wondering about your intellectual relationship with chief justice roberts. often, your questions and answers were buried -- were very

rapid fire. i wonder about your relationship with him. >> he was the great supreme court advocate of his time before he became a judge. i always felt as though he could do better than what all of us as lawyers were trying to do. he did it as well as anybody had ever done it, to be at that podium and to make an argument in front of the supreme court. that is intimidating to know that the person questioning you has stood in your shoes and has done the job better than anybody else ever have -- ever has. i have listened to the teeth's arguments and have talked to people who saw >>'s -- the senate -- i have listened to the chief's arguments and tough to people who have listened to his

arguments. if there is something you want to hide in your argument, he is certain to fight it. i tremendously enjoyed arguing in front of him because you had to be at the top of your game. you should have to be at the top of your game. >> will you tell the story for the camera about because you received from the president to nominate you? >> i received it the night before the announcement. i kind of thought it was coming. it did not come completely out of the blue. i had been on the short list for the prior nomination, the one that justice sotomayor was picked for. i interviewed with the president and i had not received the good call. i received the bad call, the call that said, sorry, it is not

you. the reason i say it was not completely a surprise the second time was because i could see that there was a difference in the days leading up to the announcement between the first time and the second time. the second time, they asked me for much more material. they made me prepare a statement. i started worrying about what clothing i would wear. things like that. i thought it was a good idea. i was more in the game the second year that i was in the first. >> where water -- where were you when the call came? >> i was at home when the call came. they told me that i should be at home when the call came. the president called and he was wonderfully kind and terrific. i think i started crying a little bit.

he was -- everything he said moved me profoundly. he gave me one piece of advice which i did not take. this may relate that to a prior question you asked me. he told me not to read the newspapers for the whole time of my nomination and confirmation. sometimes i took that advice. often i did not much to my regret. it was good advice. he was wonderful. he was kind and personnel and the second conversation was a lot more fun than the first. >> if the article in slate is correct that it is every lawyer's dream, can you describe what the motion was like? >> it is an awesome

responsibility is it is a great privilege to be here. it is an enormous responsibility. this court decides important questions. many people's lives are changed because of this court's rulings. that means you have to do your best to get it right. you have to work as hard as you can to get it right. that is humbling. it is all-inspiring. -- it is awe-inspiring. it is this whole mix of things. it is the most interesting thing you have ever done. it is the most important and the most humbling thing you have ever done.

>> let's talk about the confirmation process. you said the president and-you not to read the newspapers. supreme court nominations are sold -- the president at-you not to read the newspapers. the supreme court nominations are so politicized have. -- are so politicized. >> i got it. i think people treated me well and treated me fairly. even the people who voted against me for whatever reason gave me a respectful hearing. when i went around to do the courtesy the visits, i did 82 of and people wear courteous.

and during the hearings, people ask me good, fair, an important question. i enjoyed that part of it. i am not sure i expected to. it was an opportunity to talk about something that i love and something that i have been thinking about for a long time, which is the will of judges in society and the will of the supreme -- the role of the supreme court. i had a good time. sometimes what the senators really want to know, you cannot tell them. they want you to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down on the 10 hot cases of the last 20 years. or they want you to give them a sign on how you are going to come out on the next 10 hot cases that are going to be coming down the pipeline. people do that on all sides.

they do it on the democratic side and the republicans do it. they have a different set of litmus issues, but all of them want to know those things. you have to keep on saying, i cannot talk about that. i can talk about some general issues. sometimes, you think they do not care about this. they did not care what i think about constitutional interpretation. they just want to know how i am going to come out on this case. that is something i am not going to be able to tell them. a lot of the senators are thoughtful and smarts and educated about a wide range of-- smart and educated about a wide range of issues. i enjoyed my conversations with them and people were putting it to me and people who were tossing me softballs. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> how have you processed the 37 no votes? >> i honestly, i just thinking it is part of the process. there have been a number of us. some were appointed by republican presidents and some have been appointed by democratic presidents who have had a significant number of no votes. the process has become politicized. you are going to have some opposition. i would like to think it did not have much to do with me. i think that is true of me and of a number of my colleagues. the number of no votes does not have much to do with you. it has to do with the political

situation and the relationship between congress and the president and a whole world of things other than what they really think of you. >> much was made of the fact that this is the first chord with three female justices on it. -- court with three male feet -- with 3 female justices on it. do you think there will come a time where people will not notice? >> it is good to see a court that reflects american society and the world of women in society. it is a good and noteworthy thing. i do not take it amiss that people say maybe she is a woman and baby that was part of why she was picked.

-- maybe that was why she was picked. it is a terrific thing. that there are three women on the court. people are not wrong to talk about it. >> justice sandra day o'connor and justice ginsburg talked about wanting to add a feminine touch to the judicial robe. you have chosen to wear the black robe. did you think about that and was that a conscious decision? >> you have to do what makes you feel comfortable. in my real life, i am and not a frilly person. the kinds of things that some people wear struck me as not something i felt comfortable with. i have come on occasion, wore a white scarf under my rope. i wore that for our pictures and for my investiture. i wear pearls a lot, which peek

out from the rope. the probe is a symbol of the impersonality of the -- the robe is a symbol of the impersonality of the courts. in a way, who you were before is meant to go away. you are supposed to apply the law and do justice apart from any personal characteristics that you have. i think that is a profound sample, that kind of playing , black -- kind of plain, black robe that say i will apply the law in the fairest way i think is possible.

>> when you were in the robing room for the first time, can you talk to me about the process and walking into the courtroom and sitting in as a member of it? >> before my big public investiture, i was met by the chief justice and he gave me a little bit of a tour of the inner rooms that the justices go to, the conference room that the justices meet income and the robing room where the justices take on and off their robes, and the dining room upstairs. on the tour, before he shows me the robing room, i looked and

there were these wooden lockers. it goes from the chief justice and then it said justice stevens and it carried on down. the last locker was justice sotomayor. we walked around the building is a little bit and he showed me some other rooms. the maybe to 15 minutes. we ended up back in the robing room again. in that time, what happened was that justice stevens nameplate came off and each of the nameplate had gone over one and another was a justice kagan. he showed me the new locker with the justice kagan nameplate. it was a very effective way to say to me, well, you are here now. your part of the community. your part of the institution. -- you are part of the community. you are part of the institution. >> after all the time you spent in that courtroom, describe the

difference when you walked in for the first time. >> it was an odd-inspiring moment -- it wasn't on spiring moment -- it was an awe- inspriring moment. i was always the front row in the audience behind the podium. to be on the bench and to look out at the lawyers and at the public, you very much feel a sense of responsibility and a sense of awe. >> what do you think of this courtroom itself? >> it is magnificent. what i am most surprised by, i think, when i became solicitor general and i started spending a lot of time there and i had not been in the supreme court court

room for a number of years before that, what struck me was how close the podium was to the bench, how close the lawyers who are arguing are to the justices who are asking questions. you are almost on top of a lawyer. any inclination of the lawyer might have to make a speech, i think, goes away. you're just right there and it is much more natural to have a conversation, to have a give- and-take than it is for anybody to be operating in any way. that is what i think is orating in -- to be cooperatin any way. that is what i think is incredible. it encourages a kind of conversation which is what i think ought to be happening in the courtroom. >> cents recorded our series of

interviews for this documentary, one things that -- one thing that has happened is that the bronze doors have been closed for security. that has always been a symbolic part of the process, the lawyers processing from a court and going down the marble steps. what do you think has happened to the building and the feeling of the process as far as security measures closing the stores? >> this happened last year before got to the court and i was not privy to any of the conversations that occurred among the justices. i do not really know the kinds of reasons people had. i am not in a position at all to think whether they were a prepared justifications for closing them or not. i just do not know. >> i am not asking about the justification as far as the of the operation of the

core. >> it does not make a difference. the court is just as grand as it always was. the people in the court are the same. people come from all walks of life. you have the people who are the supreme court bar and were their all-time, but you also have many members of the public, some who come for an entire argument, some who come for five minutes, they take people in for five minutes for 10 minutes to get a sense of what an argument looks like, and then they go out again. in the court, it is grand and on inspiring as it ever was. >> i goal the time. i am told that justice o'connor was kind of the enforcer of this. she would walk around the

building and said, " why are you not going to lunch? you should go to lunch." i like that. it is a community. people should get to know each other and really try to understand each other and care about each other. to the extent that she said that lunches are time for doing that, i think it is tremendous. >> the sentence a torn, the conference room, -- the sanctum centorum, a conference room, what is it like in there? >> it is a great room. it is a lovely room, as every room in the court is. i do not think i had ever been in the room before. or a year and i was solicitor

general, but i do not think -- i clerked here for a year and i was solicitor general, but i cannot think i had ever been in there. >> what is the conference process like? >> we all sit in assigned places. the chiefs it's at one end. the senior associate justice -- the chief sits at one end. the senior associate justice sits at the other. my chair is nearest the door. that is because i have two special responsibilities. one of those responsibilities is to get the door when anybody knox. -- anybody knocks. some remain not because they left their glasses in their office or somebody needs to give a message to a justice, but my job is to get to the door and get whatever it is. because nobody comes in. none of the clerks do, none of

the secretaries or assistance or anybody who works in the court do. i have to work a double set of doors. i hope to get open one and open the other and pick up -- i have to open one and open the other and pick up whatever. that is one of my job. either job is to take good notes. i am the one, at the end of the conference, who goes to the clerk's office and tells them exactly what the justices decided. in a given conference, we might talk about discrete number of argued cases, but we also talk about a wide number of art -- but wide number of other things, like cases that the court will take. i am busy riding away all the time that i sit there. writing away ra

all the time that i sit there. those are the two special rules for the junior justice. >> explain the process. as solicitor general, you're having to recuse yourself from a number of cases this year. how many cases have you recused yourself from? >> on the cases that i recused myself from where there is any labs, i get up and it -- any collapse, i get and walk out. -- i get up and walk out. the worst month was october. by the middle of this year, most of them are likely -- most of

the recusal issues will be gone. in the spring, i will have to recuse myself, but the artfest of license cited. >> we have done a number of these interviews. -- but the ark has definitely -- but the arc has definitely subsided. >> we have done a number of these interviews. what has it been like since you have been in there? >> i think there is really good discussion. it goes around the room. there is a rule that i like. nobody can speak again until everybody has had a chance to speak once. so everybody gets a chance to be heard.

each person talks about the with that person sees the case and what the important issues are and how they would resolve those important issues. sometimes, that is it. it is clear what will happen and it is clear that there are not any questions to be better around. often, people will go back and forth. oh, i changed my view. i heard another justice had to say. that is another or better way of doing it. or we do not have a clear majority on any approach. let's talk about it and develop a sense of where that majority will come from. and sometimes people will argue with each other. it is never hot. it is never combative. it is certainly never angry. but i think there is good discussion. >> it is hard for people outside

the court, especially people who are passionate about issues, how you can have so many 5-4 decisions and still have a great deal of comity. how does that work inside of this building? >> i am sure will learn more about that as the months and years go by. but it is very striking. it is not unusual. it is not the only court that works like this, by any means. in fact, congeniality is prized as a virtue in many courts. people tell you very much their personal relationships with the other justices, value their friendships, and they'll know that they will disagree with each other some amounte of the time. everybody else is operating in complete good faith, everybody's trying to do their job as best

they can, try to read the constitution and the laws as fairly and as forthrightly and honestly as i can. and i think people duty to the credit for good faith, for thoughtfulness, for fair mindedness. who would want to be part of an institution where body dyslexic other? i think it is one of the great things about -- where everybody does likes each other -- where everybody dislikes each other? i think it is one of the great things about this institution. they can understand that everybody is trying to do the best they can and everybody is working really hard and everybody cares a lot about law and about this country as well.

so i think none of that is fake. it is very real kind of respect the people have for each other. >> as of are taping, have you been assigned an opinion? >> i have. i have had two sit-in's. i will not be much more specific than this, but every justice gets at least one opinion from .ach city isit-in >> this is the part of the job that is new. we have learned about the art of persuasion through handwriting. how're you approaching that to? >> -- our you approaching that -- how are you approaching that? >> i would like to write the kind of opinions that really do address the competing arguments,

not try to sweep competing arguments under the rug, but tried to address them fairly and forthrightly. i'm trying hard to write opinions that i think our thoughtful -- that i think are thoughtful and as well reasoned as i can make them. >> we are running out of time. two minor questions. we learned last week -- justices talked to us that briefs follow you everywhere. there is no end of reading. justice scalia is putting his three sons and i've had. >> i have -- justice scalia is putting his briefs on an ipad. >> i have a kindle.

i do truck them around in hard copy, so i do it both. it is endless reading. in many of these cases, not only the party submit briefs, but there are many, many organizations and individuals and governments who are interested in the case and they will submit friends-of-the-court briefs. sometimes, there can be 40 or 50 breaks. -- 40 briefs or 50 briefs. if a kindle or an ipad can make it easy, that is terrific. >> are you reading all the time? >> i have always worked hard, but i have also found the time to do things that i like to do. i am hopeful that that will still be the case. >> the last question is really about -- you mentioned earlier about educating the public about

the court society. do you plan to be a public justice? do plan to be speaking belote, being on panel sessions, writing books? what will your approach be been interacting with the public? >> a think that will develop over time. i do not plan to be public justice in my first year. i am planning to learn as much as i can about the court and about the issues that the court handles and to soak it all in and not to distract myself by going a speaking by going out and speaking. -- and not distract myself by going out and speaking. i hope to be a person who hopes to educate the american public about the processes of the

judicial role and legal interpretation. i think i would enjoy doing that. over time, i will do more of that. but i think i will sort of played by year a little bit, try to figure out what audiences are most important and what messages are the most appropriate ones for me to convey. >> our last question is a catchall -- the biggest surprise that you want people to know that you have experience so far. >> the biggest surprise. gosh. >> is it all as you expected? >> i do not -- i am not sure i had a defined set of expectations. to have something that is really big surprise, you have to have a real set of expectations that this is not totally like what i thought it was. for the most part, did not quite know what i would find. i did not quite know how the

justices related to each other in conference. i did not quite know how the internal processes work. this is a little bit of a black box. the certain processes, you can listen to tapes of arguments, but i do not think there is a very good idea of what happens inside the institution. that is true of even lawyers who have appeared before the court several times. there is a lot of guessing. what does go on in there? so i was not sure what i would see. but what i see, i think, has been very inspiring. i think you have nine people who are working really hard and trying get the best that they

are able to do something really important in this country. and i think that what i have seen is an institution that works very well and that the american public should be proud of. >> thank you for helping us understand it better with this interview. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> on sunday, january 2, watch the updated version of our documentary. comments from thedenc newest justice and others. from this mornings "washington journal," the gop house in 2011. also, a look at the challenges facing the obama administration. this is about 30 minutes. washington journal continues.

welcome the author of two books. fearful they will go too much to the right. the question is what posture he will take. there is a moment in the white

house briefing room as the president walked to the podium with the capture of "take your child to workday." it continues with that photo and a lot of political buzz in that town. an historical moment to see them there and have the president hand off to a former president to deal with the debate and decision of the tax bill. >> a delightful conversation.

bill clinton has become significant asset in some of these fights. they popped into the area where robert gibbs' office asking how do you pop the door? we want to go to the briefing room? there was a christmas party for that afternoon. the last thing people were expecting was to see either obama or clinton. no one anticipated.

it looked like he was not going to leave the podium there for a while. the reporter smartly continues to ask questions. president clinton clearly wanted to answer them. >> the former president's book decision points number one in the "new york times" best seller list. >> i think there is such interest in the bush presidency. no question he remains a devicive figure. likely to get a lot of readers. >> the gains were made but democrats can fix california.

the way to stop just before nevada. when was once the youngest governor and now oldest governor to deal with the budget. >> california would be the big story in the country because of the fiscal problems and because of the size and importance in this country. the political issue gets swoern

in. there will be i lot of people out there wandering how they will deal we are seeing that shape up already. it is almost as if the house and senate campaigns are starting even before the 2012 presidential campaign starting slower than we used to.

we already had candidates. senator obama and clinton nearing the starter gate not likely to get into this in spring. even the darker horses are taken. in this town and in new york, a lot of media. a spring debate. politic co-and msnbc. yesterday cnn put in the debate. will all these debates happen? >> i can't recall a time when

more debates didn't happen. by the time most these events were scandaled. i don't know, we had so many debates that we began to suffer from some debate ma feeing. how anxious is the media campaign. >> your colleague has managers versus populous. the edgy and defensive, culturally conservative.

tending to be someone more moderate. a terrific piece and friend. we wrote a book together. he is marchly good at looking through the graphics. within the republican party, there is a likely scism. as the party has broadened out, romney and palin tipify their two polls. let me ask you about the

speaker, nancy pelosi. she grew up in baltimore. her dad, the former mayor. what changes do you think we'll see. .

they want to see some action. as we saw over the tax bill, ta, nancy pelosi and a lot of democrats in the house are fearful that the president is going to make deals they think are anathema to the principles of the democratic party. host: she was not at the signing at the white house. the bank nor was senator harry reid. -- guest: nor was harry reid. what it did was it signaled the now-significant gap that exists between house democrats and the white house. it is a great deal of respect

among people around the president for the speaker and soon-to-be minority leader of the house. there is no question that their agendas are different and their constituencies are different. i think the president and the white house are much less focused on the liberal base of the party and more focused on the center of the electorate. the danger of that is that you need and energized base. the president can only go so far in irritating the house democrats or the base of the party. he has a tricky job to do if he is trying to cut deals with the republicans on the one hand and keep its base energize on the other hand. host: our conversation is with dan balz of "the washington

post." someone asked if it does not seem that nancy pelosi is the clear leader of the democratic party. guest: the president of the united states is the leader of the democratic party. she speaks for an important part of the democratic party. i cannot recall an instance in which a congressional leader has eclipsed the president in leading the party. there are always tensions within political parties. we see it in the republican party, in the tea party versus the establishment and we see it now in the democratic party between the liberal base and the president over some issues. not all issues, by the way. that tension is going to play out. at the same time, the entrance of both nancy pelosi and president obama is to maximize the democrats' possibility of

winning elections in 2012. the better the president does, the better the whole party will do. in the end, they are going to be alive even if they disagree in some debate's going forward. host: a piece on friday that a lot of attention calling the president, "the comeback kid." guest: someone said he "hearts" obama. there were two pieces that he wrote that were complimentary of the president. he believes that the tax deal that the president cut was one in which the president got more out of it than the republicans. he wrote that column a couple of

weeks ago. as the signing is about to take place, he is essentially saying that if he wins reelection in 2012, we will look back to the day the announcement was made at the beginning of his comeback. i think we have a ways to go before we know the degree to which the "comeback" is taking root. host: we are with a dan balz of "the washington post." . caller: mr. obama, i am not a follower of the republicans or the independent. the next thing you hear is about is not an american. he is a socialist. he is just like teddy roosevelt,

a socialist. i am having a hard time understanding what you guys are saying up there. he is an american president. he is the commander in chief of the united states. host: thank you for the call. let me take his comic and bring it back to your column. what was the --let me take this, and bring it back to your comment. what was the message in the midterm elections? guest: the economy has created a sour nest on the part of a lot of republicans. -- a sourness on the part of a lot of republicans. there is no question people are going to be unhappy. a lot of people do not believe the federal government, whether

it is the president of the united states or both, have dealt effectively with that economic crisis. people have seen money go into banks, financial institutions, auto industries. they see executives getting bonuses. they say, what have you done for the middle class or the working class? that is one of the messages that have come out. the second message is unhappiness over the policies president obama put in place to deal with these things, particularly among conservatives and independence. there is the feeling that we were throwing money at a problem and we were created sizable debt for children and grandchildren and future generations. and that size and scope and reach of government became an element of the midterm elections. the third element, which is what i spoke about one minute ago, is

this question that washington is broken. the two parties can not get along and they spend more time fighting amongst themselves been worrying about the country. all of that became part of the mix throughout the course of the year. we could see this coming for a long time. this was not a surprise outcome. i think what we have seen in post-election polling is that, while it was a defeat for the democrats and it said that president obama, it was not necessarily an endorsement of the republican agenda. as a result of that, president obama and the new republican leadership in the house have some proving that they still have to do. host: have you been following the note-label group. p -- no-label group?

guest: george will is dismissive of it. we have seen this effort in the past to try to bring some harmony and some comedy to our political debate. i do not know whether the new labels group will have any effect on that or not. it is a difficult thing to pull off. as john glenn once said, it is trying to radicalize the sensible center. we have watched different groups try to create a bipartisan shifts and create forums where the parties could work together. on an interim basis we see this happening, we see different sides coming together on a particular issue. at this point in the country, we

are polarize. the republican party and the democratic party are so homogenous compared to what they used to be. the most liberal republican in the house of representatives is probably more conservative than the most conservative democrat in the house of representatives. that is not the way it used to be. you have the country having sorted itself out into two camp, liberal and conservative with some centrists in the middle. while this group has good ambitions, how you actually put that into practice and how you convince people in the capital during political campaigns to lower the temperatures is a much more difficult thing. host: we will see some of that as we get the census information as the redistricting begins in earnest next year. we have a caller on our line for

republicans. we are here with dan balz. caller: 0, promised he was going to support the victims of genocide. since he has been in office, he started flip-flpooing. do you think -- he started flip- floping. do you think he will finish this thing for the last time? guest: i am not following this issue closely. i saw some e-mail traffic friday about this. i would be surprised if this were resolved. host: larry at this point.

the republicans are trying to coordinate attacks on public employees on private government and subsidized businesses. the larger issue is what republicans are trying to get from republican governors. guest: there are two issues. what is the issue of the relationship between republicans and republican governors. in 1994 when the republicans won the senate, they had a group of republican governors that had already been in place and adopting activist, conservative domestic policies. the primary was welfare reform. there was tommy thompson and john engler in michigan. that led to a national welfare

bill in 1996. the same thing may be happening now. there are a lot of republican governors who have significant majorities in their legislatures. they will be trying to put in place policies to deal with job loss in the economy, to deal with state budgets that are strained tremendously and facing significant shortfalls. they will deal with education reform. they can provide a model for governance. it will be a model for the republicans in congress. there is a big and growing issue in the states because the states are strapped for money. i was at a meeting last month in san diego and talked to several new governors, john kasich in

ohio and scott walker from wisconsin. they talked about the issue of public employee compensation and their desire to do something about it. i think public employee unions are more on the defense's -- the defense of that i can recall in long time.a host: what does the president's overall job approval rating tell you? guest: there has not been much movement for many months. he is somewhere between 45% and 50%. in some polls he is slightly more positive than negative. he is not where the worst of our present have been in terms of

public opinion. he will want to try to move that up. host: 71% of americans have been hurt by the recession. guest: there was an interesting finding in the nbc wall street -- in b.c. "the wall street journal" paul. -- nbc-"the wall street journal" poll. the question was asked, what was your defining moment? many people said 9/11. this time, more people said that it was the recession. but the people out of work, it was a terrible poll. for what has happened with 401k's and dow security, this is a country full of people who -- and job security, this is a country who feel less secure

than they were a few years ago. host: people were asked who do you trust to help middle-class people and help with health care reform. the president has an advantage of 53% to 38%. guest: there is an overarching question that we ask. it is on the big problems facing the country and do you trust president obama or the republicans in congress. president obama had a narrow advantage. neither president obama our congressional republicans have the upper hand at this point in the eyes of the public. in 1994, republicans in congress had a more significant advantage over president clinton on a number of those questions. after the 2006 elections when

the democrats took of congress when president bush was still in office, democrats in congress had a significant advantage over president bush on those same questions. even though the republicans won big, they have not one bank the hearts and minds. host: it is 77 degrees in hawaii this morning with the first family is, but the president is still here in washington. guest: the president will not get to his favorite vacation place for a while. caller: i would like to thank you for your insights this holiday season. i would like to make a comment before my question. i commend you for working for "the washington post" because it is the last newspaper that i read that is considered to paternalism in the united states.

you were speaking about how you were going to have the dates coming up and no one has declared to be running for office or present during 2012. we have a lot of republican candidates or possible candidates who are pundits for fox news. i wanted to find out -- i know there is a breach of contract if they declare that they are going to run for the presidency. i wanted to find out from you a little bit more about that and if you know anything about it or the history of that in the united states. has it been an ongoing issue or is it something new? we have truly professional politicians now working on news channels and then deciding to declare at the last minute so they can continue to rake in as much cash as possible. host: rick santorum is under

contract at fox news. john bolton is looking at a 2012 presidential bid. sarah palin is a consultant on the fox news channel. newt gingrich is also there. he has appeared on this network. the others are not allowed to. guest: this is not a brand new issues. it is much bigger now than it used to be. when pat buchanan ran for president in 1992, he was on cnn and had to disassociate himself with cnn as i recall. we have never seen this many people -- it is a good question. part of the issue is the money. the more appointed issue is the exposure. these politicians, at this point

in a presidential cycle, will enjoy a more exposure stay on for the time being as fox news contributors, then they would if they declared their candidacies and had to make their way as politicians. i think there is a combination of the financial incentives and also the desire to stay as visible as they can before an audience that is likely to play a significant role in the nomination process of the republican party. host: one of the under the radar names is someone who worked in the bush administration, mitch daniels. someone on our twitter pate said that mitch daniels will be the guy. -- twitter lapage -- twitter page believes mitch daniels will be the guy. he is a no-nonsense

politician. he is seriously looking at whether he is going to run. some people i have talked to recently who are convinced he is going to run -- he has said he is going to wait until his legislative session finishes in the spring to make a final decision. he is one of a number of people looking at it. the closest equivalent is govern a haley barbour of mississippi. he was a political director in the reagan white house. he was active in washington in different ways. he and mitch daniels have left washington and have become governors of their states and have developed wreckers that there will take on the campaign

-- that they will take on the campaign trail. host: and another viewer says that john thune is another possibility. guest: it seems that he is creeping toward the starting gate. he has a lot of attitudes. he looks like he could be a potentially strong candidate. i think there are questions about john thune as there are about all of these candidates. all of us have got around to talk to people are looking at this race or strategists who are involved in it. it is a notion that for every candidate's strand, there seems to be a weakness. you can go down the list and say so and so has this problem and

so when so has that problem. everybody looking at this has concluded that this race may be as wide open as any we have seen on the republican side for a long time. host: we have a caller on our line for democrats. caller: thank you. i hope i will be able to finish my point. thank you for c-span. i think i will become addicted to it. president obama is a centrist. when his liberal friends assumed he would be more on their side, they were shocked that he ran the harvard law review from the metal. as we talk about these he ran the harvard law review from the middle. president obama will be the next president. i wish you would look at mitt

romney and proposition 8 in california and who was behind it. there is a movie called "to the mormon prophecy." host: will religion be an issue for mitt romney? guest: possibly. it was a factor in his campaign the last time. he gave a speech in december of 2007 in which he tried to put the issue to the side. i do not think it ever got a full airing. it is a potential issue. we do not know how serious it will be. there are other issues he has got to deal with beyond that. we may see that play out in some of the states with evangelicals questioning the govern a's religion. governor's religion.

guest: john bolton is one of the most provocative conservatives out there. he as a prolific writer. almost everything he writes has a considerable amount of edge to it. he has been tough on president obama on foreign policy. if he gets into the race, i think you would have to say realistically that he is a long shot for the nomination having never run for any nomination before and not having any obvious financial network to be able to attack -- be able to tap into. he will add something to the debate. host: we have someone on the republican line. good morning.

caller: i have a couple of questions. i picked up a lot of newspapers and a lot of different media. i am a conservative and i what fox, i slide over here and do it as nbc. i read your paper and "the wall street journal" and usa today. does this feel at all to you that the liberal media is not accepting what happened in the last election? in my opinion, if you look at the statistics as far as who turned out within the republican party, what age groups turned out, compared to democrats, it looks like our side of this thing is more energized. i can tell you i almost feel more energy now that i felt in 2008 when we were running with mccain and sarah palin.

with the primaries and the debates, and everything lost its luster on the republican side after a while. guest: there is no question that there is more energy within the republican party then there is in the democratic party now. we saw that play out in the midterm elections. the question is what will the electorate look like in 2012 as opposed to 2010 and 2008? from the history of presidential elections, the electorate is bigger and broader in a presidential race than it is in the midterms. the party that is most in its size in the midterms tends to do best. i do not think there are any illusions in the media as to what happened in november. when one party wins 63 house seats, the most since 1938, the

outcome of the election is obvious and clear and the message is clear. in comparison to some previous elections, this was a protest election born out of the anger and dissatisfaction we see in the country. it was not a wholehearted endorsement of the republican party. the republicans now have a great opportunity if they can show here on capitol hill and in the states that they have answers to the problems people are worried about, they will be in much better shape than in 2012 with the possibility of winning. incumbent presidents are difficult to defeat. that is the history of it. whether it is a republican president or a democratic president. if you are an incumbent president, you tend to be the favorite. at this point, that is what president obama is counting on and hoping for.