span and the senate on c-span2. next, "wrote to the white house." a series of interviews with the 2012 presidential candidates, this one with thaddeus mccotter. he sizes up his primary opponents. he talks about the state if the economy and the debt ceiling and deficit reduction debate in congress. he also talks about his family and a band in which he plays the guitar. this is 30 minutes. >> when did you first begin to think about running for president? >> i think the thought was planted during the wall street bailout when we saw how the big financial corporations were treated and later how the auto companies were treated when they needed assistance, the dichotomy between the financial sector and the manufacturing sector.

obviously have concern for the manufacturing sector, but as an american, it was a larger question to me, if there are some things in the country too big to fail such as the banks, that implies that there are some things that are too small to be saved. we know that every citizen is equally sovereign asset have an equal say in how these things are decided. as time went on, we continue to see the billions of markets to -- the failure of markets to respond, the bill your credit to flow down to main street. we continue to see people suffering. interestingly, i think that amidst the jeopardy we face, we had a tremendous opportunity to seize the future and make sure the 21st century remains an american century, but in the final analysis, if we allow ourselves to continue to rely on big government, which is contrary to what we see in every other aspect of our lives, we will miss this opportunity. >> when it comes to bailouts, recall -- republicans claim that as government voters, to help the auto industry in your own state, something that mitt romney said he would not have done.

do you oppose your fellow republicans on this? >> i did. economically, as moody's has pointed out, it was a $300 billion hit to the social safety net that would not have been available as loans that will allow the manufacturing base to go down. so i would also point out that strategically that i have a problem with the communist dictatorship in in china being a manufacturing giant of the 21st century. nothing good will come to us from the for our prosperity and security your in terms of mr. romney, i absolutely oppose allowing people to go bankrupt in the manufacture and sector. as a nation, we have to produce well, farm, manufacture, in a big. -- innovate. there's also the underlying premise that having seen wall street bailed out with no restructuring, with a failure to actually get the credit flowing back down, to turn around and say to working people that live in 90-foot loss that there tax dollars are being used to bail

of people in 90-foot loss is unacceptable. >> yet, it was a republican president that said that the u.s. was on the cusp of financial disaster if wall street was not build up, if some of these too big to fail companies were not helped out. >> i disagree with president bush in the past. i respect him very much. i think history will be kinder to him that some of the recent evaluations of his performance have been, but that is where you have options on the table. if you did not want to throw $700 billion at them and hope they went away, that somehow you were not advocating any type of policy. you had a former chief economist of the imf talking about debt for equity swaps. the talk about finding the ones that were insolvent, greg lamotte, forming a resolution trust corp., much like was used in the savings and loan crisis,

and the reason this was so important, and in the 1990's, when the japanese faced a similar financial meltdown, the u.s. ad buys them to do exactly what we did not. they ignore our advice and one of having a lost generation. we are now in the prospect of -- facing the prospect of having a lost generation. it was one of reasons i found the entire debate so reprehensible. we knew it would not work because it had already been tried and failed in japan. >> what are your views about organized labor, and how do you differ with fellow republicans on things like the card check? >> i view it as more of a district but then a national vote. i think it was a mistake and should be handled more at the district level. to me, it is an artificial distinction if you want to get the economy going. as republicans, what we have seen, at least in my lifetime, is i saw former labor leaders

believe what i considered to be one of the greatest presidents of our lifetime, ronald reagan. it tends to lead towards a broader based coalition for moving the country forward for economic prosperity and security. i think if you look at it that way, it makes perfect sense. if you try to win elections by disqualifying yourself from a large section of the electorate, especially in swing states, what you will find is the reason that the republican party since 1988 has only 11 popular vote for the presidency, and that was in 2004 -- as you recall, to thousand was a contested election where we lost the popular vote but one in electoral college, i think republicans have to look at how we have a ball since ronald reagan has left, since george bush the father was elected, and how we can rebuild that coalition. >> the head of the michigan afl-cio said that for a republican, you are pretty good on labor. why is this a defining issue between -- dividing issue between democrats and republicans, and how will the

issue played out in a gop presidential primary? >> for a democrat, i think he is okay, too. high praise indeed. but that is a very relevant statement. there are places i did not look at whether you are in the union or not. i look at whether the situation you are advocating has merit in terms of how it will affect the rest of the community or country. to me, it is an artificial distinction to a large degree. i think that is one of the things that republicans have got away from pure ronald reagan treated everybody as if they were equal because they were. the republican party has to get back to that. my father was a reagan democrat, union member, voted for him. people in our community as i was growing up supported the republican party because they had a host of issue on which they agreed with this, but if we start to tell people that because they are in one organization or another that they're no longer wanted, they will vote the other way, and you will not get to the issues on which they can and have in the past but republican pierre >> which leads to the debate we have seen over the debt limit and budget priorities.

and the issue of compromise. why is it so hard for two parties to sit down and compromise on some of these issues? >> i would not use the phrase that it is an inability to compromise at this point. i think the public thinks the in ability of democrats who could not pass a budget who refuse to compromise on things such as obamacare or the trillion- dollar stimulus with a jammed through not only the republican party but the majority of the electorate. when they had control, they spent like it was going out of style. so their refusal to compromise and cooperate to try to find more constructive solutions for the nation's problems at that time have carried over. now that they do not have a majority in the house, what we are seeing out of democrats out of the senate and the white house now is a posture, not a plan. i continue to point out a

bipartisan plan that was passed out of the house was a concrete plan. we were told what they did not like. they voted it down in the senate. fine. where was the senate plan? we have only recently since speaker banner and the house republicans are coming up with a second plant, are we seeing any type of plan, as flawed as it may become come out of the senate. we still continue to see no definitive presidential plan either directly advocated by him or through the senate. i think it is not just a failure to compromise, but it is a failure of government and failure to except the

responsibility of what they have done legislatively to the country and the whole is in. we know republicans were not great on this when the republicans have the majority of the presidency, but those were times when the republican party was running up an annual deficit of $96 billion. this white house and the democratic congress have run up a monthly deficit of $111 billion. a monthly deficit. >> let me talk that point. democrats pointed to republicans when they had control of the white house and the house. republicans for democrats. it goes to the core issue, getting young the finger- pointing and getting something done. >> as to the finger-pointing, when it comes, as it did recently, on the president's national televised debate with you relied on certain issues of the past, republicans learned through a very painful time where we have rightfully been put in the minority for our failure to control spending. we self assess ourselves. we were assessed by the public. many of our colleagues did not return, and we learned from that painful experience that spending in the way we did was unacceptable as such to the republican party, so we learned our lesson. democrat party has not here they talk more taxes, more spending, and pretend somehow that the government will help grow the economy or lead to prosperity would exactly the opposite is the case. to me, you have one party that has learned from being put into a minority for failing to control spending and another that has not in terms of the senate and in terms of the white house. >> define your brand of politics. what is your ideology? >> i am a republican. i join the party in 1986. friend of my asked me to run for delicate, and that is how it started.

one of the things you realize is the beauty of the republican party is the variety of views that come together, the shared principles remain the same period to focus on the principles. except a variety of opinions and differences that can lead to more constructive solutions than a single model marching forward. i always like that. other people get the right to call me whenever they want. sometimes it is less than flattering. >> there is moderation, conservatives, liberals, progressive spirit you would not give yourself any other label? >> i am republican. i belong to the party of lincoln and reagan. my mother was a moderate republican. my father was a truman democrat. in view of the political experiences i remember politically growing up was when my father admitted voting republican to my mother. nixon in 1972 and reagan in 1980. my father died in 1984.

>> why did you get involved in politics and what led to you registering as a republican and seeking office in 1986? >> i was a local elected official, and i did not particularly care for appeared my father never cared for politics. there were times he was asked to run for detroit city council way back in the day, and he declined to do that. he found it to be a less than productive pursued. the reason i got involved was because i saw it did not work under jimmy carter. it did work under reagan. i also got involved because a friend said to me i should join the republican party, the briefing delegates. at a time when michigan was going through a caucus ship, tried to make the determination between george h. walker bush, jack kemp, and robertson supporters, so my friend was a jack kemp supporter, and he got the ball in the party appeared much to his chagrin, i wound up being a bush supporter. >> in the 1990's, you wound of the and in local politics.

when did you decide to run for politics? >> that was much later. that was in 2002, post- september 11 because as a state senator, you cannot affect national policy, and clearly this was a threat to the nation. it was a significant proportion to anything we have seen in the past, except for pearl harbor. to me, it was a place you could make a difference in terms of the national security of united states and protecting your community and moving it forward. in michigan, we also had some of the economic challenges that still confront us to this day. this was the place where you could make a difference. >> why are so many members of the house running for president and not one sitting u.s. senator? >> there are three of us. he would have to ask the senate. i do not know. usually, it is the senate that one's of doing it, so i'm not sure. but you have had governess

declined to run as well. in many ways, it shows a healthy respect of the political ability of the president. no one is under any illusions that he is a very spirited campaigner and has been very successful and has had a very rapid ascent to the oval office. i think a lot of republicans are looking at this in terms of it would be a very difficult race, and many have also declined on the basis of their family, which is very understandable. to me, it is their decision to make. >> yet, this country has not elected a sitting u.s. house member to the presidency since james garfield. >> yes, and of trifecta. he was a member of the house,

also the nominee of the legislature of ohio. have been elected by the legislature of ohio to be their senator. he was leaving the house to be a senator. he was the dark horse. so what we're seeing today, especially in the communication revolution, is you are generally down by the district in which you are covered by the local press, and which the media may be under smaller markets, and you find yourself -- you have youtube, twitter, facebook, c- span -- you have the ability to take your message out said the boundaries of your district to a greater extent than ever before. this is why senators, house members, even if they decide not to run, certainly have voices being heard across the country

far more than ever in the past. >> do you feel yourself qualified to be president? >> i think you always feel qualified when you see the office, but you have to be very realistic that it is a very challenging job. i do not think there has ever been an occupant of the white house this is they were fully prepared for what happens here not always the day-to-day administration, but you never know what to expect. the last president bush was going to be a domestic reformer, and then september 11 have been. you can look throughout history, and president's face difficult challenges. a lot of them are extenuating circumstances outside their control or even outside reasonable expectation, and you have to be cognizant of that when you go in. there is a certain amount of humility that has to be brought in the door so you do not think you could know everything and that somehow you can foresee every eventuality that can happen. >> why do you want to be president? >> it is a tremendous opportunity. what we're seeing in everyone's daily lives, especially to the communications revolution i talked about, if you think about a blackberry in the home of your hand, you can communicate around the world. or your laptop -- you can seek sources of information. you are no longer bound by major networks and major newspapers. you can have more control over your own life and more ability to project your political views or personal views to your family, friends, and community than any time in your personal history. this is called self-government. and yet, what we see is the antiquated 20th century model of the government. the state which wants to take more of your money and more of your decision making ability. lsu match our consumer-driven self as governing economy with a citizen estrin self-governing state, what is going to happen

is you will continue to see america in stagnation. combine the fact that the government, which spends what it takes as opposed to what makes, with the fact available street banks are still sitting there and not getting credit because they have not been restructured to the point where their balance sheets are fixed, you will continue to see a lost generation of economic prosperity for america. i think he could fix the big government, fix the big banks, and then what you have to do is ask for regulatory reform. you will unleash the entrepreneurial industriousness of the american people. if you do not, we will continue to be dragged down by entities that are antiquated on the 20th century model that can be applied successfully in the 21st century. i think that is one of the things. other thing is, obviously, we are a country at war. we have men and women defending our freedom and expanding it to others in foreign fields. the ads this has to have a

comprehensive strategy not only for dealing the conflict in which we find ourselves but supporting freeway -- freedom movements in places like iran or the opponents of the regime in syria so that this terror- sponsoring states can peacefully implode like the soviet union did because of the people's aspirations for freedom. i continue to think and continue to point out as people are increasingly starting to realize, that the people's republic of, is a reliable model of governance and a threat to american prosperity and security because it is a mercantilist state bound up on expanding its influence not only in asia but throughout the world at the expense of united states. these are major issues coming down the pike that we hear very little about in this type of presidential primary, and i think it is something that the voters, when you bring it to them, are very attuned to because it is something happening that everybody knows is happening, but very few people are talking about. >> let me talk on that point. eat you use your words -- economic stagflation or stagnation, but the anemic economy under two administrations, two different parties -- what would you do that has not been done under the bush administration would cut taxes, and we saw

unemployment continued rise, and under the obama administration, which has spent money, and yet, as republicans have said, we have not seen the economic growth the president promised. what would you do differently? >> first, you cannot focus on leaving the banks the way they are. what is happening is it is not investment and consumption necessarily. we continue to see this go up and go down. we have to see is the failure business to get down to small businesses. the longer they are recapitalizing, as you recall after the wall street bailout, instead of buying toxic assets, they would write to a recapitalization program, the logger stay with the leisurely recapitalizing, it will continue to keep credit from coming down here this affects farmers, and manufacturers to get their capital-intensive labor-intensive -- they have to produce up front before they get their accounts receivables. that is one of the major things that have to happen. you have to quickly get recapitalization. you have to limit the amount of leverage so they never collapse

again, and you have to take the ones that are not healthy and segment them off, break them up, and wall off their assets. it is one of the things that neither party even since bill clinton has done because they believe the financial markets will lead to prosperity for everybody, and they should be as unfettered as possible. what we saw instead was a dot- com followed by a housing barbel and i would argue the government bubble -- bubbled followed by a housing bubble and i would argue the government appeared it makes sense for business is not only to stay here but to expand in the united states. once you can fix the credit issue, what you have to do is go towards a lower, flatter tax on corporations. you have to reduce marginal income for individuals to be incentivize work and investment and get them going. i think what you also have to do with the bush administration as well as the obama administration have not done is look at true regulatory reform. the bush administration raised the standards with a democratic

congress, and i oppose this because it would make it harder to manufacture. you then saw, unfortunately, the obama administration coming to pass cap and trade that are now being tested to be implemented through the epa. you cannot have the government coming down trying to impose these regulations on people and expect the economy to grow. those are things right off the back that you have to have fundamentally. you also have to get beyond what we're seeing now and allow for an all the above energy strategy in the united states. we are watching core inflation rise at a time that real wages are declining. energy is something that goes into the cost of every product you have. we talked about growth going of 5%, despite they have not seen before that high. energy goes into every single thing you purchase. every single thing you produce. especially with manufacturers and farmers, those fixed costs cannot be passed on to consumers. it makes it more difficult for them to hire, grow, and invest, and it makes it more difficult

for consumers to wind up being able to purchase the goods in a recessed economy. these are things that were not done and were not approached. again, you have to understand, the president only can grow government jobs. what you have to do is to unleash the american people, and they will respond. there is a lot of contempt entrepreneurship and industriousness -- a lot of pent up on jupiter ship and industriousness. i think you can but republicans and democrats on both sides the understand the economy has to grow. there are blue dogs. there are centrists theory that will depend on the outcome of the election. if you continue with a divided government the way it is constituted now, you will see that and in 2012. you may have a divided government after that, but i think the american government really understands that they will vote for whoever regardless of party that gets the fact that they are being bailed on larger institutions on this country. people who understand the sense of alienation of individuals feel, both republicans and

democrats, the way that these are -- they're the service institutions, the government which is supposed to work for you, are not serving you. we get a sense they are working together to serve themselves. am aware in michigan did you go up? what was life like for you and your family? >> live just upside detroit when i was 7. a detroit background. >> brothers, sisters? >> i have one brother a year younger than me, and according to him, immensely more talented. >> you have seen a lot of changes in detroit over the last 30 or 40 years. how is your home town changed in your eyes? >> my home town is always my

home town. whatever the changes are, the things we focus on our the fact that we're very resilient people here wanted things people in detroit do not like is the way that the rest of the country looks at us as if we're some kind of sort to be ignored. the reality is where the people who get up every day of work very hard pill we make things. despite the difficulties we face everyday, we get up, go to work here drive has houses that cannot be sold pirie drive past shops that have closed, newspapers that tell us how bad off we are, and try to make things better. we will continue to try to do that. one of the goals of the people in detroit is to continue prove the doubters wrong, and we will do that. >> how did you do that in detroit, ohio, pennsylvania, new york, illinois, the whole flock of area that has seen plants shut down, home values drop? >> again, one of the state's talked about, very much mirror what has happened with the government we have in washington, so what we have people like governor schneider, and others working at the state level to try to restructure

government, make it more nimble, more accountable, more limited, and allow for self-government in the states to meet the more attractive for business, on the lid to bring in new start-ups, but to allow us to keep the college kids that we educate that are still leaving us now for other states, so the laboratories of democracy are getting the concept that they cannot continue as if this is 1965, the year of my birth, the things have changed since then, except government has not pirie these are the places that are going to do it, and what is going to change these places is the ability to diversify the economy once you fix some of the fundamentals we have talked about so that on to produce and innovators and workers can come together to grow those economies and find new jobs -- entrepreneurs and innovators and workers can come together to grow those economies and find new jobs. these are things that right now we are not seeing. what we are seeing is the continuation of a consumptive economy. we keep talking about i was born in detroit. when i was in high school we were told we would have seven jobs and a service sector economy. in college, we were told we would have a knowledge-based economy. then, mr. greenspan told us we did not need to make things any

more, but eventually, something is going to take its place your the only people who will determine what the future of this data states looks like is not the president who is claiming he is creating the pillars of prosperity, which you did not see in his job description, by the way. it will be the american people in the past and in the future will continue to build and shape what has been the most successful, prosperous, and equitable economy known in human history. >> you mentioned ronald reagan. who else do you view as a political hero? >> i do not view politicians as heroes or role models. i view them as people. you look at people and admires certain aspects, and the best thing is that they are human. they have had their struggles. forget about some of the things ronald reagan had to go through. you can still like people for what they go through. but if you are talking about people you really try to emulate, musically, i like to listen to the beatles and the stones, so i would probably be more excited meeting keith richards that i would be meeting president obama again. >> you often " led zeppelin -- quote led zeppelin on the house floor. >> i could quote shelley or words with, as well, but i do not that as many people would

be as it to that. i tried to work in some song titles into the speech. >> how often do you play the guitar? >> i play all the time. >> when did you start? >> when i was 11. when you are home schooled, you have to do something. >> what is the name of the band? the new flying squirrels? >> ecb the flying squirrels, until we found out there was rocky and the flying squirrels. we went through several permutations. >> losses in the band? and it was always me and my brother, and our drummer was john, and he passed away unfortunately, from a congenital heart ailment, so we have had a friend of ours from the old days came back and started drumming for us. and people who sit in. >> have you ever written a song? >> yes. none of them are any good.

or i would not be doing this. >> how did you meet your wife? >> i met her through her brother. he was a high-school classmate of mine. >> children, how many do you have? >> we have three. george, timothy, and a million -- amelia. >> what did they think about your presidential bid? >> they think it is all right. they have other things to focus on the dead. have to consider what will happen and the eventuality that it did not get it. you have to devote yourself to no distractions. >> how do you do this? how do you win the nomination? >> the strategy is we are treating the first debate and straw poll as an introduction. that is the message that seems to resonate as we go around, getting the message out where we can. we are not as well-known as the vast majority of the candidates, but we do take great heart that the response is been very warm to the message because it is something most people are not talking about the challenges they talked about earlier, so

you go forward and see if it works. i believe support will follow. we have seen far too many candidates spending millions upon millions of dollars that cannot get out a single digits or cannot break out of the 17% range even as a front runner. what the polling tells us is that people are dissatisfied with the field and looking to hear something different -- not necessarily see someone different, but to hear something different. it might be me. may be somebody else. >> what is your pitch to the

voters in iowa and the american people? >> to make sure we get the american government going again. we're going to transcend our security challenges. the best days are ahead. it is a matter of how quickly we get there. >> the president is also the leader of the world stage. are you prepared to do that? >> yes, if you look at it in terms of foreign affairs of the united states, what has to happen is the united states has to be respected here this administration is chosen to be liked rather than respected, and they wound up either. >> what about specific issues? the war in iraq rather than -- the war in iraq and the war in afghanistan? >> we will continue to help govern so they have a legitimate chance to continue hold on to their liberty. you have to look at in afghanistan is we have to watch out for a precipitous withdrawal, which would allow the taliban to come back and continue to create a new harbor for terrorism and to use their ability to destabilize the government of pakistan. >> have you met world leaders? what is your impression of them? >> i have that world leaders, and i do not worry about what i think of them. think of them. i do not believe that that