and liquidity risk. >> i appreciate that my time is over. i wanted to mention that i had met with a company at that had not sought the oxygen from the air. >> no one is under that designation yet. >> well, they fear, rightfully so, that they will be put under these constraints. caution to you and those that make these decisions, if there is a way to keep them from falling under those tsipi designations, that we cast a more narrowly tailored net if possible. if the council about this crisis, there is another >> now the gentleman from

georgia, mr. scott. >> thank you. when we were down in atlanta, we had a chance to chat. i would like to pass on a couple of words of commendation, to members of your staff, your assistant secretary of treasury for stability, and as you know, we decided to approach this as a ground war and we put together home foreclosure prevention workshops and i want to commend your staff and those folks -- please pass these words along. please pass this along -- we could not have done without them. we were able to get 6000 folks

there and we were able to save 2565 homes. we are planning for the next one and our goal is 10,000 homes we can save. in getting there and working on this, i learned a lot. we can correct some things. we are losing homes we should not. one of the reasons we were successful was because bank of america, for example, brought their underwriters with them. that means they could go ahead right there on site when we have the person there and write down the loan and be able to do modifying. if we could work and incorporate that with all of the other banks and all of the others that would come to such events -- i'm not the only one treasury works with. you do this and this is something you are to be commended for because this is the way we are going to win this war and help people stay in

their homes, get right there on the ground with them and get the banks, face to face with our encouragement and make sure this happens. but in your comments, you mentioned that what you needed was a greater enforcement with service mortgaging. would that mean how we could work to make the hamp program more successful? the reason that is not as successful, only $2 billion, it is basically voluntary and the banks are not there. could you comment to that? >> let me start by commending the people for working so hard on this. i appreciate your suggestion on how to make it work better. we've all been living with the limitations of what hamp can do.

one is the number of people we thought would be eligible for the assistance is a diffraction of what we thought, meaning there are more people than we thought where the home is the investor, it's a jumbo mortgage where the people can meet their payment or they just have too much debt. the second is we don't have the power to compel fannie and freddie to, alongside us. that's one of limitation. the fact that it is a voluntary i'm not sure is a fundamental constraint, but it is there. we are still looking for ways to expand the reach of these programs. the fact that we still have resources available gives us some opportunity. we have proposed as part of the jobs at, asking to appropriate

some to the department of housing, we think that would be helpful. we expect to move forward to make it easier for americans to refinance even if they are somewhat under water. we are trying to get a huge amount of vacant property still on the market into the hands of people who can rent. we are trying to reach as many people as possible. >> getting more authority, what would you say you have absolutely need? >> to help with the neighborhood's -- there are thousands of concentrated vacant properties. he need resources and that's why

the jobs act has this fund to give substantially more resources. you would have to give us authority over fannie and freddie. >> we found out in these workshops that we were able to be successful. in having fha and fannie and freddie there, we were able to get the banks who were able to work closer with the hamp program and go to the table where the fha is. that might be an area where we can improve upon. >> that make sense. although we only have a little over 800,000 people under, if you look at the broad range, its 4 million people across the broad market place. that's a lot of people in a big reduction on monthly payments

and 4 million foreclosures avoided. we have a lot more risk we need to try to work to avoid and we're going to do everything we can to avoid that. >> thank you very much and i appreciate the job that they are doing. >> thank you. back in april, we had testimony before the oversight committee. the chair of fsoc, you were to make that a top priority that the regulation process was well coordinated. in fact, i think you said this morning that failure to coordinate rulemaking will be enormously expensive to the economy and create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage as. as the overseer of that process, what are you doing to go above and beyond to get these agencies

to coordinate? >> under the law congress passed, i was given responsibility to coordinate but not to enforce it. i am doing it to try to get it together and make sure it is being sequin stanley a sensible way. of course, this has cost and we are trying to make sure it's done in a way to make sure it's done. but you did not give me the authority to compel them to work closely together. they are going to be protective of that, but where they have the flexibility to be more aligned, they are moving closer to being aligned. i think an example, particularly

on derivatives and conduct standards, there is obviously not mutual agreement on those. those are very important issues to the economy. i think you make a good point. you were not given the authority to compel these agencies. is it a flawed process? maybe this is the most important thing that can happen. if the process is not going to work and we're not going to have harmonization, what direction should we be going? >> it is a dramatic improvement. they are working very closely together and they recognize, if you had them here with me, they would commit to the same basic

objectives. they have a very elaborate process to try to make sure they're doing this in a sensible sequence. you are going to want to see like we are, how closely we get to that state of commitment. it is a little messy, i agree with that, and we have to keep emphasizing the importance of that. if it is not -- in-line >> was is the alternative? should we elevate this to another level? i need to bring in another bureaucracy, but do we need another referee? >> you do not need another committee, that's for sure. you are not going to pass a law that gives me authority what to do and i would not seek that authority.

i think it is working, but we cannot be certain yet that it will work well enough but i take the more optimistic view. >> one of the things you said is you are worried about the cumulative burden of regulations. how worried -- just the first 100 regulations that came out of god-franc will take a 10. -- of dodd-frank will take $10 million. they built the empire state building in 7 million man hours. this is just the first 102 rules. how are we not suffocating the financial markets and we have just begun? >> i think you are too worried

about the key impact of these financial reforms on the basic business of financing that united states. we are not going to get perfect, but we saw what happened when we get wrong. we had a chance to fix that. i have said this over and over again in public. we want to make sure we do not overdo it. where we have to get tougher standards in place, we have to make sure wheat we do it over time. i do not believe there is credible evidence to support the conclusion that the rules as they are now being designed are doing material damage to the basic things we seek. they will raise costs for financial institutions. that is unnecessary outcome. we have to get the balance right

in the outcome. >> not only are we seeing a lot of those regulations coming out by multiple agencies, but when we talk to people in the regulated community, they will tell you that more coordination is needed. i would encourage you that even though you may not be able to compel, but you spend a tremendous amount of energy to make sure that process is moving along because it is extremely important to the economy. >> i share your view and i am spending more time than you can imagine. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, i assume a day like this becomes a long day of for you. you were in the senate this morning. >> it's good to be with you again. >> hopefully you are well

decaffeinated. i want to go off on a side issue. i've been trying to learn more about basel 3 and how it affects our capital requirements. i've seen some arguments as to what will be covered as tier one, tear to, and tear three types of capital. am i under the impression that bonds from fannie and freddie would be tear to? answern't think i can that, but i'm happy to get it to you in writing. a fundamental thing we did was to say the core minimum capital requirement, we're going to require you to meet with common equity, not a bunch of other stuff. that is for the tier one capital requirement. but we do require you to use other forms of capital to meet that within tier one. we are essentially limiting it

to common. >> i'm trying to educate myself because my understanding is like in fsoc, the some of the additional premium out there is a couple of hundred billion dollars additional even beyond what would have been a basel 3 requirement. >> i've read the reports and i don't believe those estimates are accurate. i have to talk to the fed about that but in addition to that threshold, we have proposed and the law asked us to do this, the largest institutions in the world should hold an additional buffer of capital and the fed is in the process of negotiating this details with their counterparts around the world. >> i am still trying to hunt for the mass that shows me what creates a level of safety while at the same time it holds a much

of the markets that it inhibits economic expansion and growth. are we heading for a leering that is well intended that maple capital away? >> you are right to say that first of all there is no science to that choice. >> but there is always somebody willing to make up a formula. >> there is and you can go too far. but all we know is there were way too low and they were not applied far enough across the system and we're trying to get a more conservative so that there is much less probability of failure to default. what is the consequence of going too far? you put additional burden on the economy, but as the risk of shifting the banking system in ways that does not make us better off. my basic sense is that u.s. firms on average are very far along to meeting those requirements already. it seems on the basis of the

available evidence and what analysts have said independently that since the remaining requirements will be phased in over a long time, they will be able to earn their way into those higher requirements and because of that, we can manage this in a way that has a minimum effect on the recovery. >> in my running back and forth to vote and hearing discussions about mortgages and foreclosures, i happen to be one of those people who says we don't cry help back to our real estate market until we get the glut of non performing paper and vacant homes. the estimate is 13% of residential units in the country are functionally vacant. some places in arizona, a could be as much as 16% of our residential units. a lot of well-meaning mortgage

foreclosure moratorium and abatements have actually made the problem worse and last longer. i know that does not feel warm and fuzzy, but if we're going to bring back home values, i was happy to hear we have to grind through this. what isn't performing, we have to get to some status of performing. >> much of a lease that is right. goodn't do the system any if we leave those systems like they are. the best thing you can do is to get those vacant properties into other uses that would help us overall. there is an argument that you want to make sure people who have income can stay in their homes.

i don't think we're getting in the way of the necessary adjustment. you have hit something that concerns me -- this is something i give fannie and freddie some credit for. some of their best practices, they've put out in the last 50 months seem to do that. we cannot let this slow decay of foreclosures lender. >> some people need to be given some help their a short sale to transition. but as you know, the servicing from mark -- the servicing framework makes a much harder to happen on a scale needs to. >> i am a fan and we have been

trying to write the concept of doing a leaseback poured down payment ira. we have been running into regulatory hurdles because we have had to do a few things at once. if you have someone who is intellectually working on that -- thank you for your tolerance. >> thank you for your testimony. of want to end on a positive note. you may speech in june of this year when you said there's a strong case for requiring the largest firms to hold more capital relative to risk than smaller institutions. i agree with that, but you also asked how much which is a very important question. he said in making this judgment

, setting requirements high enough to provide strong cushion against loss, but not so high to drive the reemergence of a shadow banking system. my question is, save withbasel 3 capital rules with all the rules imposed by dodd-frank, where there -- will there be a tendency shift in the banking sector to a less regulated shadow banking system? >> we always have to be worried about that risk, but i don't believe that is likely on the strength of the rules we see coming into place today. >> i appreciate that. a significant move away from

financial activity and highly would regulated institutions and less regulated sectors, how would that affect financial stability? >> it could be very damaging, as we saw. what some people call the shadow financial system more parallel financial systems are essentially doing what banks do but operate outside the constraints of capital and grow to be larger than the traditional banking system. when that happens, you leave the economy and banking system at risk because what happens is when the storm came, and funding ran from those institutions, they had to sell assets and that puts a huge amount of pressure on the economy. if you get the balance wrong, you can do a huge amount of damage. >> thank you. there have been 3700 new regulations in the last year that have been enacted by

congress and signed by the president. but the regulators in response -- there are almost 4300 regulations still in the pipeline. many in financial services. we have been asking for cost- benefit analysis and 219, our best estimate of those have an economic impact of over $100 million or more. i will just close this hearing by asking, maybe the most important policy you could adopt to the of regulators in this congress is to promote, not restrain policies which create capital investment, jobs, what we sometimes referred to as wealth growth. the american people are eight

times richer than they were in 1820. while there are countries that their populations are no richer. we sent you a letter -- the president did say he was going to look at all of the different regulations and rules and see if those are restraining economic growth. we would ask you to do that. we do not want -- we want to encourage and promote growth and wealth creation because that creates jobs. thank you for your attendance and thank you for working with us to start this hearing early and i think we worked with you so you would be free to go to the white house at 4:00. with that, i discharge you n note that some members may have additional questions for you. they will submit those in

writing and the hearing record will remain open for 30 days. remember to submit written questions to lead and for you to place your responses in the record and your written statement, if you wish to clarify that in any way or your response, you are welcome to do that. this hearing is adjourned. thank you for your attendance. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> our road to the white house coverage continues today with michele bachmann at a town hall meeting in new hampshire. on c- live at 3:30 p.m. span and c-span.org. on monday, live coverage of jon huntsman at the world affairs council of new hampshire. he is expected to talk about foreign policy. we will have that come alive, starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> if you think that a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you are crazy. every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. every president for life as a bill of rights. the bill of rights of the former evil empire, the union of soviet socialist republics was much better than ours. luckily, it was much better. we guarantee freedom of speech and press, big deal.

they guaranteed free speech and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. that's wonderful stuff. oncourse, it's just words paper. >> on tuesday, two justices testified before the senate judiciary committee on a wide- ranging series of questions, including the role of judges and the constitution. watch the rest of the discussion on line at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> monday, army secretary john mchugh addresses the association of u.s. army at their annual meeting. that is live at 10:30 eastern on c-span2. >> it is a fact based story on

the topic of your choosing. every story has a good beginning, solid middle and good ending. >> you don't need the best video equipment to have a winning project. students to a great job of catching video. if you don't have better access to video equipment, don't let that stop you. if he need more help, go to our web site. >> this will help you stay organized. i find it useful to read the rules carefully and then make a checklist of what you need to do. but don't worry, the process becomes clear once you get started. >> another great thing about the c-span documentary's you can work alone or work in teams. if you are a good writer but not handy with a camera, get a friend to help out.

not only will you learn something, but you will increase your chance of winning. >> you can use your parents, other students, teachers and c- span as resources for you along the way. this process is fun and extremely rewarding. with a little bit of effort, anyone can do this. >> now, mississippi gov. haley barbour, on the republican strategy, the economy and job creation trade following his remarks, he takes questions from the audience. the founder and chief of politico moderated this discussion.

>> i want to up free -- our want to express my appreciation for governor barbour for being here today. a lot has happened in the world since we met in july. the president has announced his jobs bill. the stock market has just turned in its worst quarter since the financial crisis of 2008 and is approaching bear territory. the latest weekly cal poll shows the president's approval rating at 43%. this is behind every leading president with the exception of jimmy carter who went on to a landslide defeat. congress'approval rating is even lower at 11%.

less than 20 -- less than 21% think the countries on the right track and consumer confidence plummeted to its lowest level since 1980 and has remained relatively unchanged in the last month. unemployment is at 9.1%. in the security area, in afghanistan, the embassy has been attacked twice in the last month in the former president of afghanistan was assassinated and the current president announced negotiations with the taliban was utile. -- was futile. the war of words has increased between palestine and israel. the dialogue with pakistan has become even more course in a critical part of the world. as if this were not enough, we have the presidential elections. in a new abc news and "washington post" poll thought -- 37% expect president obama to win reelection.

republicans believe that their standard bearer, whoever is, will beat the president, and a dwindling majority of democrats, just 58%, expect the president to prevail in winning the iowa straw poll, michele bachmann, has returned to single digits and in the past 30 days, we have witnessed the governor of texas rick perry go from a non-tended to front runner status and probably lose half of his support. he and michele bachmann seeing on a race to the low single digits. interestingly, herman cain, a former ceo of godfather's pizza and president of the national restaurant association seems to be gaining traction and just won the florida straw poll. meanwhile, an announcement is expected during this program on governor chris christie and his intentions. in the house and senate, it is not impossible that republicans

could retake the senate and lose the house. it is against this backdrop we have governor haley barbour here today. i'd like to welcome him to the stage. [applause] >> he is trying to help me. he's taking my speech. thank you. thank you for doing this and thank you for coming. i look around here, it makes me think back to my lessons in politics i've learned over more than 40 years i have been doing this. i dropped out of college 42 years ago this month for my first government job. i was the state director at the census. a great lesson working for the government. you find out the government is a

pretty crummy communicator. the census is not just a census of population and housing, it's 8 cents as of agriculture and business. we were in the state office looking through business census forms. 99.9% of businesses it's like one page. these folks from my mom and pop population in the northeast corner of mississippi, they were hard trying, american lavin, good citizens because they struggled with the questionnaire. they got down to no. 8, it's only 14 questions. the question was number employees broken down by sex. they said none of them had broken down by sex but we have to with a drinking problem. [laughter] i figured out then that government needs to improve their communication technique and hopefully i will be successful myself. i'm going to talk a little bit

about the 2012 election. let's start off saying something that think everyone here knows. this will be the most pivotal election for president in our lifetime. the choices are likely to be the biggest, the policy changes from one side winning or the other side winning, the most important. it should be close, contentious and in my opinion,-. it will be bigger than 1980 in terms of the change in direction of the country. obama at the outset has some advantages that don't get talked about in the summation of what the press said today. first of all, it is hard to beat incumbents. in fact, you have to go back to 1896, going for from 1896, only one time as a political party won the white house away from the other party and then turn

around and lost in just four years. jimmy carter. that's the only time. every other one term president followed a president of his own party. whether it was bush in '88, lyndon johnson, harry truman, herbert hoover, william howard taft. every one of them followed a president of their own party. if obama loses, he is going to have to do something virtually unprecedented in 100 years of american history. second, he will have enough money to burn a what mule. that's a look very large supply of money. they talk about obama hopes to raise a billion dollars. they spent more than a billion dollars last time. people don't include on top of the $750 million the campaign the dnc raised, $400 million spent by labor unions.

this time, i think it is fair to say the labor unions will spend a lot more because that was before polling, that was before the national labor relations board -- before boeing. obama as second biggest advantage is money. there is a wide-open gop nomination. that is important to obama's strategy. other republican candidates are less well known than any republican elected president in our lifetime. even mitt romney is less well- known than anybody we've elected in our lifetime. as we will see in a minute, that it's into obama's strategy. all of them have significant issues. but let's face it, that's always the case. everybody who has run for president, particularly was not very well known when they

started, has significant issues. finally, obama has another big advantage to go with his money and that is no primary. one of the frequent precursors of an incumbent president losing is a serious challenge in the primary. look at lyndon johnson in 1968, jimmy carter in 1980, george bush in 1992. the last three presidents who either got defeated or did not run for reelection was because they had party trouble, internal challenge. obama has some cards to play. his job approval is 43 and billy half the democrats think he's going to win. he still has some cards to play. the republican advantages of the day, mark went through them. their conditions. the condition in which the country and the voters find themselves.

9.1% unemployment. a weak economy that is perceived by the public as probably as being weaker than it probably is because most americans think we are in a recession right now. and they are pessimistic and don't have confidence. this is a hugely accelerated for the republicans by obama's policies because obama's policies in the minds of many, many people are making bad conditions worse. talking about huge tax increases on employers when the biggest problem we have is not enough jobs. how do you tell employers you're going to take a trillion dollars away from them and expect them to hire more people? the obama care, and popular in its own right, but also on the fundamental issues about a stronger economy and job creation, how do you expect employers to go out and hire

people when they don't know what their obligations are costs are going to be for their employee'' health care? energy policy -- don't forget price of gasoline was $1.83 when president obama was inaugurated. most americans agree with me that the obama policy has drive up the cost of gasoline. that is environmental policy, but it has a huge effect on the economy. all of these domestic issues, taxes, spending, deficits, debt, health care, regulatory regime, all amplify people's concerns about the economy and make them think obama's policies are actually hurting, and at best not helping. foreign policy cuts both ways. i think obama will get some votes by drawing down or pulling out or whatever you want to say of afghanistan and iraq. but as we saw in new york, his

israel policy is fraught with danger. a lot of the american jews and supporters of israel think he has not been a good supporter of israel. all of these things show up in the polls. load job approval, right track/wrong track numbers that are unprecedented low. disapproval of obama care -- there was a story yesterday that a majority of americans still want to repeal obama care. some of the old people here, my age, know that historically what a new entitlement is created, with a fairly short time, even if a was controversial, it becomes popular. that has not been the case with obama care. if you look at all of those things in the republicans' favor, plus their recent precedents, one of the things you might not have noticed, the last three presidential elections have generally

followed the outcome of the preceding congressional elections. republicans won a little bit of a victory in 1998. what a victory for president in 2000. republicans did little bit better in 2002 and bush won by a little bit bigger margin in 2004. republicans got clobbered and democrats won in 2006. obama was elected president in 2006. so, 2010, will it follows the pattern republicans won a midterm election by a big margin? obama's plan is to try to change the model back to what it was in 1994, a big republican victory and in 1996, bill clinton reelection. but the republicans, all of those things are going for the republicans, but i have to

remind you of something important. 2010 republican victory was not a great embrace of the republicans. it was not some overwhelming statement that we loved the republicans and need to get them back. it was that they already did not like the democrats and they did not have anybody else to vote for. so the republicans came in with some people hopeful but nobody strongly loyal and sold the republicans are going to do the right thing. it was more the kick the bums out. that brings us to 2012. the election will be one in the middle. the election will be one in the middle. in 2004, hardly anybody in the country was undecided or changed their mind, one from voting to john kerry to george bush or george bush to john kerry. the election was primarily about who could get their people to the polls.

it was a great turnout election. mechanics and operations were usually rewarded. very few people changed their minds. this year will be very different. i think the pool of undecideds will be very large and it will ebb and flow. if somebody writes something bad about rick perry, the pool will get bigger. or somebody writes something bad about mitt romney, people will move against obama to maybe i will give him a chance. but independent ticket splitters, soft democrats and softer republicans, that's where this election will be decided. i predict more than 20% of the voters will either be undecided or subject to changing who they vote for. it's pretty simple. they tell a story, dave parker and a couple of other people here old enough to remember the ed sullivan show.

in 1950 something, ed sullivan had conrad hilton on the show. business icon, a kind of the bill gates of his day. he invented a new business, the luxury hotel chain. so as soon as the conrad hilton walked out, mr. sullivan said if you could only tell the american people one thing, what would you tell them. conrad hilton never hesitated. he said put the shower curtain inside the tub. [laughter] quite frankly, the republican strategy is that simple. it gets down to one thing. make that 2012 presidential election a referendum on barack obama's policies and the results of those policies. his record. because he cannot run on his record. the republicans have to know that. his record is not approved by

critical groups, seniors, and dependents, -- independence look very much like obama's policies and the result has gotten. obama once this election to be anything but a referendum on him. he wants to run against george bush is what he wants to do. we will see. typically, elections of incumbents are referendum on the incumbents. but the democrats will do whatever it takes to keep that from happening. the best way for them to win is to try to make the republican unacceptable. try to make the republican somebody who is disqualified. they are aided by couple of things. we have already talked about one. the republican at the outset is

less well-known than any republican who has gotten elected in our lifetime. that means there is a lot of can this the democrats can draw on and in a nominating contest, the republicans are helping the democrats by chewing on each other, which is just part of it when you have a competitive deal. but the democrats want to make the republican unacceptable to the center. because that is where the election is going to be. the second thing, as i mentioned earlier, obama is going to have a tremendous amount of money. no opponent. when the republican wins the nomination or when we know who our nominee is going to be, and that is going to be typically in early march, with florida's decision to move up their primary, it could be in february. but pretty early on, we will know who our nominee will be. our nominee will be broke and

the republican national committee will not have the resources and hopefully will have the judgment not to use them to defend that nominee during the time from when we know who it is to the convention. that's what i call the interregnum. during that time, obama and the democrats and labor unions will carpet bomb whoever the nominee is. they will spend $500 million to try to disqualify and the republican opponent. they will hit him so hard that his crown, will not recognize him or vote for him. -- his grandmother will not recognize him or vote for him. it will be a five or six months thing. that will be the defining time for the republicans. how do the republicans survive now? it is what bill clinton did to bob dole.

about $115 million of dnc and a labor money attacking bob dole and the republican congress. bob dole never led in the poll. the closest he ever got was three points behind during the convention in san diego. that is why. they disqualified him before he was actually the candidates. the democrats will try to do that next year. today, you can already see it. i was on television yesterday with the governor of maryland. he was asked a question about chris christie. he had a litany of all the things wrong with chris christie. he came with his list of here is what i am supposed is a bad about chris christie. i guarantee you such a list exists for every other republican. the liberal media elite can beat

implicit in this. not every day, but most days. the one thing obama is not doing that clinton did is he is not moving to the center. we do not hear him saying the era of big government is over. we do not see him triangulating. when clinton at as a republican congress, he passed welfare reform and we had the first balanced budget in a generation because he made the decision that the people of spoken and i'm going to make the most of it. ronald reagan did the same thing. never had a republican house but he passed the reagan economic plan. the '86 tax reform bill. immigration reform. all without a republican majority in both houses. if you are waiting to see obama triangulate, it looks like you're going to have a pretty

long wait because it at his most recent opportunity, the jobs bill, it's just more of the same period a smaller version. i don't know why -- it may be that they think they have to unite, that they are worried about their base. i don't know that. you have to make sure your base stays in line even when the election will be one in the senate. one of the great hopes is that the tea party will cause a fracturing and lobov republican party and hopefully a third party in their minds. president obama's fondest hope is to somehow split the anti- obama vote, which is a majority. i think that is most unlikely. nothing unites republicans like

wanting to get rid of obama. there are a lot of very conservative republicans who would vote for romney in a minute and a lot of moderate republicans who would vote for rick perry. republicans are so single- minded, that we go to the convention in tampa, it will be like conjugal visitation day at the state penitentiary. everybody is going to have one thing on their mind, and that is getting rid of obama. you should expect harsh,-, hopefully not personal, -- president obama's policies are

unpopular but he is not personally unpopular. the best ways to make it about the jobs and the economy. do you think what he has done has helped or hurt? that's the best policy for us. many will say he has done as best as he could with what he inherited, problems caused by bush's policies. seriously, that will be their defense. a lot of people make the mistake of assuming that even if obama wins, there will be a republican house. 61 house members represent districts obama carried.

many buy it more than 10 points. very hard for a freshman to survive that kind of wave in their district. is it likely the republicans will keep the house? it is. it's not huge, but it is solid. it is not for certain. that will be more race than people think. as far as the senate is concerned, many are sure -- republicans in have to pick up for it but i'm not so sure. the democratic seats are in pretty safe places like ryland. you only wind teddy kennedy's seats once in your lifetime. -- save places like rhode island. we are unlikely to pick up ryeland or vermont. some of the good states have democrats who have performed extremely well at the ballot box like ben nelson, other senators.

there is a lot -- there is a likelihood republicans could win the set, if when the right house, but it is not for sure. today's governor's race in west virginia will show you how unpredictable this is. the democrats hit 33 points. in a democratic polling firm released yesterday, the democrats hit one. . 47, 46. interestingly, the democrat has never moved outside the margin of error. he sat right where he was and the republican has a little by little gone up. i would doubt seriously we will see a republican governor elected in the west virginia today. but if we do, it will fit right in there with new york 9 as a

gigantic statement about democrats repudiation of their own president. because republicans don't get elected to the governor of west virginia unless a whole lot of democrats vote for him. but president obama's job approval in west virginia is in the '20s. a good place if you are the republican candidate for governor. so what do we know about 12? in politics, you don't know until the election is over. but here is what we think we know and have reason to believe -- tough, contentious, negative campaign. looks today like it will be very close. a lot can change. and a lot will change. about three minutes ago, chris christie started a news conference at which he will announce he is not running for

president. that changes a lot of math that has been going on for the last few days or few weeks. who helps, who it hurts, i'm not able to predict. but it is a reminder that a lot of what we see speculated, talked about, written about in the news media is not fact. i'm not saying they claim that is fact, a hard facts are few at this stage and the opinions and conversations and speculations are immense. the media wants you to think that what ever happened in the last 24 hours can be extrapolated to tell you what will happen in the next 24 weeks. that is just not the case. there are some things we know about politics, good it gets better and that gets worse. when you are in the-prison, you're going to keep going down

until some point stop ship. it may be about. the corollary to good gets better and that gets worse is that things in politics are never as good as they see men they are never as bad as they seem. it's hard to get that out of the news media sometimes, but it's why we used to say in the old days that today's headlines are tomorrow's fish wrappers. only politico and "the wall street journal" sell enough for anyone to understand what that means today. today's headlines don't necessarily tell us much about what's going to happen next week, much less next year. 90% of what is going on, 90% of what matters for the republican nomination has not happened yet. it's a little different for obama. three years of a record of conditions, of seeing him, a lot of people have made up their

mind. that sets the strategy. that's why the republicans will try to make this a referendum on obama and his policies and it is why obama will try to convince the american people that whomever the republicans nominate is unacceptable. that is the main thing. as my old friend fred smith says, the main thing is to keep the main thing that the main thing. don't take your eyes off the ball and i expect you will see both campaigns are riveted on the main thing that matters to them. that will make a close, interesting, and hopefully fund election. thank you. [applause] >> governor, that was fascinating.

i was thinking as you were speaking, there is a great trend in politics where people used to be political operatives and getting into elective office themselves and making a transformation from political hack to statesman. i covered virginia politics where mark warner was like you, a very successful political operative and went much less interesting. that is what i am hoping for our q&a. we want plenty of political. >> if we get plenty of easy questions. >> my first question concerns conjugal visitation rights in

mississippi. did you actually have those things? >> sure. >> anyway, we are going to have a conversation here rather than an interview, so i would like to enlist all of you. what is the playoff in the news? governor christie, there was this governor christie fever, all kinds of speculation, as you suggested, and i think most of us had a sense he was going to come down to this not to run, but you have gone through a similar experience. give us your best guess as to what he was thinking, what was going through his head. it is not very often in life where you of influential people literally begging you to run, and which was that not the case with governor christie?

president obama said, "this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance. i am going to do it." should i do this or not do this? >> i do not think it was calculated. if he were calculating, and he would probably say this is the best chance for him to get to be president. but he and his wife had made the decision earlier in the year. actually, in may have been late last year, but indeed last few months, that he was not ready. he was not going to run. he had been governor may be one year or 1.5 years, and that he was not ready, and he had made that decision, and as things developed, i will just tell you that i think he would have supported me for president if i had run, but if you were people

got in the rays, i think another had a lot of supporters who were encouraging him to run. i know a lot of my supporters in the east were encouraging chris to run, but i think he owed it to them not to just blow them off. i mean, he is the governor of new jersey. a lot of people in new york deal with him. they have investments in the state. two of them at least the courtesy to seriously rethink this, and i think he rethought it and came to the same conclusion, which i think is a very positive statement about why people would want chris christie to run for president, because he is true to himself, and he is not going to be a halfway candidate, and i had a very similar experience. did you have to be all in or not in it at all. this is the most consuming job on the face of the earth, and

nobody in history has gotten to be president who did not make it their job to the exclusion of all else. good presidents, a bad president, except perhaps half. nobody has done this without being totally consumed by it, so you had better be ready, and chris knew that, and i knew that, which is why i chose not to run. >> you are suggesting this was quite possibly a personal decision. the politics, had he run, how wide open was the door? as senator mccain said over the weekend, the water is not always as warm as it looks. what would have happened? >> chris has the advantage of being in the biggest media market in the world, in new york, so he is much better known than the average governor, far

better known actually van rick perry, who had been governor for 10 years and had been a good governor, considerably larger than new jersey. but chris christie is better known. he has made some hard decisions and made them stick. you look at what they have had to deal with, particularly on the fiscal side and on the dealings with the state unions and that sort of stuff, and christie has made tough decisions, and importantly, his legislature has supported him enough to where he has got things done. i can tell you, my first seven years, i never had a republican majority in either house. we did tort reform and reform medicaid and did things, particularly in spending cuts, with both houses and democrats, and that is harder than when both houses are republicans, and

he has done the same thing. he has done it with a democratic legislature and has done it with a full view, because the new york media market justice spread out to everywhere that there is. >> help us make sense of this. there was a moment in august where the republican field team was quite captivated by michele bachmann. that does not seem to have as much permanents as she was hoping. on the other hand, mitt romney kind of chugs along. he does not go up, and he does not seem to go down. why is that? >> our field looks different.

not really a front-runner. people are not very well-known. they have had very good records doing what they did. as i say, not a single one of the people in our field is as well-known as the least well- known of the presidents in my lifetime, so you're starting off with people do not know a lot about them. secondly, there is an intense desire among republicans to have a new president. there are many say that i will be for the one who has got the best chance to beat obama. to seey're sitting back who that is. that takes away some of the initial energy from a candidate. michele bachmann, first of all, i think she has performed better than i have expected. i have seen your speak a couple

of times. she is very compelling. she has got a great story, but we forget that she is born in iowa. when she wins the straw poll of ames, iowa, it is kind of like me winning the straw poll of mississippi. i mean, she is from there. she represents the next state. i think that was pretty predictable once she got in the race, but there is not a lot in this race predictable. again, do not read too much into it. remember, years ago, first in the polls for the republican nominations was rudy giuliani, and second in the poll was fred thompson. john mccain was way back in the pack. >> i think it was yogi berra who said prediction is really hard, especially about the future. >> as usual, he got that right. >> talk to me about the outside independent group on the

republican side, american crossroads, which some have suggested it is going to raise so much money that it could burn a wet mule. >> that is a good expression. >> first of all, how much does it take to burn a wet mule? and why are you raising money for this and other rooms when you spend your life within the former party -- formal party establishment of >> let me say first of all that burning a what comes from the 19th and pre- world war two, 20th century, where i come from. the river would get out almost every year, and people formed with mules, and a lot of mules would always drown in the bad floods, and we did not have much of a department back then, but a lot knew that if you let them go out in the sun, they were a health hazard, so they made you burn them, and it takes a lot of fuel to burn a wet mule, and it

is expensive. of course, you all knew that. >> and now you need a permit, right? >> today, you could not burn one before it rotted. american crossroads is an independent group, 527 committee. this is like the republican governors association. we do not support candidates running for federal office, so we are not under federal rules. american crossroads is not covered for a different reason. they are totally independent, and just as the labor unions and the george soros group's spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help elect obama last time, someone needs to do that to even

the playing field, level the playing field for our candidates, particularly during the period of time i have talked about. there is a period of greatest vulnerability. the republican national committee is covered by the campaign act, so they can only take smaller contributions. they are just not going to have the money to defend our nominee and keep the fault -- the focus on the record of obama during the spring and summer and then turn around and do what all they have to do in the fall, so somebody has to do it to help them in the same way that the labor unions and the george sorus groups and all of these others do to help the democrats. >> do you have any problem justin concept with groups like american crossroads or grids as george soros has funded? do they represent something the public should be concerned about? you do it just because you need

to stay competitive, or you think they are a fine thing just on their own? >> well, there is a reason we have them, and that is because of mccain-feingold and every previous attempt to change the campaign laws, because what we ought to do is have unlimited contributions to both parties and let them report them on that day. haley barbour gave the so much money, and i do not like him, so i am going to vote against whoever he gave money to, well, you know it. but what we have done, what congress has done, they have pushed the party is away from the campaigns and candidates, so in some, outside groups spend more money than the campaign spent, and there are literally campaigns where outside groups spend more money campaigning

because the campaign in some states is allowed to take contributions of no more than $500. i mean, what we ought to do is have unlimited contributions to the party is and then let the parties do this, and there is a far, far smaller chance of something being up and some group that comes and goes, but it also gives the public what the public wants and needs, disclosure. thoreau, immediate disclosure, and let the public decide. george sorus give somebody $5 million, does that make me more likely or less likely, or i do not care? what we have done is made the money harder to find, harder to trace, and no offense, a lot of the newspapers have been complicit in this, because they say you should limit the amount of money and too much money is spent in my own opinion because

they want to have more control over the message that is heard by the american people. i think speech is not only protected in the constitution but that money and political campaigns is speech. it is having campaign speaks to 300 million americans, and some in the newspaper business would rather that americans get all of their news out of "the new york times." >> or "politico." and political strategist should be able to size up the position of a candidate who he does not really like. president obama, as you described, it is in a real jam, although he has some assets, as you described.

what does he have to do now to win? obviously, this is not something you are for. >> move to the center. i was surprised he did not do what clinton did. >> did he not try? it seemed that for much of 2011, he tried, and every time he tried, the bass got more and more disinfect -- less effective. -- and every time he tried, the base scott moore -- got more less effective. this is not a concession. i thought when he did his budget and when he made the state of the union address, in each case, he just reiterated everything

the american people had voted against. he wanted another dollars trillion in tax increases. all the government's spending became government investments, but the same, same, and then when his budget came out, spending went up, the deficit went up, and this is supposed to be in response to the 2010 election? and then we just have done this new jobs bill, which she is saying to the american people, "i want a jobs bill half as big as my stimulus package," which failed. this may fail only half as bad. >> at some point, to the fundamentals of this circumstance become baked in? it seems to me in 1996 which your reference, by january, it was pretty clear the country was

ready to give bill clinton a second term and that it would be a pill for bob dole. it seemed to me if you go back to january 1980, it was by no means certain that ronald reagan would be the next president, but it was pretty clear that the country was eager and ready for an alternative to jimmy carter, so how long does barack obama have to get people to think of him in a fundamentally different light? >> as i said in my speech, after three years, people have already made up their minds. >> it is already too late to change the prism of how people view him? >> particularly this year. he seems to want to play to his base when it seems to be unnecessary to do that. if he has any risk with his base, they just will not vote, not that they will vote for republicans. he has alienated the center.

if you look at the polling, the independence look almost the same as the republicans, and he has given up about 30 points of job approval, independents, seniors, among a critical group for him, white, working-class midwesterners. hillary won them in the primaries. he got them in the general election, and now, he has had a big stink. if they elected governor of west virginia again, which i do not think is likely, that is what it will be about. it will be about white, working- class democrats saying, "i want to send them a message," just like there were huge numbers of jewish democrats mad, a seed that democrats had held for 90 years. they had only one it 45 times in

a row, which is why it was said it is a tough district 4 democrats. but the big statement there was a lot of democrats sent obama a message. there is a lot that obama can do to help himself, but he does not seem to like that. he likes to be combative. he wants to have class warfare, and he does not want to move to the center. >> i would like to give the audience in. raise your hand. a quick question first. governor, i have asked you to be the political operative. now, i'm going to ask you to take a long view of an elder statesman. you have been in politics a long time. there are a lot of people that we hear from, and i think you hear from them also, we think there is something fundamentally broken about our politics right

now. the country is deeply pessimistic. the country seems to be ever more in acrimonious plays, more and more people disaffected by the system. do you think there is something fundamentally broken in our politics, or we just face some difficult circumstances with the poor economy and some policies that have been a fairly controversial, said that is what everyone is in a bad mood? what is it? >> some of both. congressional districts have become more and more one-sided. not very many competitive seats. usually, the most weight -- most left-wing democrat wins the democratic primary, and the most conservative republican wins the republican primary. more important, in most of those districts, the republican is an automatic winner because it is

so heavily republican, and the democratic runner is almost a certain winner because it is a democrat. the fact that they do not live here is an issue, the fact that they do not know each other. there was a senator from my state for about 40 years, very conservative, and he invited me one time by his office when he found out i was in town, and teddy kennedy and chris dodd, roman, carl curtis, two of the most right-wing republicans and two of the most liberal republicans, they were all in their having a drink, and they were social friends. they liked each other. you do not see much of that anymore, but the problems are hard, but i want to tell you. ronald reagan with a divided congress had just as hard problems. bill clinton with a divided

congress, he did not as tough of problems, but he made real progress on the big issues. at some point, somebody has got to provide some leadership, and that is i think what people are looking for. who is that going to be? i think they have decided we have to get a new president, but i think he can survive. >> the incumbents seem to be using race more and more as an issue. i am just curious. how do you see that playing out? >> you know, it is funny. when i was thinking about running for president, it became publicly known that we're going to have the 50th anniversary celebration of the freedom riders who came to mississippi in may, 1961. for integrating the bus station. when i was thinking of running for president, the news media

said i was doing that because of running for president. frankly, we had started planning and two years before. in 2007, a proposed we build a civil rights museum. when i was thinking about running for president, they said that i did that because i was thinking about running for president. the fact of the matter is that neither one of those things were true, but rays has a great attraction for the liberal media event, particularly if you have got an accent like mine or rick perry or anybody who is a southern, a republican, conservative christian. they can get ready for some of that, and then you just have to put on your big boy bridges and not let it bother you. -- bridges -- britches and not

let it bother you. there are appointees all through the in administration and black appointees. today's "the washington post" has a headline that has two words. "perry" aned -- and "race," and there are some who want to make that an issue. barack obama is the first african american president. there are a lot of people and voted for him because of that. i find this hard to stomach, partially because i had to go through it myself, but you are right. that is one of the flavors that some people want to inject in this campaign that i think ultimately has no place, and it will be shown it has no place. >> governor, we have got a couple of minutes left, and we

will try to get a couple of questions before our time runs out. yes, sir? >> governor, with respect to the role of the so-called reagan democrats, you said the race will be decided in the middle. a lot could be more modern reagan democrats. could you comment on their role and how americans will appeal to them, and forget organized labor in washington, i am talking about these outside? >> two groups of reagan democrats. they are most republicans today. the others are mostly midwestern, and a lot of them are union labor, catholics, and they are still democrats, but they are much more conservative than the democratic party, and periodically, they will vote very heavily republican. of course, that is what the republicans hoped for, and that is what the democrats will try

to prevent by trying to make the republican candidate unacceptable. >> we have got one more. >> great talk. first of all, thanks so much. the first task is to beat obama, and if they are key to that, why is there not more excitement around a candidate like mitt romney, who might end up being the default candidate but does not seem to be a very inspiring choice for most republicans? >> he is less conservative than most republicans, and a lot of republicans remember reagan, so they do not accept the idea that nominating the most moderate republican is the pathway to victory, because that is what people thought in 1980, and reagan was, quote, too conservative. i was told they popped courts of champagne at the white house

when reagan won an nomination. and then the carter administration had to deny they had champagne at the white house. they were very happy. a lot of republicans think that today, but there are a lot of soft republicans, independents to vote republican a lot, who want the more moderate candidate, and that is just part of the process you have to work through. it is not unusual, but there is a time, really, all of the way to 1980, when there were essentially two wings in the republican party, whether it was taft and do we or the reagan-ford, reagan-rockefeller, but that does not exist anymore. the republican party has been pretty unified. there have been some more moderate publicans who are uncomfortable with that.

but my opinion is they will vote for whomever the republican is to be obama. they think it would be easier to vote for mitt romney than to vote for rick perry, but they do not know either one of them very well, and they have got a lot about getting to know, but politics does not work anymore when you get in a smoke-filled room and say this is the guy with the best chance, because for better or worse, the voters get to pick, and they are usually not driven by that. frankly, i think there is more of it this year than there typically is, of saying, "i want to be for whomever can beat obama. >> a perfect combination of statesmen and operative. thank you very much. we have got to turn it back over. >> i would again like to thank governor haley barbour. i suspect there are a few who

would have wished he was on the debating stage in the last couple of months. he is one of the smartest governors, one of the most acute political strategists, and i can tell you that we're looking forward to working with you in 2012, and i also want to thank mr. harris. he is one of the most thoughtful and journalists in the country, and along with his colleagues, they have built a real political power house here in washington, and we are proud to work with john, as well. i just want to wrap up by thinking our sponsors. without their support, this would not be possible. i would like to thank our studio audience today as well as those listening on c-span. just a quick housekeeping note, our next program will be at the u.s. chamber on november 3 with charlie cook. we hope you can join us for

that, and on november 14, we have a special treat, the leading authorities to represent ambassador carl icahn barre who has just returned from afghanistan. and again, thank you very much for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up here on c-span, "road to the white house."

presidential candidate michele bachmann in new hampshire for a town meeting. we will have that in 15 minutes here on c-span. our "road to the white house" continues tomorrow with jon huntsman. he is expected to talk about foreign policy. also in new hampshire tomorrow, presidential candidate mitt romney in a town hall in hopkinton, nh. both campaign events we will have on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. following the washington post- bloomberg debate, c-span will show live coverage of some of the republican candidates and their campaign staff taking questions from reporters in the spin room.

we will have that on c-span.org . while we are waiting for our live coverage of minnesota congresswoman michele bachmann at a town meeting in new hampshire, we have some phone calls from today's washington journal on mitt romney and issues of fath. carrying out this theme based on the that took place over the weekend in washington, d.c. social issues test romney. and he has tried at every stage for the republican nomination to focus on the economy as he did on saturday when he appeared at the summit a gathering of social conservative activists but he felt compelled to reiterate that he was in sync as he went

through other positions and condemning homosexuality and raising questions about whether a mormon is a true christian he sufficed that tolerance and civility are conservative values. from the "washington post" this headline romney pushes aside the mormon i question. it was raised by a supporter of rick perry on friday and the evangelical megachurch pastor robert jefress attacked romney saying the mormon church is a cult and mormonism is not christianity. governor perry distanced himself from the view telling reporters in iowa that he didn't agree with the remarks. when romney addressed the same summit he never uttered the word mormon. he talked about heritage of

religious faith. 202-737-0002, 0001 for tkefpls. give us a call and tell us whether you think faith matters, specifically mitt romney's mormon faith. you can e-mail us also. response from this bill bennett it is bigotry. bill bennett speaking at the value voters summit rebucking the pastor who described morm mormonism as a cult. bennett said the baptist church leader had given the voice of bigotry in his remarks. jefress gave a fiery speech endorsing perry and later told reporters he didn't believe romney is a christian. our phone lines are open. first is rebecca from grand

rapids, michigan line for democrats. does mitt romney's faith matter, rebecca? good morning. caller: some time our mother got then she sent me out to brigham young which was a wonderful college. the got no complaints about people or, you know, the college or anything like that. the problem with mormonism is that it has these goofy ideas la like that god was once a man and in other words your goal in life when you become a mormon is to obey all the rules and there are a million of them, and when you get married in the temple you are still going to be married when you get to heaven and if it to the highest heav heaven, because they believe in three, you will have spirit

children eternally and your own jesus and your own planet and that kind of stuff. it takes a long time to find out -- they don't tell you that when they come to the door and try to get you to go to church. when i was in college, you know, there was this guy i didn't like much any way, but he had just gotten married and he made a joke to a guy next to him one day about how if his wife didn't straighten out he was going to forget her secret name and they both were laughing about it and i didn't know what he was talking about. host: next to new york on the line for republicans. caller: i'm an independent and i'm looking at this mitt romney issue with faith as a mormon and the pastor said mormonism is a cult. but isn't christianity a cult?

isn't it all a cult when you believe in something nonfictional or fictional. but a man in the sky. isn't it all a cult? there is no proof of any of it so how can you accuse mitt romney of being in a cult host: thanks. the question we are asking is does mitt romney's faith matter? it came up over the weekend and he addressed it on a number of fronts. it is also an issue that came up in 1960 and 1920, the catholic faith of john kennedy, who won that year and al smith who lost in 1920. smith is one of 14 candidates that c-span is focusing on the contender series and this week we will travel to albany, new york to look at his candidacy and the impact on the candidate party and the impact his faith had on his bid for the white house. yesterday romney addressing

generally his own faith and religion in american life. our heritage of religious faith and tolerance has importantly shaped who we have become as a people. we must continue to welcome faith into the public square and allow it to flourish. ur government -- >> [applause] >> our government must respect religious values, not silence them. we will always pledge our allegiance to a nation that is under god. host: the comments of mitt romney yesterday. carolina is joining us republican line from minneapolis. does this matter, carol? host: tell me! we are funded as one nation under god and our rills values are important -- our religious values are important. but i believe mitt romney is a christian and his religious

values are certainly important to the country. i also worked with mormons and i was confirmed and marriage as a swedish evangelical lutheran which is a very strict religion. but i have worked with mormons for over 40 years through my genealogy and i have found them to be some of the most -- have the most faith in god, the nicest, smartest, most wonderful i have ever been able to work with. i have great respect for their honesty, integrity and abilities. host: thank you. next is the democrat line from detroit. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i have been to temple square, salt lake city. my parents were married in the

temple in washington, d.c. so i know a little bit about the faith. i would just like to congratulate the last caller because people have this misconception that mormons are not christians, which is totally false. it is just another become we believe in. we believe in the bible but the book of mormon is the bible of hemisphere. hemispher host: i want to read a passage from the "washington post." can i get your reaction? caller: yes. host: this is from the jump page mormonism deviates from majority in key ways ief including god revealed an additional goes personnel through joseph smith and the contemporary leader of the jesus crisis of latter day saints is a modern day prophet. there are many doctoral

differences over issues as whether god is a body or a spirit. is that a fair assessment of the mormon faith? caller: ah, it is hard to explain to a non-latter day saint. but we believe in a prophet. i guess you could say much as the catholic people believe in a pope. it is hard to explain. the other misconception is that mormons have plural marriages, which has not happened in 100 years. there is the offshoot of the slds which kind of smears the church's good name. host: yet it does not support multiple marriages? caller: yes. george romney was the best governor we had in michigan the last 50 years and he is mitt's dad. host: you can send us a tweet

and go to facebook or e-mail. our question on this sunday morning, mitt romney's faith, his mormonism and does it matter. cy is joining us independent line, columbus, ohio. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i believe that everybody has their own what they believe in, their nationality or whatever faith in. believe and that is fine. but you talk about being the president and you have to understand everybody's point of view. you have to understand that everybody's culture and that we're one nation and you have to take that into consideration, not just one person's outlook or your outlook. you have -- you can't just make

somebody else believe. you have to understand somebody else's point of view and that is ok. everybody has their own beliefs, their realities. just appreciate that and realize that you are representing one nation. host: thank you. sandy on the republican lane jacksonville, n. caller: good morning, steve. thanks for taking my call. what has his religion got to do with being president? where the economy is, we are needing jobs, we need somebody in there that is going to get the jobs and turn the country around and every time somebody gets ahead of the republicans, you guys have to go after them. look at obama. his father was a muslim, his

mother was a jew and nobody ever said anything