on lessoned learned from north korea and other places where we seek to help those seeking freedom. political warfare is the spectrum of national power tools that fall between diplomacy and outright war with the idea to get a political outcome to get what a government wants to achieve somewhere beyond its border and do so by using means more effective than just talking as diplomats do but less costly than going to war involving financial, military, intelligence related, information related activities. teheran understands this. it understands political warfare. it's been using this more or less since the inception of the islamic republic. it's the main nation state of the islamist ideology, the iranian government is interested in the export of islamism and supporting governments friendly to the many no fair yows

ambitions abroad. it's an important element to grasp p for policymakers in the united states. by necessity here, analysts focus most of their attention on the iranian nuclear program. it's obviously an issue of extreme concern, and it's a national security challenge for which neither the current administration in the white house nor its predecessor has developed adequate policy, but i believe from the per perspective of u.s. disiewrt,s grattest likely threat is no a possible iranian first strike or the proliferation of a nuclear weapon to a terrorist network either of which would be suicidal to the regime of teheran, but frankly, a greater thet or more significant one is in the added impunity that a nuclear arsenal provides the regime to engage in subversion and the other activities at which it's proven itself so adapt. fortunately for us, a nuclear breakout would be, i think, a wind fall for the teheran regime at a time they should be feeling

insecure about its future. outside of iran, arab spring shows the clerical rule practiced inside the republic expoing the lie that residents of the middle east did not desire freedom and accountable government in the same way we do in the west and should signal policymakers in washington, and capitals that in the middle east there's not just a choice between dictator on the one hand and islamists on the other. in fact, there's a wide body of reformers, liberals, moderates, call them what you like, that constitute the more liberal alternative to what we have seen per vail in so many parts of the middle east these last several decades. then, of course, there's the movement inside iran which you know represents a new and broader level of intensity in the opposition to the incumbent government. together, they constitute building blocks that could roll back teheran's regime and rot it

from within. history now provided us with an opportunity to take friends away from the iranian regem and expedite its decline here at home. it would be iraq ironic if they should be fearing for their longevity and this gives them a lease on life allowing them to do more what it already does, but without impunity. there's been a preview already. you all know this. through various means, the alis managed to use political transitions in the dawning of democracy in various places to undermind democracy. recent exarchals include government's compromised be hamas and the authority and soughter block in iraq. they have done work in using democracy to poisen democracy. in that will not be the end if

they intimidate the allies and have a new lease on life at home, expect teheran to attempt repeat performances as other political transformations occur, and seminal elections are on the horizon in egypt and libya, just occurred, and the battle between reformers and islamists is taking place and likely to be the major political feature of this decade. it's my, suggestion, of course, that free nations fight back, counter political warfare with political warfare. we should push back on teheran using peaceful means, in football, in order to advance the national interest in expediting the internal decay of the regime as well as helping those in iran who share our values and desire for a civilized order. this is something in which the u.s. used to excel. during the cold war, we helped indigenous political movements and voices appeal to their

countrymen or free captive nations. the bad guys helped their friends. so american presidents of both parties thought it important to help ours. perhaps most active was the democratic president at the beginning of the cold war and the republican president near the end, ronald reagan. what would be peaceful, political warfare against the current iranian regime? some features -- there's been good ideas, but features could include first helping disdense inside iran and free iranians outside iran such as yourselves with communication tools and other resources critical to any political movement or link them with others who dealt with political organization and repressive situations before, like the eastern block behind the iron curtain in the 1970s. secondly, apply stronger financial actions against banks and companies doing business with the regime including the

fatal blow of fencing the banks off. actions like this put a crimp on north korea's money operation, and they were turned off, but extremely effective while they existed. third, we can make the disruption of telecommunications work for those who are actually seeking freedom rather than those who are working against it. it's almost certain, general keane eluded, they have cyber war fearp against us, and the free world could return the favorly empowering the friendlies to turn activities like this back on the regime at moments of democratic opportunity when political turbulence erupts. fourth, let's take similar non-violent steps to help syria opposition with our turkey and jordan allies who have been very good on this. a free syria denies teheran, best ally, and deeply impair

communications with hezbollah and other islamists. the last point and while it's nonviability warfare, it's augmented our undermind by military posturing. they are undoubtedly pleased they part neighboring iraq by the end of the weir and look for ways to offset the ability to teheran is no better off. i note in closing that many of the capabilities i described today. tools of the information are long gone, the intelligence agencies are out of business of kerning themselveses with foreign political out comes or influencing the outcomes. the cia is on the way to being a secondary force, and the instruments originally meant to support liberal ideas in government like the endowment for democracy do little today to support front line like those working for freedom inside iran. especially as the efforts of the

current and past administration to talk around at the program and founder amid the demand on display in the middle east, there's an opportunity to reconsider our approach, and improve our policy. just as we have the opportunity now to reconsider our policy towards the mek and the camp. as winston churchill said, "americans can be counted on to do the right thing after they've exhausted all other possibilities. now is the time for us to do the right thing on iran policy, so with that, i thank you very much. thank you for having me today. [applause] >> thank you, all, once again for being here today. perhaps it's time for us to

review a few of the things that we've heard today and recommit ourselves to changing our response. malawki, the head of the iraqi government is coming to the united states on december 12th. he's under investigation for war crimes he has disenvowed the united nations law that says they must allow to do their job in order to ensure those at camp can be processed as refugees and resettled. the message today has been clear. the united nations policy of relocation and dispersal in iraq

of those residents of the camp is a tenamount to a death warrant. [applause] so before he can come to this country, he must make clear that the deadline for camp should be rejected, and the u.n. should be allowed to do their job. [applause] that he makes sure that not only are those residents treated with dignity and respect, but hop norredded the international law that applies to them.

the other message today is what culpability the united states of america has in all of this, and as we've heard from not only generals, the former u.s. secretaries, and leaders of both military and public policy in our country state so clearly, and that is u.s. credibility is also on the line here. it's not simply important that malawki honor international law, but it's important that the united states, which has been on the side of human rights and justice around the world on so many occasions continue to stand up for its principles and also

to stand against those that threaten world peace like the mullahs in teheran. this december 12th is a moment for the united states to set clear for the rest of the world where it stands on iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and its terrorism throughout the world and its terrorism of the people. through its proxy malawki. time is running out. the time for talking is over. the time for action is now. [applause] ..

[applause] and as our friends, not only should the united states appoint a special on way to make sure that they have resettled if resettled they must be, around

the world in friendly countries. but those countries ought to include our own country. [applause] they are not only witnesses to crimes that tehran and ultimately could be witnesses in an actual international court tribunal that the leaders of iran, they said they are important to all human beings who care about the respect and dignity of human rights. we are to be doing everything we can to protect those who have been there to protect us by one and ask him if i peter nehr to testify against our mortal enemies, the iranian regime.

this should not even be a close call for the department of state. this is the time for action. this is a time for the united states to stand up for what it stands for and justice and human rights in the protection of liberties for all peoples, no matter where they may live. and so, i want all of you. [applause] and most of all, once again, thank our distinguished panelists who once again have spoken so eloquently today. thank you all very, very much. [applause] [applause]

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

up next on c-span, barney frank talking about his decision not to run for re-election. he also weighs in on the republican presidential race. "washington journal" begins at the top of the hour. >> within 90 days of my inauguration, every american soldier and every american prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and back home in america where they belong. >> george mcgovern's pledge at the 1972 democratic convention came nearly a decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. he suffered a landslide defeat that year to president nixon but his ground breaking campaign

changed american politics and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured this week on c-span's "the contenders" from the mcgovern center of leadership in mitchell, south dakota live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> democratic congressman barney frank announced his retirement. his career spans more than three decades and included the passage of legislation which imposed new regulations on wall street while he was chairman of the house financial services committee. from newton, massachusetts, this is 40 minutes.

>> i called thm this morning, the mayor's office was open well before 9:00. i was impressed. i thought i would be getting an answering machine and asked if i could use this wonderful place that's been a site for a number of very important meetings in my career so i was very grateful for them getting it done very quickly. i'm going to give you my statement. you have a written copy of it andly be sticking closely to it in substance, although not word for word, though i did write it. as i said, begin where the statement ended, when you're a massachusetts politician, it was the custom to quote former president's from massachusetts.

i'm going to quote one but he is probably the least quoted. i do not choose to run for congress in 2012. i have again through some changes here. i then had, as is appropriate, a very spirited campaign for re-election. and my view was i could do my job best of fighting for the public policies i care about by

making this my last term. and then a funny thing happened on the way to retirement. a very conservative public majority took over for the house. at that point it seemed to me that someone had fought hardest for was in jeopardy. which i anticipated to run the house to try to undermine and additionally i was afraid that given the need to do deficit reduction, this very conservative majority would seek to block any increase in taxation on the wealthiest people and would seek to protect the military from any spending cuts so the necessary deficit would fall on social security, medicare and other programs that enhance our quality at home. i thought if i were to announce in d.c. that i was a lame duck that would weaken my chances of having influence.

orderly i would not have announced this earlier as i did. we are doing redistricting and the legislative leadership and my colleagues all said look it's important to tell everybody, all of us whether you plan to run or not. so i gave my initial view. i was planning to run again, and then the congress kal redistricting came. it was precip tated, not entirely caused by it. i've been ambivalent by running. not because i don't continue to think the job is important but there are other things i would like to do in my life before the career is over. it was a fledging academic. i think i have the longest incomplete p.h.d. in harvard history haubting me. there are a lot of things i would like to do. some people are able to write and pursue an active life. i am easily distracted.

i want to be a blank screen. i will take almost any screen not to write. and i do want to write and write about some serious issues. so, i was torn. but then the new district came out. there are two aspects of the new district that makes this the decision what i did. both stem from the fact that the district is very substantially changed. 326,000 new people, many of whom i never represented, some of whom i haven't represented for 20 years which is an eternity in politics today. first, i decided to run again because i wanted to have maximum , protecting reform and making sure national spending was a part of deficit reduction. the need to campaign in a district that is almost half new, conflicts with that.

if i were to run again i would be engaged full fledged in a campaign, which is entirely appropriate. nobody would expect to get elected without a contest. but the fact that it is so new makes it harder in terms of learning about new areas. introducing myself to new people. i have three obligations. one is to continue to serve the people i currently serve, wearing a new bed ford tie. i've spent 20 years working on the fishing industry. none of the fishing industry areas will be in the district that i would be running in. i can't walk away from that industry. i can't walk away from people i've grown personally close to. i don't have time to do you. i broke the line on relationships between two countries with they have strong ties. one of them stays the same. that's israel. but the azures, at the request

of hundreds of thousands of people now. most of them would be out of the new district. there are other issues that i've worked on that would either become politically irrelevant or diminished relevance. that's re-enforced by the fact that i would have a hard time going to 325,000 new people. i would like to be your congressman for two years because it was always clear that i would be retiring after the next term. i will be a couple months short of my 75th birthday after the conclusion of next congress. i always said i would not be serving elected office at that age. some people can do it. i know my own capacity and energy level. that would have been a mistake. i would have had this very difficult situation in which i

would be going to people to other areas and saying please, let me be your congressman and let me work on your problems because that's an important part of this job i've always taken very seriously. very proud of the work i've done as an advocate for individual problems. but the most important person was never resolved within a year or two. ask 24e78 to trust me with being their advocate on their problems. if you call me in february of 2014 i'll have 11 months to work on your issue. if you have a regional problem, none of those are done in 18 months or two years. i would have a hard time telling people i would have a hard time justifying myself to do it. let me decide that i should not

run. i am however, and this is the final factor. i'm not retiring from public policy. and in some ways, to be honest, i think i will have more impact in some areas, not office. it is not a secret that holding elected office is not these days considered to be one of the great virtues. there is a cynical screen for which comments of elected officials are put. i expect to be saying exactly the same thing as a private citizen a year and a half from now or a year and a month from now. but i'm saying as an elected official. i think i will find and be able to talk more about the merit. i think candidly you know, that is all seeing truth is the first casualty of war. modesty in a political campaign. some of our cases were on shaky

legs to begin with. i'm going to not bed a immodest. i think i was pretty good at being a legislator. i think i've been pretty good working inside that frame of government. to my disappointment, the leverage you have within the government has diminished. the anger in the country, the currents of opinion or such are so that the kind of inside work i have felt best at is not going to be as productive for the foreseeable future and not until we make some changes. so i finally believe that my ability to be an advocate on the kinds of issues i most care about will be as great outside as inside. if i never served in congress, i think that might not have been the case. but i look forward to being help to help change the system. i think there are too many

constraints and i expect to join the debate to change that. with that, i will open up this up to any questions or comments. yeah? i know when you're a candidate you're supposed to get all macho and say i know i could win. perhaps you won't be surprised that i don't feel the need to be quite so macho. but here's the point. i've run for office 20 times. i've run 20 elections, four to the state house, 16 here. five of those cases were uncertain about the outcome. a couple of the cases i was the underdog. in 1980 when i moved from boston, i won two very narrow races. a terrible year for a democrat to run in 1980. in 1982 a large number of people

thought i couldn't possibly win. i was one of them. in 1990, i entered with a lot of people saying i couldn't win last year. it would have been a tough campaign. one, people are skeptical of incumbents and in some ways represented before get the worst of both worlds, you haven't had a chance to show those people what they can mean in terms of being there. so there was also this. i don't like raising money. i had to raise several million dollars last year. i have probably close to $600,000 in the bank. i'll continue to have two medium markets because you'll have enough of the southeastern market. i will have to start now raising

another couple of million dollars. as i said, i think i would win, but what's relevant to me i could not put the effort into that. i would think part of my strength i believe has been i've been very effective for thed a va coat for local, regional and personal needs. once i acknowledge it, it will only be for two years and that gets undercut. so then, what i do know running a full-fledged campaign in a district, the new district is about 75% of the -- that's the fact. no, i will not -- let me be very clear. i will neither be a lobbyist or a his torn. i promise you on both. there was no way i would be a

lobbyist. i will miss this job, and i have some regrets when the new congress is signed up. but i'll tell you this, and maybe you're going to laugh, one of the advantages to me of not running for office is i don't even have to pretend to try to be nice to people i don't like. [laughter] i will not be a lobbyist. i do not intend to practice law. i might show up pro bono for a gay right's case. my intention is to do writing, teaching and lecturing. again, i made this decision about a week up in maine what jim talking about it. one of the great advantages is when the phone rings now i don't tense up and say oh god who's

caused me a problem now? who's screwed up and i got to deal with it. i do not plan to be responsible for anybody's actions other than my own and jim's. yes, i did not think i had lived a good enough life to be rewarded by newt gingrich being the republican nominee. it still is unlikely, but i have hopes. let me say for example, i intend to continue to be an advocate of public policy. i look forward to debating to take one important example, the defense of marriage act with mr. going rich. i think he is an ideal opponent for us when we talk about just who it is that is threatening the sanctity of marriage. what it clearly is the rebudeyation of mitt romney.

and i've been struck again by people talking about the lack of a core. i've been surprised by it. it's been my experience that when people say they don't like you if you flip-flop they usually don't mind if you flip to them. most criticisms of people who flip away. in romney's case it has been so constant. i think there is a real question it is striking that so many republicans seem opposed to him. given the nature of the primary, i think it is possible that if he wins -- as a matter of fact, he obviously thinks so too because his comment about immigration is going to be looking for the final election. but i have to say this, he would be the best thing that happened to democratic parties since barry goldwater.

>> ♪ [inaudible] >> i can't think of my biggest. people often ask what's your biggest issue. none of us think that way. we have several things. i will acknowledge one error that is very relevant. i voted against president bush the first request to go into iraq. and i did that because i was afraid he was going to do what his son did, which is to mess it up badly. i now believe that the very limited engagement in iraq that has the sole purpose of expeling saddam hussein from kuwait, that worked very well. if we were back again i would have voted for that. i voted at one point for legislation to put more

restrictions on the internal revenue service that i now think were appropriate. we suffer more from ineffective tax enforcement than from oppressive enforcement. well, i don't have any regrets. here's the story on the financial crisis. i was in the minority in the house from 1995 to 2006. i, along with many others did not see the crisis coming and until 2003, i fought fanny mae and freddy mac were doing well. tom delay was running the house of representatives. i did become in 2004 concerned about subprime loans being given out. and then in 2004 when george bush ordered them to increase

the percentage of homes they bought for people pushing it up above 57% i said and was quoted in bloomberg that was a mistake. in 2005, the republican chairman of the committee, i was then the senior democrat put through a bill to reform fannie and freddie. an unrelated provision attacking affordable housing. but the key point is if the bill passed the house, i was in a majority so my vote had no real impact. it was then defeated in the senate because the republican senate disagreed with the republican house. he said that george bush had given him the one finger salute. so the bill died. that was the end of 2006. at that point in 2005 i depid try to get legislation passed to stop loans. subprime loans to people who do

income. that was blocked by tom delay. he sent orders, we're not going to do that. that brings us to 2006. in 2006 you can read this in the secretary of the treasury under bush. he approached me because it looked like we might win the congress back. he asked me if i would work with him on serious reform. by that time i was worried enough and i said yes i would. as he said in the book, i kept my word. i first became chairman with any serious responsibility in 2007. i assume people understand, when tom delay ran the house, the minority did not have much to say. so until 2007 i had virtually no impact. in 2007, i became chairman. and one of the first things we did was to pass legislation to further regulate giving the secretary of the treasury the

power. there was a group called f.m. watch that was there to monitor and rein them in. they announced they were dissolving. later that year in 2007, we passed a bill to block subprime loans. the "wall street journal" attacked us, said it was for housing, that we didn't believe in the free market and that they were very good things for helping put people win. that didn't pass in the senate. the senate did pass the fanny-freddy regulation we wanted. hank paulison then took over the regulation and when it turned out it was too late he put them into conservativeship. he begins his book by saying he was going to put him into conservativeship. the first thing he did was call me and i said good, that's what you should do. since 2008 have been in a conservativeship run by the federal government.

testified when i asked him that since he used the powers were in this bill that i initiated, there have been no losses the losses that you read about are payments for things that happen before that. and since 2008 they have done a pretty good job of housing and have not caused any losses. i was late in recognizing the problem. but it was when i was in the minority. i had -- i had the first impact i had legislation came in 2007. when i recently mentioned it on television michael steele, the former chairman of the national public committee said frank forgot they took over the house in 1996, held it until 2002. that is delusional, you since acknowledge that he was wrong. so with regard to the financial crisis, oh by the way, when the senate wouldn't do our subprime

bill, we did incorporate that into the bill that is now the financial reform bill. the subprime loans that made problems for people are now illegal. what i said in my statement there were two issues. ironically they're the ones that made me decide to run again because i thought if i had a lame duck i wouldn't have as much impact. one of them is financial reform. the republicans have held down funding for the commodities futures trading commission to the same amount the next fiscal year as it was next year. the things that got a.i.g. in trouble. the republicans have refused to fund the agency that we gave the power to give derivitives to. they are trying to block the

independent consumer, they are trying to break down on financial reform to say to people that if you sell the loan, you have to hold onto 5% of that. you can't make loans and sell them. the senior democrat on the committee. there are three potential, running for re-election, reconfigured district. surfacing the current district, including people who are not going to be the new one and being the ranking member and trying to protect financial reform. both pretty important obligations. one of them is nontransferable. i can't leave off the people i'm not representing. so i will continue to push hard to protect financial reform. tomorrow afternoon watching getting ready for a committee vote on wednesday to protect financial reform. you may have seen yesterday's "new york times," talking about the republican effort. secondly we're going to do

deficit reduction as we should though not in the short term. i believe we are overcommitted worldwide in the military and that includes by the way the president, why we are sending 2,500 marines to australia at a time when we haven't got enough money to do things at home baffles me. we are in an interesting situation now. it has been triggered. that will make substantial reductions in the military. even more so than the other programs i care about. there will be a right wing effort, in some democrats to undo that and to protect the military from any aid of further cuts. to protect the military from any ourt cuts you've got to do one of three things. reduce the amount by which you reduce the deficit. or cut social security and medicare or cut other domestic programs. i don't think we should do any of those. i intend to spend about half my time on protecting financial

reform and half my time on this. i just got a call from my office with some other members. i have requested a house democratic caucus. it will be out wednesday morning to push for deficit reduction that includes military spending. so those are the two issues i'll spend most my time and keep me pretty busy. >> bracket it audible] >> what station are you with? oh. [laughter] no, the answer is absolutely not. absolutely not. my investments are very clear cut. in the first place, you could look at my financial report and you would see this. i have for some time put almost all of my investments into

massachusetts municipal bonds. they are double tax free and they pay a pretty steady 4%. but more importantly i ack actively push for public policy which go against my interest. i believe the rating agencies over value the risk. i think they have to pay more interest than is justified. bonds, full faith in credit. never default. all my investments are in there. so no, i'm sorry to have to disappoint you. i have made no such investment. all my investment which is are public are in municipal bonds and i would assume no one would assume of pushing for the fiscal stability of my state. that's where my investment goss. i won't acknowledge -- i will

acknowledge that my judgment isn't always perfect in these situations, but i'm smart enough to answer this question. people should leave their legacies to other people to describe. that's even worse than saying what you think it is. yes? >> [inaudible] >> well, they've been successful in two areas where a veto power has worked. first, the absolute refusal of a sufficient number to block confirmation to a filibuster to confirm the head of the consumer bureau. the way is bill is written, the consumer bureau has the powers now that consist in the consumer , but if you think about the complaint, if only entities known as banks that made mortgage loans we would not be in this trouble. it was the nonbank lenders that caused more of the problem. one of the things we did was to

extend the powers of the consumer bureau to the nonbanks, to the check cashers. but those powers don't become effective until director is confirmed. so yes, they have unfortunately our ability, secondly, most outrageously where they endanger the system, to actively regulate derivitives. those two were hurting. on the other and they have not been successful because they understand financial reform is really quite popular. they have done frontal assaults on health care. i'm in newton, i have to say it -- one of the great muggings in american history, politically just took place, dr. donald burwick, an extraordinary leader an administrator is a newton guy. he just had to retire as head of

the c.m.s., the agency that oversees medicaid and medicare. right wing, we have lost a great man and a very able guy has been treated very unfairly. but to go back, they want to go after health care head on. they go after the environment head on. they will not go after financial reform. they do understand that the slogan lets me regulate derivitives. the consumer bureau is popular. making people, outlawing subprime loans -- by the way, let me repeat this, that i tried to pass in 2007 and became law in 2010. no republican during that time ever did anything to retard subprime loans given to people who shouldn't get them. you will then have a president who will appoint people who won't use the powers. but unfortunately under

commodities future trading, and by blocking the head of the c.f.b. they already have some impact. i'm fighting hard to prevent that from happening. >> [inaudible] >> no, frankly if i thought i was sure we were going to win, i was going to be chairman again, that was the hardest four years of my life. no, i think frankly things are looking better for the democrats. again, if newt gingrich is the nominee, then wow. but even beyond that i think it's a very open question about it. and plus look, i've served in the house -- it will be 32 years. i think it's about 18 in the

majority and 14 in the minority. the thing is different when you're in the minority and not making public policy. so that is not a factor for me. >> [inaudible] >> you think i'm going to answer that? [laughter] let me make one correction. i appreciate the spirit, but my late colleague was the first openly gay congressman. i was the first one to volunteer it, in fact the 25th anniversary of my volunteering that will be next memorial day. but i believe it haden impact. i think it did. i am very moved when christine quinn who's the speaker of the

new york city council, a serious candidate mayor bloomberg tells audiences that christine is in her 40's, my example was helpful to her, yeah look -- the best anti-dote to prejudice is reality. because prejudice is by definition based on ignorance of people's real condition. and i am proud that by my finally coming out, it didn't have in a clean sweep. when i volunteered, i do think it was helpful in that regard. one of the things that we were able to do in the lame duck congress last year was the repeel of don't ask, don't tell. and i was able to play a major role in that, speaker pelosi, then speaker pelosi really put me in charge of that. i have the gavel that was used

when don't ask, don't tell was repeeled hanging up. when i got to congress in 1980 there was a good deal of cooperation, there were differences. and newt gingrich came in congress and specifically said and he's written this, he did not believe the republicans would ever be able to take over as long as it was scene as a debate between people's good will. that he had to demonize the opposition, he had to say the opposition was corrupt and et cetera. and that provoked, some was successful at first, it provoked a reaction. the particular -- i was ranking member of the committee from 20 o 3-2007 and mike oxley ran in a bipartisan way. we weren't making policy.

today that's not the case the republican party today in the house is dominated, well i guess i would say this it consists half of people who think like michele bachmann and half of people who are afraid of losing a primary to people like michele bachmann. that leaves you very little to work things out. there are a few members i can work with, and look, i have to say part of this is not -- remember congress is not some entity that parachuted through the dome. we were elected by people. there's no member of house of representatives who didn't get more votes than anybody else for their job. the public cannot be totally absolved from this responsibility. they picked us! and in particular what you have is this, and it has to do with primaries. the activist in both primaries, people on the left and people on the right, live in parallel

universes. no longer do people get most of their information from a common media source and then diverge how they interpret it. the left is an msnbc and on the blogs. the right is on fox and on talk radio. and what happens is people know different facts. and what happens again is these are echo chambers, people hear agreement with themselves. so you have the most active people on both sides of the spectrum convinced their view is the majority of the view. those who are their allies try to make a compromise we're told why are you doing that? there's no reason to. i have people who don't believe we didn't have the votes for a single pay health care. that's another obstacle to cooperation. there are people who object to cooperation in principle because they do not see the need for it because they believe that their

side is absolutely in the majority. which one? >> oh, not at all. it didn't effect at all. as a matter of fact several people had written my obituary. 2010 was the worst year for democrats than anyone can remember, 196363 incumbents loss. unlikely you'll face anything remotely that way. there is one aspect. for reasons that are entirely clear to me, there are people not so fond of me. some of them have a lot of money. and some of them think i want to have them have less money. in the last election i raised a lot of money, i raised actually

almost twice as money as i spent because i raised all my money and i raised other money. because people get to him because they don't like me. that's the way it is. with the supreme court situated, i would anticipate a lot of money being spent. that means i have to spend a lot of time raising money. it's not fun. you do it, you're grateful to people doing it, that is what i would -- is it what? yes, it is the people who don't vote in primaries voting in primaries. it is with the public. the number of people who vote in party primaries is a small number. and it is party primaries which have the major impact. what we need is for people to go and participate in primaries. i will tell you that sometimes

we get a little irritated when people who haven't voted in primaries, i don't mean to make this personal, but when people don't vote in primaries complain to me about the results that they're not voting in primaries, i don't take it well. it begins with the leck rate. they have got to start rewarding and encouraging compromise. and until they do that, it won't change. yes? yes. yes, i'll divide my time. i will continue to live in newton. my partner jim is here, has a great house in maine. i will be spending time there as well. i will be giving up my place in washington. so i won't have a washington apartment. i will keep a newton residence and spend time in maine. i thank you all. [cheers and applause]

>> later today, grover nor quist for americans for tax others will debate the pledge not to raise taxes and what it means to the economy and federal debt. that's live at 5:30 eastern on c-span 3. >> the newly designed website has 11 video choices making it easy for you to watch today's events live and recorded. also easier for you to get our schedule with new features like a three network lay out so you

can quickly scroll through all the programs and even receive an email alert when your program is scheduled to air. there's a section to access our most popular series and programs like "washington journal" book tv and "the contenders" at the all new cspan.org. >> coming up in a moment, today's news, your phone calls and emails live on "washington journal." the house is back from its recess this afternoon. they'll work on a measure to make it easier for u.s. businesses to hire highly skilled immigrants. and a discussion on the financial state of social security and medicare.