that when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, but when everyone is playing by the same set of rules,, then we all do better. we all do better. that is the vision we share. that was the change we believed in. and we knew it was not going to come easy. we knew it was not going to come quickly. we knew there would be resistance. we knew there would be setbacks. but because of what you did in 2008 we have started to see concrete examples of that change. think about it. change was the first bill i signed into law that enshrine a very simple proposition, you get

equal pay for an equal day's work because we want our daughters treated the same as our sons. [applause] change is a decision that we made to rescue the auto industry from collapse, even though there were folks saying no and wanting to let destroyed go bankrupt. and now, 1 million jobs were saved and local businesses were picked up again, and gm is once again the largest auto company in the world. [cheers and applause] and we are seeing cars rolling off of the assembly line and they were probably made in america. [applause] change is stopping waiting for congress to do something about our oil addiction and finally doing something about the energy efficiency standards on our cars. in the next decade, every car will get 55 miles per gallon. that will save you money. it will save our environment. it is good for our national security. that is what change is. change is the fight that we had

to stop sending $60 billion in unnecessary subsidies to the banks in the student loan program. take that money directly out and give it directly to the students so that millions of students across america are able to afford a college education. [applause] change is the health care reform bill that we have. [cheers and applause] it says, if you get sick in america, you will not go bankrupt. and we have 2.5 million young people with health insurance that did not have it, and seniors getting help on their prescription drugs. [applause]

and americans will not be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or insurance companies dropping them right when they need them the most. that is what change is. [applause] change is that for the first time in our history, you do not have to hide who you live in order to serve this country that you love. don't ask, don't tell is over. we do not believe in discrimination in this country. [applause] that is part of who we are. that is what change is. and change is keeping one of the first promises i made in 2008. we ended the war in iraq and we brought our troops home. [applause] and in the meantime, we refocus our efforts on the terrorists who actually were after us on 9/11. and thanks to the men and women in uniform, and intelligence agencies, al qaeda is weaker than the deficit -- and it has ever been, and osama bin laden will never walk this earth again. [cheers and applause. that is what change is.

-- [cheers and applause] that is what changes. you guys have been paying attention. none of this was easy. some of it was risky. we were opposed by lobbyists, special interests. millions of dollars were spent trying to maintain the status quo. and a lot of the things that we did or not always popular at the time, certainly not with the crowd in washington. but part of the reason we were able to get it done before -- was because of you, because i knew that all across america your voices were still being heard.

you were knocking on doors and making phone calls and you were rooting for us because you understood that as hard as this was, it was consistent with the vision that we campaigned so hard to bring about. you kept up the fight long after the election was over. and that should make you proud. and a trip made you hopeful. -- it should make you hopeful. it should not make a complacent. everything we did over the last three years is now at stake in this election. the very core of what this country stands for, that idea that no matter who you are, you can make it, that idea that a child somewhere not getting a good education, that affects me. the idea that if there is a senior somewhere losing her home, that affects me. that idea is at stake in this election. [applause] the crisis that struck in the

mindset -- and the month before i took office, there have been more americans out of work than any time since before the great depression. we have a chart that shows in the months before i took office, 4 million jobs lost. in the months right after i took office, another 4 million before our economic policies had a chance to take effect. we have been growing ever since. we have been adding jobs ever since. [applause] but this was a profound crisis. but it was also a culmination of a decade where middle-class families felt further and further behind and more and more manufacturing jobs left our shores. and suddenly, our prosperity was built on a risky financial deals, or homes we could not afford, or everybody running up their credit cards.

and we wrap up greater and greater debt, and incomes fell, and wages flat line, and the cost of everything from college to health care went through the roof. these problems did not happen overnight. we were not going to solve them overnight. it is going to take more than a few years to meet the challenges that have been decade in the making. the american people understand that. what they do not understand is leaders who refused to take action. [applause] they are sick and tired of watching leaders who are supposed to represent them put party ahead of them. or the next election before the next generation. president kennedy once said after he took office, he said, the thing that surprised him the most about washington was that it was as bad as they had been

saying it was. [laughter] i can relate to that. [laughter] you've got the top republican in the senate who said his top priority was beating me. that is his top priority. my top priority is putting americans back to work. [cheers and applause] my top priority is making sure our kids get a good education. [applause] my priority is mcginn trebek has affordable, accessible health care. -- is making sure everybody has affordable, accessible health care. his top priority is beating need. [laughter] that shows you things are non on low level. -- not on a level.

that is how you end up with republicans in congress to voting against proposals that they used to support. [applause] use of them in december all tied up in knots. -- you saw them in december al qaeda and not. because we were proposing tax cuts -- all tied up in knots. because we're proposing tax cuts for small businesses. suddenly -- [laughter] the didn't know what to do. proposals to rebuild roads and bridges, that did not used to be a democratic issue. it used to be we understood building america was good for america. putting teachers back to work and copps back on the street.

they will fight with at the -- with everything they have to protect the tax cuts for me for the wealthiest americans and then suddenly they are confused when it comes to a tax cut for the middle class. maybe they thought this was smart political strategy. maybe they thought it would advance mitch mcconnell's agenda to beat me. but it is not a strategy to create jobs. it is not a strategy to strengthen the middle class. it is not a strategy to help america. we have got a choice this year. we have not seen a choice this stark in years. even in 2008, the republican nominee was not a climate change denier. he was in favor of -- was not a climate change denyer. he was in favor of immigration reform.

he was opposed to torture. [laughter] the contrast this year could not be sharper. the question is not whether people are still hurting. people are still hurting profoundly. a lot of folks out there are still out of work and looking for work. the question is what we do about it. the debate we need to have in this election is about where we go from here. the republicans in congress, the candidates running for president, they've got a very specific idea about where they want to take this country. they want to reduce -- [laughter] they want to reduce the deficit by getting our investments in

education, by getting our investments in research and technology, by letting our bridges -- bridges and roads and interior deteriorate. i have already signed more than $1 trillion in spending cuts, impose even more. i think it is time for us to reduce the deficit by asking those of us who are more fortunate to pay their fair share. [applause] and by the way, let me just say this, because i've been hearing a lot of these republicans talking about how that is class warfare. he just wants to redistribute. he doesn't believe in work. he is trying to create an entitlement society and this and that and the other. let me be absolutely clear.

i should pay more taxes, and folks in my income tax -- income bracket should pay more taxes, and certainly, folks who make more than $1 million should pay more taxes. not because i want to take their money and just give it to somebody else. basicbecause we've got investments and basic functions that have to be carried out in this 21st century if we are going to be able to compete. we're going to have to train our young people so they can get a high skilled jobs of the future. we're going to have to make sure that we have the best infrastructure to move products and services. we're going to have to make sure that we have the basic science and technology research but allows us to stay on the cutting edge of the nation, because

other countries are making investments, and they are cashing out. if we're going to do all about without leaving a mountain of debt for our kids, while still maintaining the strongest military honors, while still making sure that -- on earth, while still making sure that medicare and social security are there for future generations, then all of us have to do our part. [applause] that should not be a democratic idea or a republican idea. that should be a -- an american idea. it is about taking responsibility for the country. and when all of us take

responsibility, we all do better. that is the idea. [applause] the republicans in congress and on the campaign trail, these guys running for president -- [laughter] a lot of the -- why do you laugh? [laughter] they are running for president. [laughter] and they want to take medicare and make it a form of private insurance so that seniors shop around with a doctor, even if it does not cover the cost of their medicine for their care. i think we can lower the cost -- we have to lower the cost of medicare -- with reforms that still guarantee a dignified retirement for seniors. because they have earned it. [applause]

these folks act like it is an entitlement that was not burned. -- not earned. these folks paid into the system. they worked hard to make sure they would have retirement. [applause] our reforms should reflect that. they think the best way for america to compete for new jobs and businesses is to follow other countries in a race to the bottom. they say, look, if china lets you pay low wages, they want to roll back our minimum wage, or our right to collectively bargain. they say, well, companies can pollute the some of these other countries, so they want to get rid of protections that make sure we have clean air and clean water. we should not have any more regulation than is required for the health and safety of the american people.

nobody likes red tape. nobody likes bureaucracy. that is why i have actually reformed government so that we have initiative fewer regulations than the previous administration with a lot more benefit, much lower costs relative to the benefits, looking to streamline government. it is billions of dollars in reduced paperwork. we are not interested in regulation for regulation's sake. but i do not believe in this notion that we should have this race to the bottom. that should not be what we are competing for. we should be competing to win the race for the top. we should be competing to make our schools the best in the world.

[applause] we should be competing to make sure that our workers have the best skills and the best training so we have the best pay. we should be making sure that college is within reach of everybody. we should be in a race to give our businesses the best. we should be in a race to support the scientists and researchers that create the next clean energy breakthrough, or the medicine that might cure pernicious diseases. we should be in a race to make sure that the next generation of manufacturing does not take root in indonesia or asia, but in detroit and pittsburgh and cleveland and new york. i do not want this to be a nation that just barrault's and consumes. i want us to be known for manufacturing and selling all over the world. and that is for middle-class security, for advanced technology, for having the best

workers in the world. this is a race i know we can win. but america is not going to win if we do the same things, if we respond to our economic challenges with the same old, tired "cut taxes for wealthy people." "let companies do whatever they want even if it is harming other folks, and somehow prosperity is going to trickle down to everybody else." we tried that. i do not know if you remember, but we tried that. [applause] it never worked. it did not work when it was tried in a decade before the great depression.

it is not what led to the incredible boom in the 1950's and 1960's that created the greatest middle-class onerous. it did not work in 2001, 2002, 2003, 20005, and 2006 -- [laughter] where we have the slowest job growth of any decade. we cannot go back to this brand of "you are on your own" economics. if we can attract outstanding teachers by giving her the pay and support she deserves, she is going to educate the next steve jobs. [applause] and not only will we have whatever the next ipad is, but we will all see the economy grow. if we provide faster internet

service to some rural business somewhere, and suddenly we have access to a global market, or some business right here in harlem that was selling something and could previously only sell within a few blocks and now, they can sell it anywhere, that means they can start hiring more workers. they have customers all over the world. [applause] our whole country will do better. this is not a democratic idea or a republican idea. abraham lincoln, the first republican president, he understood this. he launched the transcontinental railroad, national academy of sciences, the first land grab college, all while dealing with the civil war. a republican. teddy roosevelt called for a progressive income tax because he understood that you cannot pretend you are for equality of opportunity when you have a huge inequality and you are not creating ladders for success for people.

the republican. pryke eisenhower. -- dwight eisenhower build the highway interstate system and invested in math and science so we could compete in the race to space. a republican. there were republicans in congress that supported fdr giving millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, the chance to go to college on the gi bill. [applause] that idea is as old as this country. and you know, that idea, it is still there. that sense of common purpose, we tapped into it in 2008. and it is still out there all across the country. i see it everywhere i go. it may not be in washington.

it may not be in congress. but it is out there. you talk to folks on main street, town halls, vfw halls, barbershops, they understand this. our politics may be divided, but people understand we are all in this together. [applause] they understand that no matter who we are, we rise or fall as one nation and as one people. and that is what is at stake right now. that is what this election is about. i know these have been three tough years. i know that some of the change folks wanted has not come as fast as people hoped for. i know that after all of the

stuff that has gone on in washington, it is tempting to sometimes say, you know, it is not possible. the system is broken. we give up. it is tempting. but remember when i used to say in the last campaign, i said this -- i repeated it over and over again. real change, big change, it is hard. it takes time. it takes more than a single term. it takes more than a single president. [applause] what it takes is ordinary citizens like you, who just keep on fighting, keep pushing. keep inching the country closer and closer and closer to our

ideals. that is how the greatest generation defeated fascism and gained das out of a great depression and build the largest -- and yanked us out of a great depression and built the largest middle-class in history. that is how people were able to suffer because the clubs and fire hoses to ensure that our people were able to -- that our children were able to grow up in a world where race is not who you become. change is hard, but we know it is possible. we have seen it. we have lived it. i have lived it. i have seen it. as we go into this election year, i want everybody to understand, yes, my hair is grayer. [laughter] yes, we have some deans and

dense -- dings and dents. yes, this financial crisis has been a wake-up call. but there is no other country that does not envy our position. they understand that this country is still the last, best hope. [applause] and they are counting -- the world is counting, and our fellow citizens are counting on not giving up, not giving in to despair.

if you want to end this is the sum and the game playing and the point scoring -- end of this cynicism and the game playing and the point scoring and the sound bites, then you have got to send a message this year. starting right now. that you refuse to back down, that you will not give up, that you intend to keep hoping and keep pushing and keep fighting just as hard as you did four years ago. you are going to keep believing in change -- [applause] and if you are willing to do that, if you are going to work just as hard, if you are able to generate that same passion and commitment, then i will be there next to you. because i have often said -- i

said in 2008, and not a perfect man. -- i'm not a perfect man. i'm not a perfect president. but i promise you, i have kept that promise i made in 2008 -- i would always tell you what i thought. i would always tell you where i stood. and i would wake up every single day fighting as hard as i can for you. [applause] i am just as determined to now as i was then. and if you are willing to stand alongside me, we will not those obstacles out of the way. we will reach for that vision of america that we believe been, in our hearts, and change will come -- that we believe in, in our hearts, and change will come. if you work harder than the last time, change will come.

if you keep on believing, we will finish what we started in 2008. change will come. [applause] if you fight with me and press on with me, i promise you, change will come. and we will remind everybody just why the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [♪"your love is lifting the higher"♪] ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> we will talk with rick santorum on tomorrow's "washington journal.' he will take your calls. then, prof. mark tompkins on the history and role of the south carolina primary. then, a discussion with the co- author of the book, "the real romney" "washington journal" at 7:00 eastern, here on the c-span. we will hear from michael bloomberg and the white house senior adviser, live at 11 eastern.

>> some will say we are reactionary, others will say that we stand for socialism. there will be the inevitable cries of so the rest will go. it is time for a change and so on and so on. we're all of those things and many more besides the be will hear nothing that we have not heard before. >> we look back at 14 men who ran for the office of president and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders that had a lasting impact on american politics. >> we seek to refresh the american spirit. let the opposition collect their $10 million in secret money from the privileged few and let us find 1 million ordinary americans who will contribute $25 each to this

campaign, a million member club, of members who will not expect special favors for themselves but a better land for us all. [applause] >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> now, a discussion on the 2012 election. we will hear from a democrat and republican who spoke at a forum for the u.s. conference of mayors. >> this morning, i wanted us to have a thoughtful discussion about the presidential and congressional elections. i think our collective concern is that it is the silence that is deafening about the state of american cities. it is interesting every year when we present the economy's

report, it seems that members of congress are living on some other planet and they don't realize that 90% of the gdp is generated in our cities. 85% of the jobs that are created this year will be created in our cities. if we took the 10 largest cities, it would be an economy that is the third largest in the world. if you were talking about just the three largest metropolitan areas, you were talking about an economy the size of france. you would never know that talking to the congress.

getting the candidates to focus on domestic and metro priorities is important. getting them to think about and talk about and do something about infrastructure investment, the ongoing policy crisis, job creation, these are the issues that we hear of. we had an opportunity to meet with president obama at the white house to discuss some of these priorities. we invited the major republican candidates to be with us. they are on the campaign trail in south carolina. we have invited some of the nation's top political experts to frame the current debate. i am very pleased that today we have with us steve schmidt, who was senior campaign strategist

and adviser to the presidential campaign of john mccain in 2008 and a friend of mine. someone who has also advised my very close friend, governor schwarzenegger. i am also extremely pleased that we have with us, and the dead done -- anita dunn, who served as the campaign shortages for the obama campaign and the white house. we are most fortunate to have the chief white house correspondent for "politico." he came there from "time" magazine. before that, he was working for the "washington post," where he worked on the first bush campaign. when it comes to u.s. politics, these people have been in the thick of things for a long time

and they have the scars to prove it. i know that they will lead us in a very meaningful discussion. thank you very much. we're going to jump right into the discussion. here in washington, we can say what we want but you and your colleagues actually have to do it. the last time i saw the mayor, he was in spandex. you will be happy to know it was not on "meet the press.' we were both in aspen. we were doing a hike with lance armstrong. they had a bunny slope hayek --

slope hike. a very exciting time to be in washington and we will start with a little breaking news. most of you have probably seen on your device in the last few minutes, texas gov. rick perry has said he will pull out of the presidential race and he is going to endorse newt gingrich. we will plunge right into that. there is a debate at 8:00 tonight and the mayor would say 5:00 real-time. we are down to four. how does rick perry sudden exit affect the chessboard? >> i tend to leave the prognosticating about republican primaries to the people that

know that party which would be, steve. let's think about the debate. they have a two hour debate and they had scheduled six or seven candidates. now you have four candidates. an interesting dynamic, santorum and gingrich are fighting with each other to be the romney replacement. romney is coming off of his weakest debate performance off of the entire election cycle. then you have ron paul, who charts his own course at all of these debates. >> that was nice. >> he tends to do well in these debates in terms of his supporters because he is very clear, he is very straight forward, and he does not sound like a typical politician.

i will actually kicked this to steve to get his analysis. >> i think for years, this has become the greatest reality show on television. if you look at the cast of characters that have run for president, some of them have fallen away. it has been a real interesting process to watch. i think that you have a number of balls in the air right now. it might be the case that by the end of the day that we find out that rick santorum won the ira caucasus. -- won in iowa. if rick santorum pulls ahead, that would be one of the roughest weeks for mitt romney. the tax story was not handled

particularly well by governor romney and by gingrich, resurgent. he was down, he was on his back. there appears to be a controversial interview that takes place with a gingrich ex- wife. who knows what is going to come out of that. we will see the realization of hell has no fury like a woman scorned. it will be an interesting dynamic over the next 24 hours. i think if you look ahead and if you look at conventional wisdom, conventional wisdom is that mitt romney will be the nominee for president. anyone you talk to in the political or journalistic community for years believes that.

i think the white house is preparing to run against mitt romney. this is utterly plausible as a victorious candidate. one moment, he will not attack his opponent. one moment, he is the conservative candidate in the race. the next, his rhetoric is identical to people who could be carrying signs in the occupy wall street movement. it would be interesting to see what the outcome of what south carolina is. ron paul will stay in this race until the last primary is over. he will have 18%-25% of the vote. >> you are saying all the way through. >> all the way through.

he is now running for president, he is running to change the trajectory and discussion of american politics too mainstream the issues that he cares about. he is doing an effective job about that. he has initiated what will become a debate within the republican party. saturday will be an interesting race in south carolina. if mitt romney wins, the nomination fight will be effectively over. >> how much does he have to win by? >> i just think that he has to win. expectations are so low for mitt romney in south carolina that going in it was never a must win state, it was a determining state. if he wins, i think the race will begin to shut down. whether rick santorum or gingrich gets out of the race or not, i suspect they won't, but he will be well on his way to be the nominee.

if he's not, i think he is still likely to be the nominee. florida will be a painful week and then you will have this long break before the super tuesday race. >> steve schmidt says we are looking at an obama romney race, how does that look to you? >> i think that the president's campaign has always anticipated a tough and close race regardless of who the republican nominee is. most of the republican candidates have ended up taking relatively similar positions on almost all of the major issues. some of these issues came shall we say later in their career but they always ended up at the same place. whether these are issues around federal spending or tax, they

have a line pretty much with republican congress. we knew that we were going to be running against a nominee that is carried the banner of this very unpopular congress. as much as they would like to escape that, they will have that. in terms of moving forward, i think that one of the things that i have found interesting is that in 2008, the primary process actually ended up making candidate obama a much stronger candidate. the fight against now secretary clinton against a really top candidate ended up making him a much better candidate than he would have been if this had

wrapped up early. i am not convinced that this process has made whoever the eventual nominee is the candidate. there are questions about what kind is value you bring to the economy if you have spent your entire life at an investment firm or whether there are questions are around tax equity and whether or not investment income should be taxed the same way that people who work hard for a living. this has not been helpful to the eventual nominee. the president knew that he would have a tough race where he has to defend his record. he has to put out a vision of where this country can go moving forward. what you have seen is a

president who is very clearly stating not just the differences in policy but also a vision of what america can be. >> during the primary process, governor romney has been pulled to the right on a number of issues, bank up on a few issues. will this make it harder for mitt romney against president obama? >> there is a difference between the 2008 democratic primary process. it was basically this, that both barack obama, senator obama, and senator clinton prepared and qualified to be president of the united states. whoever was going to be winner of that contest, there was no question that they were fit from the character perspective, from an intellectual perspective, to

take the oath of office. that is not the case with all of the republican candidates but is the case with governor romney. when you are running against people in a primary process who are not possible commander in chief, it becomes a diminishing experience as opposed to elevating the experience of the course of the debate and that is a piece. i would say that much of the focus has been on the republican primary process but the big political story is that though it is glacial, though it is slow, you have seen a steady improvement of the president's approval numbers from a very very dangerous place in the context of try to get reelected to a place where there is a vulnerability still but where

those numbers are improving into the range where we were, for example, in the 2004 bush campaign. you talk about the close election. it is important to bear in mind that in 2008, which was the worst republican environment that a republican candidate spent all of these messages that you here, when you hear the republican message, 47% of the american message response. when you hear the president's message, 47% of the population response to it. interesting to see how that group evolves over the

course of the next year. >> the reality is that we have had extraordinarily close elections. 2008 was not by any means a landslide. it was very close election. >> 2004, 1996, where bill clinton did not get 56% of the vote. thus did not get 50% of the vote. this is a closely divided nation and continues to be and has been for several elections now and you will see a very close election unless by some extraordinary set of circumstances, but i cannot imagine the republican party nominated someone who is deemed unelectable. >> the chairmen of public affairs is independent.

he pointed out that there has been a glacial but unmistakable increase in the president's approval rating. something else that matches the description is the economy. the economy is unquestionably getting slightly better. the statistics are pointing that way. does that removed a lot of the arguments for mitt romney? >> when we set up here and we talk about what will happen in elections, we often talk about them through the prison -- through the prism of events that have already occurred. the euro crisis will have a dramatic impact on whatever nation our recovery is underway.

there's also the question of how the american people feel. you have 74% of people who think that the country is on the wrong track and it is the 93rd consecutive month where people think that we're on the wrong track. there is a global survey done every year and 30,000 people surveyed, 30 countries all around the world. the trend is a total collapse of trust in government, not just in the united states. i don't mean this as a partisan statement. this applies to both parties. you see that occurring globally. unemployment will remain high. people are pessimistic. people don't trust the government. people don't think the country

is heading in the right direction. the fundamental challenge for a the president in that environment and all presidents have a 66% chance on the odds of getting reelected. his challenge is to create -- is to communicate that tomorrow will be better than today. i think that his reelection is difficult absent the ability to communicate that. that is what the american people are looking for. who will make this better, the one thing is that everyone agrees that universally in the country that it is not going in the right direction and these are bad times. we are in a cycle that if there is a 20-seat switch, which is entirely possible in the house, it would be the first time

since the 48, 1952, 1940 -- 1954 cycle. all of this instability is being fueled by that very high long track number and that deep sense of pessimism in the country and i think that will frame the election. >> they talk about the president's communications challenges. president obama is one of the greatest political to indicators of our lifetime, maybe the best sense ronald reagan. why has he lost that connection? >> it is always a challenge when you are in the white house to keep that connection with the american people because you have so many hurdles. . the best laid plans can be waylaid pretty easily.

having said that, what you have seen, as steve suggests is not only just the beginning of the improvement of the economy in a way that people actually see and feel you have also seen the president going out and communicating very quick -- very clearly about what his priorities are, where he wants to take the country, where we are going and how he will lead us there. the contrast in message between the president and the republican candidates has been striking because the republican candidates as a group tend to have an extraordinarily pessimistic message that has to do with going back. this is not at all forward- looking in terms of how we go and how we get there. this is going back to this, getting rid of this or that kind

of thing. the president has begun to lay out a very tangible set of values and visions for the american people in terms of a middle-class that works and in terms of an economy where hard work is rewarded, where people take responsibility, where businesses and individuals are held accountable. fundamental values that made this country great to begin with. that will be a real contrast. next week, he delivers the state of the union. this is the best up with 80 to lay out what division will be for the year. as challengers, republicans have to make the case against the president and why they are the best to replace him. one of the great challenges they have is actually getting to an optimistic message given that their bases such an angry base and appears to respond best to the candidates who deliver the

most red meat at any given time and terms of contrast with the president. that is a huge challenge. one of the things that president obama had was the ability to criticize the status quo while maintaining the optimistic message. i don't think that any of the republican candidates have strung -- have shown that they can do that. >> in a few moments, we will take your questions. steve schmidt made a very interesting point on a the global opinion sampling found a collapse for government support. this is not just in the u.s., this is around the world. why is the u.s. frozen? what will change that? i think it --

>> i think it is frozen fundamentally because it continuing cycle of political that lands where the intentions of the other political party in terms of trying to do right by the country are constantly called into question. >> you are one of the chief callers. >> when i was in the business of running campaigns, i have done my fair share of it. ronald reagan talked about of the fact that in this country, we don't have political enemies, we have political opponents. if you look back at a generation of americans, maybe it was because they fought in a real war together against a real existential threat and men like ronald reagan and tip o'neill, while fierce partisan opponents, could never look at each other through the prism of enemy.

if you talk to people who have been in washington for a long time, the social mixing that used to occur between the wives of democrat and republican members of congress or increasingly as we have more women members of congress, it does not exist anymore. there is very will contact and mentally and everyone is geared up to provide content for the cable news entertainment industrial complex which does not reward the reasonable person who goes out and says this is a solution to the problem. not to drone on but there was a fascinating charlie rose special from he had the mayor's the 10 biggest cities in the country. it was a discussion based on pragmatism and reality with

people that have to make decisions and run stuff. i found it so fundamentally detached from what goes on in washington if an issue is debated and argued about and then nothing happens on that, people move on. that is not a problem any longer because we are not talking about it in the longer. you cannot do that in the city. it is one of the reasons why going to steve's trust barometer.

if you go to any data, the closer you are -- the better people feel about the government. >> what can change that? >> i believe the voters have to be the first in changing this. they have been rewarding the most polarized behavior and their primary process. i think steve would agree it started with our party back in

the democratic wing of the democratic party days. i am not saying that is a terrible thing, but between redistricting and between the primary processes and that the activist wings of both parties thanks in no small part that campaign finance rules unchanged and that the internet has given people a porthole to democracy, which is a wonderful thing, but it also means that, again, those who make the most noise can often get the most support. the reality is that voters who say they are sick and tired of the partisan gridlock, voters said they want people here who will work across the aisle, voters have to step of and take control of the democracy again. i am a huge believer that at the end of the day when voters said they have had enough of this

behavior people are going to change their behavior. i do not see politicians deciding absent that. centrist behavior gets penalized and not rewarded at the voting booth. >> i would love to bring you into the conversation. we will give you a microphone pronto. if you do not mind sitting who you are and ask your question. >> the 2012 election is shaping up to be about the undue influence of lobbyists and it just as much about the economy. you see this from the rhetoric fromoccupy wall street to the attack ads from romney to gingrich. you have a lot of access to the

president from advising his campaign to regular visits to the white house. the thing it is disingenuous that you are being paid by a lot of corporations to lobby against the reform specifically on childhood obesity and predatory for-profit colleges. >> i would like to say i am not a lobbyist. i have never been a registered lobbyist. i do public relations. >> what is the difference? >> the difference is -- i should also say to my friend of my cooling off period from the white house because this president has instituted some of the strongest ethical reforms of any president ever means that i do not talk to anybody in this administration on any issue for public relations. white house communications director, i was involved in so many issues. i do not talk to anybody in the white house. i do work with people. i do work with nonprofits and i work with some corporations because the fact of the matter is, we are in a democracy and people have a right to be heard. the fact of the matter is, most

of the time when i work with people they have a story to be told. this president has done things that allows my friends to say, i am a regular visitor to the white house. why? because part of the move toward transparency is to make sure anybody can go on at any time and see who is visiting the white house. it sounds like a small thing, but it is not. it means there is a greater degree of accountability. this white house by and large has shut down the revolving door. people who leave the white house cannot lobby this administration on issues they worked on while they were inside the administration. this white house and campaign does not take money from registered lobbyists. these are not rules but congress applies to itself. as we move forward in the political process, one thing you will see is that voters will continue to demand greater transparency from everybody.

if you look right now at gov. romney's flailing around on whether he will release his tax returns, the reality is politicians will not have a choice about transparency much longer in the country because voters expected of them. >> let me just for future questions, i would like to start with -- >> we have the lights on now. over there. yes. >> i want to thank both of you for coming this morning. i have enjoyed your chat. i have a very simple question. the last two presidents have put an emphasis on who they have selected as a vice president looking for certain things in their running mates. if you were advising the mitt romney, what would you be advising him to look for in a running mate?

>> my wife has said i should never give an answer to a question about who to pick for vice president. [laughter] we will not tell her. >> i think first and foremost, on the issue of who to pick for vice president, it is an important question. i think there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the 2008 campaign and also from the 2004 campaign. i think this election process is fundamentally broken in a number of different ways. both parties have resulted and that nominating people who were unprepared and unqualified to be president of the united states. stepping back, in 2008 it was a story of assumptions that this

person is a governor, therefore this person has a knowledge base and an issues base and that would make them prepared to do this. that turned out not to be the case. it also is a story of the outcomes that do not go the way you want them. nobody had the intention of putting forward somebody who was unprepared to be president of the united states.

the focus is on trying to win the election. the focus is on trying to get ahead. it is a story of ambition. it is a story of wanting to win. this is a process that requires a great deal of circumspection. i think on the part of the media and the price it should be framed for what it is. this is the first decision the candidate makes by themselves or they have to take the measure of the person who they are going to put in the position of being the next in line. if you look at the history of the country, a lot of presidents have had to come forward to take the 35 word oath and assume the duties of commander in chief. obviously for the past couple of years, it is an issue i thought about a great deal.

when you run a presidential campaign or you are involved in the decision making of a presidential campaign, you never have the aspiration to have a result where somebody was forwarded to this. >> let's be clinical about this. if you were advising governor mitt romney, would you advise him to picked rubio of florida or rod portman of ohio? >> if i were in that room with him, i would say remember the two most important things is you believe this person is prepared to be the president of the united states if, god forbid, something happens. you have that confidence -- it is your first presidential decision. can you look the american people in the eye and say this is the person. do you have a comfort level and

the trust this person? the role of the vice-president has evolved. it has become an operational role and a very engaged role and that is a good thing. that means the president has to have a certain degree of trust. i think those two things. can you say that this person is prepared to be president? if you look at the two names that you said, run portman is somebody you can present to the american people as somebody who has served in government who has an understanding of the fiscal issues. it somebody who has been through enough vetting processes to playoff what steve said. he has the base of knowledge about national issues. with senator rubio, i do not know his record as well. he probably would want to do some significant vetting. i think that is something that cannot be underestimated. you do not want to be surprised when to announce that person to the american people.

i think at the end of the day, it is not my decision. it will be republican nominees decision. given the fact that if the republican nominee is mitt romney, at the gas is he probably does want to pick somebody who offered him regional diversity and somebody who offers him something to fill out his governing resume. something he does not have in his profile. i would also add that the ideas that a vice presidential candidate brings to their state or brings anything to the ticket, i regard it by and large as not true. many -- may be occasionally they

can help you on an individual state, but at the end of the day you pick somebody you think can be president. >> i think also it is that the only criteria that should matter is a is this person prepared to take the oath of office to be president of the united states? there is a list of people who meets that qualification in both parties and there are other people who do not. i think all of the political calculations have to be supported it to that. i think it is one of the chief questions of 2008. >> thank you for joining us this morning. i am the mayor of the city of davenport. my question is, in 2008 president obama won by 9 million votes nationwide, one of the biggest margins since lyndon johnson.

he won with young people, students, african americans, poor hispanics. in 2010 we got the worst shellacking since the civil war. i remember in 2008, 39 people got out of the homeless shelter to vote, more people than ever before. in 2010 and nobody voted from the shelter. what can you do to reassure me that things will be different. people in that these demographics will turn out when i see thousands of people protesting in the occupy movement, i see the highest poverty we have had up among our base. what are the poll's showing? how is the campaign going to get to them? what are we doing? what are the positive signs to see in these demographics that did not vote in 2010? >> in 2010, the election as midterms are was a referendum. it was not a choice and it was

not a friend as a choice. presidential elections have a different dynamic than midterm elections. i think this presidential election will present a very clear choice to people. that is the first thing i will say is that rather having the people turn out to tend to be angry is that the administration, you always get a larger turnout in presidential elections anyway. there will be a very clear choice and the president will from the choice in a way that will motivate people to come out. it really is a significant difference. mayors always understand what the stakes are here because you have been living with the idea that somehow the federal government can just reduce all of the discretionary spending in the federal budget and we will all live happily ever after. you know that is not true.

there are significant needs in this country and investments that need to be made in education, transportation, in your infrastructure and sewer systems, in those things the federal government needs to do to build us for a stronger future. that is going to be a huge thing, especially for younger voters. young voters are the people who have a great stake in what happens next. i think a different vision of an america where hard work is rewarded and where we have responsibility and accountability for government, business, and for individuals where we do not have a on your own attitude but where people and government make investments, work together, have

a private public partnerships whether it is infrastructure, education programs that all of you are doing in your cities, what ever it is where people are working together to move the nation forward together. that is the president's vision and something that will be incredibly important and different from the republican vision that we have seen with this republican congress. that is, you are on your own, tough luck, let's cut all the critical programs that help disproportionately seniors and low income people so that we can keep taxes low for the people who do the best in this country. there is going to be a major debate in 2012. i think it is a healthy debate for this country to have. i think it will motivate people to come out and vote in a way they were not motivated and enter 2010 when it was not seen as a choice of very different directions.

>> well, obviously on the frame of the issues have profoundly disagree. i think the tax code is more progressive than it has ever been. the most compassionate policy government can have is a pro- growth economic policy. i think the federal debt is an enormous crisis for this country at 15 trillion dollars with no and in site. i think we will have an election that is based on a choice. in a midterm election, it is often a referendum on incumbent presidents who have only had two occasions where there were first term presidents had pickups. every other president has lost seats.

as you talked about it earlier, i think there is a number of other factors driving instability. an election for president is a choice. this will not be an election in terms of the type of job that the president is doing. it is a choice of who will do a better job, the republican nominee or the president backs there is an abc washington post poll that shows 57% of voters disapprove of the way the president is handling the economy. as a republican i look at that through two prisms. first, there is a lot of room to criticize the president of the economy. also because i think the president laura and this election is 47%, a very significant percentage of

people who reject his handling of the economy will vote for him in the election. it will be a very close election. there are some elections were there are pale differences between the parties. if the choice is not painted in bold and a bright colors. i think this election will be one where there are clear lines, clear choices, and bold colors. it will be a healthy debate because there is a fundamentally different vision offered by the president. i think it is ultimately by the republican nominee. >> at the mayor's introduction at the top, he talked about the deafening silence he hears. if i am a mayor of davenport are philadelphia, how do i connect with a washington that does not seem to be listening? >> i was going to say you and the rest of the country in terms of how you feel. i think it is critically important for mayors and particular to hold the candidates accountable of both parties at every level.

you cannot separate out cities from suburbs. we all know how interconnected we are as a nation. i think the mayor's command great megaphones in their communities. members of congress and senators are increasingly sensitive to their communities, much more so than they used to be. i am getting a little old now, when i was working in washington it was still possible for people to " say one thing in washington and another at home. now it is not possible for somebody to say one thing at a town hall meeting and something else five minutes later because it is already on you to but. -- it is already on youtube. people are -- elected officials are sensitive to local criticism, particularly when it is linked very directly to how conditions are at home. i think your collective the voice is very important. there will be a republican

nominee. there is a democratic president. there may be a third party or libertarian canada, but all of these people are going to come looking for votes in your area. all of these people will debate. your collective voice to put things on the national agenda is significant. i think picking a few critical areas whether it is transportation and infrastructure spending, which i happen to know some of you care about. whether it is education and education policy, which is obviously a huge debate in this country. to pick a couple of issues and make your voice heard withholding candidates accountable and also with their

elected officials. >> i agree with that. i think publicly communicating your issues which -- compared to an antiquated approach of solving these with one on one meetings, that does not work anymore. i think you need to communicate publicly. there was a story and "the washington post"or there were a bunch of members of congress who stood up and began quoting lines out of the movie brave heart and analogizing the payroll tax to the fight to the death that was taking place between the british and of william wallace. i think in the context of being a mayor and running something and having accountability and being responsible for services, that is just so off the wall to almost be unimaginable. i think there is a detachment between the reality that you live in and the reality that a lot of people in washington live in.

it is important to communicate your reality and enter a way that makes them accountable. i think all politicians as a species of animal have a high instinct for self preservation. to the extent that you are able to put a burden on to the member of congress that triggers that instinct by advancing your agenda in the needs of your constituents is probably an effective strategy. >> i will add one thing. due to the news cycle having accelerated exponentially, there is much less time for the in- depth policy reporting that one would like to see. that gives you a huge advantage because you can play that role. the conference of mayors can play that role in terms of looking at the impact of the policies that the candidates

are talking about. this is something that is not being done as much as it used to because nobody has the time or the space or the resources to have reporters do this. it is critically important to you and important to the people you represent in your cities. i would suggest one way to be in that dialogue is saying this is how it will affect you a in real life, not just a central canada rhetoric for an answer in a debate but in real life. >> mayor riley will have the last question. >> the tea party movement appears to have moved the republican party even further to the right. to what extent will that pose a

problem or may yet prove to be a benefit to the republican nominee? >> i think the tea party movement is broadly misunderstood. i think the reality is there has always been conservatives and the republican party and there will always be liberals in the democratic party. i think the fact that there are energized voters -- i think if you look at the two movements that have gotten a great deal of media attention over the last year, the occupy wall street movement and the tea party movement, i think the tea party movement is a movement that does good for the republican party. i think on an issue basis it has appealed in the middle of the electorate. i think one of the big unanswered questions is what does the occupied wall street movement look like in the

spring? i do not think it necessarily helps the democratic party in the context of the general election in the fall. i think of the two movements and what the impact will be on the general election, the one that is likely in my view to be consequential is the occupy wall street movement. >> i agree with that. the occupier was to movement is still in many ways at a very early stage. if you look at how quickly our national dialogue has changed to really address the issue nobody wanted to talk about which is the growing inequality in this country, i think that will be an issue central to the economic debate in 2012. we have republican leaders of p of paul ryan who felt it necessary to give speeches about a denture away six months

ago they never would have. at least for 2012, the occupy a wall street movement will have a significant movement will have an affect on the national dialogue will the tea party is more effective and then to organizing. >> i will see you on politico.com. i would like to thank steve schmidt and anita dunn. [applause] as a of a we will have more covers tomorrow when newt gingrich and ron paul participate in a forum at the seven republican leadership conference. that is one day before south carolina goes to the polls. live coverage is under way at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. later in the day, mitt romney

will hold a campaign rally on jobs and the economy. each and see live coverage at 3:45 p.m. eastern. -- you can see live coverage at 3:35 p.m. eastern. >> we show you the candidates events leading up to saturday's south carolina primary. >> the obama administration came down with a policy that says she cannot teach abstinence. -- as a preferable way of avoiding out of wedlock birth. she cannot talk about marriage. did she cannot of about marriage as anything other than an alternative lifestyle that is no better or worse than any of their lifestyle. my question is why? >> when the president adopts a stimulus package of hundreds of billions of dollars that nobody has read thand then discovers to

years later ithat the shovel ready jobs were not shovel ready and the stimulus fails releases $800 billion deeper in debt, at some point he has to take responsibility. that was his plan. it failed. >> the need to get their message out. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> after the polls close, we show you the results after candidates speeches and your phone call. >> the group political parity announced bint national campaign to double the number of women in congress. you will hear from the former u.s. ambassador to austria and the former lieutenant governor of massachusetts. this is one hour into a minute.

>> welcome, everyone, and thank you so much for coming today for this round table conversation sponsored by political parity. i am the co-chair of political parity. ambassador hunt is the chairman and founder of the original inspiration for this project. we are here to announce and kick off in some ways a historic effort to double the number of women in congress and in governors' offices across the country by the year 2022. all of the folks who you see here today, many of them are involved in this effort -- they will explain how, but this is a ground-breaking approach. because for the first time, we're bringing together within from the full range of the political spectrum to work on

one, an issue, and that is electing more women to the top offices across this nation. we are not as partisan. we do not endorse any woman or candidate, but we work to make sure that all women have the best possible opportunity to serve in high positions. now, i would like to introduce our chairman, ambassador hunt, who will talk a little more about the structure of political parity, but then also what it is important to elect women. white women? ambassador. >> yes, i want to thank you for coming off the campaign trail. kerrey and i are working for opposing candidates.

that probably gives you a sense of this whole endeavor. right? >> yes, we are modeling cooperation across the aisle. >> that is right. we have worked on opposite sides before, when you were running for governor, and i helped to fund raise for your opponent. here we are, nonetheless. the idea is double the number of women in congress. to do that, what we have realized is that the democratic efforts have not made it. republican efforts have not made it. people in the middle are still stagnant here, so we have to figure out a new strategy. our foundation put together this initiative. it is a small, private foundation that we have. well, it is not too small. [laughter] because we are putting $750,000 a year into this for 10 years. what we are doing is figuring out how it is that women will make the decision to run. we know that women win in about the same proportion that they

run. so we are doing the research behind it. we are funding the research, and that will help us figure out strategies, and then we have this whole idea of why they are leaving. let's get the word out. it is not just national strategies. id's people at the municipal level who are also wanting to increase the number of women. some of them are doing it for the democrats. some for the republicans. that is cool. some are just saying, "any kind of woman, we want to get them in." we are focusing on the congress and u.s. governorships. others are saying working on the pipeline, getting younger women at the university level to run, but we know what the goal is ultimately. actually, the ultimate goal is the white house, i would say. but we are doing this bit.

when we found out that someone like gloria totten, the national organization of women, they were interested, too, and we had this whole wide group of other women leaders who have fabulous bios -- we said we should put together this advisory group. we call them the leadership team. this is not a coalition of their organizations. these are individuals, but wow, look at their bios, and you will see the wide expanse of organizations that they lead. thank you all, so many of you, for being here this morning, also. this relates to the question of why on earth we would do this.

and the answer is because we care. we care about this country. this is a grand experiment we have undertaken. we have a lot of efforts around the world to increase the number of women in parliament. q end up with less weapons, more funding for health and education, children and families. guess what? you also and up with more funding on environmental issues. i'm talking about parliamentary research. now, the united states of america, our great country, where are we in terms of women in legislature? when i started working on this issue, we were 42nd. that was 10 years ago. we are now 88 in the world.

that is because we are stagnant and other countries keep increasing. we are behind ethiopia, folks. we are behind nepal. we are behind most of africa. do women make a difference in the u.s. congress? a new gallup poll says that the approval of congress is 11%. another says it is 13%. that is probably within the margin of error. that is terrible. that is terrible in terms of what it does to our citizens, in terms of their desire to be part of this group or to support -- i mean, to go to the polls and the excited about what they can do with our government. we have to change that.

how do you change it? well, one of the things that we know is that women tend to -- and i am never talking about one woman. i am never talking about one man. but as a group, women tend to be more collaborative. that is whether it is in business, in any other kind of setting. it is true also in politics. they tend to work across the lines more easily. and it is very important, however, that we have enough critical mass to let that happen, because otherwise it is extremely hard to vote across -- apart from your party. but if you have a block of 30%, 40%, that is when you see women really taking off in terms of their collaboration. and what do they vote for? and how they get their information about what they're going to vote for? women as a group have a

different style of raising -- a gathering information. they tend to do it from the grassroots. they have their ears open. they tend to be running not because of a desire to be a senator but rather because they have a concern about an issue. i'm talking about the use that are widely held with women. -- views that are widely held with women. they will work across the aisle to co-sponsor a bill with men. -- to co-sponsor a bill with somebody who shares that view. women cosponsor more bills than men. republican women vote more for environmental concerns than republican men and democratic women. democratic women are stronger on environmental concerns than democratic man.

who knew? there is all kinds of reasoning for this collaboration. it is just good. and by the way, of course i think we have a right as women -- by the way, i am not the chairman, i am the chair. [laughter] >> i am a conservative. >> i know. every time i sign a letter, i love you dearly, i get one back it says, sincerely. [laughter] where was i? [laughter] i know where. is about the talent pool. of course i care about women's rights, but that does not get you across the line. it just does not. it does not move people or we would be there.

so, we can say we have got to draw from 100% of our talent pool. that is just smart. women are very reluctant to run. these are women who are figuring out how to push past that. >> that is our motto, the keys -- because we need 100% of america's talent. we will now hear from five of the leaders to be we have engaged in the process to talk about this and the political landscape impacting women in 2012 and beyond. i would like to start with mary hughes, who is heading up and enormously ambitious effort to recruit, support and inspire women across the country to participate in electoral process in 2012. mary is going to tell us about her progress so far.

>> good morning, everybody. it is wonderful to be with you all, lovely to see so many good friends. i want to say hello to two kates. lovely to see you. i want to talk to you very quickly and very briefly about three topics, very important. first, all history is preamble for where we are today so go back with me real quickly 20 years. 20 years ago today. 6% of the united states congress was female 20 years ago. after that november election in 1992, we were 10%. it was a joyous occasion. we'll celebrated. we thought we had knocked down those barriers and it was freeing clear sailing all the way ahead. but you know what? it did not happen that way.

here is what happened in the intervening years. we made some incremental progress after 10%. up until about 1998, we were picking up a couple of seats to year. and and, oddly, between 1998- 2008, the flat lines. women stopped running. the number of nominees for congress increased by exactly 11. what is up with that? what is up with that? so, we saw this flat lining, and we saw for the first time in 30 years in the last election, 2010, a decline in the number of women sworn into congress. fewer than the cycle before. we lost nearly 80 seats, women did, from the state legislatures in the last election cycle.

this group of women, these women, all of you, we can do better. that is what we are here for. we want to do better in this next decade. i want to talk to you about the fact that we have quite a year ahead of us. 1992 was not accidental. there were political factors in place that enabled women to take advantage and to catapult 24 new women into the congress. we have that opportunity again, and we have to take it. now, what are the factors? first, we redistricting reapportion once every 10 years. the legislatures are in the process of doing that. that means new seats are created, and the seats that exist are more competitive. open seats come into being. women do well in open seats.

outsiders do well in open seats. many of the seats we won in 1992 were open seats. those are available again. in addition to redistricting and reappointment, in the intervening 20 years, 15 states have become term limited states. every two years, they create many more open seats. retirements occur. there is much more opportunity out there if we are willing to go and take it. third, once every 20 years -- and 1992 was such a year and 2012 was such a year, the reapportionments and read districting -- redistricting coincides with the presidential election. in that year, many people come out to vote who do not necessarily vote in every school board, bond and local election. those people take the measure of each person has become. they're not so tied to party and

much more responsive to what is immediately in the political environment. you take these things together and say that we have a level playing field. we have an electorate that is pretty dissatisfied with the status quo. we women are different. we run differently. we collaborate differently. we have a different set of priorities on our agenda. we believe in openness and transparency in proceedings, but we have a lot to offer in contrast to the status quo if we go out and ran. now, the 2012 project is out there trying to expand the pool of women who think of themselves as public servants and potential elected officials. we do this with a wonderful group of 70 former elected congresswomen, governors,

leaders and state legislature, a former elected women who go out, outside the normal channels of politics, to women in science and technology, health, energy, environment, finance, international relations, women who run small businesses and say to them, you are going to live a long time. you're going to live longer than your grandmother and you have a lot of wisdom, knowledge and accomplishment. we need all of america's talent in this game. you want to think about your third act in terms of public service. what are you willing to give back, and are you willing to do it as an elected woman? women who never thought of themselves as public leaders are being asked to take up

private sector non-profit accomplishment and put it to work. we do this in conferences, leadership conferences. elected women are out there and these former elected women know what they're talking about. they have been in the trenches of the campaign. it served in the state legislature. they can dispel a lot of myths, negatives, and the things that prevent women from saying you know what? i would like to do that. i would like to do public service as an elected figure,

and they are doing a terrific job. we do not just to educate about the state of american women. the inter parliamentary union ranked on a quarterly basis how governments around the world are doing in terms of gender parity in their lower houses of parliament. for us, that would be the house of representatives. there are 90 countries ahead of us. 90 countries ahead of us in gender parity in her lower houses. that alone should make your blood boil. >> is more since i did my research. >> is. we are dropping by the month. because it is a quarterly analysis, things are on the downhill slide. in any event, we try to express what this means, what it means in terms of the stature of the united states, what a means for us in terms of commerce, when we go around the world and the rest of the world has diversified. the rest of the world has taken on a different look and the united states continues to lead with the same as that is antiquated. we want to change that. we want to bring ourselves and to the 21st century, and it is on us to do it. the third strategy we employ is estee coalition.

we have built -- a state coalition. we've built a wonderful network of women all across this country. all of us are focused on electing more women in 2012, and they work within the states to replicate the private sector and non-profit women that i described. but they know that there are women in this open seat, and if it means one party or another, go find a woman in that party. this effort to reach out in the states, our organization, we could only support a dozen, but they started 12 on their own. in oregon, utah, iowa, women came together and found women to fill seats. this effort is something i hope you will all join in.

i am enormously grateful for all of the collaboration of women who are doing this great work all over the country. >> thank you, mary. it is very inspirational what is going on. i would like to ask tiffany from the white house project to talk a little bit about some of the innovative ways that women are being recruited around the country to run for office. >> sure, thank you for being here. i am thrilled, as much as all of you. my life's work is advancing women and girls. it is why i am on the planet. i pretty much know what is on my tombstone, i am just working my life backward. two years ago, i could not have told you that i would be sitting here as the president of the white house project, but i could have told you that i felt a responsibility to make an

impact, and it could have spoken very passionately about what matters to me. it is the unique ability to tap into what matters to women, and to meet them where they are, that has allowed the white house project to recruit and train over 14,000 of them to become more civic being gauged, to run for office, to advance their leadership. intentionally, 75% of those women are under the age of 35. 53% are women of color. lea is one of them. lea used to be a health care worker. what mattered to lea where the rates of obesity in her community, the fact there were health care disparities. she felt strongly that what her community needed was a grocery store. it was a food desert. there had not been a grocery store within city limits in 15 years, although there were plenty of fast-food joints. she began going to the city council to talk about how important was to get a grocery store in this town. we heard about her because she was making a really big ruckus about this grocery store, and we

suggested, like we do unlike many of our colleagues do, that she should run. her first response was no. that is so is a woman's first response. we're very reluctant. but we took her through the process and she became the youngest person to sit on the city council. she became the only african- american woman ever to sit on the city council. most importantly, she broke ground on a civil lot within two years because that was what mattered -- save-a-lot within two years because that was what was now under -- that was what mattered to her. make no mistake. she's on her way to the u.s.

congress. it is pretty daunting to tap into what matters to have the population as it is one demographic. i know that what matters to me might not matter to you or to you or to you, so the white house project is very focused on narrowing our slice of the demographic of women. the focus on women who are 21- 35, and we're very excited to have partners who are also really focused on building the pipeline and focused in on younger women. that is an important part of the process. it is one strategy in one step to what we feel will make an impact in the long term. my dad was a very interesting person. he is from watts. he is one of 13 kids and he is a perfectionist and manifesting new things and manifesting new realities. he used to tell me that if you want something you have never

had before, you're going to have to do something you have never done before in order to get it. that really informs my leadership. it is what really inspires me to be on the leadership team. it really inspires me to participate in the vision that has been so aptly presented for all of us, because i think it is a new approach. i think it is a different approach. i think it could potentially create a new outcome for all of us on the entire planet. thank you for having me here. >> thank you, tiffany. next, we're going to talk to cara, who is going to talk a little bit about republican efforts to increase representation of women within the republican party. i think it is a well-known fact that there are more women representatives within the democratic party than the republican party, so we have a special amount of work to do in this regard to catch up. >> it is a great pleasure and honor to be a part of such a wonderful task. being a woman and being involved in politics for so long, it is always interesting to see what other people look

like to be arguing what you want to do. -- who are doing what you want to do. our values are very much shared amongst the republican party and as conservatives, but why is it women feel they do not want to run? why is the answer always know, i do not think so. i cannot do it. the white male power structure in the republican party is something that is a deterrent. that is starting to fall by the wayside. we may not have the numbers, but we do one quality women. we should always want that. we shall is one quality people to run for office. -- we should always want quality people to run for office. we need in power, entrepreneurial and excellent. we are the product, and our principles are the commodity. when we have organizations like this that are entrepreneurial in their principles and running for

office, that becomes something that empowers them. when we get to that point, we need to carry ourselves with excellence, something my mother taught me from very, very young. always carry yourself with excellence. it is also a great example for other women. as conservatives, sometimes it is not always easy being in the good old boys club. it exists. i will be the first one to say that. it exists, but no one will ever tell me that i am not supposed to be there. there is an old girls' club too. but you know, women are the lifeblood of society. what we need to do is focus in on issues and putting ourselves in positions where we also become the lifeblood of politics.

we do represent 50% + of the electorate. why do we not have that same level of presence, whether on a local level or a national level? we should have that presence. we need to encourage women that they can do it. it starts very young. we oftentimes think we should be pigeonholed into other careers or other avenues, teachers, nurses, no. we deserve to be there and have a seat at that table of power just like everybody else. it starts with organizations like this. it starts in elementary school, encouraging little girls to run for student government. for me it started in fourth grade when i volunteered happily to be geraldine ferraro in a mock debate. i have sense wised up a little bit. >> or stiffen up. [laughter] >> but that is when i started, because no one was going to

tell me i could not do it. what we do share is a desire to make things better. what better place to do that than in public service? there are different ways to do it, but i come from the great state of new jersey. i'm very proud of that. we have had a female governor. i come from a district that has had the largest serving female member of congress. i grew up seeing a woman in congress, and i said, that is going to be me one day. to be a part of things like this, watching the progression from being a very zealous college student to my work on the hill involved in politics on several levels, i find it an honor and privilege to be in a position to encourage other women to do it, let them know they can do it.

to be part of such a wonderful leadership team with other women regardless of party politics. i consider that to be an honor and privilege. someone once told me that women who aspire to be equal to men lack ambition. i do not know about that, but i aspire to be even more so. excellence is the banner. >> thank you. we need to give that speech more often.

to the first public event here in 2012. we had about 70 last year, so i expect to invite any feedback in your future. a lot of longtime colleagues, also terrific to see any faces. it's a real understatement to say that bipartisanship is going to be a challenging state of the next several months. so we are happy to have many friends as we can get. today's discussion is about leadership and i'm really thrilled to have tom daschle and trent lott with it he adapted a vital role in creating and shaping or cure the bipartisan policy satchel over the last five years. they also know about the leading a divided government and i think we will hear terrific stories about that very shortly. i want to situate the series on

leadership belittled the broader context of what we do here at the bpc. there are really three dimensions to the challenge that we face. the first is policy were. too often we find when you have polarized issues with long-standing kind of challenge, people get stuck in deep grooves of dermatology, very little meaningful subsidy engagements and we strive to bring together very diverse groups of experts to work on not just sensitive solution, but also pragmatic solution and whether it's our health or project or energy or work on dad and national security housing. in every case to bring the other policy experts at the political engagements and try to put together proposals that can be meaningfully embraced in 2013. a second after we work done is to try to address the core institutions of our democracy. it's terrific to have katherine and dan gleeson who have been cochairing this effort.

i think to state the obvious, many structures and traditions have come to rely on to solve our tough challenges are really under tremendous strain right now. enter that project we have a series of forums and research in the tvs that will hopefully give us some of that they are. and finally, we are here to talk about leadership. open they come in the problems they face democracy are not acts of god. they are not natural disasters. they are fundamentally human problems created by people that ultimately have to be solved by people. if we look back to history of moments where he faced up to magnitude of problems were looking at today, you can always find inspired leadership. it's also a bit of a cliché to say we need better leadership. it's like we need to educate the public. we will really try to understand what are some of the forces and actions that are replicable that could be brought back into the conversation today. ultimately we hope that we can

help to motivate a virtuous cycle that will enable the country to start to really address what i think we all realize are tremendously pressing problems. very grateful to have the support of the henry foundation and john koppelman here today. 2012 is in fact the 100th anniversary of senator jackson for. he has a profound legacy of leadership on stimulating public discourse in advancing bipartisan efforts. and so we are really pleased to be a little affiliate with you. there are some books on the senator's life better in the assay table, which we encourage you to look to. as i reflect and century marks, i want to know we will be honoring a century of service in tribute to the 100 years of public service that two of our founders, senator dole and aker has given to this country and that will happen march 21 at louisville criminal to learn more about that. so with that, let me welcome john.

thank you again for your support and ask you to introduce their speakers. >> thank you, jason for partnering with us. laura clifton, our executive to her and myself joined with jason in welcoming you to this discussion. the henry m. jackson foundation was founded over 30 years ago after the untimely death of senator henry m. jackson. and it was founded to help us continue the legacy of his good work. and the foundation and how does one the core mission, or pursuing continued bipartisanship and civil dialogue in the congress. and so, it is on this occasion as jason said of the centennial of scoops first that we are so pleased to be partnering with the bipartisan policy center and

disgustingness imports and challenging issue. we have obviously a very distinguished panel of two former senate majority leaders who knew all about bipartisanship and who followed in that spirit that senator jackson exemplified here to scoop was in the congress for over 44 years. and he was done for his ability to solve problems by working with people on both sides of the aisle. the fact that he cut across the aisle and work with his republican colleagues is considered to be one of the keys to his influence and his extraordinary legislative success. many, many important pieces of legislation. authored or co-authored or sponsored by the senator. senator -- one of his key supporters, one of his great

allies is just licensure as a member secretary energy and secretary of defense. he says scoop reached out across the ideal shoe and cover different design and build coalitions. and he did this with extraordinary stability, even with his irascible colleagues. and that is how you become the great legislator. i had the good fortune to work for him in the 60s and 70s and it was an extraordinary time of stability and huge accomplishments in the congress. so i told senator lott and senator daschle that this discussion gives us some hope that we can at some point in the not-too-distant future to that kind of legislative stability and cooperation. now, as part of our interest in

sharing scoop's extraordinary legacy, the foundation has produced a book called the nature of leadership, excerpts from an exemplary statesman. and the object of this book was to capture through the words and reflections of some of those who knew scoop last, the qualities that he exemplified, quality such as in hagerty and vision, determination, honesty, scholarship and openness. those are essential qualities of any effect as leader. and so, we ask you to take a look at this book. i like to tell people there's lots of pictures and big print. so it is safe fast and fun read. take these with you. they are out on the table. give them to your friends, give them to the young leaders who hopefully can see this as the kind of leadership that they want to aspire to. but those qualities should apply

to today's theaters as well, not just a future leaders, that today's leaders. i think we hear the word demand all the time. we should not demand. we should insist that today's leaders follow the spirit of bipartisanship that scoop was known for, that senator daschle was known for that senator lott was known for her. so, this is also, if you don't want to carry your briefcase you can download from our website. it's a wonderful little piece. let's may now proceed to introduce former senate majority leaders tom daschle and trent lott. most of you know them better than i., know our biographies so i won't go into great detail on that. a couple very interesting points that i did not know was that senator lott is only one of the hand follows peep hole who has

held a lack of leadership positions in both the house and the senate. and senator daschle, we know, one of the longest-serving majority leaders in the senate, but i thought it was remarkable that he is the only senate majority leader as i understand it who served out once, but twice as majority leader and minority leader. so talk about two men who knew the need for bipartisanship, trent lott and daschle. as a thank you for being part of the bipartisan policy center jackson foundation today. with no further ado, i think senator daschle, are you going to lead off? great, thank you. [applause] >> john, thank you for that generous introduction and more

importantly thank you and the foundation urbina's partner in our project. i look forward to reading the book, but as a young staff person had the opportunity, the good fortune to see senator jackson in action and to see the degree to which he epitomized the qualities that we hope we can talk about today. his leadership, his extraordinary leadership to find comity with his colleagues, prioritization of bipartisanship is historic and we are very, very grateful that he continues to inspire us today with his teeth and with his words. there are others that i also would want to call attention to for their present today. and my gratitude of them for being here, former colleagues chuck robb, dan glickman,

charlie stenholm. it's a real pleasure to have them with us as well. i'm always inspired from the lessons of leadership of our american heroes of the past. john quincy adams once said that if your actions inspire others to dream more, to learn more, to do more, to become more, then you are a leader. i think that definition describes those features, even those in congress. lincoln had a lot to say about leadership. he once said nearly all men can stand adversity. if you want to test a man's

deer, get empowered. i think there's so much truth to that found of what leadership is all about. find out about a man or women by giving them power. well, it is a real pleasure for me once again to share this diet so it's a very, very special friend, trent lott. pni shared tyler and the united states senate for many years. and while they had to powerful positions, we endured great adversity as well. i am not sure whether it was power or adversity that defined the matter in which we learned, but we had to deal with the first impeachment and over 100 years, 9/11 and, the anthrax

attack, the first 50/50 senate in u.s. history. clearly, and historic very, very challenging time. and while leaders can all be aptly described with adam's definition, i think there is a big distinction between an executive leader and of legislative leader. a legislative leader barely makes a unilateral decision like an. he has far less ability to execute a decision. even more true of the senate leader perhaps than a leader in the house of representatives who has as a result of the rulemaking and processes and procedures, far greater economy of making decisions and senate leaders to.

but the senate was designed to give each senator remarkable autonomy and authority. our former colleague george mitchell used as a man that he didn't lead a caucus. he negotiated with 57 and dependent contractors. a majority leader it seems to me has four primary rolls. first, he must set the agenda and consultation with the other leadership as well as the caucus. he must manage the legislative body again and consultation with at least the other leader. he must be the central person in the senate and speaker work. and he must provide leadership to his caucus.

those four rules are very, very critical regardless of circumstance, regardless of the makeup of the senate at any one time and regardless of roles they think a leader must first in four must always remember the state of japan and to reflect the concerns, interests, values of his stay. every senator brings his own experiences and personalities to the role of leadership. and i believe that it is always a function of the time within which a leader ascends to the majority leadership role that take tape to a certain extent what that agenda is. in my case when i was elected leader in 1994, there was a sentence within our caucus that we needed to build to improve inclusion, to create more opportunities for members to

have a role in the decision-making and agenda setting process. there was a far greater need for outreach. i ran for majority leader. we lost the majority in 1994 and i was selected as minority leader. and so, the senseless we had to reach out to a constituent groups and the rest of the country in a more effective way. this was as i said that mid-1990s when technology was just beginning to become even paramount to the way the numbers communicated and saw their -- their roles with regard to the opportunity to project to their constituencies. and so can't put a real emphasis on to knowledge we are a creed of the technology committee and the studio and putting the emphasis on the internet in ways that have never been done before. to a large extent, circumstances

dictated many of those priorities. regardless of agenda, priorities, experience or any other fat tears, seems to be a modern-day legislative leader as he or she attempts to constructively leave his caucus, a face with a number of challenges that transcend party, transcend almost any other aspect of senate life. one of those whose fund-raising. there's an extraordinary pressure on every member to raise money these days and as a result the time to stand and preoccupation with funds received becomes an even greater challenge as we attempt to manage the senate. the airplane. the airplane in my view is one of the single biggest factors in

the way the senate conducts its business today. because he is is so easy for people to these towns, they do. really quite regularly on thursday to assess tuesday's giving us virtually nothing order from a full when state to conduct a lot of the senate business. that presents serious challenges with regard to the extraordinary agenda that we face. the media, the logs and the extra very hyperbolic way with which so much of what the senate does is reported today is another challenge that we still have yet to grapple with successfully. and unfortunately, partly because of the way elections are held today, polarization has become so much a part of the senate and not to do something they think we we all have to acknowledge and address.

some qualities of leadership transcend these times. and as i said, i take inspiration from people who have proven themselves to be visionary leaders that we have needed so badly at times, and theater first and foremost perhaps must have a strong intercom base. i like what churchill said about that. he said it is sometimes said leadership should keep their gears to the ground. all i can say is that the nation will find that hard to look up to leaders who are detect within that ungainly position. secondly, leaders must know their fathers. lincoln had created sites in that regard. he said leadership is staying a little ahead of those who are led, but not too far ahead or

uses contact with them. third, a leader must be able to persevere. i've always liked the quote that an invincible determination can accomplish almost any game and therein lies the distinction between great men and little man. and finally, a leader must listen. dean ross probably said it best. the best way to persuade these with your hearers. a good leader is always pointing. i learned a good deal for my friends, trent lott as i did for my colleagues who are here today. i mentioned some of that. dave mccurdy, chad of course i didn't mention earlier, but i appreciate the lessons in leadership he brought to work every day. i learned a lot from my friend, trent lott. if you haven't read it, i

strongly would urge you to read herding cats because it is a reflection of how one meter lead in these times of adversity and turbulence. we did a lot of cat herding them very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about leadership today. [applause] >> thank you for being of this morning in thank you for your comments and our friendship and one that continues to grow and develop as the years go by. i must warn you in it than that as tom has rd indicated, we became not only, you know, companions and let it difficult time and leaders, both minority

and majority, but we got to be really truly good friends. if you're looking for partisanship, you won't find it here. i want to thank you, john and the henry foundation. it's hard to believe he put a hundred years old for sponsoring this event on leadership. it is something i've thought an awful lot about when i was in the congress and cents. and i talk to young people he could read about leadership. we have a leadership you to cheat at the university of mississippi. tom has been made and i did come to realize over the years that leadership is not some and you just are born with the visceral pain. it's also something you can learn. you can learn from others. if you study history and the leadership of men and women, you can learn a lot at stake makes that will help you as a leader. these are difficult times obviously and everybody is trying to figure out how do we do something about the more

bipartisan and getting things done. and so that is why it's so pleased to be a part of the center. jason does a great job. tom daschle and george mitchell, bob dole, howard baker found that this is the touche and i think it is at a time when we really needed it and i think you're doing great work, whether it's in housing and anna g in leadership. so many areas. didn't click that is working here in a regular basis. our good friend pete domenici is here. i think it is really needed now here more than matter perhaps at what point the way to getting some solutions to problems. it's not just about bipartisanship. how do you get an energy bill? kaibito tax reform? real faults about how you want to achieve the metrics and i'm delighted to be a part of the

bipartisan policy center. i will quote lincoln or adams, but i will quote john stennis, my predecessor in the senate. he was known as the conscience of the senate. and so, i figured out early on would be a good idea for me to go talk to and copying a senator in the job of the senator. one of the things he said to me at the very beginning wise, you know, i hope you really think about how you develop as a senator. a number of people that come to the senate wrote, but most of them just swell. i see the historian of the bear probably reported as one of his favorite reports. that is something we have to think about as senators. when he retired and went to mississippi state university and sat down with him. i said he thought such a fantastic career.

added some insurance state and country. and looking for your best pieces of advice. but what should i say to do quite he thought about it a few minutes and he said well, i would tvt pieces of advice. number one, by your house, don't rent. they never bought a house. they rented for 40 years. that was good advice. we take them up on and i was a long time the only equity i have in my portfolio. the other thing is travel. don't just go back and forth to mississippi. see the country and see the world. he was chairman of the appropriations committee and president pro tem of the senate and he never let the carton in the united states. he said if you go and meet with world leaders, you'll learn from and you have a better name as a senator of foreign policy, which shall be intimately involved in because of treaties and confirmations and that was great

advice. i take his advice and did that. even though those are sometimes referred to the junkets. very simple things, the great advice. tom and i did develop a great relationship and part of it was to talk to each other. i didn't have any problem crossing the aisle and going to talk to tom. i didn't mind coming in the back door to his office when i did something or had made him mad about some way i have not told them what we were planning on doing. have a cat that grew up in. he does the same thing. i remember him coming and sitting with me in my office and frankly pouring out his heart doesn't think he was with. we had a hotline. i defund sitting on my desk and when it rang, i knew was tom daschle because we also found out, no offense at dawn and

other staff members are here come some time you needed to get around your staff, who would do a federal walking and tackling to keep us from talking directly. and so we had that. i'm more than one occasion he would call me or i would call him a nice talk to him that morning at 9/11. when i realized we were all under attack. he was senate majority leader and i picked up the phone to say hey, tom, i think we better get out of here. about that time, my door burst open and we were gone and send a very interesting day the rest of that day, one that we will never forget. since he was so good i'm promoting my book, i'm going to promote my book come a time like no other. he talked about all of the challenges we had as leaders. you know, when they think about the journey to leadership, it is not some and you need to.

these house and senate members are former various, they will remember and recall all of this, but i served 16 hours in the house. the house is a tendency to make a partisan warrior, particularly if you're a minority. i never had the opportunity to go back ports in the house like i did in the senate. when i came to the senate i had been to the republican whip in the house for eight years and has a pretty snarly partisan republican and sat in the background not quite ready for primetime but dan coats and connie mack, conrad burns and my buddy jeff jeffreys. we sat back there and grumbled about what a ridiculous place it was. i find that the parliamentarian said i don't understand. i found my life understanding the rules. as a southern tradition. he who knows the rules controls the body. as the secret to southern

leadership. as a staff member with the democratic chairman. i used the rules of the house and my partisan warfare. when i got the senate i kept trying to figure out the rules. so finally i went to the parliamentarian inside a gated. what are the rules here? during the two rules of the senate. one, it is a josh chin and the other is unanimous consent. and as bob dole and george mitchell get you excited enough, you'll agree to anything. i thought maybe that was a little oversimplification, but i found over the years there is a lot to it. and i told my son is here this morning with me, a few months in the senate, i'm either going to leave this place or change this place. so i took my options open and then i decided maybe i should try to change it. one of the ways we did that was to try to apply common sense in

this place that. i had people give me a hard time some times because of the things we did. we would have dinners for spouses. we had no claim he became secretary of defense to write a poem. i wrote a note patricia. at about.com you may be asked to rate the code to trisha. and we had the singing senators. we were pathetic, but the whole idea was to keep jim jeffords with us and to loosen up the senate a little bit. we try to make the quartet bipartisan. one time we had the same as barbara boxer and tom daschle the problem with -- was the senate. they couldn't harbin ice. that's why they were killed before the senate for the first time in history and then others were killed before the senate. we honored sean connery. i asked my wife is my knees look

as good as john and she didn't even laugh. the whole idea was to get us to laugh at each other a little bit and enjoyed each other a little bit to loosen up a little bit. but the most important aim was human relationships and contacts. to be respect of your colleagues. i found out very quickly i could keep that attitude and get nothing done or find a way to go across the aisle and work together and get them things done here that is the journey to being a leader. you go through the process and one day you wake up they look, i am here to try to make a difference and therefore i am going to find a way to work with the democrats secretary of agriculture. i am going to be fair and honest as i can with everybody. i'm going to find a way to get bipartisan things. and of course a lot of it depends on personalities.

the time we were there it was tom and me. it was a challenge and was an opportunity, too. the way we cut tax reform and budget and welfare reform and save trinket water and portability of insurance as we work to find a way to get a solution. i remember i went to mississippi one time he gave his speech to the rotary club there and talked about how i had worked with ted kennedy on the ide eight. education for children with disabilities program. didn't get too mushy response of the crowd, but when i got through one of the old curmudgeon's always sits in the back of the room at the redrick club. he came up and said congressman he said senator, that was a good speech, but the part about kennedy, don't say that nowhere. so you get a little flack for that, so it was a great time. it was a difficult time and

that's one reason why we became such friend when we were through what we did together, sort of like when you leave together you define. but times have changed and the personalities have changed. tom touched on some of them. it's the 24/7 news media coverage. people want to leave and go back home. they leave their families back home. tom and i didn't do that. tricia was here and i helped an awful lot. i don't think you can be a good senator or congressman if you don't work on monday. if you try and get on a plane and your joy with constituents, that's when you plan the week. if you wait until tuesday, the week is half over before you get anything done. i also realize after a while that the worst thing that happened every week was that tuesday conferences and caucuses would cause a difference. we could enter through what

feels to have lunch together in rio is, no fire. democrats cannot all fired up with the same attitude. quite often, and i would wait until we actually tried to get back to serious business and then invited to combat down. so the time is that they are flying in and out of town. the news coverage in media if he makes a mistake he four days. so that is a big part of the problem. i do believe it will change. i think the majority leader position as the toughest leadership position in the city and i am saying that is not a partisan gain. the president has the whole administration. the speaker has the rules committee. the majority leader in the senate has only the power of persuasion and respect for the position. it is one of leadership or you

have certainly for the republicans very few rewards and no sticks. and at least on the democratic side have something to say who got on committees. i tried to manipulate the system i confess. you start with the most senior person in the stakes. that is a very challenging position. making it even more import make it on that side. but we see now is the gridlock and politics is the time when i look at the next generation of leaders, house and senate i do believe will be different. i hope it will be better, but i think it will be different. for one thing, they are going to get the message, a pox on both of your houses. the favorable rating is about as

low as it's ever been. the highest reading in the senate has ever been? i can't remember the numbers, maybe 72% approval. after 9/11 between that date in the end of that year, the american people saw the congress, particularly the senate, working together, trying to do the right thing for the country and it was not always easy. remember one time as the conference having a hard time with phil graham and i'm not going all my over there. thomas and his conference and a step down in called him on a cell phone and he answered it in the hall. i said you know tom, we've got problems here. let's do it now. let's go to the floor and called the filipino is dead that day. both of our congress is saying nay. i would tell you what the bill

does, but you should not gotten that done. [laughter] but that is called leadership when you are willing to step up. tom mentioned the 50/50 senate. that would almost cost me my job. i negotiated a deal with tom and i conference that was too good of a deal for tom. i think we did the right thing. we shared the 50/50 in the committee. so i think you need to do more of that. and i believe the american people will demand that we begin to make changes and find some way to make so many of these things than partisan. the national energy policy? we might disagree over by a metal stuff of alternative fuels, but we can work that out. that's infrastructure is good for the country, good for everybody. that was in a partisan thing. i admit we have earmarked to help lubricate the process. and i hope we'll find a way to

come back to that. the majority leader position is a challenge that is a great honor. it is a position that we enjoy and we switch back and forth to times and we never missed a beat. even after impeachment. i remember when this all over we met in the center aisle and she can't be fulfilled with that the constitution required. we did our job. both of us were criticized along the way. the next week we're back in business. on thursday, bill clinton called about a bill and never mentioned that we adjusted through. that's the way it should be. that is called leadership. [applause] >> i'm john fortier, director of democracy project here at this policy center. miro is twofold. i'm here to hawks summer are books that they've are and hot.

and secondly, to need a little discussion with the senators before we open it up to the audience further questions. first, much of the henry jackson foundation, the nature of leadership and now that the internet is an business economics and finance online. trent lott unlike the other time, the 107th congress in the two years that changed congress forever, senator daschle. i bring the specs have been partly the last book because my first question is to put you back in a moment of time in the year 2001. senator daschle mentioned some things that happened of course it began with the bush v. gore began with the bush v. gore election of a president. it had election of a president. it had a 50/50 senate and the impending negotiations we had over power, the switch of parties and finally 9/11. and i think several of those. they are very different and you're both in the ring at the

same time. you can say something about how you came to an agreement and sharing power and with the challenges were doing that and what the senate was after the switch of power. finally the extraordinary time that your 9/11. would not recommend it as a model for tragedy to bring us all together, but what was that like to be leader of those times? >> i think i would describe it as difficult professional challenge i've ever tasted in my life. you realize the stakes were very, very high. our country was under duress, both politically as well as a national security point of view. they were deep divisions with regard to how we ought to. it really true all of the emotions that one might expect and require their best ability

to first listen to the different approaches of many name being proposed. and really tried to be as innovative as he possibly could. and ultimately, i think you have to show some strength. this is what we're going to have to do is persuade others to join you in doing it. and so, he required everything that one would expect a think as leaders, but i think only history and time will judge whether we did it right. i looked back with great pride and satisfaction with how we did it. but others might disagree. at the end of the day, i think we accomplished what we really felt we needed to do with all of the things he mentioned. and the one you didn't the anthrax attack at my office a month later. there was just an extra airtime. the one thing i would say is that almost everyone made the speech in one way or another

that they were no longer republicans or democrats. they were americans. everybody felt the need to rise to the occasion. i don't know what it is about americans in crisis, at least in that kind of a crisis. we are facing other crises with that said the determination to be an american first doesn't seem to be as evident. but in this case, you know, i remember singing, god bless america, on the steps of the capitol and just reaching down and grabbing hands on both sides. i looked and i was holding tom delay's hand next to me. i'm thinking, this is a first. [laughter] but we did it because we are all americans and crisis to a certain extent elicited that kind of response. >> maybe i can explain a little

bit about telling a few stories. i think a lot of the solution is for congress and senators to do more things together, both parties. the day that i was let did majority leader bob dole, we elected our leadership team with don nickles and connie mack, bill graham, mitch mcconnell as i recall. the first thing we did a site called taman said tom, can we come to your office and meet with the leaders? euratom sophistry betook the republican leadership team and went to tom's office and said a prayer together. to give his guide and to pray for our country. that was our first at what we had our leadership teams together. the next thing is i think, you know, the day of 9/11, we wind up in a conference somewhere in west virginia or virginia. i was never quite sure where we were, tom.

when the helicopter together with tom and harry reid and others have gone different ways to get there. they were the rest of the day, altogether talking to our respective conferences. they were here and wherever they are in a cavern that and that was that popular 13. where are you guys? we are over here any bug her. we will fill see you later. i talked to jake cheney a couple times and then a sudden a day, we like to go back. some helicopters. he said no. i didn't appreciate that very much, but he basically said no, we don't know if it's safe yet. later on he said the helicopters on the way. we went around to the front and tom's boat, denny hastert spoke and none come extemporaneously it wasn't planned at all. we sang god bless america. that kind of day and those kinds of emotions. when tom and i flew together right over where we could look into the pentagon literally on

fire. and then, in other examples -- well, the anthrax issue. after that happened come you can imagine how that affects you, too. we had staff people exposed to it. it was tom's office, pat leahy's office. we met together, republicans and democrats in the dining room and the capitol talking about the threat, what does that, how to do with it in everything. i guarantee there is no partisanship. we're trying to figure out what to do with the situation. the other one that is a little later one of favorite one. i called tom christmas after the house had voted for another sick to my stomach thinking about what would have to go through and not knowing how to do it because it had been done in a long time. so i called tom and said we've got a little problem here. we've got to figure out how we are going to do this. he said i agree. we asked joe lieberman and slade gordon to get together and try to help plan a way to deal with

this. they came up with a magnificent plan, which my conference immediately stabbed in the throat and throughout the window. i had to start over. i didn't know what we were going to do. we came up with an idea we would meet in the old senate chamber and we would begin by having danny akaka opened with prayer. we were that senator byrd to give his sister perspective of what we're about to do. and then, we open it up for discussion to figure out how we're going to proceed? we really did how we would go forward. i can't remember exactly the order, but phil graham got up and gave an impassioned pitch of course to move forward with impeachment to get it to actually remove it from office i'm sure. and ted kennedy got up and gave an impassioned speech. then when we listen to it, it sounded like they were coming to an agreement. i remember connie mack nodded at me we basically said, if dead.

we have a deal. we have an agreement. as graham kennedy agreement. we left the chamber and had this great agreement. tama to the press gallery and had a joint press conference. and then we said, what was the agreement? [laughter] i said, we've got to put this as some sort of writing. so we put in my conference room -- i guess kennedy was in the room. i post lakeport and there've been very few others who are really thoughtful numbers and they put something on paper it would have forward. i am not sure to this day what we actually agreed to psg remember that? >> i remember that we didn't. i don't remember what it was we did. [laughter] but that's leadership. there was a moment that everyone knew would have a constitutional challenge and we had to do it. we did a how to proceed. if you had kennedy and graham

saying what sounded like an agreement, good, that's it. and we said that was it and we went forward with it. now, i still get criticism to this day. people say you could have removed him from office if he really wanted to do it. but my favorite job, actually in congress is not theater. it was way up. with in-house and with in the senate twice. minority and majority was about 10 years between the two. i counted the votes. he was never going to be removed. so we have to do is figure out how we could do it, comply with their constitutional responsibilities, but do it in the way the american people thought we had done the right thing the best they could without embarrassing the institutions. i think we got that done, tom. >> you know, trent has taught us a couple of times now that at those times of greatest crisis, we came together. we came together in the old

senate chamber during impeachment as we were beginning to figure out what we're going to do. we actually came together. we came together right after and tracks in the senate dining room. the reason we picked the senate dining room as it was the only room large enough for both caucuses could be together. i think there is a message there. the consistency with which we found our need to come together around christ as brought us together and we were successful as a result of the fact that we did. you via maize at how rarely the two caucuses come together. i mean, if i had one regret today is that we didn't do that at times when you're in a crisis, we didn't find what times we came together. he also said something else that is exactly right. you know, caucuses and conference meetings become at rallies. you are out there. you threaten me. you're just really pumped up and you can't wait to sink your teeth into the other guys. you know, and that kind of

emotional fervor really have a profound effect on the way the senate operates. so, if i could do one thing over, it would be to find ways to bring the caucuses together more frequently, to be together, especially now when sa said the airplane brings us to a circumstance where it is so rare that we are ever together anymore. so it just seems we have to be doing more of that and not waiting for a crisis to trigger the next meeting and the senate dining room for the old senate chamber. >> let me ask you a senate institutional question. it has many distinct features, but one is a supermajority requirement, differs from the house. that has been under great challenge recently, specially as they become more polarized in the houses were able to pass things in the senate is seen as a robot.

can you say something about the challenges that the leader with a supermajority requirement in many cases? and sakic, what do you see in the feature? whether the senate is going to be under fire for this, given the polarized nature of politics. is that something will see the featurette with that survived? >> i'm a little schizophrenic about that. first of all, i was frustrated many times with the unique features of the senate, the power of the individual senators, the whole. tom and i try to make some changes on that a couple times. we had written agreements and try to change some. my worst one was the ruling holds. and by the way, would hold his face and those for nomination by democrats at the time as republicans. i would get one senator and find out who it was and get him to pull off an infinity also put a hold on it. so, i don't think you should take that away, but i do think that there should be some requirements connected with

that. the supermajority -- i would change that, but again, i'm out of that comes back i think the leadership. i remember the first time i filled the tree, tom was irate and save. but it was not unprecedented. it'd been done before and i was trying to get something done. tom and him have 100 or so and so i just though that the tree where they could offer any more minutes. tom returned the favor as the years went by [laughter] but we didn't do that much. everything that tends to frustrate or block or tie up the senate is done more and more and more often. i do think that they need to back away from that a little bit. i said something a while ago with what they've heard a few murmurs of the room. i do think the earmark should come back.

maybe because at one point they actually reach the level of print support. i could never be number one, but i was number two. i don't think the congress should give up the power, but i do think it got out of control. too much, too many, too many people involved. it needed to be a process. when i first went to congress you had to have an authorizing committee, look at it with the core engineering project. you had to get it out there as a venue to go get an earmark. i do think there is a place in the need for that, but there needs to be reformed, needs to be a definable process you go through and then allow that to happen under different circumstances or better circumstances. but there are some things that need to be addressed. tom and i have talked about this. i think we need to take a whole week at the confirmation process and we ought to do it now, before the next election. it doesn't make difference whether it's a democrat or

republican. they need to have their appointments confirmed in nice to be somewhere sensible process. we're losing many good men and women. i'm not going to the meat grinder. i've got a job here. and to the credit of the leaders and to lamar alexander and chuck schumer, dated tape 230 some denominations that were just lower-level agency things that have to go through the confirmation process, take them on at the confirmation process. so there are some reforms that clearly should be considered. the senate is unique. and i guess one of my problems, but maybe one of the big sister and another 50 years, i was and is to to show us. i didn't like it when we attacked the house of representatives and try to tear down. i like that. this was supposed to be a great institution to represent people. if you attack it every day, that's not good. same thing with the senate.

the unique taste and i wouldn't take the uniqueness of way. but i do think it's not good for the leadership in not good for the country when it's always been attacked or torn down by people inside the institution. i think most of his colleagues here know that tom and i didn't do that. we try to make it better, not words. >> i just couldn't agree more radically with what trent just that. i would add just one thing and that is that there is a reason why we only have one cloture vote on the 20th of 30s and 40s for congress. unless congress had 100 to cloture votes. the reason we went from one to 102 is wave we changed the way filibusters are addressed in one of two days. one of the name of reform and expediting the work of the senate. we started a process that we call dual tracking, where we sent a bill aside and take up another bill.

and while that sounded logical, and it is logical in so many ways, what it did was make the filibuster much less painful. it made it much more accessible. well, we'll put the bill aside and maybe come back to it. and then we triple track to quadruple tracked and quintupled track. for while they were set in a repost of what the subject to filibuster that of filibuster that we set aside. but he was in the name of reform that we started to do that. but the unintended consequence was that filibusters then became much more palatable. the other big difference is they no longer required members to hold the floor. if you don't have to hold the floor, you don't have to really pay the price. and you know, used to be cots were brought out during the night. you had to sleep on cots and you really have to suffer. well, we don't suffer anymore. there's nothing painful about a

filibuster. we just push it aside. you don't have to hold the floor. because we made them so easy and so routine and so procedural, they have to note the frequency at him like anything you've ever seen in the history. i do know that lucy to be changed to much is packed this. around the rose regard to god. i would think that if something both leaders today had to look at. >> one will ever change and ensure mitch mcconnell would like to hear me say this with hairy latest minority leader like it, but i've always had a problem with filibuster the motion to proceed. it's the filibuster even taken up the bill. it defies a little bit of common sense there. now, it is part of the dilatory process if you want to block a bill or if you want to tie you up as fun as you can say they can't get to the next bill. that's part of the process. but you know, again talking

about the importance of leadership, i remember in 1996, right after i took him into office, ted kennedy was blocking going to conference. one senator can block a senate bill that is passed from going to conference. and i don't know if i'd ever seen that before and as i read about it. i kept telling elizabeth letchworth, who was before us, we've got to stop this. and she says you can't. i said what do you mean you can't quite she said it would take seven days. you know, it will demand that they read the bill. you'll have to have all these hurdles you have to get over. and i said, let's do it. she looked at me incredulously and said you can't do that. i said yeah, we're going to. let them read the bill. so i went down to the dining room and started having a meal. about 20 minutes until 9:00 i got the message that kennedy decided we did have to read the

bill. ..

what is the role of the senate majority leader or minority leader in working with presidents, especially given this and it's often key role in being the final place where a legislative compromise is crafted? >> i have to tell one of my favorite stories to that question. i just got elected, and as was with so many of my races, get elected by one vote. check was that one vote. but i've really look back with great satisfaction at how well the carcass came together so quickly, what i remember being invited that afternoon to come down and meet with president

clinton. and so i thought, well, and going to go ask senator byrd for his advice on what i should say to president clinton has the leader now for the very first time on the basis of one vote. and so i went in and asked senator byrd is a vice. he thought about a for a minute. and then he just said, utah and one thing, utah and you're going to work with him, not for him. and i have always remember that. i think that is exactly the role of a leader. you work with a person, you never worked for him. there are times that presidents would like to forget that. there -- they actually think that the leader of your party is obviously working for you, but that is that always the case. you are co-equal branches. your co-equal leaders in many respects, and you are the leader of one of those branches, and the things you ought to the represent that to reflect that in your actions and your words

and your relationship with the president. >> i have many stories that i could tell of the experiences as a whip in the house meeting with reagan and, of course, tom and i have practiced almost weekly with george w. bush after september 11th for months. i remember them so distinctly because he always wanted us there at 7:00, and i hated, but we were always there on time, and he would tell us what was going on raw the world. it was very interesting, but i have to confess, in terms miles on my face and their relationship had with clinton, it was actually more interesting because i mean, he was engaged. he would call you all hours of the latter-day. he did his homework. because of the senate's unique role, particularly like on nominations entreaties, i remember i went through the crucible of the chemical weapons treaty where i was, again,

getting hammered internally, but i finally concluded it was the right thing to do for the country and had to figure out a way to get it done. you know, clinton would really engaged on a 1-on-1 basis. i remember reagan would meet with the republican leadership every tuesday morning. i think it was 930. maybe it was nine. sometimes it was the leadership of both parties. most times it was just republicans. i do think that the majority leader does have, in effect, a co-equal will the president. he/she has a leadership position which is critical in the whole process. i think he needs to be able to be our cities to be able to be honest with the president of the united states of what the options are. the problem is, if you're too honest with the president of the united states, of either party your own party will be the one that is level to cut your throat. i have experience that, too. if i have one piece of address

for majority leaders, i agree with tom. remember, you have to roll. you have, you know -- you have to work with the president, but i also have the supplies for the president's. meet with the leaders regularly, weekly on a personal basis, not just groups. i used to, you know, plead with president bush to get harry reid to come down and set out on that back portico and looked out over the washington monument and think about the roles that they had and what a great thing america is and what they can do. have a drink. then i realized, i guess these you will have a drink. [laughter] of course terry, you know, a mormon. bush is a teetotaler. so then never met like that and they just goes to show how little lubrication can be helpful. if those two have had a drink no telling what would have gone gun -- done. [laughter] >> go here. if you could have stand to the

stand up and identify yourself. >> hello. the executive director of the henry jackson's stand it -- foundation. we are so glad to be a part of this forum today with the bipartisan policy center. thank you so much for these revealing remarks. so many aspects of leadership that you talk about are intangible, but i remember senator jackson was known for a his, obviously, his policy views, but over the years on some important policy issues his views evolved. he was not afraid to a minute. he was someone who wanted to learn both from history and from colleagues and other intellectuals and policy people's. do you think that is possible today? that is civilly in central part of reaching compromise in a bipartisan manner. the think it is possible? are people too afraid of being referred to as the poppers? thank you. >> i think it is possible.

it back, that is partly what the bbc is designed to do. try to find ways which to bring people to an evolution on issues you know, always from a polarized position more to a position that would accommodate common ground. you know, and i think you have to address issues today with an open mind. you have to, obviously, do what churchill said. you cannot keep your your to the ground and simply vote whenever the wind may dictate, but at the same time i think you have to find a recognition about the importance of good governance. good governance requires finding common ground. but evolution is harder today. finding that consensus is harder today because we are so much more polarized debate and we have been some time. pretty much harder, but people can still do it. >> de roadie's well? do you become a partisan warrior

are all about your own position and prevailing in the wake @booktv winning or do you grow and mature and learn? i would like to say this is a republican form of government. your elected by the people, come to washington, study issues, led the details, come and vote on the behalf. it is not my referenda. and i used to ask myself, you know, everybody always referred to the statesman. i had a few people that i really thought they were statement. jackson was one of those. one of the areas where i changed was the area where jackson was always a leader. you know, he really lived up to the vandenberg phrase. politics ends at the water's edge. and he was very much, you know, a leader. he fought when it came to foreign policy, an area where i changed. i came from the house for our was, you know, congressman whip, but i was protectionist

basically, reflecting mike, i guess, bringing. the son of a blue-collar shipyard worker. my state. then i get to the senate. whether you like better not you're involved in foreign policy and start meeting with world leaders, kings and queens and presidents and prime ministers. you have to be involved. and i wound up being very much a free trader. i vote for the free-trade agreement that we voted on in the senate. i have never voted for a foreign relations appropriations bill in the house in my entire 16 years. i voted for everyone but one when i was in the senate. you know, you are supposed to learn. i still consider myself a very solid conservative, but in my last year the senate this society gave me their teddy bears -- teddy roosevelt award, a beautiful gun, which my son thinks he is going to get, but i'm going to give it to my grandson instead. they give you know, level me

moderate. i gotta been set, i don't know exactly when i became a moderate, but if that has what had happened to the ag said the monitor with pride. i am so thrilled with it -- so those of the very conservative, but i am also practiced. more than anything else i am an optimist. i believe that you can get things done in america, you can't get things done in the senate, and if you have to moderate your position, tom and i used to do that. there were times when we were actually would say to each other in effect, we got the vote. we're going to whip you, but this is something we can do to maybe modulate this a little bit wary ruby's year to go down with you and your team more me and my team? i remember one time john mccain was blocking a bill that involve tom. i had to track down.

i said, this is the bill from tom daschle, really important to tom. you can't do that to the democratic leader. he said, okay. we got it done. tom was my friend from then on. [laughter] >> that is where it all started. >> we have a question right here. the microphone. if you could identify yourself. >> el colton with the hill this paper. i just want to get your thoughts on president obama's region to appointments of richard scored ray in the apartment to the nlrb during a 2-day break in between pro-forma sessions. demonstrations argues that they are a sham sessions. was that -- were those justified under the constitution? >> you may find a difference here. >> i think the president is

entirely justified. for two reasons. one, because, as was said earlier, we're making it harder and harder and harder for nominees to go through this incredibly laborious and painful and time-consuming process, and there is no end. it gets worse by the year. and so that alone seems to me to be a factor in where do you draw the line. the second part of it is that constitutionally as i understand it there is not any clear direction with regard to what is a real session, but these are bogus sessions. we know that. it does violate, to a certain extent certainly past precedents , but that is that the first time president has been altered in the course of doing the right thing. alternately add think we have to, as was said earlier, addressed the home of many process. short of that, because you had to institutions that the truly

could not function without these nominees -- this was not just a nomination. this had to do with whether these agencies could even function, and i think in the name of creating enough virginity for the agencies to do what they were, by law, required to do, he had no choice. >> i guess the courts will decide. i think it was wrong. i think maybe there is a good chance the courts will rule the way. amtrak jar rubber who perfected the technique of having these pro-forma sessions. i don't think i did that. i think terry actually really remember it -- turned it into a fine art. these to have the struggles. my chief of staff. when we would have these sessions, there be hundreds of nominees, and we woodworker the list. it would go through and say to clinton's people and the congressional relations people

tell look, you can go ahead and do these hundred or so, but these six we have a problem. this one in particular if you do with the rueful blowoff. and for the most part we get most of what we needed to get done that way. i remember one time he did do one where he said don't do that and he did it and all hell broke loose. it caused bad feelings, but i do -- there is a reason for that. i do think advise and consent, i would be interested in what senator byrd, now he would react to what happened here. the senate does have a role. if the senate is abusing the rules call warheads should sit down and say, look, how can we improve this process. but the main thing that i would say about it is get away from the constitution, the people, the personnel that are involved. it does really exacerbate the ranks between the president and

the congress and senate leaders when they do that. and we need to think through it. i think you're working on a project in this area. we need to make it a bipartisan project to help the leaders of the will to deal with this confirmation process problem. >> well, the senate has a tradition of unlimited debate. we have strong rules here and unfortunately we're at the end of our time. i would like to think very much senators trent lott and tom daschle for their time. [applause]

>> up next, new york times columnist and author thomas friedman. then, president obama at the apollo theater in new york city. on this morning's "washington journal," we will talk to gop presidential candidate rick santorum we will have more road to the white house to read later today when newt gingrich and ron paul participate in a forum at the southern republican

leadership congress -- conference. that is one day before south carolina go to the polls. live coverage gets underway at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. later on c-span, mitt romney will hold a campaign rally in north charleston. you can see live coverage at 3:45 eastern. now, where marks from new york times columnist and a three-time pulitzer prize winner and thomas friedman, who discussed his latest book titled "this used to be us."

>> he received the golden sacks financial times book of the year award. hs financialac times book of the year award. his sixth and most recent book i recommend to everyone of you. it is called "this used to be us." it was co-written with michael and released last september. i had an opportunity to see, at a book signing. i said you have to come to the conference. he has called for a green resolution.

he has called for investment in the city's it infrastructure. as i stated yesterday with the release of our latest economic reports -- economic report, american cities are the engine of america's economic future. at a time, when the nation's makers are promoting job creation, there is no fitting speaker for us to be here. please join me in welcoming tom freidman. >> thank you very much. mayor, thank you very much. thank you for having me. it is a great treat and opportunity. i have been looking forward to being back this morning. i will take the next 40 minutes to talk about my new book -- "that used to be us."

when ever we share with people the title of our book the first question they always have is does it have a happy ending? [laughter] we tell everybody it does, we just do not know whether it is fiction or nonfiction. that is the challenge before us today. can i get a glass of water? one thing you may be wanting to ask is how did two guys and of writing a book about domestic american politics? the answer is very simple and relevant for your discussion. we are old friends. we happen to be neighbors in bethesda, md. brigid we noticed something of the last few years. we start every day talking about the world. we in every conversation talking about america.

-- end every conversation talking about america. america is the biggest foreign policy issue in the world. if we do not have a strong and sound domestic base and economy. there is no way we can play the role the world wants us to play in the world. we are american nationalists. we believe america makes a lot of mistakes in the world, but we play an enormously constructive role in the world. we are the tent poles that hold up the global system. if that tadpole buckles, your kids will not just grow up in a different america. they will grow up in a fundamentally different world. that is what motivated us to write this book. the book is based around a lot of movie themes. one of them is a whole -- an old classic that really captures our concerns about the future. orson welles' 1958 film "touch

of evil." it is a murder -- a movie about a murder and kidnapping in a town near the mexican-american border. a cop tried to frame his mexican counterpart for mortar. at one point, he stumbles into a brothel and meets a fortune teller. read my future for me he says. you have not got any she replied. your future is all used up. it was certainly that fear which is one of the things that motivated this book. we do not believe our future is all used up, but we do believe we are at a critical juncture in this country, a time of real choosing, and we need to step up to it and we need to do it now. not in 2013 or 2014. do i hear a ping?

what is that from? it is the lights. i just wanted to make sure it was not made. -- it was not me. let me share with you the first pages of the book from the opening chapter called "if you see something, say something." this is a book about america that begins in china. in september 2010, i attended the world economic conference in china. five -- it involved a car ride from beijing to a chinese version of detroit. things had changed. to get there, you had to take the south railway station, at a modern building with glass walls and an oval ruth covered with solar panels. you buy a ticket from an electronic kiosks offering choices in chinese and english

and to board a high-speed change -- high-speed train. it is said to be the fastest in the world when it began operating in 2008. it covers 72 miles in 29 minutes. the conference took place at the convention center, a beautifully appointed structure, the like of which exist in few american cities. as if the convicted center was not impressive enough, the conference gave some helpful pots and figures. they said the conviction center -- convention center had eight floor area and that construction started on september 15, 2009 and was completed in may 2010. i started walking around my hotel room counting on my fingers -- september, october, november, december, january -- that is a.

five months. i was describing the conflicts -- complex to my co-author michael and his wife. at one point she interrupted -- have you been to our subway stop lately? we often use the washington metro rail to get to downtown d.c. i knew exactly what she was talking about. the two escalators have been under repair for nearly six months. while one was being fixed, the other was closed. this created a huge mess. everyone trying to get on and off the platform. it sometimes took 10 minutes to get out of the station. a sign of the closed escalator said the repairs were part of a massive modernization project. what was taken this modernization project so long? we investigated the repairs were scheduled to take about six months and are on schedule. mechanics need to invest 12

weeks to fix each escalator. a simple comparison made a startling. . china's construction group took 32 weeks to build a world-class convention center from the ground up and it took the washington metro group 24 weeks to repair to the of tiny escalators of 21 steps each. we searched further and found that on november 14, 2010 the washington post ran a letter to the editor that read if someone has ridden metro for more than 30 years, i can give a better way to assess the health of the escalators. over the past several years when the escalators have degenerated predict norrises that sounds -- that have generated horrific noise is. the post we found most

concerning was one that said my impression standing in line was that people have a sort of gotten used to it. people have sort of gotten used to it. that sense of resignation, that sense of that the way things are in america today. the sense that america's best days are behind it has become the subject of water cooler, a dinner party, grossly wrote -- grossly line, and classroom conversations. can we buy the idea back britain owned the 19th century, america dominated the 20th, and china will reign supreme in the 21st? no, we do not. we have written this book to explain why no american should resign himself to that view. we are optimist, but we are frustrated. we are two frustrated optimist. the title of this opening

chapter -- if you see something to say something -- you know where that is from. it is the mantra of the department of homeland security. we have seen and heard something. millions of americans have come up too. we have seen something that poses a greater threat to our national security than anything else. we have seen a country with enormous potential falling into the worst sort of decline, a slow decline. slow enough for us to not drop everything and pull together and fix what needs fixing. this book is our way of saying something -- what is wrong, why things have gone wrong, and what we must do to do things right. the main argument of this book is that our country faces four great challenges. i cannily talk about one in the tel. the first is a perceptual challenge.

how we start our day in america. if there is one thing i have learned traveling the world it is that successful companies, successful cities, and successful countries start their day every day with a very simple question -- what world am i living in? what are the biggest trends in this world? what are the policies i need to put in place to take advantage of those trends and to nurture of the potential from them? that is not how we start our day in this country. we start our day with our two biggest parties taking out a crowbar and asking how they can stick it in the will of the other party in order to win the 24-hour news cycle. i visited singapore. there is something and economists said to me that stuck in my mind. he said we in singapore live in a fast hut with no doors and no windows. we looked -- we fill every

change in the direction of the wind. you americans are living in a brick house with a central heating. you seem to feel nothing. but that house is developing some cracks. that leads to the other three challenges we face. the first and i believe most important challenge we face is adapting our country and work force and children and cities to the biggest thing happening in the world today, the thing we should be talking about most -- the merger of globalization and the ip revolution which is changing everything. it is a huge work force and education challenge. debt and deficits and all the nexus of issues of entitlements and how we manage them for the next generation. the fourth challenge we face is energy and climate, how we power

the future of the american middle-class and rising global middle-class without tipping this world into a destructive climate change. those are the four big challenges. as we look at the world, globalization and ip, how we manage our debt and deficit, and how we manage our energy needs. let's go back to the merger of globalization and i.t., which i believe is the biggest thing happening in the world today. if we were not in a post 9/11 era, it is all we would be talking about. essentially what has happened is in the last decade we have gone from a connected world to a hyper-connected world. a move from connected to hyper- connected is really changing everything. the simplest way i can explain it is in 2004 i started working on a book called "the world is flat." it came out in 2005.

that was about the world getting connected. when i sat down to write this book, i went back to the first edition of "the world is flat." i opened it up to the index and looked under f. facebook was not in it. i was saying "the world is flat. 4g was a parking place. linkedin was a prison. for most people, skype was a typo. [laughter] [applause] i love doing that. can i do that again? all of that happened in the last six years. all of that happened after i said the world was flat. that is what has taken us up

from connected to a hyper- connected. when i wrote "the world is flat," i thought we had been connected boston, bangalore, and india. i said and we have connected detroit and damascus. we have connected detroit and damascus and dara. that is a dusty syrian border town where the uprising began. they have been pumping out cellphone camera text and video so much so that we have been able to watch the syrian uprising live even though syria has a band every international news organization from its country, including al jazeera. that is what happens when you go

from a connected to a hyper- connected world. my club looking for small items in the newspaper that tell you often wonderful and revealing things. i was in india reading the times over breakfast. it said a telecommunications firm had just started providing third generation mobile network service at the summit of mount everest, the world of the tallest mountain. the story said this would allow thousands of climbers who come to the region every year access to high-speed internet and video calls using their mobile phones. can you imagine how many phone calls are being made from the top of mount everest that began "mom, you'll never guess where i am calling from." that is connected to a hyper- connected world. we see it in other ways.

the mayor from davenport -- davenport, iowa. central iowa is wonderful. my mother went to college there. a great liberal arts school. she was later chairman of the board. last year, the college reported that almost 9% of its applications came from china. of that 9%, 43% had perfect 100% on their math sats. in the old days when we basically had nice chinese execute -- chinese exchange students -- your kids today are competing head-to-head with students from ps-21 in shanghai. that is the difference from a connected to a hyper-connected world. what this all basically means --

let's look at what it means of the workforce and then what it means for education. what it means for the work force is basically this -- if the whole world or a single math class in a hyper-connected world, the whole global -- the whole global curve has risen. basically every employer now has access to more cheap software project sat -- cheap software, cheap labor, and cheap genius than ever before. tlantic"--e in "the advantag someone talking about an automated cotton processing plant. it has two employees. a dog and a man. the man is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to keep the

man off of the machine. what does this mean for the work force? historically our workforce was segmented into three categories. non routine work. that is writers, singers, poets, engineers, scientists, and professors. the people who do work that cannot be described by an algorithm and therefore cannot be outsourced. you all want your kids to be doing non repeat work. then there is routine work. retain work has been crossed. that is all that work that is being outsourced, automated, and digitized. finally, non retain local work. the butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, the nurse -- people who have to do their work face-to-face in a certain locale. but the biggest thing that has

happened as we move from connected to hyper-connected is what has happened to non-routine work. non-routine work, the way we train people for that, is we want people who can do critical thinking and problem solving. that is the essence of non- routine work. something a machine cannot do. basically what happens is very stubbly as we move up from a connected to a hyper-connected world is there is not enough anymore to do non-routine work. you now have to do created a non-routine work. you cannot just show up. we have a chapter in the book that try to explain this -- "help wanted." we interviewed for generic employers in the hyper- connected world. one high and white-collar, we

interviewed the head of the washington office. we attribute a low and white collar -- lo and white collar. we interviewed the world's biggest green-collar firm, the united states army and the chief of its education corps. here is what is interesting. they all compete with the same employee. they are all looking are an employee that can do critical thinking and problem solving in order to get an interview. critical thinking and problem solving and now, that is considered routine. what every employer is really looking for now is someone who can not only do their job, but in debt and reinvent the job as they are doing it. the pace of change is so quick that the big boss up there, he or she cannot possibly know what

is going on on the floor an interface between the technology and the customer. if you do not have an employee that can not do their job, but invent or reinvent their job, you have a real problem. zynga does quarterly reviews of their employees. they may be doing in a year 5 product cycles. they cannot wait until the end of the year to find out they have a bad team leader. they will miss for product cycles. they are now doing team leader produced every quarter. they are at the cutting edge of something that is not going away let's go to the head of the nixon-peabody washington office. he is a family friend. we started this conversation in 2007. lehman brothers had just melted down i said, jeff, what is

happening at your law firm? what is going on? >> we are laying off lawyers. like i said that is interesting. in a law firm, who gets laid off first? is it last in, first out? he said not anymore. we cannot afford that. when we had a lot of work during the credit bubble and we handed out that not repeat work to our non retain lawyers and they did it in a non retain way, everything was fine. today, those who do it in a non- routine way, those are the ones we are having to let go. the ones we are keeping of the lawyers who said we can do this old work in a new way. or we can do totally new work in a new way. we at have an interview in the book. we just hired a chief innovation officer. how many law firms do you know have a chief animation officer?

that is at every firm today. whether the new york times, a law firm, or an accounting firm -- they need a chief innovation officer to keep up with the pace of change. general martin dempsey is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, our senior military commander in this country. we interviewed general density because he was head of the u.s. army education corp. what is really interesting is a general martin did seek was commander of the first armored division that took baghdad from said on the same in 2003. here is the story he told us in the book. in 2008, he was promoted to the middle east military command. in that post he went out to afghanistan and visited a base that was commanded by a u.s. army capt.

he spent a couple of hours sitting with that capt. he realized after a couple of hours that that capt. had access to more firepower and could access more tactical and national intelligence than he, general martin dempsey, could when he took baghdad from saddam hussein five years earlier. that is the change from a hyper connected to a connected world. he began to revamp completely army education because how we choose and promote that capt., how we trained at capt. has to become fundamentally different. one of the first kings introduced at the camp is they give you an at i phone -- they give you an iphone. they will have to download an app and have you teach a course.

i know what you are thinking. you are thinking very easy for you to say mr. new york times columnist. [laughter] let me tell you about my world. the mayor said i became the foreign affairs promised in january 2009. i inherited it, james preston's office when i took this job. what a thrill. one of the great columnist and editors of the new york times. i suspect mr. reston used to come to the office and start his day by saying "i wonder what might seven competitors are going to write today?" the new all seven. i do the same thing. i come to the office every morning and say i wonder what my 70 million competitors are going to write today? i had 70 million competitors. i was in india at six weeks ago

and did a story about a $35 ipads. the sunday column went up about 8:00 sunday night. someone in india had posted a stress test of the entire ipad and all the results in the comment section of my column. i became a foreign correspondent for the new york times in 1982. i was in beirut. it took the new york times six weeks to get to beirut in those days. i could write whatever i wanted. maybe somebody in new york would call and say did you see what he wrote about you? what did he write? then the line would go dead. now, you write about a $35 ipad in india and somebody post the

stress test 40 -- 24 hours later. if you do not take that keeps me on my toes, you are not paying attention. the last chapter is called " average is over." that is the world we live in now. average is officially over because basically your boss has access to so much more above average talent, software, automation, and robotics that everybody needs to find their extra. what is that unique value contribution you can make? that is what every one of your boss' is going to be asking. what is your extra? extra was inventing the iphone and ipad. maybe someone's extra is working in a nursing home and their

extra is putting a smile on the face of your parents. how much more do i have to pay for sault to deal with my mom? everybody is above average at something, but everybody has to find their an extra. woody allen said that 90% of life is just showing up is officially over. if you just show up core your job, there is a machine, a robot, a cheap laborer, or a cheap employee waiting to do your job. if all you ever do is what you have ever done is no longer applicable. f. all you ever do is all you have ever done all you ever get is not what you will ever get. you will get below average now. there is nothing really down there anymore.

50 years ago the biggest employer in baltimore and is a bethlehem steel company. you get a job at bethlehem steel, join the union, get a job, have a career, buy a house, two kids and a dog, retire with dignity and go to oilers games on weekends. today, the plan still has moved from baltimore and the biggest employer is john hopkins university medical center. they do not let you cut the grass at john hopkins without a b.a. that shift is what is going on in every city in the country. we have to dig zero educational challenges. we need to bring our bottom to our average so much faster. reading, writing, and arithmetic. if you do not have a high-school degree that allows you access

to post secondary education without much remediation or any at all, there is basically nothing down there that would give you an average life style. at the same time, we need to raise our average to the global average so much faster. that is about the three c's. creativity and crete -- creativity, collaboration, and [unintelligible] i have two daughters in their mid-twenties. i am an old fuddy-duddy. when i graduated college in 1978 got i got to find a job. what i tell my girls is you will have to invent a job. it may not be your first job, but to keep your first job, you will have to reinvent that job in this hyper-connected world. i have three pieces of parenting

advice we offer in the book. the first is a take like an immigrant. the second is a thing like an artisan. the third is think like a waitress at perkins pancake house in minneapolis, my favorite restaurant. how does the immigrant think? the act -- the immigrant thanks i just showed up in washington, d.c., and there is no place waiting for me at georgetown or howard university. i'd better figure out where the opportunities are and pursue them with more energy, vigor, and consistency with -- than anyone else. that is how the immigrants think. we are new immigrants to the hyper-connected world. think like an immigrant. be hungry. second, think like an artist and. this is bad idea from the great labor economist at harvard.

the artist was the person in the middle ages before mass manufacturing who made every item one off. every pair of shoes individual. every utensil individual. every piece of furniture individually. what did the best partisans do? they were so proud of their work they carved their initials into it. they brought something extra. do your job every day as if you are ready and desirous of carving your initials into it at the end of the day. things like an artsan and -- artisan. third, think like a waitress at the perkins at pancake house. 7:00 a.m. i ordered three buttermilk pancakes and scrambled eggs. can ordered three buttermilk pancakes and fruit. after 50 minutes, the waitress put our place down and said "i

gave you extra fruit." she got a 50% tip from us because that waitress did not control much, but she controlled the fruit label. [laughter] that was are extra. she was doing what? she was thinking of entrepreneurially. always think entrepreneurially. somewhere in that you will find your extra. average is officially over. that is basically the hyper- connected world and implications for the job market and

education. let's talk for a few minutes before we go to q &a. how did we get here to this situation? we got here far to the zero political reasons. our political system is broken. it is broken for a lot of reasons. it is broken because of the gerrymandering political districts. it is broken because of the way the media and fragmented. it is broken because money and politics are completely out of control. our congress i am not at all reluctant to say has become a forum for legalized bribery. that is exactly what it is. [applause] as soon as -- the political system is broken. one of my favorite quotes in this book is from mike murphy. he is a very wise political averaged -- political adviser. he said when he was just getting

started in politics he had a friend in the advertising business. he went to him for advice on how to think about negative campaigning. his friend told him the story. "people often ask why did burger king never attack mcdonald's? why did burger king never taken out ads saying mcdonald's hamburgers have maggots in them? the first role of advertising, never kill the category of your "friends, we have killed the category of politics in this country just when we need it most. that is what is going on. that is the first big problem. the second big problem is we have had a fundamental values decline. we have gone from the greatest generation to a baby boomer generation that has done a lot of good things, but also believes in borrow and spend.

we have gone from a generation that believed in sustainable values -- relationships, communities, businesses where you were to sustainable to fail to a generation who believes in situational values -- do what ever the situation allows. at the situation allows me to give you a prime time -- a prime mortgage and the only id you have is or delta sky miles card, no problem. if the situation allows me to do that, i will just do it. sustainable values would tell me never to do that, but that is the huge value decline we have come to. what do we do about it? the most important thing we need to understand -- this is why our book as a backward looking title, but a forward looking fame -- we have within our history, our laws, and our

society, all the resources to make this right. we did not get here by accident. we did not become the world's richest country by accident. we got here because we had a to formula for success. we outlined it in our book. it is a very simple formula. it dates back to hamilton and our first president and was murdered and enriched by every president since. it has five key parts. we have always educated our people up to and beyond whatever the technology was. when it with the cotton gin, we made sure everyone had an education. now that it is the supercomputer, we need to make sure everyone has universal post-secondary education. we have educated our people up to and beyond whatever the technology was. second, we have the most open immigration policy in the last half century where we invited in

the world's most energetic and the world's most talented immigrants where they came here and started new countries and lit a constant fire under our society. third, the world of the best infrastructure. fourth, the best roles. rules and regulations for capital formation to incentivize risk-taking and to prevent recklessness. lastly, we have the most government funded research to push out the boundaries of science, physics, chemistry, and biology so venture capitalists can pluck off the flowers and make these new companies. that is our fight. a formula for success. it was the essence of the world's greatest public-private partnership when ever people stand up and say i was just one leg died. i did all of this on my own. i say you did not do diddly-

squat on your own. what you did, you did not build those roads. you did not establish the rule of law. you did not build that tell emaciation -- telecommunications system. we did it great to -- due to a great public-private partnership where each one nurtured the other. [applause] let's do a little check on our formula for success. education, our 50-year olds are now in the middle of the pact with slovenia and argentina, wonderful countries, but never considered our peer competitors. immigration -- the republican debate was who could put up more electric fences to keep people out. the message was "go away." if you happen to come here and get a degree, take your degree and get feet hell out of here.

start a company and compete to get our jobs. that basically was the message. third, infrastructure -- i hate to tell you this, but i flew from hong kong to lax. that is like from flying home from the jensens' to the flintstones. -- jetsons to the flintstones. roles for capital formation and investment -- how about the subprime crisis? government-funded research? have you seen that? that loss like plot an ekg heading for a heart attack. we are not here by accident. obama does not say we are exceptionable and tough. it is a moderate doctrine you get to carry around all your life. american exceptional as some is like you're batting average. right now we are batting about

.216. that is the truth. if you look at our five-part formula for success, every one of them is heading down. what do we do about it? it seems to be very simple. we need to have good politics. we need to do three things at once. cut spending, because we have made promises that we cannot possibly keep, particularly in health care. second, we need to raise revenue because we cannot just cut and shred our social safety nets because there is no capitalism without safety nets. capitalism is a brutal system. one thing i understand is capitalism is about creating destruction that these people behind. no safety net, no sustainable capitalism agreed last week, we need to invest in our airports and our roads and all those elements.

our problem right now is very simple. our problem is that we need to do three things that do not correspond to the stated agenda by our major parties. we need to cut, we need to tax, and we need to invest. we need a hybrid politics. i am is still hoping that this election will not be an attempt for republicans to demonize president obama as a kenyan socialist, for democrats to demonize mitt romney as the essence of capitalism to say which of them can win by 50.0001% with no mandate to do what we need to do. we need a president to meet with the following mandate. one is a plan -- a short-term

plan -- to invest in major infrastructure projects. to upgrade our infrastructure and to invest in post-secondary education far more of our young people. we can borrow that money today at 2%. we need to couple that, in my view, with a simpson-bowles plan for long-term spending cuts to get our fiscal house in order. if you do not bear the two together, you will not get bipartisan support for either one. we need a plan that is fair. the rich and need to pay more. everybody to pay something. we are all in this together. lastly, we need a plan that is aspirational. it is not just about balancing the budget. i can sign up for tax day. i signed up for the fourth of july. this is a fourth of july country.

, two people and tell them you have a great plan for a for short-term fix for our infrastructure, for a long term fix for our deficit that will be fair and aspirational. that person is going to be the next precedent of the united states. the country is so far ahead of our politics. it is a dying person wanted the ball in that way. radically responsible. radically visionary and radically honest. if we have a campaign that is about smearing each other, i tell you, stash your money under the mattress. if we have a campaign of two competing visions of how we actually fix this country, but every dollar you have on the stock exchange because it will go up by thousands of points. that is what is in play right now. i begin by saying i am 8 frustrated optimist.

by now you are entitled to ask, we get the frustration, where from comes the optimism? drugs. i use a lot of drugs. [laughter] that is a joke. my optimism comes very simply from being a reporter. having traveled all around this country to write several books. the one thing that always tease me an optimist about america is that this country is still full of people, thank god, who just did not get the word. they did not get the word that we were down and out. they did not get the word that of a china it's our breakfast. they get up and fix stuff, collaborate stuff, fixed up. thank god. if you want to be an optimist,

stand on your head. the country looks so much better from the bottom up than the top down. i started my book tour near new haven. i sat down in the president's office. they said we just started the new medical school. i said in the middle of a recession? did you not get the word? it, they did not get the word. one of my favorite quotes in the book is from a marine colonel. "we were just too dumb to quit." this country is still full of people too dumb to quit. thank god. in my last book in travelled around the country talking about energy and the environment. i and every talk with people coming up to me and giving me their business cards. all these ideas. amazing stuff.

i heard the craziest stuff. i would go back to my room at my pockets are full of business cards. they are really exciting. i have to tell you. what they tell you is that country is the -- is alive. it is so alive. if i could draw a picture of america, it would be a picture of the space shuttle taking off. that is us. that is all of those elevators, all of those people too dumb to quit. unfortunately, our booster rockets -- washington, d.c., our five part form what is cracking and leaking energy. the pilots are fighting over the flight plan. we cannot achieve an escape fortune. we cannot get where we need to go even though there is all

this thrust. we need to fix the booster rockets. we need to get the pilot to stop fighting or the flight plan. it is not that complicated. [laughter] that is why, friends, we have a lot we can learn from china, india, and brazil, but the theme of this book is not about any of those countries. the theme of this book is that everything i am advocating we have done before. everything i am talking about comes out of a formula for success that is 200 years old. the history books we need to read our our own. the country we need to rediscover is america. that used to be us. it can be again. rossi is very much. -- thank you very much. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you.

thank you. >> tom, i read your column religiously. i have read "the world is flat." that used to be us. i have seen you in an audience on a number of occasions quietly. you did not know i was there. every time i hear him, the wisdom that comes out of his mouth, the precedents about what america needs to do and how we need to do it is, i think, the information of that was the standing ovation you just got. i saw the mayor is mesmerized by your comments. let me say something really quickly. i hope that you will get a copy of our common sense jobs agenda.

one of the things of the mayors have been talking about, last year when we put together our stability accord after the tragic shooting of gabrielle giffords, this organization has been calling on the congress to reach across the aisle. many of us -- in fact, i spoke of that yesterday -- said that impson-bowles is something we need to do. 120 mayors said we will put up our own local money. you incentivize us to do that. loan us some money, we will pay you back. it does not go against the deficit or the debt. we could create 1 million jobs. across the board, this organization over the last three

years has taken the position to support comprehensive immigration reform. this common-sense jobs agenda, we went to democrat and republican think tanks. this is a bipartisan organization. we said what people supported over the last 50 years that have bipartisan support -- these are the initiatives or told would get bipartisan support and virtually none of them have been approved by the congress. i would like to open it up to you. we have about -- how much? 10 minutes, maybe 15. i pay there will be a few questions. i would like to ask the mayor sent to step up and give their name. >> mayor john dickered from

racine, wisconsin. we are not far away. come up, and visit us some time. you made a comment on what i think is important, you said how do we get the politicians back? i am going to ask you to do something. you have obviously been on sunday morning tv shows. you are obviously well read. i would beg to argue that when i see you on sunday morning tv shows, they usually have congress or the senators there, one of the most dynamic sunday morning shows is when the mayor was on. while the congressman and senators were going back and forth like pingpong balls, our mayor brought the issue back. to logic, to reality, and to the

mentality. when mayor bill larosa was on sunday morning, it goes back to the heart of the issues. the fact is, they are on very little. what we see every sunday on the media is the pingpong back and forth between congress and the senate. my question to you is when do you get these guys back on the tv so we could start hearing the reality of what is going on every day, talk about the answers to the questions, because the fact is they have them. that is what the country needs to hear. >> it is a very important question. i am afraid you would need david gregory to answer it. i am just a columnist for the new york times and do not have control over any sunday morning shows. your point is an important one. those tend to become so scripted you almost know what everyone will say.

it is a ping-pong game. i think having the major stock would be very valuable and important. conflict drives viewership. there is no question about that. i think you can keep yours. i take care. and i pass it along. >> my name is shelly welch. i am the mayor of a suburb of misery. -- missouri. what responsibility does the media play in this changing world? we, yet today, heard a very good report on public opinion on a variety of issues, all of which is in the public domain, most of which has not been focused upon by our national media and local media.

our media seems to allow people to say whatever they want about anything when the facts do not exist. i think this happens locally and nationally. >> i always have to start by saying i am not here to represent the media. i only represent myself and my column in the "new york times." what strikes me about the web -- mark twain and is supposed to s said twice before you lay it -- lace up your shoes. here is what has changed. the counter to the light always moves fast. the washington post has a dedicated column. i looked at it every day. i looked at it every day.